Li v Wang (No. 3) [2024] NSWSC 661

Li v Wang (No. 3) [2024] NSWSC 661

The Court was not satisfied that it would be unfair to the plaintiff for Subo Zhang, Zhongpeng Wang and Fenglan Su to give evidence by audio visual link. Although their evidence concerned credibility and would require cross-examination through a Mandarin interpreter, modern audio visual technology and appropriate practical arrangements could adequately accommodate cross-examination. Refusing the order would be unfair to the second and third defendants because two witnesses could not legally travel to Australia, meaning they may not be available for cross-examination at all. The Court was satisfied that making the order under s 5B was in the interests of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Evidence to Be Given by Audio Visual Link in Common Law Proceedings / Procedural Ruling Before Trial
Outcome
The second and third defendants' notice of motion was granted, and leave was given for Subo Zhang, Zhongpeng Wang and Fenglan Su to give evidence by audio visual link.
Legal Topics
['audio Visual Link Evidence' 'cross Examination of Witnesses in China' 'credibility Evidence' 'mandarin Interpreter' 'costs of Notice of Motion']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['audio Visual Link Evidence' 'cross Examination of Witnesses in China' 'credibility Evidence' 'mandarin Interpreter' 'costs of Notice of Motion']

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 for Evidence to Be Given by Audio Visual Link in Common Law Proceedings / Procedural Ruling Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Subo Zhang, Zhongpeng Wang and Fenglan Su should be permitted under s 5B of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) to give evidence by audio visual link at the hearing.' 'Whether allowing the witnesses to give evidence by audio visual link would be unfair to the plaintiff where their evidence concerned credibility and would require cross-examination through a Mandarin interpreter.' 'Whether it was in the interests of justice to permit audio visual link evidence where two witnesses could not travel to Australia.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that it would be unfair to the plaintiff for Subo Zhang, Zhongpeng Wang and Fenglan Su to give evidence by audio visual link. Although their evidence concerned credibility and would require cross-examination through a Mandarin interpreter, modern audio visual technology and appropriate practical arrangements could adequately accommodate cross-examination. Refusing the order would be unfair to the second and third defendants because two witnesses could not legally travel to Australia, meaning they may not be available for cross-examination at all. The Court was satisfied that making the order under s 5B was in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

The second and third defendants' notice of motion was granted, and leave was given for Subo Zhang, Zhongpeng Wang and Fenglan Su to give evidence by audio visual link.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 5B of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW), the Court grants leave for Subo Zhang, Zhongpeng Wang and Fenglan Su to give evidence by audio-visual link at the hearing of these proceedings commencing on 17 June 2024.' "In respect of the witnesses named in order 1, the second and...