In the matter of Mulberry Capital Management Pty Ltd v Shen – AVL Application [2022] NSWSC 1023

In the matter of Mulberry Capital Management Pty Ltd v Shen – AVL Application [2022] NSWSC 1023

Making the AVL order would not be unfair to the defendant in light of experience with remote hearings, technological improvements, and the imposition of specific conditions (including translator in court and option for defendant to give remote evidence), and justice requires permitting remote evidence given COVID-19 risk concerns.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Mulberry Capital Management Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Wealth Resources Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: Wealth Mining Pty Ltd; Fourth Plaintiff: Northshore Investment (HK) Ltd; Defendant: Peng Shen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List / Contested Interlocutory Application for Order for Evidence by Audio Visual Link Prior to Trial
Outcome
Orders for evidence by audio visual link granted with specified conditions.
Legal Topics
Practice and Procedure, Evidence by Audio Visual Link, Discretion to Permit Remote Evidence
Civil Procedure Practice and Procedure Evidence by Audio Visual Link Discretion to Permit Remote Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mulberry Capital Management Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Wealth Resources Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Wealth Mining Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff

Northshore Investment (HK) Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff

Peng Shen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Corporations List / Contested Interlocutory Application for Order for Evidence by Audio Visual Link Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence should be taken by audio visual link under s 5B of the Evidence (Audio and Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether an order for AVL evidence would be unfair to the defendant given credit is in issue, a translator is needed, and there are practical considerations

Ratio Decidendi

Making the AVL order would not be unfair to the defendant in light of experience with remote hearings, technological improvements, and the imposition of specific conditions (including translator in court and option for defendant to give remote evidence), and justice requires permitting remote evidence given COVID-19 risk concerns.

Court Disposition

Orders for evidence by audio visual link granted with specified conditions.

Orders

  • Mr Qinghua Huo, Mrs Naren Zhou, Ms Ping Chau Fok, and Mr Shichao Ding directed to give evidence by audio visual link.
  • Plaintiffs to ensure only specified independent legal practitioner and technical support are present with witness when evidence taken, details to be notified to defendant's solicitors.