JACKSON & SHEA

In proceedings before the Family Court of Australia, the wife sought leave to adduce further evidence, which was opposed by the husband. The core of the dispute concerned the division of property, with the husband arguing that the wife's financial affairs were inextricably linked to those of her mother, and that the absence of her mother's evidence created significant uncertainty regarding the wife's property holdings and financial circumstances. The husband contended that this lack of evidence could lead to a finding of deliberate non-disclosure.

The legal issues before the court were whether to grant the wife leave to adduce the proposed affidavit from her mother, and if so, whether to make an interim costs order in favour of the husband. The court was required to consider the relevance and probative value of the proposed evidence, as well as the husband's financial position and the potential prejudice he might suffer if the application were granted without appropriate cost orders.

Justice Berman granted the wife leave to file and serve the affidavit of her mother, finding the proposed evidence to be relevant and probative. The court acknowledged the husband's concerns regarding the delay and the potential for non-disclosure, referencing the principles outlined in cases such as *Weir & Weir*. However, the court also recognised that a determination of the property settlement could not be made with confidence without considering the proposed evidence. Consequently, the court ordered that the trial be listed for further hearing and made an interim costs order against the wife, requiring her to pay the husband $27,016 by way of interim costs pursuant to section 117(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).