Corrigan v Commvault Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 107

Corrigan v Commvault Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 107

It was appropriate to permit Messrs Alexander and Cockayne to give evidence by video link from New Zealand because videoconference facilities were readily available at the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland, the Applicant consented, the witnesses were not within the Respondents' control, their evidence was not characterised as highly controversial, cross-examination would require no documents and was estimated to take no more than one hour for each witness, and no substantial credibility issue was anticipated; those factors made the direction consistent with justice between the parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Fair Work Division Proceeding Alleging Dismissal in Contravention of S 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Respondents' Notice of Motion Seeking Leave/direction for Two New Zealand Witnesses to Give Evidence by Video Link and for Subpoenas to Issue
Outcome
Application granted by consent; leave granted for the two New Zealand witnesses to give evidence by video link and for subpoenas to issue.
Legal Topics
['videoconferencing Evidence From New Zealand' 'cross Examination by Video Link' 'subpoenas' 'discretion to Permit Video Link Testimony' 'fair Work Act Reverse Onus']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'employment Law'] ['videoconferencing Evidence From New Zealand' 'cross Examination by Video Link' 'subpoenas' 'discretion to Permit Video Link Testimony' 'fair Work Act Reverse Onus']

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; Fair Work Division Proceeding Alleging Dismissal in Contravention of S 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Respondents' Notice of Motion Seeking Leave/direction for Two New Zealand Witnesses to Give Evidence by Video Link and for Subpoenas to Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave or a direction should be granted for Mr Stuart Alexander and Mr Roger Cockayne, who were based in New Zealand and required for cross-examination, to give evidence by video link from the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland.' 'Whether leave should be granted to the Respondents to issue subpoenas to those witnesses to attend to give evidence by video link.' 'How the discretion under s 25(1) of the Evidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act 1994 (Cth), and by analogy s 47A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), should be exercised.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to permit Messrs Alexander and Cockayne to give evidence by video link from New Zealand because videoconference facilities were readily available at the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland, the Applicant consented, the witnesses were not within the Respondents' control, their evidence was not characterised as highly controversial, cross-examination would require no documents and was estimated to take no more than one hour for each witness, and no substantial credibility issue was anticipated; those factors made the direction consistent with justice between the parties.

Court Disposition

Application granted by consent; leave granted for the two New Zealand witnesses to give evidence by video link and for subpoenas to issue.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the Respondents for Mr Stuart Alexander and Mr Roger Cockayne, to appear to give evidence in these proceedings via video link on 22 February 2011 from the videoconference room of the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland.' 'Leave is granted to the Respondents to issue subpoenas to Mr Stuart...