JUDGE:	Gobbo AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 August 2024, with further material filed on 16 and 22 August 2024 and 18 September 2024
DATE OF RULING:	24 September 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Grege v Grege & Ors (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 475

---

WITNESSES — Application to take evidence by video link from two witnesses in Lebanon — Requirement to make out a case for such an order to be made — What the interests of justice require in a particular case — Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic), s 42E — ASIC v Rich (2004) 49 ACSR 578 — Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 3) [2017] VSC 311 — Kirby v Centro Properties (2012) 288 ALR 601 — Ghosn v Principle Focus Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling) [2008] VSC 454 — Joyce v Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd (2011) 195 FCR 213.

DISCOVERY — Whether defendants entitled to discovery concerning plaintiff’s financial position in Part IV litigation — Whether special circumstances required to be shown — Court’s independent power to ascertain full value of estates — Administration and Probate Act 1958, s 94 — Harris v Bennett (2004) 8 VR 425 — Re Thompson; Thompson v Chen [2022] VSC 400, [43] — Waters v Belza & Anor [2024] VSC 157.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Matters, solicitor	KCL Law
For the Defendants	Dr K P Hanscombe KC, with Mr A P Dickenson of counsel	Rockman & Rockman Lawyers Pty Ltd

HER HONOUR:

Application for Audio-Visual Link or Audio Link

The plaintiff seeks a direction pursuant to s 42E of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Act’) that Dr Aimee Karam (‘Dr Karam’) and Judge Arlette Tabet (‘Judge Tabet’) may give evidence in this proceeding via video link (‘Application’). Judge Tabet was not included in the original Application filed on 20 October 2023, however, was raised in the affidavit of Simon Peter Matters affirmed 24 July 2024 (‘First Matters Affidavit’) and orally at the hearing on 12 August 2024. To the extent leave is required to amend the Application, leave is granted.

The plaintiff relies upon the First Matters Affidavit and the further affidavits of Simon Peter Matters affirmed on 16 August 2024 and 18 September 2024. No material was filed in opposition to the Application. In an email dated 18 July 2024, exhibited to the First Matters Affidavit, the defendants stated that they opposed the Application without giving…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Grege v Grege & Ors (Ruling)

Details

AGLC: Grege v Grege & Ors (Ruling) [2024] VSC 475
Case: [2024] VSC 475
Decision Date: 24 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between Grege and multiple defendants, focusing on the admissibility of evidence from witnesses located overseas and the scope of discovery in a Part IV litigation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to adduce evidence via video link from two witnesses based in Lebanon. The defendants opposed this application on the basis that the witnesses could be compelled to attend in person, and that the plaintiff had not sufficiently demonstrated that the interests of justice required such an order.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had made out a case for the witnesses to give evidence via video link and whether the defendants were entitled to discovery concerning the plaintiff's financial position. The court had to consider the provisions of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 and the principles established in ASIC v Rich and Wilson v Bauer Media. In respect of discovery, the court had to balance the defendants' right to ascertain the full value of the plaintiff's estate against the plaintiff's right to privacy and protection from unnecessary disclosure.

The court found that the plaintiff had not made out a case for the witnesses to give evidence via video link, as the defendants had demonstrated that the witnesses could be compelled to attend in person. The court also held that the defendants were not entitled to discovery concerning the plaintiff's financial position, as the plaintiff had not shown that special circumstances existed warranting such disclosure. The court exercised its independent power to ascertain the full value of the estates in accordance with the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

The court ordered that the application for the witnesses to give evidence via video link was dismissed. No further orders were made in relation to the discovery application.

Orders