Smith and Smith (No 2)

In *Smith and Smith (No 2)*, Strickland J considered applications by both the wife and the husband concerning property settlement and the adducing of adversarial evidence, respectively. The wife sought a partial property settlement order, while the husband sought to introduce adversarial evidence concerning a single expert's report.

The court was required to determine whether the wife's application for a partial property settlement satisfied the principles established in *Harris v Harris*, and whether the husband had met the requirements of rule 15.49 of the Family Law Rules 2004 to adduce adversarial evidence in relation to a single expert appointed in the proceedings.

Regarding the wife's application, Strickland J found that the principles in *Harris v Harris* were not satisfied, noting that the majority of the expenses to be paid from the funds sought related to child support matters, which were not the subject of the property settlement application. Consequently, the wife's application was dismissed. In relation to the husband's application, the court determined that the husband had not satisfied the requirements of rule 15.49(2), as there was no substantial body of opinion contrary to the single expert's opinion, nor were there matters of which the single expert was unaware, and no disagreement regarding the appropriate valuation methodology. Therefore, the husband's application to adduce adversarial evidence was also dismissed.

The court ordered the dismissal of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the wife's application, and the wife's entire application filed on 31 March 2009. The husband's application filed on 2 April 2009 was also dismissed. The court also granted extensions of time for the filing and serving of updated valuation reports by Mr C and Mr K.