Verdon and Verdon (No 3)

This matter concerned a dispute between the applicant, Mr Verdon, and the respondent, Ms Verdon, before the Family Court of Australia. The court was required to make rulings on the admissibility of various portions of affidavits filed by the parties.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine which parts of the affidavits of Mr MM, Ms UU, and Mr LL were admissible as evidence in the proceeding. This involved assessing whether specific paragraphs contained hearsay, irrelevant information, or opinions not properly before the court.

Justice Wilson applied the principles of evidence, including the rule against hearsay and the requirement for relevance, to assess each disputed paragraph. For instance, paragraph 9 of Mr MM's affidavit was ruled inadmissible as it concerned cost plans for which the author, Mr VV, was the proper witness. Similarly, hearsay was identified in paragraph 27 of Mr MM's affidavit and paragraph 16 of Ms UU's affidavit. Irrelevant material, such as personal views or hopes, was excluded from Mr MM's affidavit (paragraph 28). The court also noted that evidence of negotiations leading to a contract is admissible, but those that lead nowhere are not, referencing *Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority*.

The court made specific rulings on the admissibility of individual paragraphs within the affidavits of Mr MM, Ms UU, and Mr LL, with some portions being ruled admissible and others inadmissible. The form of the final orders was subject to the court's records.