Halstead and Lees & Anor

In this matter before Berman J, the court considered several disputes between the parties, including interim property orders, the suspension of time spent with the paternal grandmother, and objections to a subpoena. The mother sought the sale of the matrimonial home, while the father proposed it be tenanted, with neither party able to meet mortgage repayments. The paternal grandmother sought to resume spending time with the child on a gradually increasing basis, with the child to remain in the mother's care pending trial, and the mother's mental health was a factor. The father also sought to adjourn the trial date due to his criminal proceedings, citing a disability that made protracted evidence difficult. Furthermore, the mother objected to the inspection and copying of documents produced by the child's treating medical practitioner via subpoena, arguing it was overly broad and constituted "fishing," with concerns about revealing her address or the children's school location due to an Intervention Order.

The legal issues before the court included determining the best interests of the children in relation to time spent with the paternal grandmother, considering the mother's mental health and the children remaining in her care. The court also had to assess the factors relevant to granting an adjournment of the trial date, particularly in light of the father's criminal proceedings and his disability. A significant issue was the mother's objection to the subpoena, requiring the court to balance the need for relevant evidence against concerns for privacy and the potential for disclosure of sensitive information, such as addresses. Finally, the court was tasked with making interim property orders regarding the matrimonial home, considering the parties' financial capacities.

Berman J applied principles relating to the best interests of children in family law matters and the court's discretion in managing its caseload, including the granting of adjournments. Regarding the subpoena, the court referenced *Hatton v Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors* (2000) FLC 93-038, emphasizing that the purpose of requiring document production is to add to relevant evidence. The court held that the evidence of the child's treating medical practitioner had apparent relevance, but accepted the mother's concern about disclosure of her and the children's whereabouts. Consequently, the court ordered the mother to prepare a schedule of documents to which she objected on privacy grounds, without disclosing their content, to facilitate a determination on their inspection.

The court made several orders, including that the matrimonial home be placed on the market for sale, with specific terms regarding the agent, marketing, and costs. The father was permitted to retrieve personal belongings from the property under supervision. The trial date was vacated and relisted for a later date, and timeframes for filing documents were varied. The application by the second respondent and the father's response were dismissed, save for one paragraph. The mother was ordered to provide details of professionals involved in the child's therapy and the children's general practitioner, with an injunction restraining the father and paternal grandmother from contacting these professionals. The mother was also ordered to provide a schedule of objectionable documents from the subpoena, with provisions for redaction or further argument if agreement could not be reached.