Unilever Australia Limited v Revlon Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2014] FCA 1074

Unilever Australia Limited v Revlon Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2014] FCA 1074

The Court refused to allow Professor Thornthwaite to give evidence by video link because his evidence was likely to be central, complex, substantial and probably lengthy, and Revlon would be significantly disadvantaged in cross-examining him by video link, especially given the volume of documents, logistical difficulties and possible credit issues. Although the parties and the Court had earlier proceeded on an assumption that video-link evidence would be used, and although Professor Thornthwaite's concerns were accepted as sincerely held, the evidence did not establish a sufficiently compelling case to displace the ordinary requirement for oral evidence in court over Revlon's opposition.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Testimony to Be Given by Video Link / Interlocutory Application During Final Hearing
Outcome
The application was granted for Ann-Marie Carvell's testimony by video link and refused for Professor Thornthwaite's testimony by video link.
Legal Topics
['expert Witnesses' 'video Link Testimony' 'cross Examination' 'federal Court Discretion Under S 47 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Witnesses' 'video Link Testimony' 'cross Examination' 'federal Court Discretion Under S 47 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)']

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

Practice and Procedure Application for Testimony to Be Given by Video Link / Interlocutory Application During Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should allow the testimony of Ann-Marie Carvell to be given from the United Kingdom by video link under s 47A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' "Whether the Court should allow the testimony of Professor David William Thornthwaite to be given from the United Kingdom by video link under s 47A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), despite Revlon's opposition."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to allow Professor Thornthwaite to give evidence by video link because his evidence was likely to be central, complex, substantial and probably lengthy, and Revlon would be significantly disadvantaged in cross-examining him by video link, especially given the volume of documents, logistical difficulties and possible credit issues. Although the parties and the Court had earlier proceeded on an assumption that video-link evidence would be used, and although Professor Thornthwaite's concerns were accepted as sincerely held, the evidence did not establish a sufficiently compelling case to displace the ordinary requirement for oral evidence in court over Revlon's opposition.

Court Disposition

The application was granted for Ann-Marie Carvell's testimony by video link and refused for Professor Thornthwaite's testimony by video link.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 47A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the testimony of Ann-Marie Carvell be given from the United Kingdom by video link.' 'The application for the Court to allow the testimony of Professor Thornthwaite to be given from the United Kingdom by video link be refused.']