Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v World Netsafe [2002] FCA 526

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v World Netsafe [2002] FCA 526

Given that Mr McCluskey cannot be compelled to attend in person and that the evidence would be unavailable otherwise, and despite recognised deficiencies, it is appropriate in the exercise of the court’s discretion to permit his cross-examination by video-link.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Application/interlocutory / Direction on Taking Evidence
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
['evidence by Video Link' 'use of Affidavit Evidence' 'cross Examination of Witnesses']
['civil Procedure'] ['evidence by Video Link' 'use of Affidavit Evidence' 'cross Examination of Witnesses']

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

Application/interlocutory / Direction on Taking Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-examination of Mr Mark Thomas McCluskey may be permitted by video-link pursuant to O 24 r 1A of the Federal Court Rules and section 47 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

Given that Mr McCluskey cannot be compelled to attend in person and that the evidence would be unavailable otherwise, and despite recognised deficiencies, it is appropriate in the exercise of the court’s discretion to permit his cross-examination by video-link.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Mr Mark Thomas McCluskey may be taken by video-link.']