Beazley and Andreopolis (No 2)

In *Beazley and Andreopolis (No 2)*, LE Poer Trench J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband to rely on expert evidence from a physiatrist, Dr AS. The dispute concerned the methodology employed by a single expert physiatrist in diagnosing the father.

The central legal issue before the court was whether leave should be granted to the husband to adduce expert evidence from Dr AS, specifically concerning the methodology used by the single expert in reaching their diagnosis of the father.

His Honour dismissed the husband's application. While the judgment does not elaborate on the specific reasoning for this dismissal, it indicates that the court was not satisfied that the proposed expert evidence met the necessary threshold for admission, likely in accordance with the principles governing the use of expert evidence in family law proceedings, such as those outlined in *Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd*.

The court ordered that the husband's application to rely on the evidence of Dr AS be dismissed.