Nixon and Nixon (No 2)

This matter concerned an application before Bennett J in the Family Court of Australia, involving the parties, Mr and Mrs Nixon. The dispute revolved around issues pertaining to the welfare and best interests of the children of the marriage, with specific focus on evidence and orders relating to the children's schooling and the father's conduct.

The court was required to determine several key issues, including whether to grant leave to the parties to re-open their cases to lead further evidence and cross-examine witnesses, specifically concerning matters raised by the independent children's lawyer. The court also considered the release of documents produced by Victoria Police and Hotel 1, Suburb YS, and the liberty of the mother and independent children's lawyer to issue further subpoenas. Furthermore, the court addressed the father's ability to apply for leave to issue subpoenas and the mother's application for specific orders, including proceeding ex-parte in relation to the father. Finally, the court had to consider whether to grant interim restraining orders against the father.

Bennett J granted leave for both parties to re-open their cases, confining the scope of further evidence and cross-examination to matters raised in the independent children's lawyer's affidavit of 10 November 2014. Documents produced by Victoria Police and Hotel 1, Suburb YS were ordered to be released for inspection and photocopying. The mother and the independent children's lawyer were granted liberty to issue further subpoenas. The father was granted liberty to apply for leave to issue subpoenas, provided his application was supported by affidavit material demonstrating the relevance of the sought evidence. Leave was granted to the mother to file an affidavit sworn on 28 November 2014 and to make an oral application for orders in terms of paragraph 2(d) of that affidavit, proceeding ex-parte vis-à-vis the father. Interim restraining orders were made against the father, prohibiting communication with the mother's employer and colleagues, and contact with staff at the children's schools. The application in a case filed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer on 10 November 2014 was otherwise dismissed. The court also noted the father's intention to appeal.