NSW Help me understand court and tribunal processes?

[Ajason]

I've been involved in a number of court and tribunal processes as an applicant. For the most part these have been minor and I've self-repped as solicitors weren't interested or it wasn't worth hiring one. All these have had a relatively positive outcome.

However, none could be considered an outright "win" as in every single case the other side party has always made outrageous and misleading or even dishonest claims. In every single case I've been required to show the contrary but once done more outrageous, misleading or dishonest claims are made. Eventually I would run out of proof or not be able to obtain that proof in time and then this would be used to reduce or diminish my claim. The judge or member has never taken into consideration the misleading and dishonest claims of the other party or sanctioned them.

I don't understand why such mud slinging tactics are allowed and not sanctioned? How can I avoid getting bogged down in such stuff?

 

[Docupedia]

Broadly you have three options:
- get the evidence you need to counter their argument, or prove their inconsistency
- develop a better argument around the block
- don’t pursue the claim in the first place.

Harsh, but that’s the reality. And old boss of mine had a cartoon on his office wall - If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, call the other lawyer a schmuck.

If you’re having a series of these, going to a lawyer for some specific help or advice on recurring issues may be worthwhile. It might not be cost effective on a single case basis, but overall it may.

 

[Scruff]

A couple more tips:

1. Often when mud slinging, the party goes of topic and brings up matters that are not relevant to the actual subject matter of the claim. In reply, point this out and keep your statements strictly relevant. Don't throw mud back.

2. Never go into a legal proceeding with the sole objective of winning. Your objectives should always include causing the other party to lose. That means anticipating what the other party will throw at you as part of preparing for your case. In other words, it's not just about presenting your own case, but also about negating the other party's case. You look at all the possible arguments and outcomes and work backwards to find ways to negate them. You do this until you have found a way to negate all arguments and outcomes that you can think of, until the only outcome left is the one you are after. Then you can look at what else you might need to achieve that outcome.

This is what you call "thinking outside the box", which admittedly, is not something that everyone can do. For people with very high IQ's, this comes naturally, which is why people who really excel in law, science, engineering, etc generally have IQ's that are well above normal. They excel because having an ability to think outside the box is extremely beneficial in those fields, especially when you naturally solve problems by working through them in reverse.

For example, let's say the problem before us is to get from A to B. But other possible desinations are C, D, E and F. To get to any destination, you have to cross a bridge to get there and blow up the bridges between A and all the other destinations so noone else can travel those roads.

Most people focus solely on getting from A to B and forget about disabling the other roads. But I hardly ever do that. Depending on the problem, my natural though process is to look at C, D, E and F first, and figure out a way to blow up the bridges between them and A - essentiall working backwards. Once that's done, the only road left runs from A to B and then I look at what I need to do to fix or build the bridge to get there.

 

[Ajason]

Thanks both for your replies. As mentioned part of the issue is running out of evidence that what they say is untrue/incorrect when it's non stop mudslinging. The first, second, and third time I can show it's untrue but there comes a point where I don't have the required information available or have run out of arguments. I'm am aware that my debating skills are rudimentary which is a handicap especially when the other side is adept at twisting words and situations.

I'd much rather not have to pursue these claims but my life experience has been that most people and companies will try and avoid paying what's due. I haven't been able to pursue every matter and that's already caused me to lose a lot of money. I'm more or less forced to pursue these matters without which I would be destitute.

I've also found most judges and tribunal members are either jaded or just arrogant. I was berated by a senior member on a matter they said just wasn't possible (backed up by the respondent of course). Well I was successful with that because a team of 5 government lawyers from 2 departments couldn't hide or talk their way out of the evidence they claimed couldn't exist but which I had thankfully kept. Of course a solicitor would have been much more successful than me.

Again thank you and I will take your suggestions on board.