Bicheno Investments Pty Ltd v Winterbottom (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 413

Bicheno Investments Pty Ltd v Winterbottom (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 413

Although it would be a significant imposition for Mr Gundersen to travel from London to Sydney, the justice of the case required his attendance because his evidence concerned a technical and potentially vital aspect of the case, cross-examination was likely to be document heavy and closely test his reliability, and it may be unfair to deprive the plaintiffs of the advantage of having him in the witness box in the same room as the cross-examiner.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Evidence by Audio Visual Link / Pre Hearing Procedural Application
Outcome
Application for evidence to be taken by audio visual link refused.
Legal Topics
['audio Visual Link Evidence' 'interests of Justice' 'cross Examination' 'document Heavy Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['audio Visual Link Evidence' 'interests of Justice' 'cross Examination' 'document Heavy Proceedings']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Seeking Evidence by Audio Visual Link / Pre Hearing Procedural Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be permitted to have Mr Tyson Gundersen give evidence by audio visual link from London for an imminent hearing.' 'Whether requiring the plaintiffs to cross-examine Mr Gundersen by audio visual link would be unfair in a document heavy case where his evidence was likely to be closely tested.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although it would be a significant imposition for Mr Gundersen to travel from London to Sydney, the justice of the case required his attendance because his evidence concerned a technical and potentially vital aspect of the case, cross-examination was likely to be document heavy and closely test his reliability, and it may be unfair to deprive the plaintiffs of the advantage of having him in the witness box in the same room as the cross-examiner.

Court Disposition

Application for evidence to be taken by audio visual link refused.

Orders

  • ["The defendants' notice of motion of 12 April 2017 is dismissed." 'The costs of that motion are costs in the cause.']