Guardianship — immunisation of child — vaccine — application to file overseas expert evidence — RA v R [2010] NZCA 57, (2010) 25 CRNZ 138 — DH (SC9/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 35, [2015] 1 NZLR 625 — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 46R, 133(1) — Evidence Act 2006, s 25(1). The parties were the parents of a young girl soon to start school. The father wanted the girl to be immunised while the mother did not, considering that the girl was at risk of an adverse reaction to immunisation. The Court was tasked with determining the issue, and in this pretrial matter the mother sought to file evidence from two overseas doctors. The issue for the Court was whether the evidence was relevant and whether it should be admitted as expert evidence. Both doctors were based in the US. The first doctor was of the opinion that the girl was at risk of allergic reactions to certain chemicals in the vaccines and so advised against it. The Court considered that neither of the doctors had adequate knowledge of the New Zealand immunisation programme, neither had examined the girl directly and neither was fully reliable. Also it was doubtful that the mother would be able to meet the cost of the doctors giving evidence via a video link. Finally, allowing the evidence would unduly delay and prolong the proceedings. The Court had already ordered a report from a neutral New Zealand expert on whether the girl was at heightened risk from immunisation. Therefore the Court declined the mother's application to file additional medical evidence. Judgment Date: 11 February 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *