NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Re Bailey and Blake No 2 [2012] NSWSC 394 Hearing dates: 23 April 2012 Decision date: 27 April 2012 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Protective List Before: Ball J Decision: See paragraph 40 of this judgment. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - order in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of a Children's Court magistrate - alleged error in admitting expert report independently obtained by party without consent to assessment by all parties with parental responsibility. CHILDREN - care proceedings - whether expert report independently obtained by a party is admissible - whether consent of all persons with parental responsibility necessary - paramountcy of the interests of the children the subject of the proceedings - need to balance principle that probative evidence should be admitted against principle that evidence should not be admitted in contravention of the law - appropriate to consider the requirement that Children's Court proceedings be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible. Legislation Cited: Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) Children Legislation Amendment (Wood Inquiry Recommendations) Act 2009 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) Cases Cited: Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Limited [2011] NSWCA 11 Martin v Medical Complaints Tribunal [2006] TASSC 73 Re Bailey v Blake [2011] NSWSC 1390 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Father of Bailey (Plaintiff) Children's Court of New South Wales (First Defendant) Director General Family and Community Services (Second Defendant) Mother of Bailey and Blake (Third Defendant) Father of Blake (Fourth Defendant) Independent Legal Representative (Fifth Defendant) Representation: PAR Santone (Plaintiff) Ms MT England (Second Defendant) Ms MB Neville (Third Defendant) PJ Guterres (Fifth Defendant) Neisha Shepherd Solicitor (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor's Office (Second Defendant) Baker Love Lawyers (Third Defendant) Adams and Associates (Fifth Defendant) File Number(s): 2011/401623
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate