Lambard & Lambard (No. 4)

In *Lambard & Lambard (No. 4)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother for permission to tender a report and adduce evidence from an additional expert witness. The proceedings involved the mother (applicant), Mr. Lambard (first respondent), Ms. Dabell (second respondent), and Ms. M. Lambard (third respondent). The application was heard by McClelland DCJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the criteria set out in Rule 15.49 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* had been met to justify the appointment of an adversarial expert. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was "another special reason" for adducing evidence from an additional expert, as contemplated by Rule 15.49(2)(c). The court also had to balance the need for an expeditious and just resolution of the dispute with the potential cost implications of allowing further expert evidence.

McClelland DCJ reasoned that the primary purpose of the Rules, as stated in Rule 1.04, is to ensure cases are resolved justly and timely at a reasonable cost. The court considered the mother's submission that her treating psychiatrist, Dr. BB, was reluctant to play a forensic role, and that this reluctance constituted a "special reason" for engaging an adversarial expert. However, the court construed "special reason" to mean something more than ordinary, and did not find Dr. BB's reluctance to be a sufficient special reason to justify the appointment of an adversarial expert. The court noted that the term "special reason" had been interpreted in *Gyselman and Gyselman* (1992) FLC 92-279.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the mother's application to tender a report or adduce evidence from another single expert. However, the court granted leave for the parties to provide the reports of Dr. NN and Dr. G, along with the tender bundle of documents provided to Dr. NN, to an appropriately qualified person for the purpose of formulating questions for Dr. NN and preparing for cross-examination. The proceedings were adjourned to allow for single experts to confer and for parties to exercise their rights to seek clarification from the single expert. The court also directed Dr. NN to confer with the mother's treating psychiatrist and psychologist regarding her mental health and prognosis.