DICKENS & DICKENS

In the matter of *Dickens & Dickens*, the father applied to the court seeking various orders concerning the evidence of a single expert, the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL), and the expert's fees. The proceedings were before Watts J in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the single expert should be required to answer additional questions posed by the father, which would involve a significant amount of work; whether the ICL should bear the costs of these additional questions or if the single expert should not be paid for that work; whether the single expert should refund fees paid by Legal Aid; whether the single expert's report should be excluded from evidence; and whether the ICL should be discharged and not replaced, particularly in light of civil litigation commenced by the father against the ICL.

Watts J dismissed the father's application. The court found no basis for requiring the single expert to answer the additional questions, noting the unreasonable amount of work involved. Similarly, there was no established basis for ordering the ICL to pay for these additional questions or for the single expert to refund fees to Legal Aid. The court also determined that the single expert's report could not be wholly excluded from evidence. Furthermore, the mere existence of civil litigation between the father and the ICL did not, in itself, provide a foundation for discharging the ICL or establishing actual or perceived bias. The court also dispensed with any requirement for the single expert and the father's treating psychologist to confer before giving evidence.