Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v iiNet Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 1320

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v iiNet Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 1320

The respondents were permitted to cross-examine Mr Macek because their challenge to the accuracy of the process by which IP addresses were generated could bear on whether preliminary discovery should be refused. Although videolink examination was possible, the likely technical, involved cross-examination, potential use of documents, time difference between Stuttgart and Sydney, limited court time, and the generally less satisfactory nature of video cross-examination meant that this important evidence should not be elicited by videolink. No special costs order was justified at that stage, so costs were costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery / Interlocutory Application Concerning Whether an Overseas Witness Should Give Evidence by Videolink or Attend in Person for Cross Examination
Outcome
The applicant's application to take the evidence of Mr Daniel Macek by videolink was refused, and costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'cross Examination of Overseas Witness' 'videolink Evidence' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'cross Examination of Overseas Witness' 'videolink Evidence' 'costs']

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 for Preliminary Discovery / Interlocutory Application Concerning Whether an Overseas Witness Should Give Evidence by Videolink or Attend in Person for Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents had a right to require Mr Daniel Macek for cross-examination in a preliminary discovery application' 'Whether, if leave was required, the respondents should be permitted to cross-examine Mr Daniel Macek' 'Whether Mr Daniel Macek should be cross-examined by video conferencing procedures or required to travel to Australia to be examined in person' "Whether there should be a special costs order requiring the respondents to pay for Mr Daniel Macek's flights and accommodation"]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were permitted to cross-examine Mr Macek because their challenge to the accuracy of the process by which IP addresses were generated could bear on whether preliminary discovery should be refused. Although videolink examination was possible, the likely technical, involved cross-examination, potential use of documents, time difference between Stuttgart and Sydney, limited court time, and the generally less satisfactory nature of video cross-examination meant that this important evidence should not be elicited by videolink. No special costs order was justified at that stage, so costs were costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

The applicant's application to take the evidence of Mr Daniel Macek by videolink was refused, and costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application to take the evidence of Mr Daniel Macek by videolink be refused." 'The costs of today be costs in the cause.']