Gin & Hing (No 6)

The case of Gin & Hing (No 6) involved the father, an unrepresented litigant, attempting to cross-examine the family consultant regarding a claim of apprehended bias against her. The father sought to argue that the family consultant was biased, despite having previously agreed in 2017 not to raise this issue in the litigation. The mother objected to this line of questioning, citing the father's prior representation as a bar to him now raising the issue of bias.

The legal issues before the court were whether the father was estopped from raising the issue of apprehended bias against the family consultant and whether the father had waived his right to raise this issue. The court considered the principles of estoppel and waiver as established in previous cases, including Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher and Commonwealth v Verwayen. The court also considered the father's argument that the family consultant had a duty to fully inform her clients, which the father claimed she had failed to do. However, the court found that this argument lacked legal or evidentiary support.

The court held that the father was estopped from raising the issue of apprehended bias against the family consultant. The father had previously assured the family consultant in writing that he would not raise this issue, and the family consultant had relied on this assurance in providing her services in the case. Allowing the father to now raise this issue would be inequitable and unconscionable, as it would cause the family consultant detriment in reliance on the father's prior representation. The court also found that the father had waived his right to raise the issue of apprehended bias by his prior conduct.

The court therefore refused the father permission to question the family consultant on matters that touched upon facts that supported a contention by him about apprehended bias. The father consented to the closure of the questioning of the family consultant and for the case to move to its next phase.

The court's decision highlights the importance of parties adhering to their prior representations and conduct in litigation, particularly where those representations and conduct have induced reliance by another party. The court found that the father's attempt to raise the issue of apprehended bias after having previously assured the family consultant that he would not do so was inequitable and unconscionable, and therefore prevented him from pursuing this line of questioning.