Gin and Hing (No 4)

In *Gin and Hing (No 4)*, Justice Wilson of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Gin concerning the admissibility of evidence during the ninth day of a trial. The dispute centred on the applicant's attempt to cross-examine the maker of an authorised translation of 13 audio files, after a previous translation of those same files had been ruled inadmissible. Mr Gin sought to put to the authorised translator the revisions provided by the translator whose translation had been excluded, effectively seeking to rely on the earlier, inadmissible translation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant could cross-examine the authorised translator by referencing a translation that had already been ruled inadmissible. This raised questions about the proper conduct of a case, the reliance on previous evidence, and the specific requirements for challenging expert testimony in family law proceedings. The court also had to determine the appropriate costs order for this additional evidentiary task.

Justice Wilson reasoned that parties are bound by the manner in which they conduct their case and that the applicant could not simply rely on a previously excluded translation. To properly challenge the authorised translation, the applicant was required to identify each specific inconsistency they intended to put to the witness. The court ordered that the applicant must identify in writing each line of the Mr K translation that he intended to put to Mr K as inaccurate, and to state the contrary version he intended to put. This document was to be formulated and circulated to the opposing counsel by a specified date. The applicant was also ordered to meet the costs of this additional task.