Foys & Laidler
[2021] FedCFamC2F 364
•12 November 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Foys & Laidler [2021] FedCFamC2F 364
File number(s): LNC 667 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI Date of judgment: 12 November 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of Judicial Registrar’s decision – procedural orders and case management - Child Impact Report – Application for Review dismissed. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, s 60CC(3)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), Division 4, ss 132, 254, 66, 267, 270
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Rules 2021 (Cth), r 5
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2)(Family Law) Rules 2021, r 5.01
Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), Part 1 Division 1.2.1, Schedule 4 Clause 2, rr 1.04, 1.31. 1.33, 2.34, 5.01, 14.05(2), 14.07, 14.3
Cases cited: H & W (1995) FLC 92-588
Lombardi & Rider [2021] FedCFamC2F 57
Marsden & Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152
Prewett & Mann [2013] FamCAFC 130
Rice and Asplund (1978) 6 FamLR 570
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 46 Date of hearing: 4 November 2021 Place: Hobart Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Othen Solicitor for the Applicant: Felicio Law Firm Counsel for the Respondent: Ms G Gibson ORDERS
LNC 667 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS FOYS
Applicant
AND: MR LAIDLER
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:
12 NOVEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for Review filed 19 October 2021 is dismissed.
2.Order 1 of the Orders made 4 November 2021 is discharged effective from 9:00am on 16 November 2021 and the father has leave to be heard at short notice in respect of this order.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Foys & Laidler has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Taglieri
INTRODUCTION
These parenting proceedings relate to the parties’ children X born in 2007 and Y born in 2009 (collectively “the children”). The proceedings were commenced on 10 August 2021, when the mother Ms Foys (“the mother”) filed an Initiating Application seeking orders to discharge final parenting orders made by consent on 6 March 2017 (“the 2017 orders”) and seeking somewhat different orders.
Comparison of the orders sought by the mother in her Initiating Application with the 2017 orders made reveals that the mother seeks to alter the frequency and duration of the time the children spend with the father Mr Laidler (“the father”) in New South Wales. She also seeks removal of a term in the 2017 orders that she personally deliver the children to the father's care at the commencement of his time with them.[1]
[1] Order of 2017 orders.
The proceedings came before a Judicial Registrar on 29 September 2021 for the first return date. Both parties were legally represented. As relevant to the Application for Review, the Judicial Registrar made the following orders:
1. THAT not later than 4.00pm on 8 October 2021 the Applicant file and serve:
a. A Genuine Steps Certificate.
2. THAT not later than 4.00pm on 8 October 2021 the Respondent file and serve:
a. A Genuine Steps Certificate.
3.THAT pursuant to section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the parties and Y born in 2009 and X born in 2007 (the children) are directed to attend with a Court Child Expert (practicing under their appointment as a family consultant) nominated by the Court Children’s Service (the Court Child Expert) for the purposes of the preparation of a Child Impact report at the dates and times below, or as otherwise directed by the Court Child Expert.
…
4.THAT each party will do all thing necessary to ensure the children attend upon the Court Child Expert pursuant to Section 62G(3A), unless otherwise determined by the Court Child Expert that Section 62G(3B) applies.
5.THAT the parties and the children shall continue to attend at such times, dates and places as the Court Child Expert may advise.
6.…
7.THAT pursuant to order 3 herein, the Court Child Expert shall provide a written report to the Court and the report shall deal with the following matters:
a. any agreement reached between the parties;
b. identification of key issues requiring resolution;
c.any views expressed by the children and any matters (such as the children’s maturity or level of understanding) that would affect the weight that the court should place on those views;
d.the impact of the issues/dispute before the Court on the children;
e.any other matters that the Court Child Expert considers important to the welfare or best interests of the children.
8.THAT upon completion, the Child Impact Report shall be provided to the Court for release to the parties, including by way of order made in chambers.
9.THAT the Court Child Expert will be at liberty to inspect any material filed by the parties.
10.THAT Pursuant to Section 13C(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the parties and their legal representatives (if any) shall attend:
a.Part 1 of the confidential Court-based Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Conference with a Registrar (as Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner) on a date to be fixed, with each party to attend separately at times to be advised; and
b.Part 2 of the confidential Court-based FDR Conference on a date and at a time to be fixed but not later than 7 days after the date referred to in order 10(a).
…
On 19 October 2021, the father filed an Application for Review of the orders made on 29 September 2021, in which he simply sought an order dismissing the Initiating Application.
REVIEW HEARING
I conducted a hearing of the Application for Review on 4 November 2021. Counsel for the father, Mr Othen, indicated that the father's position was somewhat more targeted than the terms expressed in the Application for Review. In essence, Counsel contended as follows:
·At this juncture, the mother had failed to establish a prima facie case that there has been a change in circumstances sufficient to meet the threshold required by Rice and Asplund.[2]
·That the mother had taken no steps to attend mediation, contrary to the requirements of Order 9 of the 2017 orders. This required the parties to endeavour to reach agreement about parenting issues arising and “Then, failing agreement, employ the services of something authorise mediation service to assist in resolution”.[3]
[2] (1978) 6 FamLR 570.
[3] Order 9.3 of the 2017 orders.
Mr Othen submitted that, consistent with the objective of finality in respect of parenting proceedings, there was need to avoid children being exposed to disputation in the court. Further, that it was contrary to this objective and established principle that the mother should embark on a “third round” of litigation without first endeavouring to reach agreement with the father.
According to Counsel for the father, the order made by the Judicial Registrar that the parties and the children attend appointments for the preparation of the Child Impact Report (“CIR”) were contrary to the best interests of the children, as it would implicate the children having to be again interviewed by a Court Child Expert. Reliance was placed on Rice and Asplund and other authorities since relating to the same essential ratio.
In the period between filing the Application for Review and the hearing on 4 November 2021, the children and the parties had already attended interviews with the Court Child Expert. Counsel properly conceded that this somewhat diminished the strength of his submission that the children should not be implicated in the dispute and conflict between the parents by having to be interviewed.
As the Registrar’s orders had been stayed,[4] a report from the Court Child Expert had not yet been prepared or released to the parties. Counsel submitted that there was still opportunity to ensure that the Court managed the proceedings consistent with the best interests of the children, which necessitated the parties not being made aware of the children's wishes.
[4] Order of 1 November 2021.
It was submitted that the failure to attend mediation of some kind before commencing the proceedings was a “major failing”, because the dispute between the parties is likely to be narrow in scope. Accordingly, in the best interests of the children they ought not be further involved.
Counsel for the father submitted that the below courses were open to the Court on the review, being:
(a)to stay preparation and release of the Child Court Expert’s report and require the parties to attend mediation in the community; or
(b)to require the parties to participate in a Family Dispute Resolution Conference (“FDRC”), as has already been ordered by the Judicial Registrar, but without a CIR. As both parties had participated in the interviews with the Court Child Expert, the father no longer opposed participation in the FDRC process with the Court subject to reserving his position on the question of costs.
Upon enquiry, Counsel agreed that another option was to extend the stay order and conduct a separate hearing for the threshold Rice & Asplund issue.
Regarding the order that the father file a Genuine Steps Certificate,[5] Counsel for the father submitted that it was merely a formality and the father ought to be excused from filing this. However, he also added that it was a straightforward form and no particular issue was taken with the obligation to comply.
[5] Order 2 of Registrar’s orders made 29 September 2021.
Ms Gibson, Counsel for the mother, refuted the suggestion that the Initiating Application was made improperly. She pointed out that the Initiating Application was filed before the commencement of the new Rules on 1 September 2021. Further, that the 2017 orders were made some years ago when the ages of the children were considerably younger, and that their circumstances had changed, such that what was likely to be in their best interests now would differ.
It was submitted that the new 2021 Rules do not require determination of the so called “threshold Rice and Asplund” issue as a separate question. Rather, there are many authorities that highlight the propriety and benefit of determining substantive parenting issues on merits at a final hearing, while being mindful of the Rice & Asplund principles.
It was submitted that the wishes of the children have likely changed, given the mother's affidavit material filed 10 August 2021. In addition, as referred to in the mother’s affidavit, her financial circumstances have altered and the costs of all travel required to comply with the 2017 orders are now not affordable. Ms Gibson emphasised that the impact of these changes need to be determined on a final basis, not as a threshold issue.
Responding to the father's submissions about Order 9.3 of the 2017 orders, Ms Gibson referred the Court to the exemption certificate from the B Family Centre issued on 26 April 2021. It was submitted indirectly that the issue of that certificate somehow released the mother from mediating Order 9.3 of the 2017 orders or at least indicated mediation was not likely to be suitable for the parties.
As the parties and children had already completed the interviews with the Court Child Expert, Ms Gibson submitted it was in the best interests of the children for their views as gathered by the Court Child Expert to be made known. With this additional information, the parties would be well placed to then participate in a FDRC pursuant to the new processes, involving a Registrar and Court Child Expert. She observed that it was mystifying why the father's case was that the views of the children should not be heard, particularly given their ages.
In reply, Counsel for the father submitted that while the children might welcome expressing their present views and having them made known, the Full Court of the Family Court had made it plain that implicating the children and obtaining their views directly should be avoided where possible. Reference was made to Prewett & Mann [2013] FamCAFC 130 and Marsden & Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152, which emphasise risk of psychological harm to children being involved in litigation.[6]
[6]Marsden & Winch at [49].
Mr Othen submitted that exposing and involving children to the proceedings should only occur after the parties have attempted to reach agreement and failed. In this instance he said there has been no attempt to reach agreement before the institution of proceedings and the Application for Review should be allowed.
Before concluding the hearing, I sought clarification about the materials it was agreed to which the Court should have regard. The following materials are those which have been considered unopposed by either party:
·The 2017 orders;
·Application for Final Orders filed 10 August 2021;
·Affidavit of the mother filed 10 August 2021;
·Family Dispute Resolution Certificate filed 10 August 2021 (stating why family dispute resolution did not occur);
·Notice of Child Abuse Family Violence or Risk filed 10 August 2021;
·Response to Application for Final Orders filed 27 September 2021;
·Affidavit of the father filed 27 September 2021;
·Notice of Child Abuse Family Violence or Risk filed 27 September 2021;
·Notice of Child Abuse Family Violence or Risk filed 29 September 2021;
·Orders made 29 September 2021;
·Genuine Steps Certificate filed 30 September; and
·Application for Review filed 19 October 2021.
Ms Gibson also sought to rely on the report from Child Safety Services dated 21 October 2021 produced pursuant to section 67ZA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). Mr Othen had not seen that document and I stood the matter down to enable him to consider it to identify if he objected to the Court having regard to it.
Upon resuming, Mr Othen made submissions that because as the Initiating Application by the mother still sought orders consistent with the father having significant time with the children (but at slightly different times and intervals and durations to the 2017 orders), this could not be a case where the mother argued that there was an unacceptable risk. He contended strongly that there was no evidence to family violence between the parties and the relevant issues were merely about when and how much holiday time the father should have with the children. He therefore objected to the Court having regard to the report. I have not considered the report, accepting at this interlocutory stage the merit of Mr Othen’s submission by having regard to the differences in the 2017 orders and the orders now sought by the mother.
DETERMINATION
Relevant Legislation
By virtue of section 8 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (“the FCFCOA Act”), the Federal Circuit Court of Australia continues as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) from 1 September 2021. Proceedings commenced in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia prior to 1 September 2021 are taken to be proceedings in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) from the same date.[7] Further, such proceedings, including these, are to be conducted under the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).[8] Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has original jurisdiction in respect of proceedings instituted under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)[9].
[7] Section 8, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2021 Rule 5, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Rules 2021 (Cth)
[8] Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Practice Direction – Transitional arrangements, paragraphs 1 – 2; Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2 )(Family Law) Rules 2021
[9] Section 132, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021
The powers delegated to Senior Judicial Registrars and Judicial Registrars for Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court are provided for in section 254 of the FCFCOA Act and in Schedule 4, Clause 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the New Rules”), by adoption.[10]
[10] By virtue of Rule 5.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2 )(Family Law) Rules 2021
Part 14.3 of Chapter 14 of the New Rules provides for Applications for Review from the decision of a Judicial Registrar or Senior Judicial Registrar. In this instance, the application was made within the required timeframe of 21 days.[11] The procedure for the review is governed by Rule 14.07 and I exercise the same power the Judicial Registrar exercised when he conducted the first return directions hearing.
[11] Rule 14.05(2).
It is important to highlight that the FCFCOA Act, the New Rules and Family Law Case Management Central Practice Direction (“the Central Practice Direction”) all have provisions which resound a common sentiment. That being, to manage cases consistent with the overarching purpose of resolving proceedings according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.[12] In Lombardi & Rider [2021] FedCFamC2F 57, at [43] to [45], Chief Judge Alstergren referred to this overarching purpose in another equally important context concerning abridgement of time.
[12] S.67 and s.70 of the FCFCOA Act; Rule 1.04 of the New Rules; Central Practice Direction 1.3, 1.4 & 1.6
The collection of a various provisions of the FCFCOA Act, New Rules and Central Practice Direction also afford a degree of flexibility and discretion, including capacity to dispense with requirements of the FCFCOA Act or New Rules.[13] This too is all consistent with case management to achieve the overarching objective.
[13] Eg. S. 66 of the FCFCOA Act and 1.31, 1.33 & 2.34 of the New Rules
Evaluation
When the proceedings came before the Judicial Registrar, the mother had filed her Initiating Application, an affidavit and Family Dispute Resolution exception certificate, all on 10 August 2021. The father had filed a Response and affidavit on 27 September 2021 and Notice of Risk as required by the 2021 Rules.
The appearance on 29 September 2021 was the first court event, which is provided for under the Central Practice Direction.[14] Paragraph 5.10, 5.11, 5.13 and 5.14 were particularly relevant to the Judicial Registrar’s function, as these are parenting proceedings. They provide:
[14] 5.6 to 5.14.
5.10 The primary purposes of the First Court Event are:
a.to ascertain whether any orders or directions can be made by consent;
b.to ascertain whether the parties have complied with the pre-action procedures and made a genuine attempt to resolve the issues in dispute unless it is unsafe to do so, and if not, to make provision for them to do so prior to the proceeding progressing further;
c.to identify the issues in dispute between the parties and the steps required to resolve them;
d.to consider whether an Interim Hearing is required;
e.to consider whether the matter is suitable for court-based FDRC, having regard to the means and resources of the parties, or alternatively, whether it is suitable for referral to external dispute resolution (or, with the consent of the parties, arbitration);
f.to consider whether the matter is one that requires individual case management;
g.to consider whether any application before the Court is of such urgency or exceptional circumstances that it requires immediate transfer to a Judge or Senior Judicial Registrar; and
h.to make such orders and directions as are necessary (including but not limited to orders for future listings, the preparation of expert reports, the issuing of subpoenas and the exchange of documents) to facilitate the future progression of the proceeding in a manner consistent with the overarching purpose.
5.11 In parenting cases, the Court will consider whether:
a.an Independent Children’s Lawyer should be appointed; and
b.a written or oral report from a social scientist, psychologist, psychiatrist or other appropriately qualified expert is necessary and/or likely to promote the resolution or determination of the proceeding in accordance with the overarching purpose.
5.13Unless an exceptional circumstance exists, orders and directions will be made at the First Court Event to prepare the matter for Dispute Resolution by requiring the parties to identify the issues in dispute, and the evidence bearing on those issues, in sufficient detail to facilitate the conduct of meaningful Dispute Resolution without undue costs.
5.14Where a matter is referred for external Dispute Resolution, directions will also be made at the First Court Date giving the matter a date for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing and making any necessary associated directions. Where matters resolve prior to the Compliance and Readiness Hearing date, consent orders should be submitted to the Judicial Registrar who presided over the First Court Event for consideration in chambers.
It is plain from the provisions referenced at [30], that the functions of a Judicial Registrar at the first court date as set out in the Central Practice Direction correlate with the powers delegated under section 254 of the Act and set out more extensively in Schedule 4, clause 2 of the New Rules. They require discretionary assessment about what case management or procedural directions should be made in any given case, depending on the issues identified and extent of the dispute, while being guided by the overarching purpose.
In order to identify the issues in this case, the Judicial Registrar presumably informed himself by what the parties had filed in the proceedings to that point and what he was told by the lawyers appearing before him. I should take a similar approach on the review hearing as it is de novo in nature.[15] For that reason, I clarified with the parties the materials relied upon, mindful of the scope of evidence that may be considered.[16]
[15] Rule 14.07 of the New Rules.
[16] Rule 14.07(2) of the New Rules.
A review of the affidavits filed by the parties disclose that the mother seeks different spend time with orders for the children and the evidentiary basis for this is set out in [28] to [38] of her affidavit. The father’s affidavit sets out the basis for opposing the mother’s proposed change to the 2017 orders. He identifies practical and personal difficulties with the proposed new orders, due to his health, location from Sydney airport and cost.[17]
[17] Affidavit of the father filed 27 September 2021 at [4]-[10], [14], [29], [49] and [53].
The father’s affidavit also refers to unsuccessful proceedings by the mother in 2018 seeking to alter the 2017 orders.
The affidavit material frames the issues in dispute to be a contest between practicalities, cost and health considerations for the father against cost and convenience to the mother together with what is asserted to be preferred by the children, particularly the eldest who is 13 years old. Based on the history of the past disputes and proceedings attested to by the father in his affidavit, questions of alleged alienation by the mother and whether the Court should entertain making different parenting orders.
Ultimately, the submissions on behalf of the father distilled into an argument that I should order the parties to participate in family dispute resolution without the benefit of the parties knowing the children’s views about the mother’s proposed changes to the 2017 orders.
Exercising the same procedural case management powers the Registrar had on the first return date, I decline to do so. It is apparent to me given the content of the affidavits I have referred to at [33] to [35], family dispute resolution whether within the Court or outside it is not likely to resolve the dispute. The contest between the parties cannot be determined without the views of the children being ascertained and shared with the parties in my view. The overriding consideration in all children’s matters, including when deciding if a threshold Rice & Asplund issue should be determined separately, is the best interests of the children. This is clear from the Full Court’s reasoning in Marsden & Winch, especially at [47] onwards.
The authority of Prewett & Mann does not assist the father’s contentions. They do no more than address the legal principles referred to in the authorities mentioned at [37] in the particular matrix of the parenting dispute in that case. It is interesting to note that the Full Court upheld the trial judge’s decision not to dismiss the mother’s application on the basis of the so called threshold issue.
The view of the children (particularly the eldest) are relevant evidence to be considered and gathered according to paragraphs 5.11(b) and 5.13 of the Central Practice Direction. These provisions necessitate all relevant evidence to the dispute being obtained before the parties participate in FDRC. The father’s contentions entail ignoring a factor which the Court is required to consider pursuant to section 60CC(3) of the Act in parenting disputes when determining the child’s best interests. The value and need to obtain this information impartially about the children’s’ wishes cannot be understated in my view.
Highly relevant to the above reasoning and the importance of a child’s wishes in the assessment of what is in their best interest is the decision in H & W 1995 FLC 92-588. As summarised in the headnote to the decision, the judges of the court said -
Per Fogarty and Kay JJ
1.The wishes of children are important and proper and realistic weight should be attached to any wishes expressed by children. As a matter of practical day-to-day experience the problem in this area usually relates to the ascertainment of the wishes of the child and their interpretation and assessment in the face of conflicting evidence. Against that background the Court will attach varying degrees of weight to a child's stated wishes depending upon, among other factors, the strength and duration of the wishes, their basis, and the maturity of the child, including the degree of appreciation by the child of the factors involved in the issue before the Court and their longer term implications. Ultimately the overall welfare of the child is the determinant.
Per Baker J
2.A child's wishes must not only be considered, but must be shown to have been considered, in the reasons for judgment of the trial Judge. Furthermore, if the trial Judge decides to reject the wishes of a child, then clear and cogent reasons for such a rejection must be given, particularly if the separate representative submits that the Court should give effect to such wishes. The wishes of children should not be discounted simply because they are expressed by children. The weight to be given to the wishes of a child depends upon the individual child and an assessment of the validity of the wishes must be made by the trial Judge in an individual case. It would be helpful to the Court if counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists endeavour to assess the level of maturity of each child and the extent to which a child has been influenced by a parent in order that a child's competence in regard to wishes can be properly considered by trial Judges.
Ordering that the parties attend family dispute resolution in either way submitted by Counsel for the father before the views of the children are known is also likely to simply stall and delay the inevitability of ascertaining the views of the children in this case. This would be contrary to the overarching purpose of case management enshrined in the statutory scheme referred to elsewhere in these reasons.
If there were evidence that the children had not coped well with past involvement in court proceedings and have been exposed to emotional harm from it, the decision on this hearing may have been more difficult, but there is no evidence to that effect. Counsel for the father simply made general submissions about psychological harm, but each case and child need to be considered in the context of their own circumstances. The father has filed two Notices of Risk of Abuse identifying alleged risks to the children. Each cite psychological harm, but related to alleged alienation of the children by the mother, not harm from any exposure to the proceedings.[18] The allegation of alienation is also something that the CIR will likely address as a relevant issue.
[18] Notice of Risk filed 27 September 2021; Notice of Risk filed 29 September 2021
Although I raised the option of conducting a hearing to determine separately the Rice & Asplund issue as a threshold one, having had the benefit of reflecting on the evidence the parties seek to rely on and the issues in dispute, that option is not a desirable one in this case. In any event, the father’s counsel did not agitate for this option.
I have not ignored the terms of paragraph 9.3 of the 2017 orders or policy and legislation in family law that require parties to first seek to resolve differences by agreement before filing proceedings in court. However, significant steps have already been taken in these proceedings, the children’s views are relevant and participation in the Court’s FDR services is not opposed. There is no merit in requiring that the parties engage in mediation/alternate dispute resolution outside the Court and this would likely come at an additional expense.
Although applications for review of decisions by Judicial Registrar’s exercising delegated powers are permissible as of right, such right should be exercised prudently and cautiously. Specifically in relation to reviews of case management or procedural orders, also sparingly in my view. Where such orders are made within power; consistent with the New Rules and overarching objectives; are relevant, practical and logical given the nature and ambit of a dispute, it will be a waste of time, resources and cost if insubstantial or inconsequential issue is taken by making application for review.
Conclusion
The Application for Review is dismissed. The stay order made on 1 November 2021 is discharged effective from 9:00am on 16 November 2021, subject to the leave given in the published order. The consequences of these orders are that the Child Impact Report should be finalised by the Court Child Expert and, subject to usual procedures, released to the parties prior to their participation in FDRC pursuant to the Judicial Registrar’s orders of 29 September 2021.
I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Taglieri. Dated: 12 November 2021
0
3
6