QLD Friend Self-Representing - Who Decides if Evidence Can be Relied Upon?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now


Well-Known Member
13 February 2015
Gold Coast
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?

Victoria S

Well-Known Member
9 April 2014
She should be able to apply for an adjournment if she or one of her witnesses is ill and their evidence is critical to her case. However, she would have to prove (a) the illness which doesn't allow her or her witness to give proper evidence and (b) the evidence is critical to her case. This would require expert medical reports.

With regard to her evidence generally, are you implying that the evidence she has given in the proceedings is not credible? Is the disability and consequent medicating a permanent issue or something that may improve in coming months? In the latter case, again, an adjournment may be considered, however if it is the former, and she has been in this pain killer induced haze long term - it appears she is able to run her own affairs, make financial decisions etc in real life and should therefore be able to explain her financial affairs.

It is the court's position to be an impartial third party to decide disputes, therefore it will not look out for the interests of one party - since this would create bias and advocacy is the role of legal representation.

What is it that you want the court to do?