If they do not file then they have no evidence before the court, no evidence equals no case which is a cold hard fact.
VIC Respondent Didn't File Any Evidence-in-Chief - What to Do?
- Thread starter Malissla
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evidence family court trial
Dream on.... you have not got a single clue what you're talking about and if you're not willing to listen to people who do know why ask questions in the first place?
Feel free to keep arguing though I've got a bit of time to spare before dinner
Argue over what? If a person files no evidence in chief then they have no case, you have to file your evidence in chief by filing an Affidavit, no Affidavit then no evidence, no evidence then no case. What part of that do you not understand?
You are watching too much tv hun... like I said before come back in a few weeks and tell me in a grovelling way how right I was. I look forward to it
Small intrusion...then I’ll let you both get back to it...
I don’t know the exact trial directions you were given but if they say anything like...the applicant and respondent must file any further material on which they intend to rely by such and such date, then the respondent is at liberty to rely on their already filed affidavit/s.
With respect to late filing, this is quite common, and excused (mostly due to procedural fairness), unfortunately. If the matter goes ahead undefended, keep in mind, you will still need to persuade the Court that the orders you are seeking are in the best interests of the child i.e. it doesn’t mean they will be automatically/unconditionally granted.
Maybe wait for a few more weeks before deciding what you will do?
I don’t know the exact trial directions you were given but if they say anything like...the applicant and respondent must file any further material on which they intend to rely by such and such date, then the respondent is at liberty to rely on their already filed affidavit/s.
With respect to late filing, this is quite common, and excused (mostly due to procedural fairness), unfortunately. If the matter goes ahead undefended, keep in mind, you will still need to persuade the Court that the orders you are seeking are in the best interests of the child i.e. it doesn’t mean they will be automatically/unconditionally granted.
Maybe wait for a few more weeks before deciding what you will do?
seems they say
Which is la la land seems to mean you dont have to make the application that clearly says in the orders needs to be made , Making an application actually means just turn up to court for the hearing and you will walk away an unopposed winner I honestly did not know it was that easy,..... I guess we all learnt something today
In fact, i wonder why the judge even made the order that an application was needed if it was not and you can simply waltz into court and claim victory in your case as is being claimed by the OP. I guess the Judge did not bank on this canny litigant noticing, maybe they wanted to increase their workload for nothing?
I sure hope the OP pull sthe judge up on their dreadful error on day one of the hearing because it looks like there will be a lot of spare time after the unopposed victory and a few whoop whooping celebrations over coffee on the ground floor. .
The trial order stated that neither of us could rely on any previous affidavits filed and that we file trial affidavits setting out our evidence in chief. The respondent (self represented) did not file on the due date. No other evidence can be filed now without leave of the court. There is a difference between late filing and no filing, and it appears to be the later at this time. I realise that I still need to make my case for the orders I am seeking but the respondent doesn't get the opportunity to get the orders he is seeking in the event that he doesn't file. Yes, I agree with you, I considered waiting another two weeks before filing to go ahead undefended, I wanted to do it closer to the trial date as I don't want the court to provide another opportunity to the respondent to file, the later I leave the application the less chance there is of that happening, and of course provides more time and therefore less of an excuse as to why he has not filed when I do file the application.
Did I say that I did not have to make an application for it to go ahead undefended? Stop making wrong assumptions will you! Of course I need to make an application, the order tells me that!!
I will be filing for the matter to go ahead undefended, what I am saying is I do not want to make the application NOW as I believe that by doing so it could simply invite the court to afford the respondent another opportunity to file his evidence in chief, I am saying that I would rather do it nearer the trial date so as to prevent the court affording the respondent another opportunity to file, but even in the event I do not make the application it isn't possible for the matter to go ahead defended at trial if the respondent HAS NOT FILED his evidence in chief.
YOU telling ME to stop making assumptions.. that's a bit of a larf.. made me spit out my mineral water as i guffawed
You are just not listening are you..but i will tell you AGAIN anyway.... it is YOUR perception and view that it is a no filing and not a late filing. It is YOUR lack of any experience whatsoever that makes you seem to think that everyone files on time and it is YOUR (rather flawed) view that people cannot file after a filing deadline. Let me tell you where you are wrong (again)
PEOPLE FILE LATE, LAWYERS DO, SELF REPS DO, ICL'S DO and NOTHING ever happens bar a slap on the wrist at most . In my last case my ex filed 4 weeks late, in the last 5 cases i have worked on the opposition filed weeks late.. would you like me to print you off a certificate to prove this. Late filing is the norm and its more surprising if people actually file on time
Stop clutching at straws and stop dreaming. This is not TV. I won't respond to you again, you are beyond help but i look forward to your apology when the time comes and i am prover correctumundo
Last edited:
Similar threads
