PICTON & PICTON

In the matter of *Picton & Picton*, heard before Watts J, the wife sought to ask a single expert witness a list of questions, contending this was permissible under Rule 15.65 of the *Family Law Rules*. The husband opposed this, arguing the questions imposed an unreasonable workload on the expert and extended beyond the scope of clarifying their existing opinion. Concurrently, the parties made competing applications for interim exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home, with the husband having utilised the property since separation.

The court was required to determine two principal issues. Firstly, whether the wife should be permitted to submit the proposed list of questions to the single expert witness under Rule 15.65 of the *Family Law Rules*, considering the nature and extent of the questions. Secondly, the court had to decide which party should be granted interim exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home, taking into account the husband's post-separation use of the property.

Watts J ruled that the wife should not be required to submit the extensive list of questions to the expert, finding that they placed an unreasonable burden on the expert and sought to elicit information beyond the clarification of their opinion, thus exceeding the purpose of Rule 15.65. Regarding the property, the court ordered that pending further order, the wife would be granted exclusive use and occupancy of the former matrimonial home within 14 days, requiring the husband to vacate the premises.