Laurent v Unilever Australia Ltd

The case of Laurent v Unilever Australia Ltd involved an elderly plaintiff, Laurent, who sought compensation for mesothelioma allegedly caused by asbestos exposure during his employment in Victoria. Laurent, who was ordinarily resident in France, applied for evidence to be taken overseas. The court had to determine the appropriate method for obtaining his evidence, considering the interests of justice and statutory provisions.

The court's primary task was to decide whether it was appropriate for Laurent to give his evidence via a video link from France, as opposed to travelling to Victoria. The legal issues included whether this method complied with the Foreign Evidence Act 1994 (Cth) and the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), and whether it served the interests of justice by allowing the evidence to be given on only one occasion. The court weighed the inconvenience and expense of travel against the potential prejudice to the defendants if Laurent's evidence was not available in Victoria.

The court concluded that it was appropriate for Laurent to give his evidence via a video link from France. It held that this method would not prejudice the defendants, who had already had the opportunity to cross-examine Laurent and inspect his medical records. The court emphasised the importance of the interests of justice, including the need to avoid unnecessary hardship on a vulnerable witness. The court found that the statutory provisions allowed for this approach and that it was in the best interests of justice for Laurent to give his evidence only once.

The court made orders allowing Laurent to give his evidence via a video link from France, subject to certain conditions to ensure a fair trial. The court also made orders for the defendants to bear the costs of the video link facility and for Laurent to bear the costs of his legal team in France.