Case studies:In one case a husband was a lay litigant although, he said, he owned a lot of property.
His wife's solicitor was seeking a continuation of a protection order and he complained that he had not received her affidavit of means. He would give his only when he had received hers.
"I'm in a more difficult position than my wife," he said. "I have considerable property and have partners and that. I'm only a lay person and don't understand the law."
His wife's solicitor said if the husband's affidavit of means was not complete, it might be necessary to seek discovery. "You're using a word I don't like," the husband said. "Discovery. That could destroy me. It could close me down overnight."
The judge said in the first instance discovery was for him to do. Third party discovery of documents, or bank account details, was only in extreme cases. "I run this company myself," the husband said. "The money I used to buy all these properties was my money. She never signed any mortgage."
The judge told him she should seek a portion of assets when the marriage broke up. He urged him to employ a solicitor.
"It doesn't sit easy with me," the husband said. "It's my choice whether to employ a solicitor. I don't have money to waste on a solicitor."
The judge said he was leaving the protection order in place, adjourned the case for a week, allowing a week of "informality" to allow all parties exchange documents.
Wife says husband 'not interested' in case
The judge heard seven short cases, while another expected to last most of the day was listed. There was also a District Court appeal and a case concerning an English divorce added to the list.
The first short case involved a lay litigant. The judged asked him if he was happy to do this himself without representation. He said he was. The man was asked if he had a letter from his wife with her consent, which he did.
He was sworn in, gave his name and stated that everything in the declaration was true. He stood down. The judge said he granted a decree of divorce and cross orders (extinguishing succession rights), made no orders on costs and said the respondent was to be notified forthwith. The man left.
The second case also concerned a lay litigant, a woman whose husband was not present. The judge asked her if she knew his attitude to the application. She said she did not but thought he wasn't interested. The judge confirmed with her that the couple had been separated since 1989, that the husband lived locally, and that they had a separation agreement from 1993. The woman added that she had a church annulment.
She entered the witness box, took the oath confirming that everything she had already said was true. She confirmed that all matters of importance had been settled. The judge granted a decree of divorce and a cross order and ordered that the respondent be notified forthwith.