Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

On 27 January 2026 the Court dismissed the father's Application for Recusal filed 21 January 2026. These are the settled Reasons for Judgment in support of the Order dismissing the Father's Application in a Proceeding.

1. The trial of this action commenced at Parramatta on Monday 24 November 2025. The matter had been allocated five days for hearing. The Court heard four and a half days of evidence, and on the afternoon of Friday 28 November 2025 the Court delivered Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment in respect of Interim Parenting Orders. This occurred because the trial had not concluded and the matter was adjourned to recommence at Parramatta on Tuesday 27 January 2026.
2. On 21 January 2026 the father filed an application seeking an Order that I recuse myself from the further hearing of the matter. The Application in a Proceeding provided no particulars to assist the Court in ascertaining the reason why the father maintained that I should disqualify myself from the further hearing of the matter. The father also filed an accompanying affidavit sworn by his instructing solicitor. There was very little contained in that affidavit. It annexed five days of transcripts and contained what was said to be a summary of the number of times that the Court intervened while Mr Blackah of Counsel was cross-examining the mother and the number of times that the Court intervened when Mr Laidlaw of Counsel was cross‑examining the father.
3. Cases involving judicial intervention are not decided on numbers alone. Far from it. The English Court of Appeal, in a decision entitled R v Matthews (1983) 78 Cr. App. R. 23 stated that "mere statistics are not of themselves decisive".[1]
4. On 22 January 2026 the Court issued directions requiring the father to file and serve written submissions in support of his Application in a Proceeding that had been filed on 21 January 2026. The father filed a document entitled "Outline of Father's Submissions". This was done at 11.10am on 22 January 2026. The mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer were given until 9.00am Tuesday 27 January 2026 to file and serve written submissions in respect of the father's Application in a Proceeding. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the mother on 4.07pm on 23 January 2026. They were prepared by Mr Laidlaw of Counsel. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the Independent Children's Lawyer on 27 January 2026. Both the Counsel for the mother and Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer submitted that the Court should dismiss the Application for Recusal.
5. The father framed his Application for Recusal on what he said was a denial of procedural fairness. The father's application (his complaint) does not extend to an allegation of apprehended bias. The father's contention is that, as the trial Judge, I interfered extensively and excessively in the cross-examination of the mother by the father's Counsel.[2]
6. The father's written outline refers to a decision of the Full Court of this Court in Edinger v Duy [2023] FedCFamC1A 194 ("Edinger"). In Edinger the Full Court endorsed the principles outlined by Ward JA in Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128 ("Royal Guardian").[3]
7. At paragraph [164] in Royal Guardian Ward JA refers to the earlier New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 ("Galea") and more particularly to the decision of Kirby A-CJ (with whom Priestley JA and Meagher JA agreed). At paragraph [164] in Royal Guardian Ward JA has quoted verbatim six principles listed by Kirby A-CJ commencing at page 281 of Galea. At [164] of Royal Guardian Ward JA stated:

"In Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 (Galea) the issue arose in the context of a complaint as to the judge's questioning of the party against whom judgment was later given. In that case, an application for disqualification of the judge had been made and rejected at the hearing. Kirby A-CJ (with whom Meagher JA agreed) relevantly summarised the guidelines in complaints of excessive judicial interference as follows (at 281-2):

1. The test to be applied is whether the excessive judicial questioning or perjorative comments have created a real danger that the trial was unfair. If so, the judgment must be set aside: see E H Cochrane Ltd v Ministry of Transport [1987] 1 NZLR 146 (NZCA).

2. A distinction is drawn between the limits of questioning or comments by a judge when sitting with a jury and when sitting alone in a civil trial. Although there is no relevant distinction, in principle, between the judicial obligation to ensure a fair trial whatever the constitution of the court, greater latitude in questioning and comment will be accepted where a judge is sitting alone. This is because it is conventionally inferred that a trained judicial officer, who has to find the facts himself or herself, will be more readily able to correct and allow for preliminary opinions formed before the final decision is reached: see R v Matthews (1983) 78 Cr App R 23; E H Cochrane C Ltd v Ministry of Transport.

3. Where a complaint is made of excessive questioning or inappropriate comment, the appellate court must consider whether such interventions indicate that a fair trial has been denied to a litigant because the judge has closed his or her mind to further persuasion, moved into counsel's shoes and "into the perils of self-persuasion": see Sir Robert Megarry, "Temptations of the Bench" (1978) 16 Alta L Rev 406 at 409; see also U Gautier, "Judicial Discretion to Intervene in the Course of the Trial" (1980) 23 Crim LQ 88 at 95-96 and cases there cited.

4. The decision on whether the point of unfairness has been reached must be made in the context of the whole trial and in the light of the number, length, terms and circumstances of the interventions. It is important to draw a distinction between intervention which suggests that an opinion has been finally reached which could not be altered by further evidence or argument and one which is provisional, put forward to test the evidence and to invite further persuasion: see In the Marriage of Lonard (1976) 26 FLR 1 at 10-11; 11 ALR 618 at 626 (FFC); see discussion [1976] ACLD DT 630; cf Ex parte Prentice; Re Hornby (1969) 90WN(Pt 1) (NSW) 427; [1970] 1 NSWR 654.

5. It is also relevant to consider the point at which the judicial interventions complainted of occur. A vigorous interruption early in the trial or in the examination of a witness may be less readily excused than one at a later stage where it is designed for the legitimate object referred to in Jones, namely of permitting the judge to better comprehend the issues and to weigh the evidence of the witness concerned. By the same token, the judge does not know what is in counsel's brief and the strength of cross-examination may be destroyed if a judge, in a desire to get to what seems crucial, at any stage prematurely intervenes by putting questions: see Yuill (at 185) and Gautier (at 117).

6. The general rules for conduct of a trial and the general expression of the respective functions of judge and advocate do not change. But there is no unchanging formulation of them. Thus, even since Jones and Tousek, at least in Australia, in this jurisdiction and in civil trials, it has become more common for judges to take an active part in the conduct of cases than was hitherto conventional. In part, this change is a response to the growth of litigation and the greater pressure of court lists. In part, it reflects an increase in specialisation of the judiciary and in the legal profession. In part, it arises from a growing appreciation that a silent judge may sometimes occasion an injustice by failing to reveal opinions which the party affected then has no opportunity to correct or modify. In part, it is simply a reflection of the heightened willingness of judges to take greater control of proceedings for the avoidance of the injustices that can sometimes occur from undue delay or unnecessary prolongation of trials deriving in part from new and different arrangements for legal aid. The conduct of criminal trials, particularly with a jury, remains subject to different and more stringent requirements: see Whitehorn v The Queen [1983] HCA 42; (1983) 152 CLR 657 discussed in R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74 at 84F per Gleeson CJ."

1. In Edinger, the Full Court at [21] referred to Ward JA's decision in Royal Guardian - noting that Her Honour had considered the case law regarding the respective roles of Judge and Counsel. The Full Court then stated that the principles (outlined by Ward JA) can be distilled relevantly to include:

"(a) a judge who conducts a cross-examination will be less able to assess the evidence, and a witness who is being cross-examined by a judge will react differently than to cross-examination by counsel; per Lord Greene MR in Yuill v Yuill [1945] P 15 at 20; [1945] 1 All ER 183;

(b) the judge's role is to listen to the evidence, and only ask questions that are necessary for clarification or have been overlooked, and to otherwise exclude irrelevant evidence. The judge ought not assume the robes of an advocate; per Denning LJ in Jones v National Coal Board [1957] EWCA Civ 3; [1957] 2 QB 55 at 63-4; [1957] EWCA Civ 3; [1957] 2 All ER 155 ;

(c) whether there has been excessive judicial intervention will depend on the context, number, and circumstances of the intervention. Interruption early in a witness' evidence may be less readily excused than one later, and the judge must ensure the appearance of an impartial and unprejudiced mind; per Kirby A-CJ in Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 at 281-2 ;

(d)excessive judicial intervention will give rise to a miscarriage of the trial if the questioning unfairly undermines the proper presentation of a party's case, or is such an egregious departure from the judge's role that it unduly compromises the judge's advantage of being able to objectively evaluate the evidence; per Kourakis CJ in R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; [2014] SASCFC 3 at [38] ; and

(e)it is a "core principle" of the adversarial system that "the judge remains aloof from the fray and neutral during the elicitation of the evidence"; per Lord Brown in Michel v R [2010] 1 WLR 879; [2009] UKPC 41 at [31] (Michel v R)."

1. One of the cases often cited in the authorities is Jones v National Coal Board [1957] EWCA Civ 3; [1957] 2 QB 55. At page 64 Lord Justice Denning (speaking for the court) helpfully summarised a list of some of the permissible judicial interventions. His Honour stated, inter alia:

"The judge's part in all this is to hearken to the evidence, only himself asking questions of witnesses when it is necessary to clear up any point that has been overlooked or left obscure; to see that the advocates behave themselves seemly and keep to the rules laid down by law; to exclude irrelevancies and discourage repetition; to make sure by wise intervention that he follows the points that the advocates are making and can assess their worth; and at the end to make up his mind where the truth lies. If he goes beyond this, he drops the mantle of a judge and assumes the robe of an advocate..."

1. Keeping all of these principles from the authorities in mind I have come to the conclusion that each of the interventions complained of was in fact a permissible judicial intervention and I have stated the reasons as follows.
2. It is important to keep in mind that this Court now is required by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") to apply certain principles in the conduct of Child Related Proceedings. Those principles include section 102NE of the Act "that the court is to actively direct, control and manage the conduct of the proceedings". It is also stated in section 102NN of the Act that the Court may "ask questions of, and seek evidence or the production of documents or other things from, parties, witnesses and experts on matters relevant to the proceedings".
3. It was acknowledged during the course of the trial (by each of the parties) that the Mother is a vulnerable witness. I note the transcript at page 378. At that stage, Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer (Dr McConaghy) drew to the Court's attention a number of protections for vulnerable witnesses including this Court's family violence best practice principles. Dr McConaghy also drew the Court's attention to section 41 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and section 101 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
4. It is crucially important in considering the father's application for disqualification to keep in mind the fact that the mother is indeed a vulnerable witness. The transcript has to be read in that light.
5. Indeed, at the forefront of my mind, and the forefront of the mind of each of the Judges in this jurisdiction, is the fact that, in 2026, Judges are required more so than ever before to ensure that hearings are conducted in such a way that the sensitivities relating to a vulnerable witness remain very important considerations. In the current case, it is acknowledged (by the parties and by the Independent Children's Lawyer) that the mother has a history of mental health illness. The mother's major depressive mental health is, according to the current state of the evidence, in remission. Nonetheless, the mother has a history and quite a long history of mental health illness. This alone makes her a vulnerable witness. In addition, the mother has provided extensive evidence which, if believed by the Court, will lead this Court to conclude that the father engaged in extensive, long-term controlling family violence. I would reiterate (and this is clear from the interim decision given on 28 November 2025) that the Court has not, at this point in time, concluded or made findings against the father in relation to those outstanding issues but the Court must still keep those allegations in mind and, indeed, at the forefront of its mind. That is the important backdrop (or one of the important backdrops) to many or most of the judicial interventions in this case.
6. I will now refer specifically to the instances highlighted by the father (in his Counsel's written outline).

"MR BLACKAH: Thank you, your Honour. [Ms Veronesi], can I begin by asking you; in relation to the two reports of [Dr G] and the family report of [Ms H], the statements in those reports attributed to 15 you, are they all correct? Are there any mistakes, as far as you're concerned? Do you understand what I'm asking you?

HIS HONOUR: That's a big question, I suppose"

1. The father is particularly upset that an intervention occurred after Counsel's very first question. But the question is obviously one which called for judicial intervention. The transcript itself indicates that there are, in fact, three questions in one. Intervention, even at that early stage, was reasonable. Whatever way one looks at that bundle of three questions, it was unreasonably broad.

1. This passage of the evidence was complicated by the fact that the father's Counsel had made a call for a box of medication. I note page 348 of the transcript at line 40. The call for the box of medication necessitated engagement from the bench and at the bottom of page 348 and continuing on page 349 there is an exchange between Counsel and the Judge - whereby Counsel had pressed for certain injunctions relating to the box of medication. The Court had to deal with the father's application for an Order. The Court did that. The Court provided an explanation (reasons). At the bottom of page 349, the Court sought clarification in relation to a different photograph. When one reads the surrounding passages in the transcript it is clear that Counsel made a call for the mother's telephone and this again necessitated intervention from the bench. Directions were made from the Court at that time regarding the handling of that phone and regarding that phone being shown to the three Counsel at the bar table. I agree with the submissions made by the mother regarding the intervention at this point - noting that Counsel for the father asked a number of questions which caused confusion - relating to whether or not a different photograph was being referred to by the cross-examiner.
2. Having regard to all the circumstances, the genesis of the intervention of the Court was because of Counsel's approach to the topic in the first place. I note, for instance, that the first half of page 350 of the transcript is taken up with the Court trying to comprehend what was being asked of the witness. On pages 351 and 352 of the transcript, the mother was sent outside to obtain her telephone and the Court had to wait for what was (or perhaps was) late disclosure from the mother. Clarification was needed for the Court in relation to what actually was being put to the witness. There were questions regarding whether the second photo had actually been disclosed and whether the late disclosure was the fault of the mother or the father. There is no merit in the complaints made regarding this judicial intervention.

"MR BLACKAH: Now, going back a bit. You suffered from post-natal depression after the birth of each of your children, didn't you?

[MS VERONESI]: Correct.

MR BLACKAH: And [X] was born in 2017?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes.

MR BLACKAH: And I want to suggest to you that some cracks in your mental health appeared almost immediately after [X] was born. You agree with that?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes.

MR BLACKAH: And one early manifestation of that was only a few weeks after [X] was born his parents came to stay at your place?

_HIS HONOUR: Who's parents? - _

[MS VERONESI]: -Correct.

HIS HONOUR: What, do you mean the father's parents?

MR BLACKAH: Father's parents.

10 HIS HONOUR: A few weeks after a new baby arrived in the house. All right. Go ahead."

1. Judicial intervention was required at this stage as Counsel did not specify whose parents were being referred to. The comments from the bench merely clarified and contextualised in a temporal sense the period being referred to - a few weeks after X had been born. I do not consider that there was anything excessive or objectionable in this sense. It was a question of clarification.

1. The intervention in fact commences at page 357.

"HIS HONOUR: You agreed with Mr Blackah that it didn't go well; why do you

[MS VERONESI]: 40 say it didn't go well?---I - I think we kind of realised very fast that, yes, coming home with your - with your first baby or - although the help is, yes, very much appreciative, it just - I - I don't think I anticipated, or we anticipated, it being, yes, just a really overwhelming, stressful time, just - - -

HIS HONOUR: So - - -?--- - - -

[MS VERONESI]: just a lot

HIS HONOUR: - - - are you telling the court the last thing you needed to see was your in-laws just when you got home with a new baby?

[MS VERONESI]: ---It - it was - yes, it was - - -

HIS HONOUR: Because I would think that's not an unusual story?

[MS VERONESI]: I would agree, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes."

1. The question asked by the bench was "why did you say that it didn't go well?"
2. It seems to me that is an entirely proper question. The summary of the mother's answer into a succinct proposition was not prejudicial to the father. It clarified, for the benefit of the Court, precisely what the mother was saying.

"10 MR BLACKAH: All right. Thank you, your Honour. All right. Does everybody have it now? Page 71. This is an [...] counselling plan, at least how it's described. And I'm not sure if it has got a date on it, but what it says is - right, on 6 June 2022, it says this - and this is [Ms E] you're seeing; correct?

[MS VERONESI]: Correct.

MR BLACKAH: Continuing: Client has no plan, although she's currently experiencing high levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, as evidenced in the DASS scores. Her protective factors are strong, however is in need of counselling support.

HIS HONOUR: "Her protective factors are strong". All right. Keep going.

MR BLACKAH: What were those protective factors as of June 2022?

25 DR McCONAGHY: Well, your Honour, again, is that - is that a comment from the counsellor to sum up things that the mother may have said - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

30 DR McCONAGHY: - - - rather than her saying, "My protective factors are blah, blah, blah".

HIS HONOUR: It doesn't sound like the words of this witness - - -

35 DR McCONAGHY: No.

HIS HONOUR: - - - to be frank. Mr Blackah, you might just clarify that.

40 MR BLACKAH: Yes, okay. Can you think of anything you might have said to [Ms E] that would lead her to believe that you had strong protective factors, as of June 2022?

HIS HONOUR: Do you know what he means?

[MS VERONESI]: Not really.

HIS HONOUR: I didn't think so. I suppose, like, who would you turn to for support in mid- 2022? If you were feeling bad, right - - -?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes

MR BLACKAH: - - - or, you know, upset, who would you seek support from?

[MS VERONESI]: All I really had was [Mr Veronesi]. So, yes.

MR BLACKAH: Okay?

[MS VERONESI]: That was really my only option. Yes.

MR BLACKAH: Okay. And he was strongly supportive of you at that time, wasn't he?---Yes and no.

10 Well, isn't the correct answer "yes"?

HIS HONOUR: Can you give examples of the yes and give examples of the no?---

[MS VERONESI]: Like, yes, he was there, and yes, he was supportive. But it was, yes, still me that decided to do counselling and it was still me that was - yes. It - yes.

HIS HONOUR: It wasn't - was he unsupportive? Was he saying, "Work your own shit out yourself", for instance?

[MS VERONESI]: No. No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR? No. It wasn't like that, was it?

[MS VERONESI]: No.

HIS HONOUR: No?

[MS VERONESI]: No. He would try to get -

HIS HONOUR: encourage you to get help?

[MS VERONESI]: That's fair"

1. At this point in the transcript it is apparent that the Court did no more than identify a precise issue that Counsel for the father had raised. There was surely no prejudice to the father. The mother made a concession that the protective factors at that time related to the efforts of the Father.
2. It is as well to keep in mind in relation to these passages in the evidence that they relate to the mother's medication and the period when the mother was first suffering post-natal depression and the protective factors relating to the mother's mental health - these are all of course extremely sensitive areas and it is important for the Court to make sure that it clarifies, comprehends and understands precisely what is being asked and what is being answered by way of evidence.

"40 HIS HONOUR: And when you say it might trigger her, be specific with her; you mean trigger her into some sort of mental health relapse, don't you?

MR BLACKAH: Yes, I do.

45 HIS HONOUR: Yes. Do you understand his question?---Yes"

1. This intervention was necessary in the context of a vulnerable witness. The Court was seeking clarification of the precise question. This evidence was very important to the Court and it was not unreasonable to ensure that the witness was following the context of the concept of "triggering".

1. These passages must be read in the context of a vulnerable witness and the witness' history of major depression was at the forefront of the Court's mind throughout the trial. Further, the Court was attempting to have clarified the mother's evidence.
2. The sensitive nature of this part of the evidence can be seen from page 376 at line [18] where the Court stated, inter alia:

"HIS HONOUR: I know it's a lot of stress in the witness box. Your ex-husband was in there for a few days, he knows all about it. Okay, so - and don't worry if either myself or the barristers 20 sound cranky. That's just a product of our age as well as we've done this a lot. All right?

[MS VERONESI]: I understand. Yes, your Honour.

MR BLACKAH: In my case, also my disagreeable personality.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Blackah, I would not venture to say that. I don't know you anywhere near well enough. Go ahead, Mr Blackah.

MR BLACKAH: Thank you, your Honour.

...

HIS HONOUR: And your brother is in the courtroom. You've heard what I've had to say too. You tell all the family members, you know what I'm saying, about the risk issues? Thank you. Yes, Mr Blackah.

MR BLACKAH: Your Honour, I seek to now play the seven recordings.

HIS HONOUR: All right. We will listen to them..."

1. Counsel for the mother then objected to the playing of the recordings but the Court ruled in favour of the father and Counsel for the father (Mr Blackah) correctly conceded from the bottom of page 377 that he did not in any way want to humiliate the mother. It is at this point that Dr McConaghy protective measures for vulnerable witnesses. All of the evidence given by the mother in the witness box has to be looked at in this light - including passages such as those referred to in the father's written outline when he complains about judicial intervention.
2. Further, it is not an accurate reflection of the entirety of the evidence (at the top of page 375 of the transcript) for Counsel for the father to assert that the Court was suggesting answers to the witness. The Court was seeking clarification and was seeking to understand specifically what the mother might do if she felt that she was being triggered by events. I agree with the submission made by the Counsel for the mother (at page 9 of the written submissions of the mother). Giving evidence in the witness box is of course very stressful. The Court gave examples of the sort of specificity that it was referring to so that the Court could get to the heart of the matter. But the mother did not merely adopt those examples of specificity. The mother gave her own evidence of what she had done in the past and stated from line [15]:

"[MS VERONESI]: There are also times where, if they got really bad, you know, I would most definitely just take the children and myself to my mum's or my mum can come over. My brother and everybody else is willing to come over as well. So there's kind of lots of, yes, different things I can do in terms of all of that."

1. A close reading of the transcript shows a further extensive passage from 388 in the transcript about the question of the vulnerability of the mother. At page 388 at line 23 the Court canvassed this topic further with Counsel for the father as follows:

"HIS HONOUR: No, look, all I was going to say - I was going to canvass with you whether it was your intention to now question her about the wording used in the tapes, which worries me. Okay. Was that your intention? I will hear from you about it.

MR BLACKAH: Well, yes, I am going to ask her about some - - -

HIS HONOUR: What are you going to ask her?

MR BLACKAH: Well, I'm going to ask her about threats to harm the children and statements to the effect that she already has harmed them. I'm not going to ask her about the abusive language, if that's what you're worried about.

HIS HONOUR: No. Okay. Yes. All right. I'm highlighting it as a - it's a sensitive area, but also you have to be permitted to ask the mother questions about harm. One interesting thing is those words that were used - the words speak for themselves. I won't say anything else at the moment. It's really a matter for submissions. The question of the driving into the river is not so much - it didn't sound to me like the mother had said, "I'm going to put the children in a car and drown everyone in a river". She said, "I don't care if you all drown in a river". It seems to me to be different to other words that could have been used. But, nevertheless, it's still an important risk issue to be examined. And all I'm putting you on notice about is to be - all of you, of course - cautious.

MR BLACKAH: I will try to be sensitive.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. That's it. All right. Well, in that case, can we have the mother on - you want to tell me something first?

MR LAIDLAW: Yes. Well, there's one matter I would like to raise with your Honour, if that's all right."

1. The passage actually starts at line 6 where the Court apologised for interrupting, but clarification, from the Court's perspective, was clearly needed. This is one of the most crucial issues in the case. The Court needed to understand the mother's evidence concerning her medication. This medication is known as Fluoxetine. It assists the mother in keeping her major depression in remission. It is a very live issue and it is a sensitive issue. At the heart of this exchange and intervention is clarification. From line 6 the transcript of 392 states:

"HIS HONOUR: Sorry to interrupt you. Can you tell the court between what dates you took these medications and what dates you didn't?

[MS VERONESI]: Not exactly.

_HIS HONOUR: Well, can you give me anything remotely accurate, because I'm not confident you can? - _

[MS VERONESI]: No, I'm - I'm not confident either.

HIS HONOUR: I didn't think so?

[MS VERONESI]: There was an exact time, yes, but - - -

HIS HONOUR: I didn't think so?

[MS VERONESI]: -Yes.

HIS HONOUR: So why did you answer Mr Blackah, when he said, "In September 2022" - he asked you, not unreasonably, whether you were taking your medication, and you said, "Yes"?

[MS VERONESI]: Well, I'm - I - sorry, I was - I was just meaning, when I did go back on them, that I have been on them, but - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes?---

[MS VERONESI]: there was a period of time where - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, when - - -?--- - - -

[MS VERONESI]: I understand - - -

HIS HONOUR: - - - did you go back on them?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes, I - to be fair, I - I can't remember to be able to give you an exact date, sorry.

HIS HONOUR: That was exactly - - -?

[MS VERONESI]: I'm sorry, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: -- my impression of what the situation is?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Keep going, Mr Blackah."

1. It has to be kept in mind that this exchange and this particular part of the transcript - about which the father complains (page 392 line 11) followed a series of questions where Counsel had asked the mother about why she had said various things in September 2022 such as having "flogged" her children. For instance, from the bottom of page 391 (line 34) the transcript states:

"MR BLACKAH: Well, he had diagnosed you with depression, hadn't he?

[MS VERONESI]: Okay. Well, yes.

MR BLACKAH: And he prescribed you with fluoxetine as of September 2022?

[MS VERONESI]: Correct.

MR BLACKAH: Correct. And were you taking it?

[MS VERONESI]: I have been taking them, yes.

MR BLACKAH: At that time you were taking them?

[MS VERONESI]: I have always been compliant with - - -

MR BLACKAH: No, you haven't?--- -

[MS VERONESI]: with my medication.

MR BLACKAH: Okay?---

[MS VERONESI]: I'm sorry if I've got years and dates, but - - -

MR BLACKAH: No apology is necessary?--- - - -

[MS VERONESI]: when I was back on my medication, I've taken them.

MR BLACKAH: Okay. You don't need to apologise?

[MS VERONESI]: Okay.

MR BLACKAH: Now, you said on 19 October, "I've smashed my cot.""

1. It was after this evidence that the Court found itself uncertain as to what, precisely, the mother's evidence was. Counsel had moved on to the evidence "I've smashed my cot". That is when the Court stated that it was sorry to interrupt Counsel but the Court needed clarification. This intervention was reasonable. The Court needed to clarify the evidence.
2. I agree with the submission made on behalf of the mother concerning this passage of the transcript. The Court had been left with an unsatisfactory explanation on an important point in relation to compliance with medication and the extent of the mother's memory as to specific dates.

"MR BLACKAH: So was it the case that it wasn't working?

[MS VERONESI]: No, I would say the case would be at that time, there was a lot more going on by that stage. So I would say things were - yes.

HIS HONOUR: That's only two months before final separation?---Correct. Yes, sir. Yes, your Honour"

1. The witness answered the question by reference to there being a lot more going on in her life at the relevant time. The Court was looking to clarify precisely what period of time the mother was referring to - in the context of the separation of the parties. The intervention was reasonable.

"MR BLACKAH: In fact, in paragraph 109, he says you were going off about [Y's] daycare, talking about if she has picked something up you will punch them, etcetera, etcetera. That night, you said, "Great, so this is going to cost us even more money", after yelling at [Y] for running through the house, with [Y] then slipping over and crying. Now, small children running around inside the house is pretty normal behaviour for young children, isn't it?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes.

MR BLACKAH: And was that something that, at that time, was liable to upset you?-

[MS VERONESI]: Not unless there was other things going on, no.

MR BLACKAH: No. Well, just confine yourself to what I'm asking you about.

25 HIS HONOUR: What was the date, Mr Blackah?

MR BLACKAH: 10 October 2023, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: So that's after the separation. Yes. It was a month after, isn't it,

30 Mr Blackah?

MR BLACKAH: Well, it's - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

35 MR BLACKAH: - - - after the - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes, well, it is, because it was September '23, wasn't it?

40 MR BLACKAH: - - - separation asserted by my client, but they physically separated in December.

HIS HONOUR: After the big hoo-ha, the night with the police. That was in September, wasn't it?

45 MR BLACKAH: That was September, yes."

1. This intervention by the Court was also reasonable. A question had been asked without specifying a relevant point of time. The Court sought clarification of the relevant time and the Court sought to put that date in context so far as the separation was concerned. It did in fact take more than one attempt for Counsel for the father to be clear about the issue. In my view the exchange and intervention by the Court was proper and reasonable.

"MR BLACKAH: But he changed the locks in December.

5 HIS HONOUR: Yes, I know that. Yes. Well, I wouldn't think that the household would have been very happy in October either. But keep going.

MR BLACKAH: Sure."

1. In this exchange and noting the observation made by the Court - the Court was seeking to draw some distinction between the status of the relationship and the communication between the parties towards the end of 2023. This did not amount to the undermining of cross-examination by Counsel. The intervention was reasonable.

"HIS HONOUR: What date is this?

40 MR BLACKAH: This is prior to December 2023 is all we're told. She talks about there being a period of estrangement between you and her.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, this is fascinating. Move on with it, Mr Blackah. Go on. 45 MR BLACKAH: Well, I'm trying to, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes

MR BLACKAH: She talks about - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, what's your question for the witness? Get to a question.

5 MR BLACKAH: There were issues with raising the children who were unruly at that time, which she had also experienced when babysitting them. Do you know what she means by "issues"?

10 HIS HONOUR: Ask her. You have to ask her. Keep going, Mr Blackah. Ask the grandmother. We've got to hurry up here. I've been too lax on all of you this week.

MR BLACKAH: Your Honour, I've got quite a lot of - - -

15 HIS HONOUR: I know.

MR BLACKAH: - - - questions still to go.

HIS HONOUR: I know that. The thing is, with this part of it, I don't think anyone is going to dispute what was said. The question is - it's going to come down to the expert evidence on the risk to a major extent, because how does a person who was in the middle of a major depressive disorder explain their conduct? She admits she was in the middle of a major depressive disorder. She admits the wording in the transcripts. She admits there was a large number of problems. She knows she wasn't coping; correct?

MR BLACKAH: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. She knows she wasn't coping. The court knows she wasn't coping. The question is, what do the experts make of it from the risk perspective. So standing there and going through what her mother might have said might have happened 30 without framing a question is not helping the situation. So move on with a question, sir. Let's go."

1. During this passage of the evidence the Court was implementing principle 2 within section 102NE of the Act - namely the Court was actively directing, controlling and managing the conduct of the proceedings (section 102NE(4) of the Act).

"MR BLACKAH: As of December 2022

[MS VERONESI]: Yes.

MR BLACKAH: --- she had just turned two?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes.

MR BLACKAH: Right. What you've described, I want to suggest to you, is entirely normal behaviour for a two-year-old?

DR McCONAGHY: Your Honour, objection.

15 HIS HONOUR: How does he know? How do you know that?

MR BLACKAH: Well, I've had children myself.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, well, we all did. But - what was the thing about the fish tank? What was she doing with the fish tank?

[MS VERONESI]: She kept taking, like, things from around the home and sticking them in the fish tank. So - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, what Mr Blackah is really saying is - they call it the terrible twos for a reason - - -?---

MR BLACKAH: Correct.

HIS HONOUR: right?

MR BLACKAH: ---Yes.

HIS HONOUR: So, okay. We've got that, Mr Blackah. Everyone knows that. What's your next question? What do you want to - how old is she now, this little one? Five?---

MR BLACKAH: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, she is. That's what you told me - I think I was told she was five, isn't she?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Good. Go on. Better behaved now?

[MS VERONESI]: A lot. Yes.

HIIS HONOUR: Good. Go on, Mr Blackah"

1. The judicial intervention at this point arose in response to an objection taken by Dr McConaghy to a question asked by the father's Counsel. Because an objection had been taken, the Court was required to engage. There was no impermissible judicial intervention.

14 - Transcript Page 399 line 29 to Page 400 line 1

"MR BLACKAH: See, what I would suggest to you is that after your children were born, your mental health spiralled out of control, didn't it?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, we know that, Mr Blackah. There's no - - -

30 MR BLACKAH: Well, I'm asking whether she knows it, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: It's not in issue.

35 MR BLACKAH: Well, I don't know that"

1. The Court intervened because it was not an issue between the parties that the mother had suffered post-natal depression. The mother referred to all of this in her trial affidavit. The mother spoke to other experts about it. The evidence of those experts is before the Court. It is not appropriate for the Court to permit Counsel to pursue lines of questioning when the questions are not relevant to matters in issue between the parties. This is also in the interests of progressing the trial.

"MR BLACKAH: Yes. For example, you talk about - and this is exhibit M01 on page 67 - your mother had gone a bit weird since COVID. She went to anti****‑vaccination protests. You have small children, two and four years old. You don't want your mother around them at this stage. Your mother and you had some conflict around this and now have a strange relationship. And then, in the same thing, at page 83, you say you had a traumatic childhood. Your father was an alcoholic. Your mother was emotionally and physically absent for most of your - - -

HIS HONOUR: What's the question? She knows - this is her affidavit. It is not your time to recite her affidavit to her. What's the question?

MR BLACKAH: I'm sorry, this is not her affidavit that I'm quoting from, your Honour.

20 HIS HONOUR: What are you quoting from?

MR BLACKAH: I'm quoting from documents produced on subpoena by [the mother's counsellor]. I'm exploring with her past difficulties in her relationship with her mother, who is now a significant support person for her, she says.

25 HIS HONOUR: All right. So what's the question, though? I thought it was her affidavit, you said. So what's the question, though?

MR BLACKAH: You told [your counsellor] that over the last year, you ended your 30 relationship with your mother. How did you end it, and how was it reinstated?

DR McCONAGHY: Your Honour, could there be a date that - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes, what date? We haven't got the date. When this matter resumes in January, there's going to be time limits on each barrister, by the way, and if you're not finished your questions, everyone will be stopped, and leave it to the Full Court to decide, because this can't go on for two more weeks. We've only got four more days after tomorrow. Okay. Just tell me.

40 MR BLACKAH: 9 June 2022, your Honour"

1. The Court intervened at this point of time. This judicial intervention was absolutely correct. Counsel for the father was up to his seventh sentence and he was continuing to speak without having formulated a question for the witness. By the time Counsel formulated a question, the ICL (by her Counsel Dr McConaghy) sought clarification of the question and the question had to be reformulated with a date. The Court's intervention was entirely appropriate. The submission made (on behalf of the father) that Counsel's cross-examination was greatly limited as a consequence of judicial intervention at this point is not made out. The judicial intervention at this point was necessary in order to ensure that the trial progressed and that questions for the witness were both relevant and put in such a way that the witness could understand precisely what was being asked.

1. At this part of the transcript the Court intervened and gave to the cross-examining Counsel an indication that he should move on from uncontentious issues. I note -

"MR BLACKAH: See, [Dr G] talked to you about this sort of stuff, didn't he? You remember that?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Next question"

1. Counsel for the father then asked the witness a question. It is apparent from the transcript that the witness did not apprehend that a question had been asked. The intervention was appropriate.

"MR BLACKAH: And it's the case, isn't it, that when [Mr Veronesi was away] for one month, you struggled with the care of the children on your own?

35 HIS HONOUR: That's a question?

[MS VERONESI]: Sorry.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. It's not that clear that it's a question, but it's a question?

MR BLACKAH: No, your Honour. And it only ended up being four days. It was - yes, it wasn't a month."

1. Judicial intervention was needed at this point in time - and it was merely to clarify precisely what was happening and then the tender of a document occurred. The judicial intervention was within the permissible guidelines as set out in the authorities.

"MR BLACKAH: And he regularly transferred money to you in excess of what you needed?

[MS VERONESI]: That's not true.

5 HIS HONOUR: Was this one of the issues that made it a stressful situation for you in the marriage? You referred to earlier about the situation or the environment. Was the money an issue?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes, your Honour. It was - - -

HIS HONOUR: Was it an issue throughout?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: From the start to the finish of the relationship, money was an issue between yourself and your husband?

[MS VERONESI]: Not so much at the start, but very much so throughout the relationship, and most definitely towards the end.

HIS HONOUR: And you've described it as close. How would you describe it? He was monitoring your expenditure, was he, or what?

[MS VERONESI]: I didn't have money. I didn't have money in my account. I didn't have access to money. I couldn't even buy myself a coffee when I was out and about. He would transfer me the exact amount. There were times where I was stuck in the aisle at Woolworth with a trolley full of groceries and I was stood there until [Mr Veronesi] would transfer me money. There were times - at that time, I took the picture of my petrol tank, I was stuck in the car park with my two children in the back waiting for the transfer of money so I could even fill my tank up"

1. Counsel for the father opened the topic relating to the father's management and control of money during the relationship. The witness denied the proposition put by Counsel for the father. This topic - namely the mother's allegations of coercive and controlling conduct by the father - was one of the key issues in the trial. The Court needed to hear personally from the mother precisely what, in her words, had occurred. There are certain crucial sections of the Act which the Court must have regard to and which relate to the question of family violence and the protection of parties and witnesses in relation to family violence. In particular, I note section 43(1)(a) and section 60CG(1)(b). By reason of section 102NE(4) the Court has an obligation to actively direct, control and manage the conduct of proceedings and, in cases involving allegations of serious family violence, the Court must take steps to ensure that the applicable principles for the conduct of these types of proceedings are adhered to. At the heart of the judicial intervention (complained of at this point in the transcript) was the need for the Court to clarify precisely what the mother's evidence was concerning her allegations relating to serious and controlling family violence. In addition, it is always a great benefit to the Court to hear oral evidence on such issues the parties because it assists the Court in making findings concerning the allegations made. It is worthy to note that in the Reasons for Judgment delivered on 28 November 2025 (the Interim Parenting Decision) the Court stated a view (preliminary but nonetheless very clear) that the father's conduct in relation to monitoring of expenditure was unacceptable. This remains very much a live issue.

"MR BLACKAH: You say: You went one Christmas to their house in Queensland. [Mr Veronesi's] father threw a metal coffee pot at his mother in the kitchen during an argument where he was screaming at her. You told [Mr Veronesi] to immediately change the flights and you left. You were scared [Mr Veronesi's] father was going to seriously hurt his mother. During the same Christmas, his father grabbed a bird that was flying into the patio and snapped its neck in front of the children, [Mr Veronesi] and I. That is completely untrue, isn't it?

10 HIS HONOUR: Hang on. That's a lot you've asked her. Are you asking now about the breaking of the bird's neck or the throwing of the coffee pot?"

1. There is no basis for complaint concerning this judicial intervention. Counsel had bundled up at least five different propositions into one question. The Court had no alternative but to intervene. Having intervened, Counsel for the father persisted with his view that it was a simple proposition. It was not a simple proposition. The judicial intervention was necessary and appropriate.
2. The Court then proceeded to break the multiple propositions down so that the witness could understand what was being asked (one question at a time). This intervention by the Court would not have been necessary if the multiple propositions had not been bundled up in the first place.

"MR BLACKAH: So you say you re-partnered with [Mr D] after - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes. You've got to be careful; what does re-partner mean. It can be many different things.

MR BLACKAH: Well, I'm taking the wording from her affidavit, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

25 MR BLACKAH: Paragraph 4.

HIS HONOUR: She says she re-partnered. When? What did she say there?

30 MR BLACKAH: Just a moment. I will just pull it look up, your Honour. Just give me one second:

I have recently re-partnered with [Mr D].

35 HIS HONOUR: Yes, go on then. Put - - -

MR BLACKAH: So that was on 2 November.

HIS HONOUR: Yes"

1. This was nothing more than judicial intervention seeking clarification. Once it was drawn to the Court's attention that the witness had used this term in her own affidavit the query was resolved. In addition, as to the date of precisely when the mother did re-partner, this was not a relevant consideration. The Court does note that the father certainly appeared to be fixated on this issue. The judicial interventions complained of were appropriate.

"MR BLACKAH: Paragraph 22: [Ms Veronesi] stated she continued to have close, loving and supporting relationships with several personal supports in her life, including, but not limited to, her parents, step-parents, brother and his wife, a best friend, and her partner. So which one did you tell him?

[MS VERONESI]: What was that, sorry?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, it's a very confusing question.

30 MR BLACKAH: Well, no it's not. Are you single? Did you tell you were single, or did you tell him that you had a partner?

35 HIS HONOUR: Work on the basis that if I say it's confusing, it's confusing, and just clarify it.

MR BLACKAH: I apologise, your Honour.

40 HIS HONOUR: All right"

1. The question "So which one did you tell him?" was undoubtedly confusing. The transcript speaks for itself. The judicial intervention was appropriate.

"MR BLACKAH: So you didn't say to her that you denied it, did you? You didn't say, "I deny doing it". You just said, "I don't recall"?

[MS VERONESI]: Well, by "recall", I just mean I didn't do it. So sorry for the wording.

MR BLACKAH: And she also asked you about some allegations he had made regarding death threats and verbal abuse, things like you would threatened that he would disappear and that you wished his parents would be kneecapped - - -

HIS HONOUR: Maybe go through them one at a time and put it to her.

15 MR BLACKAH: Yes. This is from paragraph 20, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. It's interesting, but you've got to go through them one at a time"

1. At line 10 of the transcript, Counsel for the father had bundled together four propositions. Those propositions should have been put to the witness one at a time. The judicial intervention at this stage was appropriate.

"MR BLACKAH: - - - in amongst those recordings, there are some threats towards [Mr Veronesi], aren't there? And towards the children.

HIS HONOUR: You've got to be specific. You're going to have to tell her the words. See if she remembers any of it"

1. The Court's intervention at this point in time was appropriate and necessary. The reference by Counsel to the "recordings" could have related to the seven (or more) disclosed recordings earlier in the trial or could have related to the additional thirty-nine (or more) recordings that had not been disclosed until the eve of trial by the father. What was needed here was clarification. The intervention by the Court was necessary and appropriate.

"40 MR BLACKAH: And so if he wasn't responding, then all the heat in the discussion was coming from you, wasn't it?

[MS VERONESI]: Yes.

MR BLACKAH: Yes, possibly. Yes. Basically you were berating him about wanting a divorce. Correct?

[MS VERONESI]: Well - - -

45 HIS HONOUR: Hang on. Do you know what berating is?---No, your Honour. Mr Blackah

MR BLACKAH: Well, just pardon me a moment, your Honour. I will just have to look it up. Make sure I get it right. To rebuke or scold angrily and at length.

5 HIS HONOUR That's going to help. Yes. All right. You got that?---Yes, I do your, Honour.

MR BLACKAH: That's what you did, wasn't it?

[MS VERONESI]: I was absolutely frustrated with continuing to live like that.

MR BLACKAH: Never mind that?

[MS VERONESI]: And nothing being done about it.

MR BLACKAH: Now you know what it means, you can just answer my question for me, please. You berated him, didn't you?

[MS VERONESI]: I wouldn't put it like that, no."

1. It was clear to the Court at this stage that the mother did not understand the word "berated". This was apparent to the Court and when the mother was asked if she did understand it - she said that she did not. This judicial intervention was appropriate.

"MR BLACKAH: Well, okay. So you were outside. You came back in. The glass was broken. You had a one-sided conversation. Do you remember at about what time did you go into your room?

[MS VERONESI]: No, actually, I don't have an exact time. No, I don't.

MR BLACKAH: How long after you came back inside, approximately?

HIS HONOUR: Later on to get a drink of water. She answered that question.

MR BLACKAH: No"

1. This passage from the transcript is raised by the father in his submissions with a complaint that the Court answered the question for the witness. In fact, the witness had already answered the question at page 446 of the transcript. I agree with the submission made by Counsel for the mother in relation to this aspect of the intervention.

"MR BLACKAH: Now, I want to take you to some other things in your own affidavit. Firstly, part of your case that [Mr Veronesi] was controlling and coercive is that he interfered with your relationship with other family members, did he?

[MS VERONESI]: Correct.

MR BLACKAH: You say in your paragraph 26: When my relationship with my mother was good, I would often take the children to her home. That kind of runs counter to your proposition, doesn't it?---

HIS HONOUR: What do you mean?

MR BLACKAH: I'm sorry.

HIS HONOUR: What does that mean, Mr Blackah? Ask her a question she might understand."

1. It was appropriate for the Court to intervene at this point of time. The question put by Counsel was not fair. The question was not clear. It was appropriate for the Court to intervene.

1. This was just a situation where the Court needed to clarify precisely what was being put and what the evidence of the witness was.
2. There is a complaint to the effect that the Court 'changed the subject to her parents' financial circumstances. This complaint seems to arise from the following passage of the transcript:

"HIS HONOUR: Now, Mr Blackah, yes. Go ahead. So he told - hang on. One of his [superiors] - - -?

MR BLACKAH: One of his superiors - - - - - - didn't like - - -?--- - - -

[MS VERONESI]: approached him - didn't like my parents, were concerned about my parents' financial situation and would he ever be - because he has a high security clearance, would he ever be bribed to leak information, to take that money to help my parents' financial situation? So was I stupid for believing something like that? Yes.

MR BLACKAH: Were your parents in a difficult financial situation?

[MS VERONESI]: Not overly. Just normal - they live week to week, you know.

MR BLACKAH: Yes, yes?---Like normal people.

[MS VERONESI]: Yes."

1. The Court's intervention at this point in time was necessary in order to clarify if there was any factual basis to the assertion that the mother's parents were in financial difficulty. The Court's intervention at this stage was relevant and reasonable. It does not constitute a changing of the subject.

1. It was submitted on behalf of the mother that the Application for Recusal should be dismissed. The Independent Children's Lawyer agreed. One of the complaints made by Counsel for the father is that the judicial interventions interrupted his flow of cross-examination. If judicial intervention is required then it must occur. Apart from anything else - the mandatory requirements of section 102NE of the Act must be kept in mind. In any event, at the time the Application for Recusal was made, the father's Counsel was only part way through his cross‑examination of the mother. The Court had allocated four more days (commencing 27 January 2026) for the continuation of the final hearing. Counsel for the father had ample opportunity to pursue his cross-examination of the mother. This point was made by Dr MacConaghy on behalf of the Independent children s lawyer. There is a considerable amount of force to this submission. This submission is entirely correct. Counsel for the father was not prevented from cross-examining the mother. Counsel for the father had not finished his cross-examination of the mother.
2. As I noted earlier in these Reasons for Judgment, mere statistics are not decisive. Each of the interventions complained of were in fact permissible judicial interventions. Each of the interventions come within one or more of the permissible categories outlined in the authorities. The Court had, in the witness box at that time, a vulnerable witness. This aspect was also at the forefront of the Court's mind.
3. For the reasons stated, the Application for Recusal filed by the father must be dismissed.
4. Finally, I make a brief reference to one other matter. The Application for Recusal was framed in the terms of procedural unfairness. At no point in time was the Application for Recusal said to be on the basis of apprehended bias. This is not surprising because Counsel for the father was not able to draw the Court's attention to any instance whereby any of the Court's interventions could be said to amount to apprehended bias. The test for apprehended bias is well known and has been enunciated by the High Court in cases such as Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 ("Ebner"). The interventions complained of do not even come close to satisfying the "double might" test outlined in cases such as Ebner. The test for apprehended bias is whether a "fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide".
5. I am certain that if there had been any intervention by the Court which possibly satisfied this "double might" test - this would have been raised on behalf of the father as part of the recusal application. It was not raised. There was no apprehended bias.

I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard.

[2] See paragraph 1 of the father's written outline filed 22 January 2026.

[3] Royal Guardian is a decision of the Court of Appeal in New South Wales.