Tauri By His Tutor Carmelle Skipper v Janlin Circuses Pty Limited T/As Stardust Circus

I do not reject the report as a whole. I strike out paragraph 1.8 as being essentially a conclusion on the basis of other evidence. Paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 are admitted only as background and assumption, going to the opinions that might otherwise be formed, and not as proof of the facts or any separate opinion.

Paragraph 2.1.6 through to paragraph 2.1.8; 2.1.6 is rejected as a conclusion on evidence otherwise before the Court. Paragraph 2.1.7 is rejected.

Paragraph 2.1.8(a) is admitted. Paragraph 2.1.8(b) is admitted. Paragraph 2.1.8(c) is admitted. Paragraph 2.1.8(d) is admitted. I make it clear that in relation to the whole of paragraph 2.1.8, it is admitted on the basis of the assumptions that are there set out. That is the comparison, if there be a comparison, with the "siblings", and the history that has been taken and recited in the Report.

Paragraphs 15.3 to 17.1 are struck out as irrelevant to any issue in the proceedings.

Paragraph 18, except for paragraph 18.5 and 18.6, is a conclusion based upon evidence otherwise admitted. Paragraphs 18.5 and 18.6 are admitted.

Paragraphs 19 to 21, being the issue of future care are struck out as not being relevant to any issue in the proceedings.

I come back to the two matters that I omitted, in reverse order. In relation to paragraphs 3 to 14; indeed the whole of the Report is taken in the following way; that any fact stated in the Report is to be treated as an assumption only, and the Report is evidence only of the opinions of the maker of the Report.

Paragraph 2.15 is admitted but, again, on the assumption that it depends upon the alleged comparison as between the plaintiff and his siblings, which ultimately is a matter for the Court.

I will admit also paragraphs 2.1.9(a), (b) and (c) on the basis that it depends upon evidence that the plaintiff will not accept case management intervention and the comparison with the siblings.