buckley and determined that no in fact that alone cannot serve a substantial prejudice so i believe that it's the manifest weight of the evidence that's appropriate standard because as the court consider everything it considered the evidence that was presented it considered the evidence of the divine order in terms of substantial prejudice and it made a specific determination that was case it may not be directly on point but it is very very similar to the situation as in berkeley miss reed was robineau throughout the litigation process she cooperated with attorneys they were able to prepare pleadings none of the pleadings were submitted into evidence so we don't know what they showed but she did cooperate with that there were no motions against her in regards to discovery she appeared for deposition  this is strikingly similar to buckley the only major difference with buckley is the fact that no answer was filed and at the subsequent trial buckley admitted fa however the court said or indicated that wasn't the only basis it found there was no substantial prejudice there were also five witnesses disclosed on the police report defendant and buckley could have call to support its facts in evidence at the arbitration hearing that took place that's almost exactly what we have here it may be a two vehicle accident but none of the plaintiffs were the drivers of either of the vehicles involved in the crash  contradictory to miss reid's testimony about her driving or what the other vehicle did before and at the time of the accident there were other ways the defense attorney  hearing could have proved up their defenses and their case unfortunately we don't know how miss reid's absence from the arbitration actually affected the hearing because we have no testimony from that attorney and that including misreads attorney made opening statements the witnesses present testified misreads attorney had the opportunity and did in fact conduct thorough and cross examinations of every single witness who testified at the hearing she made a closing argument the only thing that changed in regards to the presentation of the cases misread did not testify and a request was made to know  r my understanding from mr swartz testimony in the evidence deposition as well as the pleadings he prepared in response to the motions and to be our rejection is that he spoke with miss reed and her husband and they advised him that they were instructed not to appear at the hearing by somebody from direct auto that is disputed but those were the explanations he was given back in justice i think it's a combined legal or unfair question because it's the pending up on what actually took place on the hearing whether there was actually substantial prejudice or not there is no case that says a divorcing order can serv rejecting them proceeding further however the court chose not to take that step the reasoning behind that i can only speculate but again it comes down to the substantially prejudice in the defense of the claims of the over tracing hearing and thankfully the court specifically found no they weren't for the reasons i indicated there were other opportunities in addition the court indicated they had received all the damages materials in the required ninety c packages and had an opportunity to prepare a defense of their claims on damages which is also what we have in this particular case because of that there were other ways to defend the case they were able to put on  proven reads non cooperation hampered the defense that was presented at the arbitration hearing and also has not shown the trial court's terminations to be unreasonable arbitrary or not based on the evidence of the reason