Ding and Ding (No 2)

In *Ding and Ding (No 2)*, the wife sought several orders from Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia towards the conclusion of the final hearing. The dispute concerned the valuation of a business, with the wife seeking to adduce expert evidence regarding its value at a date seven years prior to the hearing. This valuation date was significant as it preceded a company share reconstruction that reduced the husband's shareholding from 50 per cent to 1 per cent.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the wife's applications for the appointment of a single expert witness to value the business, for permission to adduce her own expert evidence on the business's value, and for an adjournment of the trial. The wife's requests for expert evidence were made after the conclusion of the respondent husband's evidence, and her request for an adjournment followed the refusal of her applications to adduce further expert evidence.

Cronin J refused all of the wife's applications. The court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, appears to have been based on the timing of the applications, which were made late in the proceedings and after the husband had presented his evidence. The refusal of the applications for expert evidence and the subsequent adjournment suggests the court considered these requests to be unduly late and potentially disruptive to the final hearing.

Consequently, the court ordered that the application for the appointment of a single expert witness be refused, the application for permission to adduce expert evidence be refused, and the application for an adjournment of the trial be refused.