Australian Securities and Investments Commission v GetSwift Limited

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) brought proceedings against GetSwift Limited and two of its directors, Mr Hunter and Mr McDonald. The dispute involved allegations of breaches of continuous disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The key legal issues before the court were whether the trial should be adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the feasibility of conducting the trial via video conferencing, and the potential prejudice to the defendants if the trial proceeded as scheduled.

The court considered several factors in dismissing the application for an adjournment. Firstly, it was impractical for Mr Hunter and Mr McDonald to travel from New York to Australia for the trial. Secondly, while the court acknowledged the challenges of cross-examining numerous witnesses via video conferencing, it believed that the evidence in chief had already been filed and served by affidavit, and that real-time communication methods could mitigate some of the disadvantages. The court also emphasised the importance of adhering to the principle of open justice and ensuring the public could observe the proceedings. Despite recognising the difficulties posed by the pandemic, the court concluded that the trial could proceed fairly and efficiently through the use of modern technology, and that any unforeseen issues could be addressed as they arose.

The court's reasoning led to the dismissal of the application for an adjournment. The trial was set to commence on 9 June 2020, with the defendants' participation from New York facilitated through video conferencing. The court also made orders to ensure the proceedings remained accessible to the public, upholding the principle of open justice. There were no costs awarded for the dismissed application as it was made properly.

The court's decision underscored its commitment to ensuring that justice is not only done but is also perceived to be done, despite the challenges presented by the pandemic. The court's ruling highlighted the adaptability of the legal system in addressing the unprecedented circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.