King & King

In the matter of *King & King*, Kemp J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application to strike out an expert's report and an application to reopen the proceedings to adduce fresh evidence. The primary dispute concerned an expert's report, which one party alleged contained apprehended bias.

The court was required to determine whether the expert's report should be excluded from evidence due to asserted apprehended bias, and whether the proceedings should be reopened to allow for the admission of fresh evidence. The application to strike out the report invoked the court's general discretion under section 135 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, misleading the court, or causing undue delay.

Kemp J refused the application to strike out the expert's report, reasoning that any perceived deficiencies or apprehended bias within the report could be adequately addressed and tested through cross-examination. The court noted that the expert's duty, as outlined in section 15.07 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* and the Federal Court's Practice Note CM7, is to assist the court and not to act as an advocate for a party. The judge found that the report's contents did not warrant exclusion under section 135 of the *Evidence Act 1995*. However, the application to reopen the proceedings and adduce fresh evidence was granted.