Fowles & Fowles (No 2)

In *Fowles & Fowles (No 2)*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered an objection raised during cross-examination concerning the authenticity of documents. The dispute arose in the context of a family law proceeding where one party sought to tender documents, and the other objected to questions put to them regarding the existence and form of those documents. The objection was framed around the proper application of the Notice to Admit procedure under the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the cross-examining party was entitled to elicit admissions regarding the existence and form of documents, notwithstanding the opposing party's contention that the documents had not been properly admitted or that the Notice to Admit procedure had not been strictly followed. The court was required to determine the scope of permissible cross-examination in relation to documents and the interplay between the rules governing notices to admit and the general powers of the court to dispense with compliance with procedural rules.

Bennett J reasoned that the distinction between a document being "genuine" and "authentic" was not material to the immediate question of whether the witness could be compelled to admit to its existence or prior form. The court held that the purpose of a Notice to Admit was to avoid unnecessary proof of documents, and that the rules allowed for dispensation with compliance where it was in the interests of justice. Consequently, the objection to the line of questioning was overruled, allowing the cross-examining party to pursue admissions regarding the documents.