Stopford Malloy and Malloy (No 2)

In the matter of *Stopford Malloy and Malloy (No 2)*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the mother concerning the consolidation of proceedings and the adducing of evidence. The dispute involved parenting orders under Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The mother sought to consolidate two aspects of the proceedings, which had been bifurcated at a previous procedural hearing. She also sought leave to adduce expert evidence from three psychologists and evidence from other witnesses.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the parenting proceedings should be consolidated, and whether the mother should be granted leave to adduce the proposed expert and other witness evidence. The court was required to determine if consolidation would serve the best interests of the child, particularly in light of potential delays to the resolution of the parenting dispute. Furthermore, the court had to assess the admissibility and relevance of the evidence the mother sought to present, considering the existing procedural framework and the role of single expert witnesses.

Austin J concluded that consolidating the proceedings would cause considerable delay in determining the parenting dispute, which was not in the child's best interests. Consequently, the mother's application for consolidation was dismissed. Regarding the evidence, leave to adduce evidence directly from the three psychologists was denied. Instead, the mother was granted leave to issue subpoenas to these psychologists, requiring them to produce their notes. Leave to adduce evidence from other witnesses was also denied. The court's reasoning underscored the paramount importance of timely resolution in parenting matters and a cautious approach to the introduction of additional evidence beyond that already permitted or provided for by the court's orders.