PHU & CHAN (No.2)

In the matter of PHU & CHAN (No.2), the mother sought various orders including the removal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) and a Family Consultant, and sanctions against the father’s solicitor. These applications arose in circumstances where the mother had obtained a further psychologist’s report concerning the child without the court’s leave, and had provided a Limited Issues Report to that psychologist without leave. The court was also asked to consider the appointment of a child and family psychiatrist as a court expert.

The primary legal issues before Judge Scarlett were whether to discharge the ICL, whether to sanction the father's solicitor, and whether to appoint a court expert to inquire into the child's care, welfare, and development. The court also considered the general principle that it should be slow to discharge an ICL and whether a formal warning should be issued to a legal practitioner.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that the court should be hesitant to discharge an ICL, as their role is crucial in representing the child's best interests. The applications to discharge the ICL and the Family Consultant, along with the application for sanctions against the father's solicitor, were dismissed. However, the court appointed Dr C, a Child and Family Psychiatrist, as a Court Expert to inquire into and report on matters relating to the care, welfare, and development of the child. The parties were ordered to pay Dr C's fees in equal shares and to attend any required interviews. An interim hearing on parenting issues was also scheduled.