Asermely-Rivera v Neffati [2001] NSWSC 262

Asermely-Rivera v Neffati [2001] NSWSC 262

The application for an order under Pt27 r1A to take evidence in the United States is declined for the present, primarily because the defendant has undertaken to pay the reasonable costs of plaintiff and her family to travel to Australia for her evidence, and it is more appropriate for her to give evidence in chief and be cross-examined before such an order is considered. The plaintiff has leave to make a renewed application after this stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory Application for Order to Take Evidence in the United States Under Pt27 R1 a Supreme Court Rules
Outcome
Application for order under Pt27 r1A declined for the time being; leave granted for further application after plaintiff's evidence in Australia; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['taking of Evidence Overseas' 'video Link Evidence' 'costs on Interlocutory Application']
['civil Procedure'] ['taking of Evidence Overseas' 'video Link Evidence' 'costs on Interlocutory Application']

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 Application for Order to Take Evidence in the United States Under Pt27 R1 a Supreme Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order should be made under Pt27 r1A Supreme Court Rules to take evidence in the United States of America' 'Whether plaintiff should be required to travel to Australia to give evidence before such order is made' 'Appropriate arrangements for cost and convenience of parties']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an order under Pt27 r1A to take evidence in the United States is declined for the present, primarily because the defendant has undertaken to pay the reasonable costs of plaintiff and her family to travel to Australia for her evidence, and it is more appropriate for her to give evidence in chief and be cross-examined before such an order is considered. The plaintiff has leave to make a renewed application after this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for order under Pt27 r1A declined for the time being; leave granted for further application after plaintiff's evidence in Australia; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['I decline, for the time being, to make an order under Pt27 r1A.' 'The plaintiff has leave to make application to take evidence under Pt27 r1A after the completion of her evidence in chief and cross examination.' 'Costs reserved.']