Polo & Polo and Ors

In *Polo & Polo*, the wife sought to strike out certain answers provided by the husband in his affidavit. The wife contended that the husband's affidavit was deficient because documents that were requested in specific questions were not attached to the answers, some answers were non-responsive to the questions posed, and other answers were not in admissible form. The matter came before the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the husband's affidavit sufficiently complied with the rules of evidence and court procedure, and consequently, whether the wife's application to strike out parts of the affidavit should be granted. This involved an examination of the requirements for affidavits in family law proceedings, particularly concerning the annexing of documents and the responsiveness and admissibility of answers.

The Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in family law matters, including the requirement for affidavits to be confined to matters within the knowledge of the deponent and to be supported by annexures where appropriate. The Court analysed each of the wife's grounds for striking out, determining whether the husband's responses met the necessary standards of specificity, responsiveness, and evidentiary admissibility. The Court's reasoning focused on the practical implications of the alleged deficiencies for the conduct of the proceedings and the ability of the parties to properly engage with the evidence.

The Court made orders in relation to the husband's affidavit, specifying which parts were to be struck out and requiring the husband to file and serve an amended affidavit that complied with the Court's directions.