Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 1306

Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 1306

The applications to rely on hearsay evidence under s 64(2) of the Evidence Act and to take evidence by video link were refused due to lack of independent corroboration, significant unfairness and prejudice to respondents, insufficient evidence of undue expense/delay or practical difficulties, and failure to meet the statutory requirements. The respondents' application for further security for costs succeeded based on credible estimates and applicant's lack of assets within jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notices of Motion (interlocutory Matters Prior to Trial)
Outcome
Applicant's motion seeking leave to rely on hearsay evidence and cross-examination by video link dismissed; respondents' motions granted; order for provision of confidential exhibits made by consent.
Legal Topics
['hearsay Evidence' 'video Link Evidence' 'security for Costs' 'cross Examination' 'confidential Exhibits']
['evidence' 'practice and Procedure'] ['hearsay Evidence' 'video Link Evidence' 'security for Costs' 'cross Examination' 'confidential Exhibits']

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

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notices of Motion (interlocutory Matters Prior to Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether hearsay evidence of statements by persons overseas should be permitted under s 64(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)' 'Whether evidence should be taken by video link rather than in person' 'Whether further security for costs should be provided']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to rely on hearsay evidence under s 64(2) of the Evidence Act and to take evidence by video link were refused due to lack of independent corroboration, significant unfairness and prejudice to respondents, insufficient evidence of undue expense/delay or practical difficulties, and failure to meet the statutory requirements. The respondents' application for further security for costs succeeded based on credible estimates and applicant's lack of assets within jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion seeking leave to rely on hearsay evidence and cross-examination by video link dismissed; respondents' motions granted; order for provision of confidential exhibits made by consent.

Orders

  • ["Respondents to provide applicant with specified confidential exhibits subject to undertaking of applicant's solicitors." "Applicant's motion (notice filed 8 September 2009) dismissed except as to confidential exhibits." "Applicant to provide further security for the respondents' costs in the sum of $240,000, to be...