Neales & Neales

In *Neales & Neales*, the husband applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for the discharge of a single expert witness, Mr B, and for permission to appoint an adversarial expert witness, Mr D. The dispute concerned issues of evidence, specifically the admissibility and reliability of expert opinion evidence in family law proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether Mr B, the single expert, had demonstrated a closed mind, thereby warranting his discharge. Additionally, the court had to consider whether, even if Mr B was not discharged, there were grounds to permit the introduction of evidence from a second expert, Mr D, to cover the same issues. This involved assessing whether the difference in valuation methodologies between the single expert and the proposed adversarial expert constituted a substantial body of contrary opinion, or if any other "special reason" justified the appointment of a second expert.

Justice Gill dismissed the husband's application. The court found that Mr B had not demonstrated a closed mind, noting his responsiveness to questions and that a failure to amend an opinion did not inherently indicate a closed mind. Regarding the appointment of a second expert, the court applied the principles outlined in the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth), particularly rule 15.49, which governs the appointment of additional expert witnesses. The court held that the husband had not satisfied the criteria under rule 15.49(2), which requires a substantial body of contrary opinion, knowledge of new matters, or another special reason for admitting evidence from a further expert. The overarching purpose of the Rules, to ensure just and timely resolution of cases at reasonable cost, was also considered.

The husband's application was dismissed. The parties were granted liberty to apply to the Registrar within seven days of the judgment for the relisting of the matter to address any issues arising as to costs.