Tyler and Sullivan (ANCILLARY)

This case concerned ancillary applications within proceedings between Mr Tyler (the applicant father) and Ms Sullivan (the respondent mother) concerning their child. The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Watts J, was required to make rulings on various interim applications and objections raised during the final hearing. These included applications to exclude expert evidence, objections to the release of documents based on legal privilege, and applications to adjourn proceedings.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. These included whether the provisions of s 69ZT(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) should apply to specific issues in the case, thereby excluding certain rules of evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider the mother's application to exclude the entirety of an expert report from Dr R prior to her giving oral evidence, based on allegations of a lack of specialised knowledge and reliance on assumed facts. The court also addressed the mother's objection to the release of documents on the grounds of legal privilege and her application to adjourn proceedings to tender transcript evidence from another court.

In relation to the application of s 69ZT(1), the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer initially sought to have its provisions apply to specific issues concerning risk of abuse. However, they subsequently withdrew this application, leading the court to exercise its discretion not to apply s 69ZT(3), meaning s 69ZT(1) applied to all evidence. Regarding the mother's application to exclude Dr R's report, the court dismissed it, applying the principle that it would be rare to reject expert evidence before it was received, with qualities of the evidence being assessed for weight. The court found Dr R's CV demonstrated sufficient specialised knowledge in child and family psychiatry and forensic reporting, a finding previously upheld on appeal to the Full Court and in relation to special leave to appeal to the High Court. The court also noted that Dr R's report contained relevant evidence, as defined by s 55 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), and that the mother's objections regarding legal privilege were not sustained, particularly as the material in question was not admitted or was given no weight.

The court made several rulings during the proceedings. The mother's application to exclude Dr R's report in its entirety was dismissed. Her application to adjourn the proceedings to tender transcript evidence from another court was also dismissed. The father's application pursuant to s 118 was withdrawn. The court reserved reasons for these rulings, which were subsequently provided.