RADHEY & RADHEY

In the matter of RADHEY & RADHEY, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered issues arising from the unavailability of interpreters and the application of cross-examination restrictions. The proceedings involved parties who required interpreter services, and the court noted the significant costs incurred due to the inability to proceed with the hearing at short notice.

The court was required to determine the procedural fairness of the proceedings in light of the interpreter issues and the restrictions on personal cross-examination imposed by s 102NA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. Specifically, the court considered whether the failure to provide interpreters constituted an affront to basic access to justice principles and whether the ban on the father cross-examining the mother, without an application to the Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme, created a lack of procedural fairness.

Bennett J reasoned that the unavailability of interpreters at short notice caused considerable cost to the parties, for which no compensation was available, and that such a failure was an affront to basic access to justice. The court also noted that a lack of procedural fairness to a party could indirectly impact the child. Consequently, the court adjourned the matter to a date to be fixed and referred the issue of interpreter provision to the Registry Manager. The court also reiterated that the requirements of s 102NA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* would apply to any cross-examination occurring on or after 11 September 2019, and that parties had been advised of their inability to cross-examine each other personally and the availability of the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme.