Morris & Morris (No 5)

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) heard an application by the husband in the case of Morris & Morris (No 5). The application sought to allow certain questions to be put to the single expert witness, Mr JJ, who was appointed to opine on the likely effect of a sale of shares in B Limited on the company's share price. The wife objected to the expert's report being adduced into evidence and also objected to the specific questions posed to the expert, arguing they were outside the scope of Rule 7.26. The court had to determine whether the husband's proposed questions were permissible under the Rules and if they should be allowed to ensure that the expert's opinion was fully expressed and admissible.

The husband argued that the questions were intended to clarify the expert's qualifications and reasoning, addressing the criticisms raised by the wife's objections. He contended that the questions were necessary to expose in more detail the expert's reasoning and how it related to his qualifications, especially given the constraints of the single expert rule. The husband also suggested that the court should exercise its discretion to allow the questions to ensure the expert's opinion was fully expressed and admissible. The wife, on the other hand, argued that the report was barely relevant and that the proposed questions were not appropriate under the Rules.

The court considered the arguments and concluded that the husband's application should be dismissed. The court found that the questions were formulated after the wife had objected to the contents of the report, and thus were not in compliance with Rule 7.26. The court also noted that the expert's opinion was already an educated guess based on qualitative judgments and that the proposed questions did not significantly alter this nature. Consequently, the court decided that allowing the questions would not serve the purpose of ensuring the expert's opinion was fully expressed and admissible.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the husband's application. The oral application for an order that the respondents be at liberty to administer questions numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 to the single expert witness Mr JJ was dismissed. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to the procedural rules in family law proceedings, particularly concerning expert evidence.