Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Evidence of Settlement Negotiations - How to include them in evidence

Hi Folks ,

The process of negotiating childrens and property matters has been a rather torrid affair for me. Initially I had legal representation and at a cost of $3000 I recieved a handful of meaningless letters and some very poor advice. I sacked the solicitor and had an hour long meeting with another prospect who told me absolutely nothing of what I wanted to hear either (at a cost of $440) I then advised the opposition solicitor that I was self representing and the tone of the correspondence changed immediately from a negotiation to downright threatening with an abundance of legal jargon (which I will share in due course) intended to keep me off balance.

Throughout I took a calm view (after a brief fit of rage after each correspondence) and acted entirely appropriately. The process looking back and reading says a hell of a lot about the opposition and their representative and I believe the nature of the correspondence to be a key to making my case. SO having a look at section 131 I would like some pointers as to where I might bring this adversarial rubbish to the attention of the court.

I have highlighted the areas of particular interest to me as possible ways to include the evidence but I am not completely sure as to the interpretation.

I am hoping that when I recieve a copy of the applicants affadavit they are implying they have acted differently than they actually did, invoking Section 131 (2) (e)

OR

That the change of tone in the correspondence once the solicitor knew they were deling with an SRL could be considered an abuse of power , invoking Section 131 (2) (k)

Any thoughts ???

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exclusion of evidence of settlement negotiations

             (1)  Evidence is not to be adduced of:

                     (a)  a communication that is made between persons in dispute, or between one or more persons in dispute and a third party, in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute; or

                     (b)  a document (whether delivered or not) that has been prepared in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of a dispute.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply if:

                     (a)  the persons in dispute consent to the evidence being adduced in the proceeding concerned or, if any of those persons has tendered the communication or document in evidence in another Australian or overseas proceeding, all the other persons so consent; or

                     (b)  the substance of the evidence has been disclosed with the express or implied consent of all the persons in dispute; or

                      ©  the substance of the evidence has been partly disclosed with the express or implied consent of the persons in dispute, and full disclosure of the evidence is reasonably necessary to enable a proper understanding of the other evidence that has already been adduced; or

                     (d)  the communication or document included a statement to the effect that it was not to be treated as confidential; or

                     (e)  the evidence tends to contradict or to qualify evidence that has already been admitted about the course of an attempt to settle the dispute; or

                      (f)  the proceeding in which it is sought to adduce the evidence is a proceeding to enforce an agreement between the persons in dispute to settle the dispute, or a proceeding in which the making of such an agreement is in issue; or

                     (g)  evidence that has been adduced in the proceeding, or an inference from evidence that has been adduced in the proceeding, is likely to mislead the court unless evidence of the communication or document is adduced to contradict or to qualify that evidence; or

                     (h)  the communication or document is relevant to determining liability for costs; or

                      (i)  making the communication, or preparing the document, affects a right of a person; or

                      (j)  the communication was made, or the document was prepared, in furtherance of the commission of a fraud or an offence or the commission of an act that renders a person liable to a civil penalty; or

                     (k)  one of the persons in dispute, or an employee or agent of such a person, knew or ought reasonably to have known that the communication was made, or the document was prepared, in furtherance of a deliberate abuse of a power.





I'm not sure how being a cow in the property settlement is relevant to the children's case. Unless significant porkies were told (which could go against credibility) I don't see the point.

The FM will not give pats on the back for showing that you had a tough time with the settlement.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets