Murray and Murray (No 2)

In *Murray and Murray (No 2)*, the wife sought leave from Watts J of the Family Court of Australia to re-open final property proceedings after judgment had been reserved. The wife wished to adduce further evidence that she contended was so material that the interests of justice required its admission.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the wife leave to re-open the proceedings and adduce the further evidence. This required the court to consider whether the new evidence, if accepted, would most probably affect the result of the proceedings and whether it could not by reasonable diligence have been discovered earlier. The court also had to weigh any prejudice or embarrassment the husband might suffer against the materiality of the evidence.

Watts J reasoned that the new evidence met the criteria for admission. The court found that the evidence was of such a nature that it would most probably affect the result of the proceedings and that it could not have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence. Furthermore, any prejudice to the husband was considered not to be a weighty factor given the nature of the evidence. Consequently, the wife was granted leave to re-open the case and adduce the further evidence, which included a police statement, a transcript of criminal proceedings, and the oral evidence of Mr R.