Friend of mine has been made bankrupt by Adelaide Bank. She has been served all correct papers and complied wherever possible with appointed trustee's disclosure requests. Now she has been served a summons to present before a federal court registrar for documents and questioning.
At same time her parents were summoned also due to them having a registered second mortgage over the mortgaged home owned by my friend. The first registered mortgage is by Westpac (whom are the mortgage lender). There is no equity in the property, however, the trustee wishes to attempt a show to falsely accuse my friend and her parents that the second mortgage doesn't exist or if it existed, then it was paid out many years ago.
The trustee doesn't contest that Westpac (who are the trustee appointees) have the first secured mortgage over the property.
My question is: when self-representing at a summoned matter before a registrar of the court, who sees to her interests being looked at (during evidence on the stand given, trustees line of questioning, requests to adjourn, the disclosures of her disability which has her on strong pain medication, anxiety and depression drugs, state of mind and mood altering doses of Oxy-norm &Oxy-contin drugs)
Who decides if her evidence given under oath can be relied upon and weather she is disadvantaged because of it? Then on the other hand, should my friend's father be allowed to give his evidence since an unexpected fall two days prior to the summoned hearing causing hospital and 4 stitches and bruising to head, possible concussion injury (76 years of age). Under the circumstances, can the father be excused from giving evidence at this time and can my friend do anything to combat her disadvantages in this trustee initiated court proceeding?
At same time her parents were summoned also due to them having a registered second mortgage over the mortgaged home owned by my friend. The first registered mortgage is by Westpac (whom are the mortgage lender). There is no equity in the property, however, the trustee wishes to attempt a show to falsely accuse my friend and her parents that the second mortgage doesn't exist or if it existed, then it was paid out many years ago.
The trustee doesn't contest that Westpac (who are the trustee appointees) have the first secured mortgage over the property.
My question is: when self-representing at a summoned matter before a registrar of the court, who sees to her interests being looked at (during evidence on the stand given, trustees line of questioning, requests to adjourn, the disclosures of her disability which has her on strong pain medication, anxiety and depression drugs, state of mind and mood altering doses of Oxy-norm &Oxy-contin drugs)
Who decides if her evidence given under oath can be relied upon and weather she is disadvantaged because of it? Then on the other hand, should my friend's father be allowed to give his evidence since an unexpected fall two days prior to the summoned hearing causing hospital and 4 stitches and bruising to head, possible concussion injury (76 years of age). Under the circumstances, can the father be excused from giving evidence at this time and can my friend do anything to combat her disadvantages in this trustee initiated court proceeding?