Verdon and Verdon (No 2)

This case concerned an application before the Family Court of Australia, with Mr Verdon as the applicant and Ms Verdon as the respondent. The dispute involved evidentiary objections raised by the applicant concerning the admissibility of substantial portions of the respondent's affidavit, affirmed on 15 March 2021, as well as parts of the applicant's own affidavits. The court was tasked with determining which parts of these affidavits were admissible evidence for the trial.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether specific statements within the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay, argument, speculation, or conclusions, rather than factual evidence. The court was required to apply the principles of evidence law, including the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) and the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth), to assess the admissibility of contested passages. This involved distinguishing between factual assertions and inadmissible opinion or argumentative content, and considering whether inferences could be drawn from admitted facts.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously examined each contested paragraph and sentence. It upheld objections where statements were clearly hearsay (e.g., the reason for a daughter's contract not being renewed) or constituted argument or conclusions. However, the court overruled objections where statements were considered factual assertions, even if expressed in general terms or requiring estimation (e.g., estimating the frequency of children staying with the respondent). The court also applied principles of inference, drawing conclusions from admitted facts to interpret ambiguous statements, and considered the common understanding of terms like "family business." Where objections were conceded by a party, the court ruled those portions inadmissible by agreement.

The outcome of the court's rulings was that significant portions of Ms Verdon's affidavit of 15 March 2021 were deemed inadmissible, along with parts of Mr Verdon's affidavits affirmed on 1 March 2021 and filed on 13 April 2021. The court ordered that marked-up versions of the affidavits, reflecting the deletions, be provided to the witnesses for adoption at trial.