Jeffreys and Bosnic (No 2)

[2015] FamCA 594

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JEFFREYS & BOSNIC (NO 2) [2015] FamCA 594

FAMILY LAW – Rulings on request to use witnesses whose evidence was not on affidavit nor in statement form.  Witnesses not permitted.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Jeffreys

RESPONDENT: Mr Bosnic

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: DGC 3746 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 13 July 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 13 & 14 July 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Elleray

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Robert Halliday & Associates

Orders

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jeffreys & Bosnic (No 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: DGC 3746 of 2009

Ms Jeffreys

Applicant

And

Mr Bosnic

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This a formal ruling.  The applicant seeks to include in this trial a number of people as witnesses who have not provided affidavits and for whatever explanation there may be for that, the reality is that not only have some of these people not even been approached but the substance of their evidence is unknown.  The best explanation in respect of a Greek-surnamed doctor by the name of Dr K is that he will counteract Dr E.  On the basis that Dr E is the single expert witness in this case, I propose to refuse to allow him to be called.

2. This is a ruling in this matter in relation to Mr L.  Notwithstanding there is no affidavit by Mr L, Ms Jeffreys wants to call him to give evidence, the synopsis of which seems to me to be that he witnessed abnormal behaviour by B towards him when B was between the ages of 3 and 4.  This trial has been in the pipeline since January.  This particular issue has never been canvassed before. 

3. No one knows anything much about Mr L from the independent children’s lawyer’s side and he certainly wasn’t apparently interviewed by the family consultant.  The relevance of the behaviour witnessed between he and B some three or four years ago escapes me.  On that basis I am not going to allow Mr L to be called. 

4. I will reserve the position in relation to Ms H until that evidence is called but I have given a warning that the proposed evidence relating to an incident in 2009 may expose Ms H to other questioning about her objectivity as a supervisor, bearing in mind the unchallenged evidence at this stage of the family consultant.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 13 July 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  24 July 2015