SCHOREL & SCHOREL

In *Schorel & Schorel*, the applicant sought to adduce further evidence in family law proceedings concerning property settlement and spousal maintenance. The respondent opposed the admission of this evidence. The matter came before Obradovic J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed further evidence, which related to the applicant's financial circumstances and capacity to work, should be admitted at this late stage of the proceedings. The court was required to consider the principles governing the admission of fresh evidence in family law matters, particularly in the context of finalising property settlement and spousal maintenance orders.

Obradovic J applied the principles established in cases such as *L v L* and *K v K*, which generally require a high threshold for the admission of fresh evidence after proceedings have progressed significantly. The court considered the relevance and materiality of the proposed evidence, whether it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, and whether its admission would be likely to lead to a different outcome. The judge found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the admission of the evidence at this juncture, noting that the evidence was not of a nature that could not have been obtained earlier and that its admission would likely cause further delay and prejudice to the respondent.

Consequently, the court made orders refusing the applicant's request to adduce further evidence.