JARDINE & SACKVILLE

In the matter of *Jardine & Sackville*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an oral application by the father for the discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL). The father contended that the current ICL lacked impartiality.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the father had established sufficient grounds to warrant the discharge of the ICL. The court was required to determine if the father's belief of bias was sufficient to discharge the ICL, and to consider the practical implications of such a discharge, including potential delays and increased costs.

Austin J reasoned that the mere assertion of bias by a party is insufficient to establish that an ICL lacks impartiality. The court noted that discharging the current ICL would inevitably lead to further delay and incur additional costs, which would not be in the best interests of the children. Consequently, the father's oral application for the discharge of the ICL was dismissed.

The court ordered the dismissal of the father's oral application for the discharge of the ICL, with no order as to costs. Several other applications were also dismissed, and the proceedings were adjourned for further procedural directions and a hearing concerning costs.