SANDE & DARWIN - [2020] FamCA 1087

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SANDE & DARWIN

[2020] FamCA 1087

FAMILY LAW – REVIEW OF DECISION OF SENIOR REGISTRAR – review dismissed – applicant for review relying on 12 grounds – none made out – respondent seeking six orders – all granted.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 67Z, 68B, 68L, 114, 121
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 18.08, 18.10

Howell v Carter (No 2) (2017) 317 FLR 151
In the Marriage of Pagliarella (1993) 16 Fam LR 688

APPLICANT:

Mr Sande

RESPONDENT:

Ms Darwin

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

White Cleland Lawyers

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

7888

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

17 December 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Wilson J

HEARING DATE:

13 November 2020 & 2 December 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Not applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Not applicable

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr G. Thistleton

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Marcou and Associates Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms S. Mansfield

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

White Cleland Lawyers

Orders

I dismiss the father’s application in a case filed on 17 September 2020 for a review of the orders made by Senior Registrar Hoult on 10 September 2020.
I dismiss all applications of the father in his 9 July 2020 application in a case.
The father is restrained from filing any further applications in a case without first being granted leave by a registrar or justice of this court.
The father forthwith comply with paragraphs 4 to 6 (inclusive) of the interim orders made by her Honour Judge Carter on 18 October 2019 for psychiatric assessment.
Paragraph 2 of the orders of her Honour Judge Carter made on 18 October 2020 for supervised time is suspended until further order following the outcome of the psychiatric assessment.
The independent children’s lawyer has liberty to inspect the documents produced under subpoena by Dr D and until further order the independent children’s lawyer is restrained from disclosing its contents to the father or his legal representatives.
Pursuant to s 68B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 the father is restrained from –
(a) sending abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking, intimidating, threatening or otherwise denigrating correspondence to the mother, and/or the independent children’s lawyer and/or the mother’s solicitor; and
(b) publishing and/or distributing a report of a case or part of a case, including information contained in a judgment, which identifies parties, related or associated persons, witnesses or others involved in the case.
I refer this proceeding to the docketed registrar for ongoing case management.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sande & Darwin has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7888 of 2019

Mr Sande

Applicant

And

Ms Darwin

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 10 September 2020 Senior Registrar Hoult made orders among others –
a)dismissing the applicant’s application in a case filed 9 July 2020;
b)suspending the father’s time with the child;
c)restraining the applicant from denigrating the mother or the ICL; and
d)restraining the applicant from publishing information in a document contrary to s 121 of the Family Law Act.
The applicant, being the father of the child, applied for a review of the orders made by Senior Registrar Hoult. He did so in his application in a case filed 17 September 2020 relying on rule 18.08 of the Family Law Rules.
On 13 November 2020, when the review first came before me, the applicant was not represented. He told me he needed more time to prepare material in support of his application in a case filed 17 September 2020. I gave him until 27 November 2020 by which he was to file affidavit material and I ordered the respondent and the ICL to file and serve their responding material by 1 December 2020, otherwise adjourning the proceeding to 2 December 2020.
In the father’s application in a case sealed 10 July 2020 the applicant sought 12 orders before Senior Registrar Hoult. They were as follows –
1.I seek an Order for the removal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Jaime-Lee Walters;
2I seek an Order for Ms Darwin to submit into evidence the 21 July 2019 voicemail message that is purported to support her allegation that Mr Sande was stalking her;
3.I seek an Order for the Court to request an unredacted version of the Department of Health and Human Services subpoena that is currently with the Court;
4.I seek an Order for the Department of Education and Training to provide unredacted documents unless and only unless material is protected by legal privilege, material claimed to be protected by legal privilege to be filed with the Court to review;
5.I seek an Order for Dr B, Ms C, Ms D, Mr E Mr F, Leading Senior Constable G, Senior Constable H, Ms J, Ms K, Mr L and Ms M to appear at the contested hearing as witnesses;
6.I seek an Order for the production of documents from Suburb N Community Centre, Mr F, Leading Senior Constable G and Senior Constable H;
7.I seek an Order for all parties to be allowed to view Ms C’s subpoenaed documents;
8.I seek an Order for the psychological assessment of Ms Darwin and Mr Sande once all interrogatories and discovery are completed;
9.I seek an Order permitting parties access to all hearing recordings for this matter;
10.I seek an Order for Ms Darwin to once again attend a parenting after separation course;
11.I seek an Order for parties to be permitted to participate in interrogatories and discovery;
12.I seek an Order for the Independent Children’s Lawyer to subpoena Ms Darwin’s medical records or alternatively for an Order for their whereabouts to be disclosed so I may subpoena them myself.
In her response to that application in a case the wife sought six other orders. They were as follows –
1. The father's Application in a Case filed 9 July 2020 be dismissed.
2.The father be restrained from filing any further Applications in a Case without first being granted leave of the Honourable Court.
3.The father forthwith comply with orders 4 to 6 (inclusive) of the interim Orders of the Court made 18 October 2020 for Psychiatric Assessment.
4.Order 2 of the Orders of the Court made 18 October 2020 for supervised time, be suspended until further order following the outcome of the Psychiatric Assessment.
5.The Independent Children’s Lawyer only be at liberty to inspect the documents produced under subpoena by Dr D, and until further order the Independent Children’s Lawyer is restrained from disclosing its contents to the Father or his legal representative.
6.Pursuant to s 68B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975, the father is restrained from:
(a)sending abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking, intimidating, threatening or otherwise denigrating correspondence to the mother, and/or the Independent Children’s Lawyer and/or the mother’s solicitor; and
(b)publishing and/or distributing a report of a case or part of a case, including information contained in a Judgment, which identifies parties, related or associated persons, witnesses or others involved in the case.
On 10 September 2020 Senior Registrar made nine orders and provided written reasons. Senior Registrar Hoult’s orders were as follows –
1.That the Father’s Application in a Case filed 9 July 2020 be dismissed.
2.That any further applications issued by the Applicant Father are to be listed before the Senior Registrar at first instance.
3.That in the event an application comes before this Court and it is not within the jurisdiction of the Senior Registrar, then it is requested it be listed before the honourable Justice Wilson.
4.That Order 2 of the Orders of the Court made 18 October 2020 for supervised time between the child X (male) born … 2013 (“the child”) and the Father, be suspended until further order.
5.That pursuant to s 68B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”), the Father be and is hereby restrained from:
(a)sending abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking, intimidating, threatening or otherwise denigrating correspondence to:
(i)the Mother; and/or
(ii)the Independent Children’s Lawyer; and/or
(iii)the Mother’s solicitor; and
(b)publishing and/or distributing a report of a case or part of a case, including information contained in a Judgment, which identifies parties, related or associated persons, witnesses or others involved in the case (which would constitute a breach of s 121 of the Act if disseminated).
6.That all extant interim applications be dismissed.
7.That this matter be placed in the list of cases awaiting allocation to a judicial docket with priority as and from this day.
8.That the costs of all parties of this day be reserved.
9.That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those particulars are included in these orders.
This proceeding originated in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia by initiating application commenced in July 2019. Her Honour Judge Carter of the Federal Circuit Court made an order transferring this proceeding[1] to this court on 1 May 2020. Prior to the transfer of the proceeding to this court, her Honour Judge Boymal made orders on 14 August 2019 which, relevantly paraphrased were to the following effect –
a)the child live with the mother;
b)the mother was restrained from removing, tampering with or erasing a voicemail message described in her application and summons for an intervention order;
c)the ICL be appointed to separately represent the child;
d)the ICL consider whether a psychiatric or psychological assessment should be obtained in relation to either the applicant or the respondent; and
e)an airport watchlist order was made restraining both parents from removing the child from the Commonwealth of Australia.[2]
[1] A tandem proceeding (MLC 7923 of 2019) was consolidated with this proceeding by order of her Honour Judge Boymal made on 14 August 2019.
[2] That order made for a period of two years.
It seems that the father’s interactions with the ICL were, to the father’s way of thinking, problematic. The father sought an order for the removal of the ICL. I have addressed that application in the passages below.

Synopsis

For the reasons that follow, in my judgment the orders made by Senior Registrar Hoult are appropriate and I dismiss this review of them.

Relevant factual recital

Certain uncontroversial facts may be recited, derived from documentation filed in this proceeding. In no special order –
a)the mother was born in Australia, she is 41 years of age, she is an educator by training and lives in suburban Melbourne;
b)the father was born in Country P, he is 38, unemployed and currently lives in Melbourne;
c)in 2005 the father arrived in Australia from the United States of America;
d)in early 2008 the parties commenced a domestic relationship;
e)their son was born in Melbourne in 2013;
f)the parties separated under one roof in November 2013;
g)in January 2014 the father relocated to the Australian Capital Territory;
h)in June 2014 the father relocated to the Northern Territory;
i)in January 2015 the father relocated to the Australian Capital Territory;
j)in July 2015 an interim family violence order was made against the father later being converted to a final family violence intervention order on 12 September 2015;
k)on dates in 2014 and 2015 the father suffered from a mental health breakdown;
l)on 7 September another interim family violence order was made against the father later being converted to a final family violence intervention order on 21 October 2016
m)in 2017 Dr B, a psychiatrist, diagnosed the father with suicide ideation, moderately severe major depressive disorder with psychotic features, paranoid delusional disorder, organic mood disorder and primary psychotic illness with the chances of recovery negligible;
n)in early 2018 the father was dismissed from his employment with a government department and in late 2018 a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission found there was a valid reason for his dismissal with no right of appeal;
o)in late June 2019 the father relocated to regional Victoria;
p)in July 2019 psychiatrist Dr R observed that the father was “somewhat schizoid”;
q)the father last saw the child on 21 July 2019;
r)on 23 July 2019 a further interim family violence order was made against the father;
s)on 14 August 2019 the ICL was appointed and the father’s time with the child was suspended (as already mentioned);
t)on 16 September 2019 the father applied to have her Honour Judge Boymal removed from the proceeding;
u)on 19 September 2019 the proceeding was transferred to the docket of her Honour Judge Carter;
v)on 18 October 2019 her Honour Judge Carter made orders as have been distilled above;
w)on 11 February 2020 the father refused to attend on Dr S, psychiatrist;
x)on 8 April 2020 the father relocated elsewhere in regional Victoria;
y)on 21 April 2020 the father filed a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission (“AHRC”) against Ms T; and
z)on 15 May 2020 the Department of Health and Human Services’s s 67Z report revealed abuse perpetrated by the father while suffering chronic mental health issues;[3]
[3] I have recorded this as part of the chronological sequence of events in this case. However, it is a tendentious assertion and unproven at present so little reliance can be placed on it in the absence of the testing of that evidence at trial.
The father also lodged a complaint with AHRC against O Contact Centre on 1 July 2020.
The father’s 9 July 2020 application in a case was heard by Senior Registrar Hoult, the orders made by Senior Registrar Hoult having already been recorded above.

The applications before the Senior Registrar

The Senior Registrar was confronted with a formidable task on 10 September 2020. In no particular order, Senior Registrar Hoult –
a)was faced with 12 discrete applications urged by the father;
b)addressed six discrete different applications urged by the mother; and
c)was addressed by a litigant-in-person.
Having heard Mr Sande on two separate occasions, I did my best (as did Senior Registrar Hoult) to absorb the key components of Mr Sande’s submissions when advanced by him by telephone and in circumstances where, on many occasions, Mr Sande was unfocused, off-topic and ill-directed. That may have explained the following passage from Senior Registrar Hoult’s reasons for judgment –
3.Mr Sande appeared for himself. He prepared a very detailed submission in this case. This case relates to X who is aged seven years of age, born on … 2013, I was not being smart when I said I have not heard his named mentioned all morning, the point being the focus of the application before myself was not so much child-focused but focused on the procedure and aspects of the Court.
This was a rehearing to which rule 18.10 applied. It is utile to set out rule 18.10 in full to understand the material which I was entitled to consider on the hearing of the review “as an original hearing”. That rule is as follows –
(1)A court must hear an application for review of an order of a Judicial Registrar, Registrar or Deputy Registrar as an original hearing.
(2)      The court may receive as evidence:
(a)      any affidavit or exhibit tendered in the first hearing;
(b)      any further affidavit or exhibit;
(c)      the transcript (if any) of the first hearing; or
(d)if a transcript is not available, an affidavit about the evidence that was adduced at the first hearing, sworn by a person who was present at the first hearing.
The father relied on a collection of documentary sources of information, both before Senior Registrar Hoult and before me. Those included –
a)his affidavit affirmed 9 July 2020 and the exhibits thereto;
b)his bundle of documents marked “A” to “U” produced before Senior Registrar Hoult on 10 September 2020; and
c)his affidavit affirmed 11 November 2020 and the exhibits thereto.
The respondent wife relied on her affidavit made 30 July 2020 and the exhibits thereto.
On the review application, Mr Sande appeared unrepresented. Mr Thistleton of counsel appeared for the wife and Ms Mansfield of counsel appeared for the ICL.
Having regard to the large number of separate applications that were agitated before me, it is necessary to separately address each.

The husband’s applications

The sequence recorded below faithfully traces each of the 12 applications in the applicant’s 9 July 2020 application in a case.

Removal of the ICL

Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the applicant’s 9 July 2020 affidavit provided the evidentiary foundation for his application to remove the ICL. He stated as follows –
1(a)I seek an Order for the removal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Jaime-Lee Walters. In short, I have found the ICL to be incompetent, lacking professional objectivity and should the Independent Children’s Lawyer continue to act, it would involve a conflict of interest.
1(b)on 18 October 2019 the Independent Children’s Lawyer put forward the argument that I had stalked Ms Darwin and X. This was whilst successfully arguing for my time with X be supervised. Prior to the ICL making this allegation, I had fervently denied allegations of stalking, submitted evidence of my whereabouts and made requests for evidence of stalking to be presented. Despite a lack of evidence of stalking, the ICL sided with Ms Darwin and affirmed that I had done something I strongly disputed. To this day, Ms Darwin fails to submit into evidence the voicemail recording which she purports is evidence of stalking. The ICL is lacking professional objectivity; section 68LA (5a) of the Family Law Act 1975 states that, The independent children's lawyer must act impartially in dealings with the parties to the proceedings. Yesterday I asked Victorian Legal Aid, “how did the ICL justify to you of having accused me of stalking Ms Darwin without evidence supporting Ms Darwin’s claim?” VLA declined to respond to the question.
Among the bundle of material the applicant placed before Senior Registrar Hoult was a collection of emails and letters passing between the ICL and the applicant. Those exchanges commenced, at least in the sequence on which the applicant relied, on 10 September 2019. The applicant relied on the following exchanges to support his application for the removal of the ICL –
a)his email to the ICL dated 10 September 2019 in which he posed three questions one relating to the date on which a DHHS report would be available and two concerning subpoenae in answer to which the ICL responded by stating she did not know when the DHHS report would be available and the ICL addressed the two subpoenae questions stating that she did not generally issue subpoenae at the request of parties;
b)emails commencing from 10 September 2019 in relation to the ICL’s request for the applicant and respondent to be assessed by a psychiatrist of the ICL’s nomination, to which the ICL added the following in her email dated 12 September 2019 –
Please be aware that any correspondence you send me must also be sent to the other party. All correspondence you have sent me to date will be forwarded to them. My role is independent and transparent. I do not have a duty of confidentiality to you as I am not your lawyer. Consequently, the other party must be provided with the material attached to your email.
c)emails between the father and the ICL commencing on 23 September 2019 in which the father questioned the ICL’s proposed orders for supervised time with the child (including the father’s abrupt stipulation that unless the ICL replied to him by his nominated time he said “a non-response will be reported as you (ICL) having declined to respond)”;
d)the ICL’s detailed response dated 24 September 2019 (one day prior to the applicant’s demanded response date of 25 September 2019) in which the ICL explained in logical, rational and medically maintainable terms how the ICL’s request for supervised time was premised on the risks to the child associated with the applicant’s own poor mental health;
e)the applicant’s argumentative email sent later on 24 September 2019 in which he interrogated the ICL in a rude and inappropriate manner about the forensic, medical and legal basis for the ICL’s assessment of risk that the father posed to the child (I hasten to add it was not his place to subject the ICL to such interrogation);
f)the ICL’s response on 26 September 2019 that included the following –
I have made all parties aware of my position and I do not intend to engage in further debate on the issue.
You will have the opportunity to argue your case to a Judge in due course.
You cannot cross examine the ICL or counsel for the ICL at trial. I reiterate that as an ICL, I am accountable to the court, not to the parties in the matter.
Once again, I strongly suggest you obtain legal advice on this matter.
g)the father’s lengthy email dated 27 September 2019 to the ICL some portions of which included –
i)“the bias evident in your inquiries indicate that you are merely fishing”;
ii)“the hostility exhibited by you and counsel mean that any future attempts to negotiate any matters directly with (the father) will be reported as harassment”;
iii)the father “is of the view that you and counsel have failed in your obligation”;
iv)the father “would like to advise you that should you make that recommendation once again, he will consider it harassment”;
v)the father “encourages you to seek assistance or better still consider removing yourself from this matter entirely”; and
vi)“there is overwhelming evidence that you are not qualified to continue carriage of the matter (sic)”.
h)the father’s email to the ICL dated 15 April 2020 in which he interrogated the ICL about correspondence from the Department of Education;
i)a letter dated 18 May 2020 from the ICL to the father in which the ICL rejected the father’s comments concerning the ICL’s conduct;
j)a lengthy email from the father to Legal Aid Victoria (“VLA”) and the Legal Services Commissioner (“LSC”) dated 12 June 2020 in which he lodged an official complaint concerning the conduct of the ICL in which he raised the following extraordinary comments –
i (sic) am determined to ensure a full and transparent investigation of the matters i have raised here. i would like to note that last year a Judge in the Federal Circuit Court and a Magistrate in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court recused themselves following deplorable conduct towards me in matters i have against Ms Darwin. unsurprisingly they were both of the same gender and race as Ms Darwin. Ms Darwin has undeniably been privileged in these proceedings but as these privileges are exposed, they come to an end. i am a self-represented litigant with a disability yet it is Ms Darwin that is funded by the government through false allegations of child abuse she has made against me and now government funding is being used to prevent investigative reports from being released pertaining to the allegations that resulted in Ms Darwin obtaining funding in the first place. white privilege could not more (sic) evident than it has been in the matters i have against Ms Darwin, that too will come to end. last year I raised concerns i have with Ms Darwin’s VLA funded lawyer, Ms Bronwyn Doyle of Marcou & Associates Lawyers. the conduct of Ms Doyle was in part responsible for the current interim family violence intervention order i have against Ms Darwin. i will be seeking perjury charges against Ms Darwin, i foreshadow that Ms Darwin’s testimony in the various legal matters that are on foot and those to come will provide ample evidence to take action against Marcou & Associates Lawyers. in the meantime, my focus is Ms Jaime-Lee Walters.
k)VLA’s letter dated 25 June 2020 inviting a response to the father’s 12 June 2020 email;
l)VLA’s letter to the father dated 8 July 2020 dismissing the father’s complaint;
m)the father’s email to the ICL dated 8 July 2020 which included allegations about the ICL being incompetent and corrupt, allegations which I regarded as being disgraceful;
n)the father’s email dated 8 July 2020 to VLA in which the father interrogated the VLA author of the email why that person did not approach the father for clarification if the writer did not understand the father’s complaints;
o)VLA’s email response dated 9 July 2020 in which VLA told the father that he could, if he wished, take any further complaint to the LSC;
p)the father’s email also dated 9 July 2020 in which the father wrote –
“your investigation was a sham”;
q)the father’s email to DHHS dated 8 July 2020 in which he wrote that one of his objectives at the forthcoming hearing in this court was to “seek that the Family Court of Australia requests unredacted versions of the documents produced thus far”;
r)DHHS’s email reply dated 9 July 2020 in which DHHS stated it could not assist further;
s)the father’s 10 August 2020 email to the ICL in which the father wrote material under two headings, one “ICL allegations of stalking” and the other “Judge to deal with 9 July application in a case”, such material that included –
“I understand that how (sic) the ICL has conducted herself is cause for embarrassment for the legal system”,
a comment I regard as highly improper;
t)the father’s email dated 27 August 2020 in which the father made an allegation that the ICL had accused him of stalking, allegations refuted by the ICL;
u)the father’s email dated 31 August 2020 in which he remonstrated about an alleged statement concerning stalking; and
v)a second email from the father on 31 August in which he debated seven submissions advanced by counsel then appearing for the ICL on 18 October 2019.

Even at this early juncture in the narrative of the factual setting of this review application, certain matters can be stated. They include –
a)the father is not legally trained;
b)he devotes enormous time and energy to second-guessing the work of statutory personalities such as the ICL, DHHS and VLA;
c)many of his communications by email were bereft of merit and were instead argumentative or were of a character that the father demanded answers to questions the recipient was not required to give the father;
d)when the father did not obtain a result he regarded as satisfactory he lodged a complaint with a supervisory body;
e)he was and remains openly hostile towards the ICL; and, particularly
f)no valid basis exists for such hostility and antagonism towards the ICL.

The legal basis for the removal of the ICL

Several decisions of this court have addressed applications for the removal of the ICL. Each considered the provisions of the Family Law Act pursuant to which the ICL was established, namely s 68L.
In this case the father did not develop the legal basis for his contention that an order should be made for the removal of the ICL. On behalf of the ICL certain authorities were cited in the context of the dismissal of an application for the removal of the ICL. In Howell v Carter (No 2)[4] I surveyed the learning on the removal or discharge of the ICL. I repeat here what I held there. In the upshot, Division 10 of Part 7 of the Family Law Act contains no express provision for the removal of the ICL. That said, a number of authorities even at intermediate appellate level in this court, have proceeded on the basis that power to remove the ICL does in fact exist, despite the absence of any mention of such power in s 68L.
[4] (2017) 317 FLR 151.
So far as the grounds for the removal of the ICL is concerned, the father did not rely on any authority in that regard. In Howell v Carter (No 2) I held as follows –
47.Whatever the aggregated bases for the removal of an ICL may be, it has never been the law that an ICL or a separate representative may be removed on account of failing to abide the wishes of one of the parties to the litigation.
There is authority to the effect that an order may be made for the removal of the ICL if the ICL takes a step in a proceeding which cannot be justified or which is inappropriate.[5] That was a decision of a single judge of this court which, strictly speaking, is not binding on me. Nowhere in that decision was any illumination given as to what constituted a step in a proceeding that was “inappropriate” or one which “cannot be justified”. Further, having regard to the independence of the ICL conferred by the terms of s 68L, one wonders against what measuring stick, objectively assessed, the inappropriateness of a step in the proceeding was to be reckoned.
[5]In the Marriage of Pagliarella (1993) 16 Fam LR 688, 690.
Several authorities have considered the issue raised in this case, namely the father’s grievance about the ICL’s alleged bias in this case. In Howell v Carter I held that the ICL was not amenable to removal for actual bias or for a reasonable apprehension of bias. I adhere to those observations. In any event on the facts of this case I take the view that the father comprehensively failed to demonstrate the existence of actual or apprehended bias. On the evidence adduced, it seemed to me that the ICL was conducting this case with commendable speed, efficiency and propriety. If anything, I take the view that the father has meddled in the ICL’s conduct of this case, constantly endeavouring to second guess the ICL or to drive the ICL’s independent conduct of the case in a manner that best suits the father. The ICL is independent. The ICL must be permitted to advance this case in a manner that is consistent with the functions and obligations set out in s 68L of the Family Law Act. I will not allow the father to subject the ICL to dictation by him.
No basis has been shown for the removal of the ICL. In my view the ICL is conducting this case properly.

Compelling the wife to put into evidence a voicemail recording

As the second application in his application in a case dated 9 July 2020 the father sought an order that the wife submit into evidence the 21 July 2019 voicemail that is purported to support her allegation that the father was stalking the wife. At its core, the father seemed to be arguing that the ICL has relied on that voicemail as proof of the existence of stalking by the father yet the ICL has not produced the voicemail nor put it into evidence. The father made the point in a pejorative manner asserting ICL incompetence in paragraph 1(c) of his 9 July 2020 affidavit, that was in the following terms –
1(c)I have made countless attempts to have the 21 July 2019 voicemail recording submitted into evidence. Although the ICL has formed the view that allegations of stalking are essential to matters before the Court, the ICL has made no attempts to obtain any evidence to support the allegations. This can reasonably be assumed to be one of two things, incompetence or a conflict of interest. The latter will be addressed here and incompetence later. If the voicemail recording were to be submitted into evidence, it will not support claims of stalking. The ICL has a personal interest in the contents and hence the production of the voicemail message. Should the Independent Children’s Lawyer continue to act, it would involve a conflict of interest .
On behalf of the ICL it was put that the production of the recording and its admissibility will need to be determined by the court.
Several issues emerge in relation to this issue. First, whatever use the ICL or the mother may have made of that voicemail recording for the purposes of the interim or final intervention orders in another court is a matter for the father, the mother and if relevant the ICL in that other court. This court does not have some roving supervisory jurisdiction in relation to cases in others courts. Second, if that voicemail has been introduced into evidence for the purposes of one or more interim or final intervention orders in another court, this court cannot compel production of evidence adduced in that other court. Third, whether the respondent wishes to rely on that voicemail as evidence at the trial of this proceeding is a matter for the mother and on that point it is neither necessary or appropriate for me to express a view about evidence to be led at the trial of this proceeding.
Paragraph 2 of the applicant’s orders he seeks in his application in a case is expressed on the basis that the respondent is required to put the voicemail into evidence. I shall make no such order. If the mother chooses to adduce evidence that includes the voicemail then that evidence will fall for consideration by the learned trial judge. If the mother elects not to rely on that evidence, then the learned trial judge need not be concerned with it.

Unredacted version of DHHS subpoena and Department of Education & Training documents

In paragraphs 3 and 4 of his application in a case the father sought an unredacted version of the DHHS subpoena and unredacted documents from the Department of Education and Training. In support of that application the applicant relied on paragraph 4 of his 9 July 2020 affidavit. There, he stated as follows –
4.I seek an Order for the Department of Education and Training to provide unredacted documents unless and only unless material is protected by legal privilege. material claimed to be protected by legal privilege to be filed with the Court to review. the Department Education (sic) elected to redact information that it deemed itself not to be relevant which was totally inappropriate. relevance is a matter for parties to a dispute to determine themselves. on 28 April 2020 the Department of Education revealed that most and not all information redacted were names of administrative staff and that which it deemed to obtain legal privilege. what is of interest is the redacted material that does not fit into either of the two categories.
The applicant chose not to invoke federal freedom of information legislation in his pursuit of that subpoena. He has already been told that DHHS redacted information concerning the identity of administrative staff and information to which legal professional privilege applies. Rather than accepting that position, the applicant seems to wish to have an argument with the wife or the ICL, neither of whom control DHHS documentation, about revealing the names of DHHS staff (irrelevant to this family law litigation) or about legal professional privilege (also irrelevant for the purposes of this family law litigation).
The applicant offered no reason why he needed the unredacted information so as to advance his case in this parenting proceeding. I was unable to see how and why he needed the unredacted information, even assuming I had power to compel a government instrumentality which is not a party to this litigation to produce the unredacted document. I entertain very real doubt that I had the necessary power to make the order the applicant sought. Further, insufficient reason was adduced by the applicant to support my making any order requiring DHHS to embark upon a debate concerning legal professional privilege.
The applicant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to the order sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his application in a case dated 9 July 2020.

An order requiring certain persons to give evidence

The applicant identified 11 persons in respect of whom he sought orders compelling their attendance at the trial of this proceeding.
It is not for the court to determine who gives evidence in a case. That is for the parties. Litigation in this court is adversarial.
In support of his application for this order the applicant gave evidence about the role of each of the 11 witnesses he mentioned. Paragraph 5 of his 9 July 2020 affidavit was in the following terms –
5.I seek an Order for Dr B, Ms C, Ms D, Mr E, Mr F, Leading Senior Constable G, Senior Constable H, Ms J. Ms K, Mr L and Ms M to appear at the contested hearing as witnesses.
Dr B is the psychiatrist (sic) whose opinion of my mental health the Court has relied on;
Ms C is the pychologist (sic) that Ms Darwin regularly visited during the period that Ms Darwin claims her son was punched to the head on numerous occasions (sic) by his father;
Ms D is the child pychologist (sic) for X and the only person Ms Darwin claims to have reported allegation of child abuse;
Mr E was an employee of Suburb N Community Centre when Ms Darwin claims I breached an intervention order by working there in 2019. I did not work there in 2019, and had I done so, Ms Darwin would not have been there. Lastly Ms Darwin had agreed with Suburb N Community Centre for me to work there;
Mr F accompanied Ms Darwin to my property on 21 July 2019 where they both loitered prior to collecting X, Ms Darwin claims they were there for just 5 minutes;
Leading Senior Constable G and Senior Constable H were aware of the difficulties I was having with Ms Darwin in July 2019 and gave me advice which I followed such as recording exchanges, Ms Darwin argues that was family violence; and
Ms J, Ms K, Mr L and Ms M from the Department of Health and Human Services investigated Ms Darwin’s allegations of child abuse in July 2019 and April 2020.
When this case percolates to the point at which parties are required to file affidavit evidence from witnesses on whose evidence each party relies, one, some or all of those 11 persons identified by the applicant may be amenable to giving evidence in support of the case advanced by the applicant, the wife or the ICL. Whether one, some, any or all of those 11 persons is or are willing to make an affidavit in support of the husband, the wife or the ICL is a different point. The system of justice in operation in this court is adversarial. It is not inquisitorial. The court adjudicates on the case as presented by the parties. The court does not compel the appearance of witnesses, except where a person fails to attend court in answer to a subpoena. Ordinarily the court does not require persons to attend of its own motion. The applicant seems to think it does.
I shall not make the order sought in paragraph 5 of his application in a case.

An order for the production of documents

In paragraph 6 of his application in a case the applicant sought orders for the production of documents from certain persons mentioned in paragraph 5 of his application in a case. He said in paragraph 6 of his affidavit made 9 July 2020 that he sought those documents “for reasons outlined in point 5”.
The usual method of obtaining such documents that are relevant is by subpoena. The method the applicant employed is not appropriate. Relevance will be critical. The precise scope of the documents sought will also be critical. The persons to whom the subpoena is addressed may wish to be heard. The applicant should employ the correct process.
I refuse to make the order sought in paragraph 6. But that is not to be taken as being a determination on the applicant’s entitlement to issue a subpoena for the production of those documents.

Viewing Ms C’s material

Ms C is a psychologist who the mother consulted on a regular basis. In support of that application the father relied on paragraph 7 of his affidavit made 9 July 2020. There he said the following –
7.I seek an Order for all parties to be allowed to view Ms C’s subpoenaed documents inlight (sic) of Ms Darwin and her lawyer having access to an extensive volume of my personal medical records.
It seems that the applicant was motivated by a desire to see Ms C’s records for the simple reason that the wife and her solicitor had access to the applicant’s own medical records. Beyond that eye-for-an-eye approach, the applicant failed to explain why he needed to see the information from Ms C. In the absence of any reason to that end, I refuse his application in paragraph 7.

Psychological assessment

In paragraph 8 of his application in a case the applicant sought orders for the applicant and respondent to be psychologically assessed after “discovery and interrogatories” are completed. In this court an order for interrogatories is unusual. For that matter such an order is unusual in civil litigation in common law state courts as well. I am not willing to entertain any application concerning interrogation. As for orders for psychological assessments, it seems to me that a bigger issue relates to the applicant’s failure to confer with Dr S, psychiatrist. I decline to make the order sought in paragraph 8 of the applicant’s application in a case. In my view the applicant should be psychiatrically assessed by Dr S. So should the mother be psychiatrically assessed. Orders have already been made to that effect.

Access to all recordings

Parties are usually entitled to the transcriptions of interlocutory applications, if transcribed, upon payment of the prescribed transcription fee. The applicant has not offered a reason for deviating from that course. The wife has not sought the order urged by the applicant and if she had, I would have required the parties to pay for transcriptions, not recordings. I refused the application in paragraph 9.

Parenting course

The mother has already attended a post separation parenting course. I refuse the applicant’s application in paragraph 10 of his application in a case.

Interrogatories

This has already been addressed. I refuse to order interrogatories.

Requiring the ICL to subpoena records

It is not for the applicant to direct the ICL to issue one or more subpoenae. I refuse the application in paragraph 12 of the applicant’s application in a case.

Upshot of the father’s application

Each application the father sought has been dismissed. The Senior Registrar was correct in the orders made. As this review is a de novo hearing, I was required to independently assess the applicant’s entitlements to the orders he sought. He failed on each.

The mother’s applications

As has already been observed, the mother applied for six orders. It is necessary to deal with each.

Dismissal of the applicant’s applications

That has been done, as the passages above attest.

Restraining the father from filing further applications without leave

It is a far reaching step to make the order sought by the mother in paragraph 2 of her response. That said, an abundance of evidence exists in this case that the father –
a)ignores orders previously made;
b)is actively confrontational, hostile and uncooperative towards the ICL;
c)is uncooperative generally in the ongoing progress of this case; and
d)prefers to debate small points rather than advance this case towards trial.
This case has been on foot in two different courts since 2019. It is a long way from being ready for trial. Instead the father wishes to engage in wasteful and time consuming activities such as interrogation or listening to recordings of hearings in respect of which, if he paid the appropriate fee, he could read by transcript. It is not easy to tell whether the father is keen to advance this case to trial or whether he is more keen to joust with the ICL and the mother.
His uncooperative approach so far leads me to the view that merit exists in paragraph 2 of the mother’s response. If the father wishes to bring any further application he must first obtain leave of a Registrar or a Justice of this court.

Psychiatric assessment

That has already been canvassed. I make an order in terms of paragraph 3 of the mother’s response.

Supervised time order suspended

The father has taken issue with the order previously made for supervised time. His conduct of this case so far gives rise to real apprehension on my part that the child may very well be at risk in this case. The father needs to be psychiatrically assessed. I agree that his time, supervised or otherwise, should be suspended unless and until he is psychiatrically assessed. It must not be forgotten that the father had already made complaints to AHRC about the provider of supervision services.

ICL having leave to inspect Dr D’s documentation

Very little evidence was adduced in support of the mother’s application for the ICL to have leave to inspect the documents produced under subpoena by Dr D. Based on paragraph 5 of the father’s affidavit made on 9 July 2020, Dr D is the child’s psychologist. According to the father Dr D is the only person to whom (the wife claims) allegations about child abuse were reported. Allegations of child abuse are, self-evidently, extremely serious. The ICL should – dare I say must – plumb the depths of any such allegation. In my view it is essential for the ICL to inspect Dr D’s documentation so as to better equip the ICL to perform her vital function under s 68L. It seems to me that the ICL should have leave to inspect documents produced under subpoena by Dr D.

Restraining the father from contravening s 68B

Under s 68B of the Family Law Act the court is empowered to grant an injunction (different to an injunction made under s 114) that is aimed at protecting the welfare of the child. Unlike the basis for the grant of an injunction under s 114, under s 68B any such order is premised on the requirement of s 68B(2) being satisfied, namely, that “it appears to the court to be just or convenient” to make the restraint.
The mother adduced a large amount of evidence between paragraph 12 to 28 of her 30 July 2020 affidavit that addressed issues raising a basis for an order being made under s 68B. The information that follows is a snapshot of that evidence leading to my view that under s 68B(2) it is just or convenient to make the order sought by the mother under s 68B(1) in terms of paragraph 6(a) and 6(b) of her response. That evidence includes –
a)the father’s email dated 6 August 2019 to the mother’s lawyer, the relevant portion of which was as follows –
...in December 2013 Ms Darwin revealed that she believes that our son is as close as she can come to being in a loving relationship with a black man, the nature of her relationship with our son is at times problematic as identified by mediators over the years. currently Ms Darwin has completely shut me out of our son’s life and will not even disclose to me how he is doing, the courts have not endorsed this action. my concern is that Ms Darwin through this process is turning our son into a fatherless boy who is acting both as a husband and child to Ms Darwin. i am confident that essential truths not known to the courts will be revealed through proceedings of the legal matters on foot ... the contents of this email are not confidential.
b)the father’s email to VLA and LSC dated 16 August 2019 in which the father asserted that the mother had made false allegations against the father;
c)the father gaining access to the mother’s medical records held at the court’s registry being documents produced by Ms C under subpoena;
d)the father’s email dated 30 March 2020 to the wife’s solicitors the relevant portion of which was as follows –
i would like to note here that i have found Ms Darwin’s conduct intensely controlling and this has been facilitated by the numerous false allegations she has made against me which in time will be proven to be untrue; I’m willing to commit the rest of my life to challenge each false allegation that has been levelled against me. there is absolutely no independent evidence before me that i have harmed X in any away (sic) nor that X does not want to communicate with me.
e)the father’s email dated 31 March 2020 to the ICL, the relevant portion of which was as follows –
the fact of the matter is that Ms Darwin has levelled false allegations against me and as a result X has had absolutely no contact with his father in 9months (sic) which is just not fair to X. imagine you were a 7yr (sic) old child and one parent made false allegations that the other parent assaulted, stalked and took you away without permission and then suddenly you lost all contact with the other half of you. the good thing is the truth will come out; but X will never get this time back. the system is truly (sic) broken.
i will be making submissions to the effect that Ms Darwin through her false and endless serious allegations has proven herself unfit to be a parent and so i will be seeking full parental responsibility of X. this is a matter i am willing to take to the highest court.
f)the father’s email dated 7 April 2020 to the wife’s solicitors and to the ICL the relevant portion of which was as follows –
i’ve mentioned the suffering that X and i have endured as a result of Ms Darwin’s allegations. i would like justice and i am prepared to pursue it for a lifetime but i do not believe it is in anyone’s interest apart from lawyers for matters to go longer than they need to. i trust Ms Darwin has an understanding of the risks associated with perjury. i do not believe the Courts pursue perjury as often as they should, but this matter is a little different in that Ms Darwin has known i have a disability and may have used that to assist her in committing criminal acts.
g)the father’s email dated 15 April 2020 to the ICL and to the mother’s solicitors, the relevant portion of which was as follows –
Ms Darwin has made a number of allegations against me that (i) were made on oath or affirmation (ii) can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were false (iii) were made in judicial proceedings (iv) were material to proceedings; and (v) Ms Darwin knew the statements were false when making them. i will be seeking the Courts refer perjury matters to the Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria, alternatively i will undertake a private prosecution at the conclusion of current matters. i forgive Ms Darwin for all the suffering she is causing me; i won’t be seeking vengeance but rather accountability and more importantly rigour from parties and the Court to ensure justice. the burden of proof was on Ms Darwin as she was my accuser but she failed to provide the evidence she claimed she had in her possession and even protested against her own witnesses appearing in Court. i’m now her accuser.
Ms Darwin has proven herself time and again not to be fit as a parent, from disallowing all contact including gifts and cards between her son and his father to false allegations of her son being assaulted on multiple occasions by his father. Ms Darwin has shown no regard for the wellbeing of her son and so as previously mentioned, i will be seeking sole parental responsibility of X in addition to the perjury convictions.
h)the father’s email dated 5 June 2020 to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, to the ICL and to the mother’s solicitors the salient portion of which was as follows –
dear Melbourne Magistrates’ Court
in addition to the Court considering on 18 June 2020 my application to appear via video link on 2 July 2020 for matters … and …; may the Court please consider on 18 June 2020 orders to allow parties to view subpoenaed material from Ms D, Mr F, Leading Senior Constable G and Senior Constable H prior to the 2 July 2020 hearing? in addition, may the Court please make orders for Ms Darwin to submit into evidence prior to the 2 July 2020 hearing, the 21 July 2019 voicemail message that is outlined in her FVIVO application in which Ms Darwin claims is evidence i was stalking her?
the basis of these requests is as follows:
the Court has encouraged parties to attempt to resolve matters prior to the 2 July 2020 hearing. it can reasonably be assumed that access to subpoenaed material and the submission of the voicemail message that allegedly supports allegations of stalking will bring about a more timely resolution of the two matters before the Court. the current unrest in America is in part because at the same time that footage of the killing of George Floyd surfaced, a video of Amy Cooper also surfaced on social media. Ms Cooper a white woman was caught on video making a call to the police falsely claiming that her life was being threatened by a black man after she had been asked to put her dog on a leash. one may say that happens only in America but i’ve lived both in America and Australia and my experience is that it happens more so in Australia in large part because the society here including the Courts more openly assume white women are victims and black men are thugs not worthy of justice. i have not seen my son for almost a year, i’m asking that the purported evidence of the claims that have resulted in me not having access to my son to be put before the Court. had orders been made for the submission of the voicemail recording at the first hearing, i believe this matter would have been resolved last year however now the Court has another matter on its hands in the form of the family violence intervention order i have taken out against Ms Darwin for legal abuse.
may the Court please advise whether it will make orders on 18 June 2020 pertaining to the voicemail message that is purported evidence of stalking and the subpoenaed documents. if not, i foreshadow little will be achieved on 2 July 2020 and the matter will eventually be dropped by the Court with Ms Darwin never having to be challenged for committing perjury; understandably that is an outcome the Court may prefer.
i)the father’s 10 June 2020 email to the ICL and to the mother’s solicitors, the relevant portion of which was as follows –
there is a topic that i would like parties to familiarise themselves with, and that is one of white privilege. it may be one that causes you discomfort and it should. i have raised the topic of bias time again, a Judge and a Magistrate recused themselves last year in matters i have against Ms Darwin due to bias. in the wake of the Amy Cooper story, it is time to go into specifics given the notion of Ms Darwin’s privilege will be at the forefront of the misconduct of this matter.
WHITE PRIVILEGE: it is generally agreed to refer to the implicit or systemic advantages that white people have relative to people who are the objects of racism; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that people who are objects of racism experience. this was most evident when the Independent Children’s Lawyer accused me of stalking Ms Darwin even though i denied the allegation and Ms Darwin repeatedly failed to submit into evidence the voicemail that Ms Darwin purports supports her allegation. typically white privilege is hidden, but in this matter it has been left out in the open for all to see and i can in an instant give you at least a dozen examples. a lot of effort has been spent by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in an attempt to dig up dirt on me whilst no subpoenas had been issued on Ms Darwin until i complained about the matter. “if police are too focused on looking for Black lawbreakers, they might be less vigilant toward White ones, conferring an unjust enrichment benefit on Whites who do break the laws but escape detection for this reason.”
Ms Darwin opposed my application in a case to have the report on the child abuse released for very good reason; she lied. belaying (sic) the release/access of documents will only mean this matter will remain in Court for years which only benefits lawyers, certainly doesn’t benefit X. i understand it won’t look good for Victorian Legal Aid and the Courts if a report is released confirming that a white woman with the assistance of taxpayer funding lied about a black man abusing his son which resulted in the 7yr (sic) old boy not seeing his father for a year. it looks ugly because it is urgly (sic). that’s the narrative, that’s what will be known regardless of any efforts to hide the truth.
in addition to advising parties on the progress of the subpoenaed DHHS material, may you please confirm that any statements made in a psychiatric evaluation will be made under oath and that the assessor will be called into Court as an expert witness. if i do not receive responses to these questions by the close of business tomorrow, i will raise them with the Court.
j)the father’s email to VLA and LSC dated 12 June 2020 the relevant portion of which was as follows –
i am determined to ensure a full and transparent investigation of the matters i have raised here. i would like to note that last year a Judge in the Federal Circuit Court and a Magistrate in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court recused themselves following deplorable conduct towards me in matters i have against Ms Darwin. unsurprisingly they were both of the same gender and race as Ms Darwin. Ms Darwin has undeniably been privileged in these proceedings but as these privileges are exposed, they come to an end. i am a self-represented litigant with a disability yet it is Ms Darwin that is funded by the government through false allegations of child abuse she has made against me and now government funding is being used to prevent investigative reports from being released pertaining to the allegations that resulted in Ms Darwin obtaining funding in the first place. white privilege could not more (sic) evident than it has been in the matters i have against Ms Darwin, that too will come to end. last year I raised concerns i have with Ms Darwin’s VLA funded lawyer, Ms Bronwyn Doyle of Marcou & Associates Lawyers. the conduct of Ms Doyle was in part responsible for the current interim family violence intervention order i have against Ms Darwin. i will be seeking perjury charges against Ms Darwin, i foreshadow that Ms Darwin’s testimony in the various legal matters that are on foot and those to come will provide ample evidence to take action against Marcou & Associates Lawyers. in the meantime, my focus is Ms Jaime-Lee Walters.
k)the father’s email dated 1 July 2020 to the ICL and to the mother’s solicitors, the salient portion of which was as follows –
i can understand why Ms Darwin’s lawyer is terribly concerned about the subpoenaed documents from Ms Darwin’s treating psychologist, Ms C. first i would like to note that given Ms Darwin was purposefully feeding Ms C with false information; the intent of Ms Darwin’s visits was apparently so Ms C could regularly write letters to Ms Darwin’s lawyer to support Ms Darwin’s legal disputes. Ms Darwin has not only been illegally obtaining funding from Victorian Legal Aid, Ms Darwin has also been rorting Medicare.
…
facts are that a father was determined to ensure that his son would grow up with both parents, the mother instead wanted to have 100% responsibility so the mother committed perjury by claiming her son was taken without her consent when email correspondence contradicts her claim. i have argued from the commencement of this matter that the mother has a history of seeking 100% responsibility of pets and children and if that comes under threat, she will lie, denigrate and have an abortion. some of this information is in Ms Darwin’s own submissions, the rest will be proven without difficulty if documents and witnesses appear in Court.
…
Magistrates and Judges have formed the view that at the centre of these disputes are parental arrangements and credibility. Ms C will be a central figure in the various disputes Ms Darwin and i have. white privilege has got Ms Darwin this far; i seek evidence, rigor, transparency and justice. as previously advised, i’m prepared to take these disputes to the highest courts.
l)the father’s email to the ICL dated 7 July 2020 the relevant portion of which was as follows –
i'm delighted you have finally subpoenaed Ms D albeit a year after i suggested you do so. my first communication to you was in fact a suggestion that you subpoena her. this matter involves disputed allegations of a child being assaulted by a parent and the only person that the other parent claims to have reported the assaults is to Ms D yet until yesterday, you had not subpoenaed her ... ASTONISHING.
the truth will eventually come out regard less of how hard you, Ms Darwin and her lawyer fight to prevent discovery. the trickling in of information is only going to prolong this matter which is great for your income and that on Ms Darwin’s lawyer but not in the best interest of the tax payer that is fitting both your bills. more importantly it is not in the best interest of your client, my son, X. this is one of many reasons i seek you be removed from this matter.

Those emails emanated from the father. He wrote them. He writes well and he seems lucid. Yet they are in many respects highly disrespectful, accusatory, threatening and frequent. It is readily apparent that in relation to many, they would or might have a destabilising influence on the ICL as well as the mother’s solicitors. The solicitors for the mother as well as the ICL are promoting the best interests of the party each represents. Each should not be faced with unchecked vitriol from the father.
I am persuaded that the orders proposed by the mother in paragraph 6 of her response are both just and convenience and I make them.
Family law litigation often engenders animosity. But the behaviour of the father in this case has been disgraceful. I make the orders recorded at the commencement of these reasons. And I refer this proceeding to the docketed registrar for ongoing case management, preferably to trial with expedition.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Wilson delivered on 17 December 2020.

Associate:

Date: 17 December 2020