Ding and Ding & Ors

In the matter of *Ding and Ding & Ors*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife to delay the final trial of proceedings. The wife sought further time to value the husband’s former shareholding in a corporation, despite having previously been granted leave to issue a subpoena for relevant documents which had been readily available to her for some time. The wife also sought to adduce expert evidence, which would have contravened the preference for single expert evidence under the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) and would have delayed the allocation of a trial date.

The court was required to determine whether the progression of the proceedings to trial should be further delayed due to the wife's actions or those of her legal representatives, and whether leave should be granted for the wife to adduce adversarial expert evidence.

Austin J reasoned that the proceedings should not be delayed any longer by the dereliction of the wife or her lawyers. The court found that granting leave for adversarial expert evidence would cause consequent prejudice to the husband by delaying the trial date. Conversely, the court determined that less prejudice would flow to the wife in the appointment of an early trial date. The court also noted that the parties had agreed on valuations from a single expert witness for certain real properties, rendering that expert unnecessary for cross-examination.

The court ordered that the trial of the matter be listed before Justice Cronin for two days commencing on Monday, 3 April 2017. The parties were directed to pay setting down and trial fees equally within seven days, and to file and serve affidavits and updated financial statements by Wednesday, 29 March 2017. A Case Outline document was to be filed and served by Friday, 31 March 2017. The wife's oral application to appoint an employment consultant and forensic accountant as single expert witnesses, or to call them as adversarial experts, was refused.