Gin & Hing (No 2)

The case of *Gin & Hing (No 2)* concerned parenting orders. The respondent father, who had previously been represented by senior and junior counsel, appeared unrepresented at a resumed trial. The mother had concluded her evidence, and the trial was scheduled to continue for a further five days, making a total of ten days. The father, who is a practising solicitor, sought leave to rely on new material that had been put forward on the sixth day of the trial, after the close of the mother's case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the unrepresented father leave to adduce new evidence after the conclusion of the mother's case. This involved considering the principles governing the admission of fresh evidence in family law proceedings, particularly when it is sought to be introduced late in the trial.

Wilson J refused the father's application. The court applied the principles that govern the admission of fresh evidence, which generally require that the evidence must be relevant, credible, and that its admission would not cause unfair prejudice or undue delay to the proceedings. In this instance, the court found that the material sought to be introduced was not of such a nature that it could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence earlier in the proceedings, and its admission at this late stage would have caused significant prejudice to the mother and disrupted the trial. The court also noted the father's status as a practising solicitor, implying a higher degree of awareness regarding procedural fairness and the proper conduct of litigation.