Manson & Manson

In *Manson & Manson*, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application to discharge the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) appointed for the child X. The applicant mother sought the discharge, raising concerns about the ICL's conduct in relation to the preparation of a joint tender bundle for an interim hearing.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the ICL's actions, specifically their decision not to prepare a joint tender bundle of subpoenaed documents, constituted grounds for their discharge. The mother contended that the ICL had failed in their obligation to ensure relevant evidence was available to the Court and had not adequately communicated their intentions regarding the tender bundle.

Rees J found that the mother's criticisms of the ICL were not substantiated. The Court noted that the ICL's obligation was to ensure all relevant evidence was available, not necessarily to prepare a joint tender bundle if it was not practical or necessary. The ICL had explained their decision based on a review of the subpoenaed material not supporting their position, a lack of specific request from either party for inclusion in a joint bundle, resource limitations, and COVID-19 risks. The Court accepted these reasons as demonstrating that the ICL had acted reasonably in the circumstances, and that the mother's assertion that the ICL had documented they would prepare the bundle was not supported by the evidence.

Consequently, the Court ordered the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer appointed for the child X. The Registrar was requested to forward a copy of the orders and reasons to the Legal Aid Commission of NSW, Director of Family Law.