McGeary and Healey

[2007] FamCA 144

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCGEARY & HEALEY [2007] FamCA 144

FAMILY LAW - EVIDENCE - Application

APPLICANT: MS MCGEARY

RESPONDENT: MR HEALEY

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Wiley

FILE NUMBER: BRF 7261 of 2002

DATE DELIVERED: 29 January 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 29 January 2007

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr T McGuire

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Temple-Smith Barclay

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Ms Wylie

Orders

1. THAT the Form 2 application filed 23 January 2007 be dismissed. 

   IT IS DIRECTED

2. THAT a transcript of my reasons be ordered and placed on the Court file.

   IT IS CERTIFIED

3. THAT pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART

FILE NUMBER: BRF 7261 of 2002

MS MCGEARY

Applicant

And

MR HEALEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 

1. This is an application by Ms McGeary filed 23 January 2007.  She seeks orders that the Court receive reports of the psychologist and coroners for consideration of the family law matter before him.

2. It is unclear as to precisely what the applicant seeks.  In her affidavit filed in support of the application, Ms McGeary complains of Dr C in that his report was unfavourable; not only unfavourable, it was critical of herself without justified reasons.

3. She complained about Dr C's attitude and his manner and it is clear that his report has been completed and put on the court file.

4. It seemed to me that the matters of complaint raised by the applicant could have been dealt with, or ought to have been dealt with, in cross-examination, or by an application for permission for a further expert witness under rule 15.52 dealing with the matters set out in rule 15.49(2); that is that she needs to come along and make a proper application setting out where there is a substantial body of opinion contrary to the opinion given by the single expert or the other expert knows matters not known to the single expert within the meaning of the section.  There is none of that here.

5. Accordingly, insofar as her application as it amounts to another expert is concerned, it is dismissed.  This does not preclude her from making a further application if it is properly based and properly prepared.

6. The other is her request to put into evidence the material from the coroner.  That material - I note Mr McGuire is not opposed to it - can be, I would have thought, the subject of either a subpoena or attached to some material before the hearing.

7. Therefore the application as it stands is dismissed and I reserve costs of the trial.

I certify that the preceding 7 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin

Associate: 

Date:  29 January 2007

IT IS NOTED that this judgment for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as MCGEARY & HEALEY