FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application made for “slip rule” amendments to orders consequent to final judgment – where the applicant’s application is successful – where the respondent’s proposals would change the substance of the orders – where amendments are made to the orders to clarify the court’s intention - Application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Notice of Objection made by a health service to a subpoena to produce protected confidences of a child pursuant to s 102BA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the determination of a protected confidence claim is an evaluative and not a discretionary judgment – Where s 102BE of the Act entails the weighing of countervailing considerations – Where the potential for harm outweighs the desirability of the production of the protected confidence material – Where the objection is upheld and a direction is made pursuant to s 102BD of the Act.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – CHILD ABDUCTION – Return application to United Kingdom – Where the father alleges wrongful retention – Mother conceded wrongful retention – Whether regulatory exceptions are raised – Grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation – Objection of the child – Where the mother has failed to discharge her onus and the regulatory exceptions of grave risk and objection of the child are not satisfied – Child to return to the United Kingdom.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant husband seeks indemnity costs against the wife for costs thrown away following the vacation of hearing due to medical event – Party/party costs sought in the alternative – Where the wife failed to comply with directions to provide further evidence as to medical event – Where the only evidence available to the Court is hospital discharge summary – Where Blatch v Archer inference drawn – Party/party costs ordered against the wife.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by wife seeking indemnity costs of the substantive proceedings against the husband – Application opposed by the husband – Application by husband for costs of a discrete event – Consideration of s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of options available to Court to Order quantum of costs – Consideration of indemnity costs – Order for the husband to pay the wife’s costs in a fixed amount set off by the costs the wife is to pay to husband in respect of the husband’s application to reopen his case to adduce further evidence during the course of the trial.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – indemnity costs application by the husband – wife’s conduct not sufficient to make an indemnity costs order against her – application for indemnity costs dismissed – but costs ordered on a party/party basis.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where final property and parenting orders were made – Where each party seeks his/her costs on an indemnity basis – Where the mother’s conduct as a litigant during the proceedings caused unnecessary costs to be incurred – Where the husband had made an offer to resolve the financial proceedings in a sum in excess of the amount awarded to the wife – Consideration of the quantum of costs – Wife to pay the costs incurred by the husband including counsel fees for a defined period.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION – Where the second respondent in the substantive proceedings seeks that the trial judge be disqualified – Where the second respondent contends actual and apprehended bias, and that procedural fairness was not afforded – Where each contention was without merit – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM HEARING – PARENTING – Where final orders provide for the children to spend five nights a fortnight and half school holidays with the Father – Where the parents have agreed pursuant to s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that the final orders need to be reconsidered – Where the children are now aged 13 and 15 – Where the children have stopped spending regular time with the Father and have sporadic communication with him – Where the children have expressed strong views that they wish to determine when they spend time with the Father – Where the children have significant mental health challenges – Where the Mother makes various allegations of risk – Where Court Child Expert opines that the children’s mental health may be compromised if orders are made for time with the Father contrary to their views – Where orders made suspending the final “spend time” orders – Where orders impinging on the children’s therapy are not in their best interests – Where orders made for the children to spend time with and communicate with the Father in accordance with their views – Where the Father has sole parental responsibility in respect of medical decisions under the final orders – Where that order is suspended and orders made providing for parents to have joint parental decision-making.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Father to have sole parental responsibility with an obligation to consult the mother – Child to continue living with the father as agreed by all parties – Assessment of what time the child shall spend with the mother – Orders made to provide the child with an opportunity to build a relationship with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim orders – Where the wife seeks the child’s time with the husband to be limited to twice a week – Where the husband seeks the child’s time to be each weekend – Where the wife alleges the husband has perpetrated family violence – Where the husband denies allegations of family violence – Where the Court is not persuaded that there is a possibility of the existence of harm in overnight time – Where the Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of this child for him to resume spending overnight time with the husband.

PROPERTY – Interim orders – Anti-suit injunction – Where the wife sought an anti-suit injunction against the husband commencing proceedings in the People’s Republic of China – Where the wife conceded there was no evidence that the husband had said he would commence any such proceedings – Where the husband proffered an undertaking to give the wife 60 days prior written notice of the commencement of such proceedings. – No anti-suit injunction order made.

Interim orders – Costs – Where the wife sought the husband make various payments for her benefit – Where the husband opposed the order on grounds of a lack of financial capacity to make the payments – Consideration of s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is satisfied that the husband has the capacity to meet a payment to the wife but not in the magnitude sought by the wife – Order made for the payment of $160,000 to the wife.

PROPERTY – Interim orders – Injunction – Where the eighth and ninth respondents consented to the injunction on a without admissions basis but sought to include a notice provision – Where the wife did not consent to the notice provision – Where the Court is satisfied that the wife has an arguable case and that if the injunction is not made the wife’s case for final relief may be imperilled – Where the eighth respondent advanced no submissions as to prejudice – Where the wife has given an undertaking as to damages – Where the Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction – Where the Court is not satisfied that the notice provision sought is necessary or proper.

PROPERTY – Interim orders – Injunction – Where the wife sought to restrain the putative tenth respondent from dealing with funds held by it on behalf of the various persons and entities identified – Where the interested parties consented to the injunction – Where the eighth and ninth respondents opposed the orders in so far as the orders sought to injunct each of the eighth and ninth respondents’ property – Where the Court is satisfied that the wife has an arguable case and that if the injunction is not made the wife’s case for final relief may be imperilled – Where the Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – Oral decision – Mother alleges father slapped child’s face – Child tells police it was his bottom – Mother fabricated allegation in the context of a dispute about parenting arrangements – Father to exercise sole decision making authority for major long term decisions subject to consultation – Child to continue in week about arrangement and at present school – Ancillary orders.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – JURISDICTION -Forum – Where there are ongoing proceedings in State C – Where the father seeks a stay of the Australian proceedings – Whether Australia is an appropriate forum – Where the child has lived in Australia in his mother’s sole care for most of his life – Where it is in the best interests of the child for orders to be made in Australia – Orders made for the child to live with mother.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim parenting orders – no significant change in circumstances to warrant reopening final orders.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – undefended hearing – family violence – impact of time on primary caregiver – children with high needs – orders for sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues and no time.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child lives with the father – Where the mother has failed to engage with interim orders for her to spend time with the child – Where it is conceded that the mother’s new partner is an unacceptable risk to the child – Where the scope of the dispute is narrow – Orders made for the mother to spend time with the child.

FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL – Interim orders – Variation of spousal maintenance orders – Where the husband seeks to set aside interim orders relating to spousal maintenance – Where the wife is in receipt of rental income previously not disclosed – Where the husband has discharged the onus in proving that the wife’s circumstances had changed – Amount of spousal maintenance decreased in line with rental income received.

FINANCIAL – Interim orders –Litigation funding – Consideration of the Full Court’s decision in Shinohara in the context of paid legal fees ,– Where the husband opposed the making of any litigation funding order – Where the husband conceded that if an order was made an appropriate amount would be in the sum of $1.2 million – Where the Court is satisfied the husband has the capacity to meet the wife’s legal fees.

FINANCIAL – Interim orders –Where the wife seeks permission pursuant to Rule 6.04(1) in respect of documents produced on subpoena – Where the wife seeks to use the documents in proceedings in the People’s Republic of China – Where the husband opposed the orders sought by the wife – Where the Court is satisfied that special circumstances exist – Leave granted.

FINANCIAL – Interim orders – Where the fourth respondent sought a reimbursement from the second respondent of approximately $14,000– Where in the context of the assets held by him, the quantum of the order enlivens issues of proportionality – Where the second respondent opposed the order – Where the amount that is at issue is modest relative to the overall circumstances of the fourth respondent.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the family has previously been the subject of Hague Convention proceedings of which were ultimately discontinued by the Central Authority – Where the mother and children remain living in Australia while the father remains living in Country B – Where the children are teenagers and have expressed wishes in relation to the time they spend with the father. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child is five years old – Where the father sought sole decision-making responsibility, for the child to live with him and spend alternate weekends with the mother until she was 12 years old, and then to progress to an equal time arrangement if he and the child agreed – Where the father also sought to relocate with the child to Canberra – Where the mother sought a continuation of those orders already in place – Where there is significant ongoing parental conflict – Where it is unlikely the parental conflict will abate – Where orders are made which generally mirror those sought by the mother.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim orders - Risk of psychological harm from loss of relationship with a parent – Where there are allegations of sexual and physical abuse against the father – Where the mother supplied falsified evidence to the Court – Where the mother falsified death threats purportedly made by the father – Whether it is in the child’s best interests to reintroduce time with father – Where there are risks with reintroduction and without – Where the risk of reintroduction outweighs the risk of no reintroduction – Orders made for supervised time.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEUDRE – SEPARATE DETERMINATION – Where the wife asserts that non-marriage respondents hold shares in a corporation for the husband – Consideration of rr 10.10 and 10.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) as to the separate hearing of the claim made affecting the interests of the non-marriage respondents – Consideration of mandates contained in s 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), r 1.04, and other discretionary factors – Application for a separate issue determination refused.

FAMILY LAW – SECURITY FOR COSTS – Property proceedings – Where the Applicant Husband is incarcerated having pleaded guilty to various offences of violence against the Respondent Wife – Where the property pool is small and the only assets are in the Respondent Wife’s name – Where the parties entered into a financial agreement such that each party would keep what they had – Where financial agreement was erroneously entered into pursuant to s 90C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) after the parties were divorced – Where the Applicant Husband challenges the financial agreement and seeks property adjustment orders – Where the Respondent Wife seeks an order for security for costs –Where s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and r 12.02 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) considered – Where making of an order for security for costs will probably stymy the litigation – Where that is not determinative – Where costs order in favour of the Respondent Wife was made in interlocutory proceedings against the Applicant Husband and remains unpaid – Where the Applicant Husband faces deportation upon release pursuant to s 501 of the Migration Act 1901 (Cth) – Where there are justifying circumstances making it appropriate to order security for costs – Where orders made providing for the Husband to pay $50,000 into the trust account of the Wife’s solicitors – Where the parties have liberty to relist.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the father had filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking variation of consent orders – where application to vary orders dismissed - where the mother seeks costs on an indemnity basis – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks the costs of the application – where the father was wholly unsuccessful in his application – consideration of s 114UB factors – where the mother failed to provide evidence of the costs agreement as between herself and her solicitors in compliance with rule 12.13 – costs granted on a party-party basis in favour of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – where the applicant mother did not appear – where the father sought leave to proceed on an undefended basis – where the child had been living with the father for almost 3 years and had not spent time with the mother for approximately 4 years – where the father and the Independent Children’s lawyer sought orders that the child live with the father and not spend time or communicate with the mother unless the child expressed a wish to do so – allegations that the mother’s mental illness impedes her capacity to parent – where the mother had a history of fabricating events – where it was alleged that the mother had fabricated a pregnancy and the subsequent death of that infant – where the mother had not engaged in recommended treatment – leave granted to proceed on an undefended basis – orders as sought by the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DISCLOSURE – defective disclosure – repeat dereliction of duty in complying with disclosure by the respondent husband – the husband ordered to provide exhaustive disclosure and that if he failed to comply with those orders, consideration would be given to staying his response to the wife’s application of orders altering property interests – the wife seeking to stay the husband’s amended response by reason of his defective disclosure – finding that the husband had made no real attempt to give exhaustive disclosure in this case – orders made in accordance with the wife’s application in a proceeding.

MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – stay application for defective disclosure – persistent dereliction of duty towards disclosure by husband – stay granted.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – Where mother filed a Notice of Discontinuance – Where mother has been convicted of a violent indictable offence – Where Independent Children’s Lawyer and father agree that the children should live with the father and the father should have sole decision making responsibility – Where evidence establishes that the father is child focused - Order for children to live with the father – Order for father to have decision making responsibility – Order for mother to spend time with the children as agreed between the parties and at the father’s discretion.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the applicant sought to attend the final hearing by audiovisual link citing safety fears and impecuniosity – Where the third respondent contended that issues of credit required the applicant to give her evidence in person – Where the applicant’s evidence is material to the Court’s determination – Application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Where Reasons for Judgment had been delivered as to the overall property adjustment between the parties but further submissions were required as to what form of final property adjustment orders to be made to achieve justice and equity to both parties – Where such submissions were filed – Subsequent application to re-open and adduce further evidence was filed – Leave granted to re-open on a limited basis.

PROPERTY – Final property adjustment orders now made that achieve justice and equity to both parties.

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – the wife seeking to stay the execution of a warrant of possession over the property – parties consented to the dismissal without an adjudication on the merits.

DISCLOSURE – the wife alleges the husband has failed to disclose various documents – orders previously made for disclosure had not been complied with – held, husband must provide exhaustive disclosure within 14 days and if he is non-compliant will be required to show cause as to why his amended response should not be stayed until he provides adequate disclosure.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Affidavits – Application by the wife to rely on a further affidavit for the final hearing – Where the husband objects to a paragraph and exhibit of the affidavit – Affidavit sworn in support of an Application in a Proceeding – Where it was not apparent the wife sought to rely on the affidavit in the principal proceedings – Where there is little opportunity to test the evidence.

FAMILY LAW – Application for adjournment of trial on the first day of the trial – Application opposed by the first and second respondents and Independent Children’s Layer – Application dismissed. Application by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the Applicant’s application for final orders to be dismissed – Application granted. Application by Independent Children’s Lawyer for costs thrown away for appearance at the first day of the trial – Where the applicant was wholly unsuccessful in his application for an adjournment of the trial – Costs granted in a quantum of $6,961.69.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where all parties and legal representatives were present at the start of the trial – where the mother sought an adjournment to allow her time to participate in a drug rehabilitation program and to better present her live with case – where that application was refused – where after a further adjournment for discussions the mother did not return to court and was not able to be contacted by her solicitors – mother’s legal representatives and counsel sought leave to withdraw and communicated to the court their understanding the mother would not be returning – where the father and the ICL then proposed consent terms between themselves – where evidence establishes that the mother’s current drug use means she represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the child of unsupervised time – where the father is child focused and will likely facilitate unsupervised time with the mother if it is safe to do - Sole decision making to father - Child to live with the father - Unless otherwise agreed, and at the father’s discretion, child to spend time with the mother on six occasions per year with such time to be supervised in the community.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Applicant and the First, Second and Third Respondents seek costs orders – Where the Respondents seek costs for the Applicant wife’s dismissed s 79A Application – Where the First Respondent husband also seeks costs for the wife’s dismissed Slip Rule application – Where the Applicant wife seeks costs of an interim hearing – Where leave is not granted to the husband to file out of time his application for costs incurred from the Slip Rule application – Orders made for the wife to pay $43,000 each to the husband and the Third Respondent – Costs of the costs applications.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the father seeks costs on an indemnity basis – Where the mother unilaterally relocated the children overseas – Where the father began preparing for Hague proceedings – Where conduct of mother necessitated bringing of proceedings – Where neither party was wholly unsuccessful – Circumstances do not justify an indemnity costs order – Party/party costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –Allegations of family violence – High conflict – Where father seeks build up to equal time arrangement and mother seeks to continue existing arrangement of three nights per fortnight with father – Where father seeks joint responsibility for decisions regarding major long-term issues – International travel – Injunctions.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Where the applicant issued a subpoena to a firm of accountants seeking production of two email chains regarding a corporate restructure – Where the email chain includes the fourth respondent’s solicitor – Where the fourth respondent objects on the basis of legal professional privilege – Where the overall impression of the documents is of legal advice – Waiver – Where the second to fourth respondents’ pleadings put the respondents’ intentions as to the restructure in issue – Where the pleadings are inconsistent with the maintenance of the confidentiality – Improper purpose – Where the intentional removal of assets from the reach of the court fits the wide concept of illegality – Inference available that the restructure was done to defeat or delay the wife’s claim – Privilege does not attach – Notice of objection dismissed – Leave granted to inspect the documents.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Cultural adoption – Consideration of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consent orders made in best interests of child – Orders for first respondent to have sole decision making – Orders for child to live with biological family.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — APPOINTMENT OF SINGLE EXPERTS — Where the parties cannot agree on the content of letters of instructions to single experts.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties agree that the child should live with the mother and the mother have sole decision-making responsibility – Where the father sought to be consulted on major long-term decisions – Where there are serious concerns about father’s parenting capacity and the child’s safety – Where the father has perpetrated family violence – Where there is an unacceptable risk to the child spending time with the father that can only be ameliorated by supervision – Where all parties seek supervised time orders but diverge on the frequency and long-term continuation of supervision – Where the mother and ICL seek ongoing supervision – Where the father seeks supervised time until the child attains 10 years of age and unsupervised time thereafter – Whether the identified risks will be mitigated and will no longer be unacceptable when the child attains 10 years of age – Where there is no evidence to support a finding that the identified risks will reduce or change in the future – Where orders are made for long-term ongoing supervised time with the father – Whether the frequency of the time orders should change – Where the child derives benefit from his relationship with his father – Where there is no evidence to suggest a change to the frequency of time is in the best interests of the child – Where it is in the child’s best interests to spend monthly supervised time with the father and continue with weekly Zoom calls.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – SANCTION – Where the father declined to seek a particular sanction for the mother’s contraventions without reasonable excuse – Where, since findings of contravention were made, the parties have worked co-operatively to facilitate the resumption of the children’s time with the father and the commencement of family therapy – Where the mother has taken steps to address her prior behaviour – Where imposing no sanction upholds the relevant legislative objectives.

COSTS – Where the contravention proceedings were necessary – Where the mother was wholly unsuccessful in her attempt to establish reasonable excuse – Orders made for mother to pay the father’s costs as agreed, and failing agreement, as assessed, sixty days following the making of final property orders.

FAMILY LAW – Ex Tempore Reasons – stay application – where the applicant sought a stay of interlocutory orders pending an appeal – where there had been non-compliance by the applicant with the orders the subject of the application – where the respondent sought an order pursuant to s106A – where the applicant failed to attend the hearing and to be available to his instructors for the purposes of the hearing – where the proceedings were marked by a protracted history involving determination of threshold disputes – consideration of the merits of the appeal – doubts as to the applicant’s bona fides – stay application dismissed – orders made pursuant to s 106A.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the wife failed to comply with an order of the Court – Where the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking leave to amend his Amended Response to Initiating Application – Leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks leave to read and rely upon adversarial expert evidence – Where a single expert witness had been appointed under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“Rules”) – Where the Court is not satisfied the evidence should be allowed under r 7.08(2) of the Rules – Application dismissed with costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – abuse of process – attempt to relitigate issue determined by earlier consent order – application by beneficiary of deceased estate of husband to intervene in property proceedings – application for substitution of legal personal representative of deceased husband – discovery sought against non-party – request for leave to issue subpoena.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the child lives and spends time with – Where the parties are unable to agree parenting arrangements for a nine year old child – Where the child currently lives with the respondent and spends five nights per fortnight with the applicant – Where the applicant seeks a change of primary care – Where the respondent seeks to reduce the child’s current time with the applicant to three nights per fortnight – Where the child experiences high levels of anxiety – Consideration of best interests – Where a change in primary care is likely to cause the child extreme distress and anxiety – Where the evidence supports a reduction in time from five nights to three nights per fortnight with the applicant – Sole parental responsibility for decision-making to the respondent – Orders.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT – Where both parties filed applications seeking the other comply with final orders regarding sale of the matrimonial property – Where both parties assert the other is responsible for the non-compliance with the orders – Where both parties seek alterations to the orders that deal with the sale of such property – Where enacting the husband’s proposed alterations would result in a substantive change to the orders – Sale of the property and avoidance of future litigation in the interest of both parties – Discharge and substitution of the order regarding sale of the property.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Injunctive orders – Where the de facto wife seeks injunctive orders to receive notice prior specified dealings with a unit trust and a discretionary trust of which she contends the de facto husband directs the conduct of – Where the appointor and the trustees of those trusts, being the second, fourth, and fifth respondents, oppose the injunctive orders as sought – Where those respondents contend the evidence does not establish that the de facto wife has an arguable case to justify preservation of the status quo and that, in absence of a risk of dealing with assets to frustrate a judgment, an injunction cannot be grounded by application of the “chicken soup” principle – Where the balance of convenience favours the injunctive orders broadly as sought by the wife amended to a defined scope – Notification orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders proposed with consent of all parties – Proposed orders suitable to ameliorate the risk to the children associated with the father in circumstances where the mother’s parental capacity is compromised – Final orders made in line with the terms provided by the parties.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto wife seeks to join the de facto husband’s mother and other corporate and trust entities in which she contends the husband controls as additional respondents to the proceeding – Where the proposed additional respondents oppose the joinder – Where the de facto wife abandoned or withdrew her contentions of sham – Where she instead contends control – Consideration of whether to refuse an application for joinder if there is no merit – Where the de facto wife’s claim could not be said to be unsuccessful – Where r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) mandates the joinder of the additional respondents as necessary parties to the proceeding – Order for the joinder of the proposed additional respondents.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – TRIAL SEQUENCE – the applicant submits that the respondent should file his case outline first as the applicant does not understand the case advanced by the respondent – held, case outlines should be filed concurrently.

MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – EXPERT EVIDENCE – the respondent submits that the applicant should be restricted to a single expert witness per issue – held, the applicant should not be so restricted.