1

EVIDENCEINFAMILYLAWPROCEEDINGS

Evidence is the “bricks andmortar” of case building. Itmust have

twoessential characteristics tobe information that canbe received

by a Court: itmust be relevant and admissible. Evidence lawwas

formerlyacreatureofcommonlaw.Thatisnolongerthecase.Most

AustralianjurisdictionshaveenactedtheUniformEvidenceAct,which

abolished, ormodifiedmany of the common law rules. It is not a

complete code. Some rules of evidence, both procedural and

substantive(liketheevidentialburdenofproof)arecoveredbyother

legislationandbycommonlaw.

TheEvidenceAct(Cth)waspassedandcameintooperationin1995.

Alllawyerspractisinginthefamilylawjurisdictionshouldbefamiliar

with theEvidenceAct,aswell as theFamilyLawAct(Cth)1975, the

FamilyLawRules2004andFamilyLawRegulations1984.

Thispaperisdividedintothreeparts:

1. DocumentaryEvidence-theuseoftechnology;

2. Evidencegathering–buildingyourcase;and

3. Preparingforandrunningatrial–whentherulesofevidence

comeintosharpfocus.

PART1:DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCEINTHE21STCENTURY

"Therewas,ofcourse,nowayofknowingwhetheryouwerebeingwatchedatanygivenmoment...itwasevenconceivablethat[theThoughtPolice]watchedeverybodyallthetime...Theycouldpluginyourwirewhenevertheywantedto.Youhadtolive...intheassumptionthat...everymovementwasscrutinized."- GeorgeOrwell1947,in1984

2

Text messages, e-mails, smart phones and social media - this

technology now permeates our lives. Consequently, it has created

newformsofdocumentaryevidencethatisbeingusedintheCourts.

It is important to remember that electronic communications are

essentially documents and must be proved (assuming they are

admissible)iftheyaretoberelieduponasgoodevidence.

So,whatisa“document”andhowdoyouproveitinCourt?

TheDictionary intheEvidenceActdefines“document”verybroadly,

asfollows:

Documentmeansanyrecordofinformation,andincludes-

(a) anythingonwhichthereiswriting;or

(b) anything on which there are marks, figures, symbols or

perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to

interpretthem;or

(c) anything from which sounds, images or writings can be

reproducedwithorwithouttheaidofanythingelse;or

(d) amap,plan,drawingorphotograph.

This means mobile phones, computers, discs, memory cards, USB

sticks, i-phones, i-pads,recordingsandimagescanallbedocuments

forthepurposesofevidence,providedtheycontaininformationthat

someone can interpret. That information must be relevant to the

proceedingtobeadmissibleevidence.

Atcommonlaw,the“bestevidencerule”meantthatthecontentsofa

document would usually be proved by tendering the original

3

document. Copies of documents and oral evidence about the

contents of documents were generally inadmissible (subject to

exceptions, for example, where the original document was not

availableanditsabsencecouldbeexplained).Thecommonlawrule

nolongerapplies.Section48oftheEvidenceActsetsouthowaparty

may adduce evidence of the contents of a document. I have not

extractedthesection,whichisquitelengthy. Bywayofsummary,a

partycantenderthedocumentsoughttobereliedupon,oruseone

ofthefollowingmethods:

(a) adduceevidenceofanadmissionmadebyanotherparty

to theproceedingas to thecontentsof thedocument in

question (for example, put it to them as a prior

inconsistent statement in cross examination, or in a

NoticetoAdmit);

(b) tenderacopyproducedbyaphotocopierorscanner;

(c) tenderatranscript(forexample,ofarecording);

(d) tender a document that is produced by use of a device

usedtoretrieve,produceorcollateinformationfromthe

article/document (for example, a DVD or USB stick

containinginformationdownloadedfromacomputer);

(e) tenderadocumentthatisasummaryoforextractfrom

the document in question, which forms part of the

recordsofabusiness(forexample,acopyofasummary

ofthelastsetoffinancialaccountsofabusiness);

(f) if the document is a public document, tender a copy

producedfromanofficialgovernmentsource.

4

Adocumentcanbeprovedinoneofthewayssetoutabove,evenif

the original document is available. If the original document is

unavailable, then under section 48(4) of the Evidence Act the

documentcanbeprovedbywayofacopy,extract, summary,orby

oralevidence.

Remember to have some forethought about the practicalities of

presentingdocumentaryevidenceinCourt.Ifyouintendtorelyona

recordingorevidencedownloaded fromacomputer, liaisewith the

Court before the hearing to ensure that equipment is available in

Courttoplayitonandthattheequipmentiscompatiblewithdevice

youintendtouse.

Informationon computersandotherdevices canbe subpoenaedor

bethesubjectofdiscoveryandNoticestoProduce inthesameway

as other documents that are relevant to the proceeding. An Order

maybesoughtbyfilinganApplicationinaCaseforapartytomake

its computer available for inspection, if necessary, however issues

aboutlegalprivilegeandrelevancemayariseifapartywants“carte

blanche”.

It isnowcommonfordocuments tobeproducedunderasubpoena

onadiscorUSBstickandforsolicitorstoattendthesubpoenaroom

withalaptop,ratherthanaphotocopycard.Computerfilesmayalso

beproducedandmadeavailable for inspectionelectronically. Care

mustbetakeninvettingwhatisincluded,astherehavebeencasesin

whichthis formofdiscoveryhasraisedissuesaboutwaiverof legal

privilege: see forexampleGTCorporationPtyLtdvAmareSafetyPty

5

Ltd[2007]VSC123.Inthatcase,enormouselectronicdiscoverywas

provided,withnoindexthatidentifiedwhatthedocumentswereand

fromwhosecomputertheyhadcome. Amongstthethousandsofe-

mails in the discovery were some sensitive solicitor-client

communications. The case was about whether there had been an

impliedwaiverofprivilegeandwhethercounselwhohadinspected

someofthedocumentsshouldberestrainedfromactinginthecase.

Theanswerstothosequestionswereno,therehadbeennoimplied

waiver in the circumstances and yes, counsel was restrained from

actinganyfurtherinthecase.

Ifdocumentsarevoluminousandcomplex,section50oftheEvidence

Actprovidesthatevidenceofthedocumentsmaybeadducedbyway

ofasummary,providedtheotherpartyisservedwithacopy,given

thenameandaddressofthepersonwhopreparedthesummaryand

hasareasonableopportunitytoinspectthedocuments.Thismaybe

ausefulprovision incomplex financialcases in theFamilyCourt, in

whichevidencemayneedtobeadducedofthefinancialrecordsofa

groupof companies, or the gambling records of spouse committing

wasteoveranumberofyears.

DoyouhavetoauthenticatedocumentsinCourt?

The document sought to be adduced as evidence must be

authenticated. Thismeansthat theCourtmustbesatisfiedthat the

document iswhat it is purported to be. Sections 57 and 58 of the

EvidenceActrelaxedthecommonlawrequirementsfordocumentsto

beauthenticatedbeforetheycouldberelevant. Undersection57,a

6

courtcanmakeafindingthatunauthenticateddocumentaryevidence

isrelevant,ifitisreasonablyopentothecourttomakethatfinding,

orsubjecttofurtherevidencebeingadmittedlaterintheproceeding

thatwillmakeitreasonablyopentotheCourttomakeafindingthat

the evidence is relevant. Further, under section 58, the Courtmay

examineadocumentanddrawfromitanyreasonableinferenceasto

itsauthenticityoridentity.Inotherwords,theCourtcanacceptthe

authenticityofadocumentatfacevalue.

However, if the authenticity of a document is in question and the

partyseekingtorelyonitdoesnotbringevidenceaboutthemaking

ofthedocumentwhentheycoulddoso,thentheCourtmayfinditis

notrelevant,orexcludetheevidenceusing thediscretionarypower

undersection135oftheEvidenceActtoexcludeevidencethatmight

beunfairlyprejudicial,misleadingorconfusing,orcauseorresultin

unduewasteoftime.

Computer recordsaredealtwith in section147of theEvidenceAct.

This section basically says that if a document is produced by a

process, machine or other device in the course of a business, then

evidenceisnotrequiredabouttheworkingaccuracyofthe“device”

(unlessthereisevidencetodisplacethepresumptionofauthenticity

raised by the section). Section 161 contains a similar provision in

relation to electronic communications. If a document purports to

containarecordofanelectroniccommunication,thenitispresumed

thatthecommunicationwasmade,sentandreceivedinthemanner

appearingonthedocument.

7

Whataboutthehearsayrule?

Manydocumentsarehearsay.Thatis,theyarerepresentationsmade

byapersonoutofcourt. Section59of theEvidenceActdefines the

hearsayruleasfollows:

Evidence of a previous representationmade by a person is not

admissibletoprovetheexistenceofafactthatitcanreasonably

be supposed that the person intended to assert by the

representation.

Therearevariousexceptionstothehearsayrule.Themostrelevant

oneinthiscontextistheexceptionforbusinessrecordsinsection69

oftheEvidenceAct,whichisbasedontheirreliabilityandnecessity.

“Business” is defined widely. To come within the exception, the

documentmust satisfy one of two conditions. Firstly, the business

record was made by a person who had, or might reasonably be

supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the fact asserted.

Secondly, and in the alternative, it was made on the basis of

informationdirectlyorindirectlysuppliedbysuchaperson.

There is also an exception to the hearsay rule in section 71 of the

EvidenceActaboutrecordsofelectroniccommunications,insofaras

therepresentationisabouttheidentityofthesender,thedate,time

and destination of the communication. For example, if an e-mail

print-outstatesthatitwassentbyHusbandtoWifeat10.40pmon1

March2013,thenthatisadmissibleevidenceofthesendingofthee-

mailatthattime.

8

Itisalsoimportanttonotethatsection60oftheEvidenceActmakes

a significant change to the common law hearsay rule. Once a

documentisadmittedintoevidenceforanon-hearsaypurpose,itcan

alsobeusedforahearsaypurpose.Thismeansthatifanoutofcourt

representationisadmissibleasevidencethatastatementwasmade,

then it is also admissible as evidence of the fact asserted in the

statement. So, for example, if adownload fromaFacebookpage is

admissible as evidence that personA communicateswith personB

throughsocialmedia,thenthefactsassertedintheFacebookpostare

alsoadmissibleevidence.

Whatabouttelephonecalls&recordings?

Inrelationtotelephonecalls,youshouldbeawareofsection7ofthe

Telecommunications(InterceptionandAccess)Act(Cth) 1979,which

prohibits the interception and recording of telephone calls. As a

general rule, telephone calls may not be recorded whilst being

transmitted unless the person recording the call informs the

speakers that they are being recorded. A party can record a

telephone conversation inwhich he or she is a participantwithout

offendingthissection,asitistheinterceptionofthecallwithoutthe

participants’ knowledge, rather than the recording in itself that

createstheoffence.

Arguably,theCourtmayexerciseitsdiscretionundersection138of

theEvidenceActtoadmitevidenceof illegally interceptedtelephone

calls,iftheprobativevalueishigh,andgrantacertificateagainstself-

incrimination under section 128 of theEvidenceActto thewitness

9

givingsuchevidence. Thelawinthisareaisnotcompletelysettled,

as there is a tension between section 138 of the EvidenceActand

section 63 of the Telecommunications Act, which provides a

mandatoryprohibitiononusingunlawfully intercepted information

asevidenceinaproceeding.

As a general rule, under State legislation, such as the Surveillance

DevicesAct 1999 (Vic), it is illegal to use a listeningor surveillance

devicetorecordaprivateconversationtowhichthepersonusingthe

device is not apartywithout the express or implied consent of the

partiestotheconversation.Itislegaltomakearecordinginapublic

place, where you would expect other people to hear you, and to

recordconversationsinwhichyouareaparticipant.Inpractice,this

meansthataparentcan legallymakeanaudioandvisualrecording

(forexample,onamobilephone)ofhisorherdirectinteractionwith

the other parent at a contact changeoverwithout the other parent

knowing and consenting. However, it also means that a parent

cannot lawfully record a child’s telephone conversation with the

otherparentwithoutthemknowing(forexample,byholdingatape

recorderuptothehand-pieceofanextensionphone).

PART2:EVIDENCEGATHERING–BUILDINGYOURCASE

Financialdisclosure

Thepartieshaveanobligationtomakefullandfrankdisclosureofall

documents in their possession or control that are relevant to the

proceeding and that are not subject to legal privilege. Privileged

10

documentsarethosedocumentspreparedforthedominantpurpose

ofcurrentoranticipatedlegalproceedings.

Note,section55theEvidenceActdefinesrelevantevidenceasbeing

evidencethat, if itwereaccepted,couldrationallyaffect(directlyor

indirectly)theassessmentoftheprobabilityoftheexistenceofafact

inissueintheproceeding.

The Family Law Rules and Federal Circuit Court Rules set out the

documents thatmust be disclosed in financial cases as aminimum

requirement, to the extent that they are relevant. In addition to a

general obligation of financial disclosure, there are specific

provisionsrequiringproductionof:

• last3taxreturnsandassessments

• superannuationinformationforms

• last financial statements for trusts, companies and

partnerships

• copiesoftrustdeedsandpartnershipagreements

• BASforthepast12months

• Marketappraisalsofassets

• Proofofincome

• Disclosureofdisposalofassetsoverthepast12months

SeeFamilyLawRules12.02,12.05and13.04.

See Federal Circuit Court Rules 24.03, 24.04 (financial cases) and

24.05(maintenancecases, inwhich12monthsbankstatementsare

alsorequired).

11

Obtainingevidencefromthirdparties

ThirdpartiescanbejoinedorinterveneinproceedingsifOrdersare

sought thataffect their rights, forexample, a trustee inbankruptcy.

Partiesmay also need to join a third party, if that person or entity

must be bound by the Orders made by the Court for them to be

effective, for example, where a company or trustee is required to

transferanassettoaspouseparty.

Subpoenaemaybeissuedandservedonthirdpartiesatanystageof

theproceedingintheFederalCircuitCourt,uptoamaximumoffive

(seeFederalCircuitCourtRules 15A.01 to15A.11). Subpoenaemay

beissuedintheFamilyCourtwithoutpermissionforthepurposesof

an interim or procedural hearing, but the leave of the Court is

requiredtoissuesubpoenaefortrial(seeFamilyLawRules15.17to

15.21). Special rules apply to self-represented litigants and

subpoenaingdocumentsfromothercourts.

A subpoena to give evidence, or to produce documents and give

evidence, will not be issued if a subpoena to produce documents

would be sufficient. A subpoena may be objected to if it is

oppressive,vexatious,orafishingexpedition.

His Honour Justice Cronin reviewed the law on subpoenae in the

recent decision of Cahill&Cahill(no.2)[2013] FamCA 453. In that

case,thewifesoughtproductionbyafirmofsolicitorsofdocuments

relatingto thedispositionandpotentialsaleofassetsbyagroupof

family owned entities. She also sought the production of invoices

12

rendered by the firm onmatters related to a variety of companies,

trustsandadeceasedestate.Thewifehadmadeuntestedallegations

inthecasethatthehusband’sfamilyhadanarrangementabouthow

trustassetswouldbedivided,whichtheHusbanddenied.

The husband’s mother objected to the subpoenae in her personal

capacity, her capacity as a director of the group of companies,

executor of her late husband’s estate and the appointor of some

trusts.Shewasfoundtohavea“sufficientinterest”inthesubpoena

tobeheard.

The husband’smother objected to the subpoenae on the basis that

theywereoppressive, fishing andnot relevant, andharassing. The

first ground was difficult to argue because the documents had

alreadybeenprovided,however,HisHonourJusticeCroninsaid:

…oppression is not confined simply to the size of the task but

rathertowhetherthecourtconsidersthisexerciseimposedona

non-party is an unreasonable invasion of their privacy having

regardtothetaskoftheCourttodojusticetothepartiesinthe

substantiveproceedings.

The objector argued that the subpoenae were harassing because a

subpoenahadalreadybeenissuedandlaterwithdrawnbythewife,

andthehusbandarguedthathisinterestintheobjector’sassetsand

thoseofthe“family”wasspeculativeatbest.TheJudgerejectedthis

argumentandsaidtherelevanceofdocumentsinthiscontextisnot

limited to documents admissible in themselves in proof of an issue

13

raised in the case. It is sufficient that they could “possibly throw

light”ontheissuesinthesubstantiveproceedings,oritappearstobe

“on the cards” that they will do so. The party seeking to inspect

subpoenaed documents need only show a legitimate forensic

purposeintheinspection.

ConverselyintheCahillcase,JusticeCroninhadpreviouslysetaside

subpoenae issued by the husband against the wife’s family on the

basisthattheyweretoowide-rangingincircumstanceswhereinter-

partydiscoveryhadnotbeenundertaken.Itwasnotacaseof“what

is good for the goose is good for the gander”, as the wife had

exhaustedall otheravenuesofobtaining thedocuments she sought

to support her allegations about the husband’s true financial

resources. The Husband, when he issued his subpoenae, had not

exhaustedallotheravenues.

Expertevidence

Consideratanearlystageofthecasewhetherornotyouneedexpert

evidence. If so, shoulda singleexpertbe jointly appointed? If you

haveobtainedasingleexpertreport,doyouneedashadowexpertto

challengetheevidenceofthesingleexpert,ortoadviseyouonhow

to attack the single expert’s report? The rules about experts are

clear,bothintermsofprocedureundertheFamilyLawRulesandin

termsofwhomaybecalledasanexpert.

Expert evidence is admissible opinion evidence. As a general rule,

evidence of an opinion is inadmissible under section 76 of the

14

EvidenceAct.Tobeadmissible,theopinionofanexpertmustsatisfy

threecriteria,setoutinsection79oftheEvidenceAct,being:

1. Thepersonmusthavespecializedknowledge;

2. The specialized knowledge must be based on the person’s

training,studyorexperience;and

3. The opinionmust be wholly or substantially based on their

specialisedknowledge.

Further, the common law “basis rule” still applies to expert

evidence, although it is not expressly set out in section 79. This

means that the factsunderpinning theevidencemustbedisclosed.

Theexpertmustsetoutthefactsobservedandproved,uponwhich

theopinionisbased,oridentifyanyfactsthathavebeenassumedor

acceptedinformulatingtheopinion.

The seminal decision on expert evidence isMakita(Australia)Pty

LtdvSprowles[2001|NSWCA305,inwhichHeydonJAsummarized

theprinciplesapplicabletoexpertevidence,whichwerecodifiedin

theEvidenceAct. He said, “..theexpert’sevidencemustexplainhow

the field of ‘specialised knowledge’ inwhich thewitness is expert by

reasonof ‘training, studyorexperience’,andonwhichtheopinion is

‘wholly or substantially based’, applies to the facts assumed or

observed so as to produce the opinion propounded. If all of these

mattersarenotmadeexplicit,itisnotpossibletobesurewhetherthe

opinion is based wholly or substantially on the expert’s specialized

knowledge.”

15

The foundation of an expert’s opinion on “facts” that are hearsay

and the subject of dispute between the parties can provide fertile

groundsforcross-examination.Forexample,apsychologistcannot

give evidence about who abused a person and when the abuse

occurred,asthatisoutsidetheareaofthepsychologist’sexpertise.

Further, a psychologist cannot give an opinion that awitness is a

“good parent”, based on what a witness has told them in clinical

sessions.Thisisamatterforthecourt.

In financialcases,bewaryofaccountantswhoexceedthescopeof

theirexpertiseinprovidingreportsandgivingexpertevidence.For

example,anaccountantmaynotbeabletogiveadmissibleevidence

about what would be expected of a diligent company director,

unlesshe/shehasexperienceasadirectorofanumberofpublicand

privatecompanies. Further,doestheaccountanthavetheindustry

experiencetoprovidevaluationsofcompanyassets,suchaslicences

orfranchises,iftheseareinissue?

TheEvidenceActabolished two common law rules,which in effect

expandedthescopeofexpertevidence.Underthecommonlaw,an

expert could not give an opinion about the ultimate issue in the

proceeding,oramatterofcommonknowledge. Whilst theserules

have been abolished, Courtsmay use their discretion to give such

evidence relatively littleweight, or to exclude itunder thegeneral

discretionundersection135oftheEvidenceActtoexcludeunfairly

prejudicial evidence. Be wary of the expert who becomes a

“barraker”foronepartyandlosesobjectivity.

16

PART3:EVIDENCEATTRIAL

Rule15.09oftheFamilyLawRulesprescribestheformatofAffidavits.

TheFamilyCourtandtheFederalCircuitCourtareessentiallyCourts

of trial by Affidavit. The Judge will have read the parties’ trial

Affidavitsbeforecomingontothebenchtohearthecaseandinmany

instanceswillhave formedapreliminaryviewof thematteron the

basis ofwhat he or she has read. Therefore, it is important to get

themright,frombothafactualandtacticalpointofview.

I have set out below the requirements and some points of “best

practice” for drafting a trial Affidavit, which are basic but often

transgressed:

1. Itshouldthereforecontainallof the facts that thewitness

willattesttointhewitnessbox.Itistheparty’sevidencein

chiefinwriting.

2. Those factsmust be set out in numbered paragraphs and

eachparagraphshouldonlydealwithonesubject.

3. The Affidavit should be chronological, unless there is a

particular reason for drafting the Affidavit by topic or

themeinstead.

4. It is sworn evidence. An Affidavit should not contain

hearsay,conclusions,speculation,opinionsthatthewitness

isnotqualifiedtogive,irrelevantinformationorarguments.

5. Avoidusingabsolutesandadjectives,like“always”,“never”

and “very”. They can put the witness in a difficult spot

when under cross-examination. Adjectives can often

detractfromthefacts,whichdonotneedtobeembellished.

17

6. Do not put conversations in inverted commas, unless the

witness is 100%sureof thewordsused. Avoidusing the

phrase”….saidwords to theeffectof.” It is unnecessary to

use itandstrictly speaking, it isnotevidenceofwhatwas

saidinsubstance,buttheeffectofitonthelistener.

7. IfrespondingtoanAffidavitfromanotherparty,youwillbe

assumedtoadmitthecontents,unlessyouspecificallydeny

them. It is not necessary to specifically admit or provide

“nocomment”inrelationtonon-contentiousparagraphs.

8. It is not necessary in a trial Affidavit to recite the

proceduralhistoryof thecase. TheCourt filesets thisout

andtotheextentthatitisrelevanttothedeterminationof

thematter,ortocosts,itcanbedealtwithinsubmissions.

9. The witness’ evidence should be contained in the one

Affidavit.DonotseektorelyonearlierAffidavitsaswell,or

incorporate them by reference. On the other hand,when

draftinganAffidavitofevidenceinchief,ensurethatyoure-

read and cross-reference previousAffidavits to check that

thewitnessisbeingconsistent.Donotleavethemopento

being cross-examined about making a prior inconsistent

statement.

10. All annexure cover pages and annexures should be

paginated,followingonfromthelastnumberedpageofthe

Affidavit.

11. Iftheannexuresareextensive,considerprovidingtheCourt

with a separate exhibit book, rather than annexures (and

numbereverypageconsecutivelyforeaseofaccessduring

thetrial).

18

12. OnlyannexrelevantpagesofdocumentstoanAffidavitthat

relateto issues indispute. Courtsdonotappreciatebulky

Affidavits,inwhichtheannexuresexceedthemainbodyof

theevidence.

Whilst a trial Affidavit contains factual evidence, how you organize

thefactsinatrialAffidavit,thelevelofdetailyouincludeinrelation

to different aspects of the case and the matters you downplay or

excludearealltacticaldecisions.Whendrafting,haveinthebackof

yourmindwhattheissuesinthecaseare.Inyourfinalsubmissions,

whatdoyouwant to impressupon theCourt? Youneed toensure

thattheevidenceisinthetrialAffidavitstosupportyourarguments

at the end of the case and that the most important evidence is

prominent.

If you are served with Affidavits that contain conclusions,

speculation, argument, unqualified opinions, irrelevant material or

inadmissiblehearsay,thenpreparewrittenobjections.Rule15.13of

theFamilyLawRulesandRule15.29oftheFederalCircuitCourtRules

gives the Court the power to strike out affidavit material that is

inadmissibleand/or irrelevant.TheObjections shouldbe servedon

theothersidebeforethetrial,sothatcounselcanagreetostrikeout

certain paragraphs that clearly offend the rules of evidence. The

balanceoftheobjectionscanthenbearguedbeforetheJudgeatthe

startofthetrial,iftheygotomattersthatarecontentious.Thiscan

take up valuable time at the start of the trial, but is can have

advantages,bothstrategicand inseekinganorder forcosts thrown

away.

19

Bewaryofsection69ZToftheFamilyLawAct,whichgivesthecourt

adiscretiontoallowcertainevidence inparentingcasesthatwould

not be admissible under the Evidence Act, for example, hearsay

evidence.

ItiscommontoseestatementsinAffidavitslikethefollowing,which

areinadmissible,unlesstheyaresupportedbyevidence,andshould

belistedinobjectionsservedontheotherparties:

“Ihaveacloseandlovingrelationshipwiththechildren”(conclusion–

howisthismanifested?)

“The Husband was violent and abusive towards me.” (conclusion –

what did he do? Include particulars to what was said and done to

whomandwhen)

“ImadesignificantlygreatercontributionsthantheWife.”(conclusion

andargumentative–how,what,when?)

“TheWifehastriedtoalienatemefromthechildren.”(conclusionand

speculation–thebehaviourmustbeparticularized. Awitnesscannot

knowwhat someone else is thinking or intends, only the effect of the

behaviourobservedbythewitness)

“Thevalueofthepropertyis likelytoincreasesubstantially.”(opinion

andspeculation–isthewitnessqualifiedtogiveexpertevidenceabout

this?)

20

“If I am not permitted to relocate, my mental health will suffer.”

(speculationandopinion,ratherthanfacts)

“FamilymembershavetoldmethattheHusbandhasdenigratedmeto

our family and friends.” (inadmissible hearsay and unsupported

conclusionaboutwhatwassaid).

“Iamconcerned that theHusbandmayattempt todisposeofassets.”

(this is irrelevant– Judgeswill tellyouthattheyarenot interested in

yourclient’s“concerns”–whatistheevidencethatthewitnesshasseen

orheardthatposesariskofthedisposalofassets?).

ConsiderwhatwillmakelifeeasyfortheJudgewhenheorshehears

thecaseandthemostefficientmeansofgettingevidencebeforethe

Court.Achronologyandabalancesheetshouldbeprepared,agreed

and handed up to the Judge as aidesmemoire, where appropriate.

Summariesandspreadsheets,forexample,ofvaluationsorexpenses

mayalsobeusefulaidememoiresfortheJudgeinfinancialcasesand

savetime,wheretheotherpartiesdonottakeissuewiththecontent.

Finally, beware the spectre of fraud. If your client has a history of

claimingCentrelinkbenefits,makesureyouknowthehistoryofthem

before your client is subjected to cross-examination. This is more

important than ever, when the dates of commencement and

termination of de facto relationships are increasingly in issue in

proceedings.Forexample,ifapartygivesevidencethatshewasina

defactorelationshipatagivendate,hercredibilityisdamagedifsole

parentbenefitswerebeingclaimedatthesametime.Alternatively,if

21

her evidence about the relationship is accepted, then she was

committing an offence under the Social Security Act and may be

exposedtoprosecution.

If therearetaxskeletonsinthecloset, findoutaboutthembeforea

singleexpertaccountant/valuerreporthighlightsthemforthecourt

andthepartiesarereferredbytheJudgeforprosecution. Thismay

mean liaison with the client’s accountants and ensuring that tax

recordsareuptodatebeforeproceeding.

Under section128of theEvidenceAct,awitnessmay relyupon the

privilege against self-incrimination and apply for a certificate from

thecourt. However,oncetheevidencespillsout, it istoolate. This

needstobedonebeforethehorsehasbolted.

JEANETTESWANN

BARRISTER