MATTHEWS & LANEY

In the matter of *Matthews & Laney*, Harman J of the court declined to make the orders sought by the parties. The proceedings involved applications and responses that were subsequently dismissed by consent, with all issues removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing. The Order for the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer was also discharged.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the orders sought by the parties, which, given the outcome, appears to have been a request to effectively discontinue the proceedings in their current form. The court was also required to consider the appropriate disposition of exhibits and subpoenaed material in light of the parties' consent to dismiss outstanding matters.

Harman J's reasoning, as indicated by the orders made, was to give effect to the parties' agreement to withdraw their respective applications and responses. The court applied the principle that it will generally accede to the consent of the parties in managing its list and resolving disputes, provided that the proposed course of action is not contrary to public policy or the interests of justice, particularly concerning children. The discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer's appointment suggests that the court was satisfied that the interests of the children involved no longer required independent representation in the context of the withdrawn proceedings.

Upon the expiration of the appeal period, and in the event no appeal is lodged, the court ordered that all exhibits be returned to the party who tendered them, and all material produced on subpoena be returned to its original producer. Harman J also ordered that his reasons for the day's listing be published.