Keevers & Keevers

In Keevers & Keevers, the court considered whether the husband's expert, Mr B, could provide evidence on the value of the Keevers Family Trust. The wife opposed this, arguing that Mr B's evidence did not meet the criteria set out in rule 7.08 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. The court had to determine whether Mr B's evidence could be admitted under any of the criteria in rule 7.08(2). This involved examining whether there was a substantial body of opinion contrary to the single expert's opinion, whether Mr B knew of matters not known to the single expert, or if there was another special reason for adducing evidence from Mr B.

The court analysed the differences between the single expert's valuation and Mr B's valuation. The single expert valued the Keevers Family Trust at $52,968,602, while Mr B's valuation ranged from $37,390,853 to $46,390,853. The court examined whether the difference in overall valuation constituted "the same issue" as required by rule 7.08(2). The court also considered whether the difference in capitalisation rates was sufficient to meet the criteria for adducing evidence from another expert. Ultimately, the court concluded that the husband had not established the necessary prerequisites for permitting Mr B's evidence.

The court held that Mr B's evidence did not meet any of the criteria set out in rule 7.08(2). There was no substantial body of opinion contrary to the single expert's opinion, Mr B did not know of matters not known to the single expert, and there was no other special reason for adducing evidence from Mr B. The court found that the significant difference in overall valuation and the various other issues where Mr B ascribes a different valuation meant that Mr B's evidence did not pertain to "the same issue" as required by rule 7.08(2). Consequently, the husband's application to adduce evidence from Mr B was dismissed.

The court's decision meant that Mr B's evidence could not be admitted in the proceedings. The final orders reflected this, disallowing the husband's application to rely on Mr B's report. The court's reasoning was grounded in the strict interpretation of rule 7.08(2) and the necessity for the husband to meet one of the specified criteria to permit the adducing of evidence from another expert.