Jallip and Jallip

In the matter of Jallip and Jallip, Moore J considered issues arising in proceedings between the parties. The specific dispute involved the husband's claim of privilege over certain documents, the release of a Family Report, and the appointment of a single expert to assess both parents.

The court was required to determine the validity of the husband's claim of privilege for documents marked MFI "2". Furthermore, the court needed to decide the conditions under which the Family Report should be released to the parties and whether to appoint a single expert, Dr W, a psychiatrist, to assess the mental state, psychiatric illnesses, personality disorders, and their impact on the functioning and parental capacity of both the father and the mother. The court also had to consider the scope of Dr W's inquiries and the potential need for a neurological assessment of the father.

Moore J dismissed the husband's claim of privilege for documents MFI "2". The court ordered that the Family Report be released to the legal representatives of the parties, with strict conditions preventing its direct or indirect provision to the parties and prohibiting both parents from discussing its contents with the children. Crucially, the court appointed Dr W as a single expert to assess both parents, detailing specific areas of inquiry regarding their mental state, any psychiatric conditions, and the impact of such conditions on their individual and parental functioning, as well as treatment amenability and prognosis. The Independent Children's Lawyer was granted leave to provide Dr W with all relevant documents, including the Family Report and MFI "2". The court also authorised Dr W to consult with other professionals and stipulated that the father must comply with any request for a neurological assessment if deemed desirable by Dr W.

The costs associated with Dr W's assessment and report were ordered to be shared equally between the parties in the first instance, with the ultimate responsibility for costs reserved for the trial judge. Each party was directed to make an initial contribution towards the estimated costs, payable to the Legal Aid Commission of NSW. Finally, the court directed that the letter of instruction to the single expert valuer, to be amended to identify and compare renovation schedules provided by each party, should be sent according to a draft provided by the mother's solicitor.