Percy and Percy (No 2)

In *Percy & Percy (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for the appointment of a single expert witness, an accountant named Mr B, in proceedings concerning property settlement and spousal maintenance. The husband opposed this application, seeking its dismissal and, alternatively, the right to adduce his own expert evidence if the wife's application were granted. The matter was before the court with a final hearing scheduled to commence shortly.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to appoint a single expert witness as requested by the wife, or to permit each party to retain their own expert evidence. The wife contended that the figures relating to her entitlement to a lump sum for her lifetime income were matters best addressed by a single expert. The husband argued that the wife's premise for seeking a single expert was flawed and that he should be entitled to present his own expert evidence.

Justice Bennett, acknowledging the approaching final hearing date and the need for the economical and expedient conduct of the case, declined to appoint a single expert witness. Instead, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 15.51 of the Family Law Rules to allow each party to rely upon their own expert evidence, thereby disregarding the usual single expert witness rules in the interests of justice. The court reasoned that this approach would avoid potential disputes arising from a single expert and then each party seeking their own, while still ensuring the hearing could proceed on the scheduled date.

The court made detailed orders regarding the filing and service of expert evidence, including specific deadlines for the wife's expert (Mr B) and any expert retained by the husband. It was ordered that the wife would bear the initial expense of Mr B's report and evidence, and the husband would bear the costs of his own expert, subject to any applications made at the hearing. The court also extended timeframes for the filing of other documents and vacated and relisted a mention date. The application for a single expert witness was dismissed, and the matter was noted as remaining listed for final hearing.