Gin and Hing (No 5)

This matter came before the Family Court of Australia concerning parenting orders. The applicant was Ms Hing, and the respondent was Mr Gin. An Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) was also involved. The trial was scheduled to resume, with the evidence of a family consultant, Ms N, being the only remaining evidence to be heard.

The primary legal issue before the court was the allocation of costs for Ms N's evidence, specifically the duration of her cross-examination. Counsel for the wife and the ICL indicated they would require minimal time to question Ms N, while the unrepresented father, Mr Gin, indicated an intention to cross-examine her for up to two days. The wife and ICL submitted that Mr Gin should bear a greater proportion of Ms N's fees due to the anticipated length of his cross-examination.

Justice Wilson reasoned that Mr Gin's proposed cross-examination, which he indicated would delve into factual matters underpinning Ms N's reports and opinions, was likely to be significantly more time-consuming than that of the other parties. The court considered that such an extensive factual inquiry, potentially lasting one and a half days, went beyond typical cross-examination and resembled an inquisitorial investigation. Consequently, the court determined that Mr Gin should be responsible for the majority of Ms N's fees for the two days of her evidence, reflecting the anticipated burden of his examination.

The court ordered that the trial resume on 26 July 2021. Prior to Ms N giving evidence, her fees for two days must be paid by 4pm on 28 June 2021, with $2,500 to be paid by the mother and $7,500 by the father. The parties were granted leave to make submissions after the trial to adjust these payments. Each party was to bear their own costs of and incidental to the application.