WILLANS & ENMORE

In *Willans & Enmore* [2021] FamCA 73, the Family Court of Australia, presided over by Wilson J, was required to rule on extensive objections raised by both the applicant, Ms Willans, and the respondent, Mr Enmore, concerning the admissibility of major portions of their respective trial affidavits. The proceedings were heard in Melbourne on 15 and 16 February 2021.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether various statements within the parties' affidavits constituted inadmissible conclusions, opinions, speculation, or hearsay, or were otherwise defective in form. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant's assertions regarding financial valuations, the respondent's business interests, the nature of work performed, property transactions, and the progression of the parties' relationship were supported by sufficient factual basis or fell within her professional expertise. Similarly, the court was tasked with assessing objections to the respondent's evidence, although the provided text focuses predominantly on the applicant's affidavit.

Wilson J applied principles concerning the admissibility of evidence, particularly in the context of affidavits filed in family law proceedings. The court considered whether statements were within the witness's personal knowledge and expertise, referencing *Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar* regarding expert evidence. Many objections were upheld where statements were found to be unsubstantiated conclusions, lacking factual foundation, or speculative. For instance, assertions of "substantial profit" or "all necessary" actions were deemed inadmissible without supporting details. Conversely, objections were overruled where statements were considered direct factual assertions, within the witness's ordinary experience, or demonstrably relevant to the issues in dispute, such as the timing of a relationship's deterioration or the applicant's professional capacity to comment on financial matters.

The court made specific rulings on numerous paragraphs of the applicant's affidavit, upholding objections and deeming parts inadmissible in many instances, while overruling objections in others. The final orders, as detailed in the judgment, were that parts of the affidavits of Ms Willans and Mr Enmore were ruled inadmissible as provided in the judgment.