Gandega and Fulmali and Anor

This case involved an application by the Second Respondent seeking the discharge of a single expert appointed in proceedings between the Applicant (wife) and the First Respondent (husband), and the Second Respondent. The dispute concerned the disposition of the husband's interests in several companies, namely B Pty Ltd, D Pty Ltd, and C Pty Ltd, following his incarceration in Asia. The wife sought to set aside these dispositions under s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Second Respondent had established sufficient grounds to warrant the discharge of the single expert. This required the court to consider the expert's mandate, the evidence presented by the parties regarding the companies' financial affairs and the husband's interests, and whether the expert's role remained necessary for the determination of the final issues. The court also had to consider the potential for the expert's report to resolve complex financial transactions and valuations relevant to the wife's claim.

Foster J dismissed the Second Respondent's application, finding that the grounds for discharge had not been met. The court reasoned that the single expert's role was crucial for resolving the complex financial disputes, including the valuation of the husband's interests in the companies and the accounting for various transactions. The court noted that the husband's absence and the convoluted nature of the company dealings necessitated expert intervention to provide an independent assessment. The court also considered that the wife's claims under s 106B could only be properly determined at a final hearing, and the expert's report was integral to that determination.

The court ordered that the Second Respondent's application for the discharge of the single expert be dismissed. The court also made orders regarding the submission of written arguments concerning costs, with judgment to be reserved thereafter.