Harris and Breen

In *Harris & Breen*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the respondent, Ms Breen, for leave to tender a report and adduce evidence from a chartered accountant, Mr A, in property adjustment proceedings. The applicant, Mr Harris, opposed this application. The core of the dispute concerned the allocation and expenditure of approximately $1.2 million received by Mr Harris from the sale of business interests during the parties' de facto relationship.

The court was required to determine whether to grant leave for Ms Breen to rely on Mr A's expert report and evidence. This involved assessing the admissibility of the proposed evidence, particularly in light of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) concerning expert evidence and the provisions of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) relating to opinion evidence and the admissibility of expert testimony. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Mr A's opinions were "wholly or substantially based" on his specialised knowledge as an accountant, or if they were primarily based on hearsay information provided by Ms Breen.

Justice Forrest dismissed the respondent's application, reasoning that Mr A's report contained opinions that were not wholly or substantially based on his specialised knowledge. The court found that Mr A had largely accepted information provided by Ms Breen, including handwritten commentary on bank statements, to categorise expenditures. This reliance on Ms Breen's assertions meant that his opinions were based on hearsay rather than his expertise, rendering them inadmissible under section 79 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). Furthermore, the court noted that the tasks Mr A undertook, such as summarising tax returns and categorising bank transactions based on information provided by Ms Breen, did not require expert accounting evidence and could have been presented by Ms Breen herself. The court also considered that refusing the application might shorten the trial.