GISSING & FULLER

In the matter of *Gissing & Fuller*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned parenting orders and the conduct of proceedings. The father, appearing as a self-represented litigant, had sought the court to issue subpoenas for the production of documents. He also sought to discharge the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) on the grounds of alleged bias.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the subpoenas issued at the father's request were relevant to the proceedings and therefore not an abuse of process. Secondly, whether the ICL's conduct or advocacy demonstrated bias such that their appointment should be discharged.

Regarding the subpoenas, the court found that the father had failed to demonstrate the relevance of the documents sought. It was held that the trial evidence itself should form the basis for judging the relevance of such requests, and in the absence of demonstrated relevance, the subpoenas were considered an abuse of process and were struck out. On the issue of the ICL, while acknowledging that the language used in the ICL's outline of case was "infelicitous," the court found it to be robust. The court reasoned that the advocacy role of an ICL does not preclude them from considering the positions of each parent and adopting the one they believe best serves the children's needs, and therefore, there was no basis to discharge the ICL's appointment.

Consequently, the court upheld the objections to the three subpoenas issued at the father's request and ordered them to be struck out, with any material produced to be returned to the providers. The father's application to discharge the ICL and the mother's response thereto were both dismissed.