Geddes and Quentin & Anor - [2020] FamCA 593

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GEDDES & QUENTIN AND ANOR

[2020] FamCA 593

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SINGLE EXPERT – where the Applicant maternal grandmother seeks not to engage with the Single Expert appointed to prepare a psychiatric assessment of the parties – where the Applicant asserts that the Single Expert would not bring an impartial mind to an assessment of her – where no basis is found on the evidence for preventing the Single Expert from conducting the psychiatric assessment of the Applicant

Family Law Rules 2004

Nagel & Clay [2020] FamCA 326

APPLICANT:

Ms Geddes

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr Quentin

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms B Geddes

FILE NUMBER:

TVC

178

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

22 July 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Townsville

PLACE HEARD:

Townsville

JUDGMENT OF:

Baumann J

HEARING DATE:

21 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Ms L McNamara,

Stevenson & Mcnamara Lawyers

SECOND RESPONDENT:

No Appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms D Chan,
Legal Aid Queensland

Orders

That the Application by the maternal grandmother filed on 25 May 2020 that psychiatrist Dr C not be permitted to assess the Applicant as a Single Expert, be dismissed.
That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing to 9.30am on 9 December 2020 in the Family Court of Australia at Townsville.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Geddes & Quentin has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT TOWNSVILLE

FILE NUMBER: TVC 178 of 2016

Ms Geddes

Applicant

And

Mr Quentin

Frist Respondent

Ms B Geddes

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By Application in a Case filed 25 May 2020, the unrepresented Applicant maternal grandmother, Ms Geddes, sought the following orders:
“1. Withdrawal of Dr C as the court appointed psychiatrist in my case
2. Request for full transparency from the ICL, (reasoning as this relates to issues surrounding 1)
3. Request for the Principles of Equity to be upheld
4. Request to re-open all filed related to this case
5. Request for the Dr C report on the father to be struck from the file due to apprehended bias
6. Request for an order that the ICL will subpoena the Ms D psychologist report in its entirety, continuing child disclosure.
7. Request for Your Honour to consider past and current material and make a determination on an unacceptable risk of violence or otherwise
8. Request for the Evidence Act to be applied.
9. Request for Your Honour consider peer reviewed research supporting…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Geddes and Quentin & Anor

Details

AGLC: Geddes and Quentin & Anor [2020] FamCA 593
Case: [2020] FamCA 593
Decision Date: 22 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Geddes and Quentin & Anor*, heard before Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia, the maternal grandmother sought to prevent a psychiatrist, Dr C, from assessing her as a single expert in proceedings concerning her grandchildren. The specific nature of these proceedings, beyond the involvement of the maternal grandmother and the children, is not detailed in the provided text.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the application by the maternal grandmother to prohibit Dr C's assessment as a single expert should be granted. This required the Court to consider the appropriateness of appointing a single expert in the circumstances and the grounds, if any, upon which such an appointment could be challenged by a party.

Baumann J dismissed the maternal grandmother's application. While the specific reasoning is not elaborated upon in the provided text, the decision implies that the Court found no sufficient grounds to prevent Dr C from undertaking the single expert assessment. The Court's decision to proceed with the appointment, or at least not to prohibit it, suggests an assessment that such an expert opinion was necessary or appropriate for the proper determination of the proceedings.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the maternal grandmother's application be dismissed and adjourned the proceedings for a case management hearing to be held on 9 December 2020 in Townsville.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Application by the maternal grandmother filed on 25 May 2020 that psychiatrist Dr C not be permitted to assess the Applicant as a Single Expert, be dismissed.

That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing to 9.30am on 9 December 2020 in the Family Court of Australia at Townsville.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.