Adamo and Vinci - [2020] FamCA 537

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADAMO & VINCI

[2020] FamCA 537

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appointment of an expert – Where the husband proposes to appoint his brother as an expert in the proceedings – Where there has been no attempt to appoint a single expert – Where the husband’s brother may not be considered as an impartial and objective witness to a reasonable observer – Application dismissed

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 15.42, 15.52, 15.59

APPLICANT:

Mr Adamo

RESPONDENT:

Ms Vinci

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Stidwill Solicitors

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

3598

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

7 July 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Rees J

HEARING DATE:

6 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT

In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Livingstone

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Alidenes & Co Solicitor

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Stidwill

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

That the application of the husband to appoint his brother as an expert witness is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Adamo & Vinci has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3598 of 2018

Mr Adamo

Applicant

And

Ms Vinci

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings between Mr Adamo (“the husband”) and Ms Vinci (“the wife”) in relation to their financial and parenting dispute have been listed for hearing for five days commencing on 21 September 2020.
The hearing of the matter has been expedited because of concerns about the health of one of the children.
On 30 April 2020 orders were made for the parties to file their trial affidavits by 4pm on 19 June 2020 and the matter was listed on 6 July 2020 for the allocation of hearing dates “if affidavit material has been filed”.
The wife has filed her trial affidavit. The husband has not.
On 26 June 2020 after the date for filing his trial affidavits had passed, the husband filed an Application in a Case seeking, inter alia, the following order:
Permission is granted to the Applicant to tender a report or adduce evidence at a hearing or trial from [Mr B] as an expert witness in the field of expertise of politics, including, but not limited to: (i) [preselection processes of a political party]; (ii) [internal power dynamics of a political party], including relevant political considerations as to whether potential candidates for [preselection] would be successful or not; (iii) relevant entitlements of [elected officials], including as to pre-conditions for the earning of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adamo and Vinci

Details

AGLC: Adamo and Vinci [2020] FamCA 537
Case: [2020] FamCA 537
Decision Date: 7 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Adamo and Vinci*, heard before Rees J, the husband sought to appoint his brother as an expert witness in family law proceedings. The wife opposed this application.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the husband's brother should be permitted to provide expert evidence, and if so, under what conditions. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the admission of expert evidence, particularly in circumstances where the proposed expert has a close personal relationship with one of the parties.

Rees J dismissed the husband's application. The Court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, would have involved an assessment of the potential for bias and the overall utility of the proposed evidence in assisting the Court to determine the facts in issue. The Court applied the established legal principles regarding the admissibility and weight of expert testimony, which require that such evidence be independent and impartial.

The application of the husband to appoint his brother as an expert witness was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED

That the application of the husband to appoint his brother as an expert witness is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.