MOLLOY & MOLLOY

This matter came before Forrest J concerning an application by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) to adjourn a trial listed to commence in June. The ICL contended that the trial was not suitable to be heard via a video-conferencing platform, given the prevailing social distancing requirements implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented in-person hearings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a trial, particularly a complex and high-conflict parenting case, could be adequately and reasonably determined through video-conferencing in the absence of in-person hearings. The court was required to balance the ICL's concerns about the suitability of remote hearings against the necessity of proceeding with the trial under the current public health restrictions.

Forrest J reasoned that while hearing a trial by way of video-conference might not be the ideal method, it was nevertheless an adequate and reasonable means to determine trials, even those involving difficult, complex, and high-conflict parenting matters. The court determined that the trial would proceed on the dates already listed, and if social distancing requirements remained in place, the hearing would proceed by way of video-conference. The court also made orders regarding the inspection and photocopying of documents, the provision of documents to a Family Report Writer, and detailed procedural requirements for conducting a trial by video-conference, including provisions for swearing oaths and the electronic and hard copy lodgement and service of documents.