Leventis & Leventis (No 3)

In *Leventis & Leventis (No. 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the second and third respondents for leave to file and rely on an expert accounting report, referred to as the "J report," which was produced late and not in compliance with previously ordered dates. The applicant objected to the admission of this report, arguing that no explanation for its lateness had been provided, that it would necessitate further expert evidence from the applicant's expert, and that it would likely derail the trial. The trial was scheduled to commence shortly after the application was made.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant leave for the late production of the J report, despite the applicant's objections and the potential for trial disruption. The court was required to balance the principles of case management and the need for timely resolution of proceedings against the imperative to do justice between the parties and ensure that each party had a full opportunity to present their best case. The court also had to consider the potential hardship to the parties and the implications for the trial date and costs.

Justice Wilson applied the principles established in cases such as *Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University*, *Mallet v Mallet*, *Sali v SPC Ltd*, and *State of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd*. The court reasoned that elevating case management principles above the need to ensure a just outcome would be inappropriate. Given the respondents' contention that the applicant's expert report contained significant factual errors, excluding the J report would deny them the opportunity to challenge these alleged errors and present their case fully. Therefore, the court determined that justice would be best served by allowing the second and third respondents to rely on the J report.

Consequently, the court made several orders. Leave was granted for the second and third respondents to file and rely on the J report. The applicant was given three months to file and serve any responding material from her expert. The trial was adjourned to 22 August 2022. A timetable was also prescribed for the filing of an application for a part property order, affidavit material, and submissions, with an interim hearing for the part property application and costs applications scheduled for 3 September 2021.