Symonds and Symonds

This matter concerned proceedings between a husband and wife, with the Independent Children's Lawyer also a party to the consent orders. The dispute involved various applications and the adducing of evidence, including expert reports and affidavits, in relation to proceedings before Watt J.

The court was required to determine a number of procedural and evidentiary issues. These included granting leave for the filing of affidavits and for a witness to give evidence via video link, as well as authorising the husband to request an examination of the wife by a suitably qualified expert. The court also needed to address the provision of expert reports to a single expert witness and the subsequent filing of questions and answers, and to set a trial date.

Watt J made orders by consent between the husband, wife, and Independent Children's Lawyer. These orders permitted the wife to file an affidavit from Dr D and to call Dr D by video link from France, and allowed the husband to file an affidavit from Mr L. Liberty was reserved for parties to object to the admissibility of parts of these affidavits. Further orders directed the husband to attend counselling and the child M to attend counselling, with all counselling to be non-reportable. The wife was granted leave to file an affidavit from Dr Y. The husband was given 28 days to request an expert examination of the wife at his expense, with any report to be provided to the wife's solicitors within seven days of receipt. The wife's application filed on 21 December 2007 was otherwise dismissed. The husband was directed to provide specific reports and questions to a single expert witness within 28 days, and to file an affidavit annexing the questions and answers within seven days of receipt. The wife was given 28 days to file any expert affidavit she sought to rely on concerning matters in Mr L's affidavit. The husband's application filed on 18 January 2008 was adjourned to a date to be fixed after receipt of the single expert witness's answers. The matter was listed for trial commencing not before 14 July 2008 for an estimated seven days. Specific directions were given regarding the husband's potential cross-examination of Dr D, and the question of costs was reserved. The court also noted that the matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel.