Kaplan v State of Victoria (No 7) [2022] FCA 1405

Kaplan v State of Victoria (No 7) [2022] FCA 1405

The application to adjourn the trial was refused because the interests of justice, including efficiency, timeliness, resource disparities, finality, and the stage of proceedings, outweighed the asserted prejudice from senior counsel's absence. The court considered the resources of both parties, the practicality of junior counsel leading witness evidence-in-chief, and the detriment to the fact-finding process and trial management from further adjournment. The application to call a witness by remote access technology was allowed on fairness and practicality grounds.

Parties
First Applicant: Joel Kaplan; Second Applicant: Janet Abadee as representative of Matt Kaplan, a minor; Third Applicant: Sarit Cohen as representative of Guy Cohen, a minor; Fourth Applicant: Natalie Snelling as representative of Zack Snelling, a minor; Fifth Applicant: Liam Arnold-Levy; First Respondent: State of Victoria; Second Respondent: Richard Minack; Third Respondent: Paul Varney; Fourth Respondent: Demi Flessa
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure (interlocutory) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Adjournment, Witness by Remote Access; Pre Closing Submissions
Outcome
Respondents' application to adjourn refused; application to call witness (Ms Kaye Sentry) by remote access technology allowed.
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Witnesses – Remote Evidence, Costs Capping Orders, COVID 19 Impacts on Litigation
Practice and Procedure Adjournment of Trial Witnesses – Remote Evidence Costs Capping Orders COVID 19 Impacts on Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joel Kaplan

First Applicant

Janet Abadee as representative of Matt Kaplan, a minor

Second Applicant

Sarit Cohen as representative of Guy Cohen, a minor

Third Applicant

Natalie Snelling as representative of Zack Snelling, a minor

Fourth Applicant

Liam Arnold-Levy

Fifth Applicant

State of Victoria

First Respondent

Richard Minack

Second Respondent

Paul Varney

Third Respondent

Demi Flessa

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure (interlocutory) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Adjournment, Witness by Remote Access; Pre Closing Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' application to adjourn the trial should be granted due to lead counsel's illness
  2. 2 Whether a witness may be called by remote access technology

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adjourn the trial was refused because the interests of justice, including efficiency, timeliness, resource disparities, finality, and the stage of proceedings, outweighed the asserted prejudice from senior counsel's absence. The court considered the resources of both parties, the practicality of junior counsel leading witness evidence-in-chief, and the detriment to the fact-finding process and trial management from further adjournment. The application to call a witness by remote access technology was allowed on fairness and practicality grounds.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application to adjourn refused; application to call witness (Ms Kaye Sentry) by remote access technology allowed.

Orders

  • Respondents' application to adjourn the trial after the conclusion of the evidence on 23 November 2022 is refused.
  • The trial will continue on 24 and 25 November and, subject to any further order, the respondents are to close their oral evidence case by the end of the hearing day on 25 November 2022.