Newett and Newett & Anor (No 3)

In the Family Court of Australia, before Baumann J, this matter concerned parenting arrangements and property proceedings between the parties, identified as Newett and Newett, with the Independent Children’s Lawyer also participating. The proceedings involved various applications and counter-applications by the mother, as well as the role and evidence of a Dr A.

The court was required to determine several key issues, including the admissibility and treatment of documents provided by the mother to Dr A, the status of Dr A as an expert witness, and the extent to which Dr A's evidence could be relied upon and cross-examined. Additionally, the court considered applications to dismiss various orders sought by the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the discharge of an order bifurcating property and parenting proceedings, and the timing and nature of future hearings and trials. The mother also sought specific discovery from the father regarding alleged non-disclosure.

Baumann J reasoned that while Dr A was not formally appointed as a single expert under the Family Court Rules, he had acted in an independent expert capacity. Consequently, the court deemed Dr A to be an expert called by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, granting both parties the opportunity to cross-examine him to the extent his reports were relied upon. The court also made declarations regarding the authenticity of documents provided by the mother to Dr A and granted leave for the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer to copy relevant materials. Numerous applications by the mother to dismiss orders were dismissed.

The court ordered that the property and parenting proceedings would proceed to trial commencing on 30 November 2020, discharging the previous order that bifurcated these proceedings. An interim hearing regarding parenting arrangements was scheduled for 2 October 2020, with provisions for parties to appear by telephone. The mother was granted leave to file an application for specific discovery from the father concerning alleged non-disclosure, which would also be listed for the interim hearing. Judgment was reserved on the mother's application to discharge the Independent Children's Lawyer.