DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, YOUTH & WOMEN & COMAR

The Honourable Justice Carew of the Supreme Court of Queensland considered an application for leave to intervene in proceedings concerning the return of three children under the Hague Convention. The State Central Authority had applied for a return order, and the matter had been remitted for rehearing by the Full Court following an appeal by the father. The father sought leave to intervene, an application opposed by the mother, while the State Central Authority did not oppose it but indicated it would act as an "honest broker" if the father's application succeeded.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the father should be granted leave to intervene in the Hague Convention proceedings. This required the Court to consider the nature of the father's proposed role in the proceedings and to determine if it was distinct from the role of the State Central Authority, particularly in light of the Authority's stated intention to act as an "honest broker." The Court also had to interpret the meaning of "honest broker" as understood in the context of Hague Convention proceedings, referencing the High Court's decision in *RCB v The Honourable Justice Forrest* (2012) 247 CLR 304.

His Honour reasoned that the father's role in the proceedings was not the same as that of the State Central Authority. The father had a clear and direct interest in the outcome of the proceedings, distinguishing his position from that of an impartial intermediary. The Court found that the father's interest and proposed participation were sufficiently distinct from the State Central Authority's role, which the Authority itself acknowledged by seeking to act as an "honest broker" rather than a direct party advocating for a particular outcome.

Consequently, the Court granted the father leave to intervene in the proceedings.