Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (No 4)

[2023] FedCFamC2G 325

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC2G 325  

File number(s):

PEG 52 of 2021

Judgment of:

JUDGE LUCEV

Date of judgment:

28 April 2023

Catchwords:

EVIDENCE – practice and procedure – objections to affidavit material – power to rule on objections – international treaties, conventions and recommendations

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Evidence – objections to affidavit material – power to rule on objections

Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 56, 59, 76, 84, 85, 89, 91, 97, 98, 114, 115, 134

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 15.16

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 217

Cases cited:

Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588; (2011) 85 ALJR 694; (2011) 9 DDCR 25

Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd v Taouk [2012] NSWCA 342

Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 279

Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd and Others [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165; (2004) 79 ALJR 129; (2004) 1 BFRA 280

Articles:

CL Montz, Trial Objections from Beginning to End: The Handbook for Civil and Criminal Trials, 29 Pepp L Rev Iss 2 (2002)

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

14

Date of hearing:

17, 20 and 21 February 2023

Place:

Perth

Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr R French

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Barry Nilsson Lawyers

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE LUCEV

1. During almost the first day and a half of the hearing of this matter the Court dealt with the numerous objections by the respondent, CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (“CFC”) to the voluminous affidavit material filed by the applicant, Stephane Armet (“Mr Armet”).

   OBJECTIONS – REASONS

2. Objections to evidence do not ordinarily require written or detailed reasons to be given, although whether they are given may depend on the importance of the point involved and its likely effect on the outcome of the case: Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 279 per McHugh JA (“many questions concerning the admissibility of evidence may require nothing more than a ruling”); Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd v Taouk [2012] NSWCA 342 at [33] per Meagher JA (“not necessary nor practicable that every ruling about the admissibility of evidence be accompanied by reasons”).

3. Where an objection to admissibility is made it should be ruled upon as soon as possible, and certainly before the party who tenders the disputed evidence closes it case: Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588; (2011) 85 ALJR 694; (2011) 9 DDCR 25 at [19] per French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

4. In this case, the Court indicated at hearing that it may prepare a schedule of objections and their outcome: Transcript Day One (“TD1”), p 49. On 9 March 2023 Mr Armet requested advice as to how he might obtain a record of the outcome of the objections made to his affidavit material. In an email on 27 March 2023 the presiding Judge’s Chambers advised the parties that “[a] schedule dealing with affidavit objections and outcomes is being prepared … [but] is unlikely to be made available to the Parties before 21 April 2023” (original emphasis).

5. A Schedule of Affidavit Objections – Outcomes (“Schedule”) is annexed to these Reasons for Judgment. The Schedule sets out the relevant affidavit, the material objected to, the basis of the objection, and the outcome of the objection. The Court has tried to only include in the Schedule outcomes for affidavit material which has been struck out.

6. In this case the Court has determined that it is appropriate to produce, at least, a schedule of upheld objections to Mr Armet’s affidavits, in circumstances where:

   (a)the objections are numerous, the wholly or partially successful objections alone numbering more than 115;

   (b)the successful objections resulted in a considerable volume of affidavit material being struck out, including three entire affidavits;

   (c)Mr Armet is self-represented; and

   (d)although Mr Armet did not require an interpreter, English is obviously not his first language.

7. Also, having regard to some of the observations made during the hearing by Mr Armet in relation to the way in which the Court dealt with the objections, the Court has thought it prudent to make some fairly brief observations with respect to the Court’s power to deal with objections, and as to how the Court has dealt with some types of objections in these proceedings.

   OBJECTIONS – POWER

8. At various points in the almost day and a half of hearing during which the Court dealt with the objections to Mr Armet’s affidavits Mr Armet submitted that the Court was not empowered to strike out material in his affidavits, submitting, for example, that there “was no law” permitting it to do so: Transcript Day Two (“TD2”), p 91, and that it was “Gestapo … Nazi … [and] not freedom of expression”: TD2, p 128. Mr Armet’s submissions have no basis in the practice of the law in Australia or under relevant statutory provisions.

9. Section 56(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (“Evidence Act”) expressly provides that “[e]vidence that is not relevant in the proceeding is not admissible”, and likewise hearsay evidence is not generally admissible: Evidence Act, s 59(1). Many other provisions of the Evidence Act provide on prescribed bases for the exclusion of evidence, or a prohibition on the use of evidence for particular purposes: see, for example, ss 76, 84, 85, 89, 91, 97, 98, 114, 115 and 134.

10. Section 217(1)(a) and (b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) provides as follows:

    (1)      The Judges, or a majority of them, may make Rules of Court:

    (a) providing for, or in relation to, the practice and procedure to be followed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (including the practice and procedure to be followed in registries of the Court); or

    (b) providing for, or in relation to, all matters and things incidental to any such practice or procedure, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for the conduct of any business of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2); or

    …       

11. Dealing with allegedly objectionable material in affidavits is plainly a matter of practice and procedure, in respect of which the Court may make rules “providing for, or in relation to”, or which is incidental to any such practice and procedure, and thus empowers a rule such as r 15.16 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“GFL Rules”) which provides as follows:

    Objectionable material may be struck out

    (1) The Court or a Registrar may order material to be struck out of an affidavit at any stage in a proceeding if the material:

    (a) is inadmissible, unnecessary, irrelevant, prolix, scandalous or argumentative; or

    (b)       contains opinions of persons not qualified to give them.

    (2) Unless the Court or a Registrar otherwise directs, any costs caused by the material struck out must be paid by the party who filed the affidavit.

12. By reference to the Schedule it will be observed that the majority of the objections which have been upheld have been upheld because the disputed material was irrelevant, hearsay, argumentative (that is, submission), or unqualified opinion, and thus fell within r 15.16 of the GFL Rules. Further, the upholding of the objections is entirely consistent with:

    (a)the purpose of objections, which has been said to be to prevent the introduction or consideration of inadmissible information: CL Montz, Trial Objections from Beginning to End: The Handbook for Civil and Criminal Trials, 29 Pepp L Rev Iss 2 (2002) at 246; and

    (b)the observations of the High Court in Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltdand Others [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165; (2004) 79 ALJR 129; (2004) 1 BFRA 280 at [35] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ, as follows:

    The uncritical reception of inadmissible evidence, often in written form and prepared in advance of the hearing, is to be strongly discouraged. It tends to distract attention from the real issues, give rise to pointless cross-examination and cause problems on appeal …

    INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, CONVENTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER MATERIALS

13. Mr Armet sought to tender under cover of an affidavit various and voluminous international treaties, conventions, recommendations, reports and related materials, which the Court ruled to be inadmissible as not being evidence. The source of much of the material was not necessarily evident on its face. Where the source of some material was evident much of it was not from an appropriate source (including material from NGOs, media organisations and lobby groups) or in a form conducive to its receipt as evidence (because of significant mark-ups and annotations). Further, much of it was prolix (being repetitive) and unnecessary (being in French), for the purposes of r 15.16(1)(a) of the GFL Rules.

14. To the extent that it is necessary to have evidence of, or refer to, international treaties, conventions and recommendations the Court will have regard to the Australian Treaty Series (“ATS”) and Australian Treaties Library (“ATL”) on that being a recognised source of such instruments (both generally, and see for example the Note to s 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)). If it is necessary in the course of submissions to refer to international treaties, conventions and recommendations which are not in the ATS or ATL, or other international materials, the parties should identify an appropriate source for those materials, the authority of which cannot reasonably be questioned.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Lucev.

Associate:

Dated:       28 April 2023

SCHEDULE OF AFFIDAVIT OBJECTIONS - OUTCOMES

Affidavit	Location	Basis of objection	Court Ruling
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 1, pp 1-4	Relevance	Reference to referees on p 4 struck out as irrelevant: Transcript Day 1 (“TD 1”), p 11
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 1, p 6	Relevance and hearsay	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 12
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 1, p 7	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 12
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 1, p 8	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 13
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 1, pp 9-12	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 13
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 1, pp 13-18	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 13
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 2, pp 19-22	Conclusionary and not supported by an underlying fact, hearsay	Sentences that deal with questions of intimidation and assertive statements struck out as hearsay: TD 1, p 14
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 2, pp 23-27	Relevance	Details of the payslips contained in the four bullet points on p 27 struck out as irrelevant: TD 1, p 17
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 4, pp 61 and 62	Relevance	Struck out: unqualified opinion and conclusion: TD 1, p 20
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 5, pp 63-76	Not specified	Struck out: conceded, and in the nature of submission: TD 1, p 20
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 6, pp 83-119	Relevant only to a damages claim	Remains in evidence solely for the purpose of damages, otherwise irrelevant: TD 1, pp 23-24
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 7, pp 120-122	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 24
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 7, pp 123-196	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial: Evidence Act, s 135(a), TD 1, pp 25-26
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 7, pp 197-201	Relevance	Struck out: comment, submission and conclusionary opinions: TD 1, p 26
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 7, pp 202 and 203	Relevance	Struck out: hearsay and unqualified opinion: TD 1, p 28
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 8, pp 204-209	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 29
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 8, pp 210-270	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant and hearsay: TD 1, p 31
Armet affidavit sworn 22 March 2021	Annexure 8, pp 271-277	Relevance	Struck out: comment, conclusionary, and to some extent submission: TD 1, pp 31-32
Armet affidavit sworn 23 July 2021	Entire affidavit	No facts alleged, conclusionary statement or submission	Entire affidavit struck out: submission: TD 1, p 35
Armet affidavit sworn/affirmed 25 August 2021	Entire affidavit	Contains grounds of application, comments, submission and no facts alleged	Entire affidavit struck out: submission: TD 1, p 36
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part A, pp 1-4	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 38
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 1 (a) to (e), pp 4-6	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 39
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 2(a) paragraph in square brackets, p 7	Submission	Struck out: relevance: TD 1, p 40
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 2, paras 4 to 8, pp 8-9	Submission (all paras) and conclusionary (paras 4 and 5 only)	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 43
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 2(b) para 9 under the heading, “At ‘Machine’” “and his 2 workmates”, p 9	Hearsay	Struck out: hearsay: TD 1, p 43
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 2(b) para 9 from “with an assessor” to “on site”, p 9	Comment and conclusion	Struck out: comment and conclusion: TD 1, p 43
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 2(d) bullet point 1, p 10	Submission	Struck out: submission and irrelevant (because not pleaded): TD 1, p 46
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 2(d) bullet point 2, p 10	Relevance (not pleaded)	Words “see definition of “disability” in the Disability Discrimination Act” struck out: submission and relevance (because not pleaded): TD 1, pp 46
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 3 bullet point 3, p 10	Conclusionary	Struck out: conclusionary: TD 1, p 48
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 3 bullet point 4, p 10	Irrelevant	Struck out: irrelevant, TD 1, p 48
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 3 bullet point 5, p 10	Hearsay	Struck out: hearsay: TD 1, p 48
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 3 bullet point 6, p 10	Irrelevant	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 48
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 4(a), p 11	Submission	Struck out: submission, irrelevant and vague: TD 1, p 49
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 4(b) para 2, 1st sentence from “otherwise” to “written”, p 11	Speculation	Struck out: speculation: TD 1, p 51
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 4(b) para 3 from “Another” to “warehouse”, p 11	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 51
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 4(b) para 4 from “The Applicant” to “the yard”, p 11	Relevance and speculation	Struck out: irrelevant and speculative: TD 1, p 51
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 4(c)  para 2 from “while” to “level”, p 12	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 52
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 4(c) para 3 from “Again” to “induction”, p 12	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 1, p 52
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 5(b), p 12	Conclusionary and submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 52
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 6 para 1, p 12	Submission and irrelevant	Struck out: submission and relevance: TD 1, p 54
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 6 bullet point 3 “appropriate”, p 12	Conclusionary	Struck out: conclusionary: TD 1, p 54
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 6 paras 2-5, pp 13-14	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 55
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 7(b), p 14	Submission, conclusionary	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 56
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 8, p 14	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 56
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 9, p 14	Submission	Struck out: by consent: TD 1, p 58
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 10(a)(b), pp 14-15	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 58
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 10, p 15	Submission	Struck out: submission, lacking in evidentiary foundation: TD 1, p 59
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 11 para 1, p 15	Submission, lacking in evidentiary foundation	Struck out: submission, lacking in evidentiary foundation: TD 1, p 59
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 11 para 3, p 15	Manifestly inadmissible	Struck out: submission and irrelevant: TD 1, p 60
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(a)(i)-(iv), pp 15-16	Vague	Struck out: vague: TD 1, p 61
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(a)(v) paras 1 and 3, p 16	Submission	Struck out: para 1 – vague and submission; para 3 – irrelevant: TD1, pp 61-62
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(a)(vi)-(viii), p 16	Vague	Struck out: vague: TD 1, p 62
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(a)(ix) 1st dot point, p 16	Vague	Struck out: vague: TD 1, pp 63-64
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(a)(ix) para 1 underlined passage, p 17	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 64
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(a)(ix) para 6, p 17	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 65
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(x) and (xi), pp 17-18	Submission and conclusionary	Words “while Centurion Transport” to “medical condition” struck out: submission and conclusionary: TD 1, p 66
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B resume of 12(a), p 18	Manifestly inadmissible	Struck out: irrelevant, submission: TD 1, p 66
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(b) para 2, p 18	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 67
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 12(c) , p 19	Dot point 3: conclusionary and submission. Dot point 4: vague and irrelevant	Struck out: dot point 3: hearsay and conclusionary; dot point 4: submission: TD 1, pp 67-68
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 13, pp 19-20	Point 1: manifestly inadmissible. Point 2 line 1: submissions, line 3: conclusionary. Point 3: submission and/or inappropriate evidence. Point 4: not actually evidence of anything and is conclusionary. Points 4-6: submissions. Paras 1-4: submissions.	Point 1 struck out: submissions, inappropriate: line 1 Point 2 struck out: submissions: line 3 struck out: conclusionary point 4 struck out: not actually evidence of anything, conclusionary; point 3 struck out: submission and/or inappropriate evidence; points 4-6 struck out: submissions paras 1-4 struck out: submissions: TD 1, pp 68-69
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 14, p 20	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 69
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 15, pp 20-21	Not evidence (reference only)	Struck out: nonsensical or vague: TD 1, p 69
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 16, p 21	Indication of intent	Struck out: not evidence, statement of intention: TD 1, p 70
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 17, p 21	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 71
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 18 points 1-2, p 21	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 71
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 19, p 22	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 71
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 20, p 22	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 72
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 21, p 22	Para 1 sentence 1: vague; sentence 2: conclusory; para 2 submission	Struck out: para 1, sentence 1: vague; para 2: submission: TD 1, p 72
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B paras 22-23, p 23	Not evidence and simply references back to other material	Struck out: not evidence (references only): TD 1, p 72
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B 24, p 23	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 73
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B paras 25-26, p 23	Not evidence and simply references back to other material	Struck out: on same basis as paras 22-23: TD 1, p 73
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B para 27, p 23	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 73
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B paras 28-30, pp 23-24	Not evidence and simply references back to other material	Struck out: on same basis as 22-23 and 25-26: TD 1, p 73
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B para 31, p 24	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, p 73
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B para 32, p 24	Not evidence and simply references back to other material	Struck out: on same basis as 28-30: TD 1, p 73
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Part B paras 33-34, pp 24-25	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 1, pp 73-74
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 1-4	Relevance	References to referees on p 4 struck out as irrelevant: Transcript Day 2 (“TD 2”), p 85
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, p 6	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 86
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, p 7	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 86
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, p 8	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 86
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 9-12	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 86
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 13-18	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 86
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 23-27	Relevance (payslip details only)	Payslip details struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 87
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 47-51	Documents relate to events after the event in question	Struck out: irrelevant, TD 2, p 87
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 55	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant, TD 2, p 88
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 61-62	Inadmissible	Struck out: is comment, conclusion: TD 2, p 88
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 63-76	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD p 88
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 77-99	Hearsay	Remains in evidence solely for the purpose of damages, otherwise hearsay and deponent not being called: TD 2, p 88
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 100-111	Hearsay	Remains in evidence solely for the purpose of damages, otherwise hearsay and deponent not being called: TD 2, p 89
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 112-119	Hearsay	Remains in evidence solely for the purpose of damages, otherwise hearsay and deponent not being called: TD 2, p 93
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 120-122	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 93
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 123-183	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant document predates the matters in dispute: TD 2, pp 93-94
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 184-196	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 94
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 197-201	Relevance	Struck out: comment, submission and conclusionary opinions: TD 2, p 94
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 202-203	Relevance and hearsay	Struck out: hearsay and unqualified opinion: TD 2, p 94
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 204-209	Relevance	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 94
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 210-270	Relevance and hearsay	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 94
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 271-277	Relevance	Struck out: comment, conclusionary and submission: TD 2, p 94
Armet affidavit sworn 7 July 2022	Attachment 2, pp 278-303	Relevance, author not being called	Struck out: hearsay, and no one being called to identify the document: TD 2, p 95
Armet affidavit sworn/affirmed 10 August 2022	Attachment 1 page 1 from “Since 2015” until the end of the page	Conclusionary and submission and not evidence	Struck out: conclusionary, submission and irrelevant: TD 2, pp 97-98
Armet affidavit sworn/affirmed 10 August 2022	Attachment 1 page 3-12 Part (B)-(J)	Irrelevant	Struck out: not evidence: TD 2, p 105
Armet affidavit sworn/affirmed 10 August 2022	Attachment 1 page 13-21 Part (L) to the end of Attachment 1	Not evidence	Struck out: submission: TD 2, p 108
Armet affidavit sworn/affirmed 10 August 2022	Attachment 2	Irrelevant	Struck out: irrelevant: TD 2, p 110
Armet affidavit sworn/affirmed 10 August 2022	Attachment 3	Irrelevant or matters of law and not evidence	Struck out: irrelevant, law not evidence: TD 2, p 112
Armet affidavit affirmed 4 October 2022	Entire affidavit	Submission or legal material and not direct evidentiary material	Struck out: relevance and submission: TD 2, pp 118-119
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 1	Submission	Struck out: submission: TD 2, p 119
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 2	Relevance	Struck out: relevance and hearsay: TD 2, p 121
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 3	Relevance –either extracts of law or hearsay	Struck out: relevance, submission and not evidence: TD 2, pp 121-122
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 4	Irrelevant to the issues in dispute or are in the nature of legal material	Struck out: not evidence of particular facts and/or irrelevant: TD 2, p 122
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 5	Relevance	Struck out: not evidence: TD 2, p 123
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 6	Irrelevant or is not evidence	Struck out: not evidence: TD 2, p 123
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 7	Legal material and is not evidence	Struck out: not evidence: TD 2, p 124
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 8	Legal material and is not evidence	Struck out: not evidence: TD 2, p 125
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 9	Legal material and is not evidence	Struck out: not evidence: TD 2, p 125
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 10	Legal material and is not evidence	Struck out: not evidence: TD 2, p 125
Armet affidavit sworn 17 November 2022	Annexure/Attachment 11	Legal material and is not evidence	Struck out: not evidence: TD 2, p 125