Pinson & Pinson (No 2)

The case of Pinson & Pinson (No 2) involves a dispute between a father and a mother over parenting arrangements for their child. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the father appealed against certain orders made by the primary judge. The mother cross-appealed against other orders made by the primary judge. The Independent Children’s Lawyer also filed an appeal against the primary judge's orders. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically communications made during family dispute resolution and settlement negotiations, and the primary judge's reliance on expert evidence and personal observations.

The court found that the primary judge erred in considering evidence that was inadmissible under section 131 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Although the mother’s counsel argued that the primary judge failed to inform her of the inadmissibility of certain evidence, the court concluded that this error was immaterial as the primary judge did not rely on the inadmissible evidence in making his decision. Regarding the primary judge's reliance on Dr D’s report and his personal observations, the court held that the primary judge's decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness, as he did not inform the mother about a potential claim for privilege in respect of certain affidavits. The court further found that the primary judge’s reliance on the mediator's communications was also inadmissible under section 10J of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

The court allowed the appeal in part and set aside certain orders made by the primary judge. The matter was remitted for rehearing before a different judge to determine the interim parenting arrangements for the child. Additionally, the court granted costs certificates to the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The form of the orders is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.