Kalben and Auton

In the matter of *Kalben and Auton*, heard before Gill J, the applicants sought the appointment of a single expert and leave to adduce further adversarial evidence. The precise nature of the underlying dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but the applications themselves indicate a contested proceeding where expert evidence and additional factual evidence were being considered.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether it was appropriate to appoint a single expert to provide evidence in the proceeding, and whether the applicants should be granted permission to introduce further adversarial evidence. These applications required the Court to consider the rules governing expert evidence and the admission of evidence generally in the context of the specific circumstances of the case.

Gill J refused both applications. While the specific reasons for refusal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, the outcome suggests that the Court found no sufficient basis to depart from the usual adversarial process of each party obtaining their own expert evidence, nor was there a demonstrated need to permit the introduction of additional adversarial evidence at this stage. The Court’s decision underscores the general presumption in favour of the adversarial system and the need for compelling reasons to deviate from it.