SABELL & MEDHURST

In the matter of *SABELL & MEDHURST*, Rose J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband. The dispute concerned financial matters within a family law proceeding, with the husband seeking to introduce further affidavit evidence regarding expenses.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the husband should be permitted to re-open his case to adduce further evidence concerning specific expenses, namely rent and associated costs in Hong Kong, and land-tax and property management fees in Sydney. The Court was required to determine the extent to which such evidence, if admitted, would impact the overall proceedings.

Rose J's reasoning focused on the nature of the evidence sought to be introduced. The Court allowed the husband's case to be re-opened for the limited purpose of receiving his affidavit evidence regarding the *likely* expense of rent and associated costs in Hong Kong, and land-tax and property management fees in Sydney. However, the Court specifically excluded evidence relating to the *quantum* of these expenses, indicating a desire to receive evidence on the nature and likelihood of these costs rather than precise figures at that stage.

Consequently, the husband's application was dismissed, with the exception that his case was permitted to be re-opened for the limited evidentiary purpose outlined. The costs of the parties were reserved.