Li v Wang (No. 2)

The case of Li v Wang (No. 2) involved the plaintiffs, Li and others, who brought an action against Wang and others, seeking damages for breach of contract, deceit and other causes of action. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to determine the admissibility of evidence from two witnesses, both of whom were legal practitioners residing in China. The evidence in question was to be given via audio-visual link under the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW). The first witness was intended to provide expert evidence on Chinese contract law, while the second was to testify regarding searches of certain registries.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendants were unfairly prejudiced by the witnesses giving their evidence via audio-visual link, as opposed to appearing in person. The defendants argued that the witnesses' failure to attend in person constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice. However, the court held that there was no unfairness to the defendants in the use of audio-visual links for the witnesses' evidence. The court found that the use of audio-visual links was appropriate in the circumstances, given the witnesses' residency in China and the nature of their evidence. The court also noted that the defendants had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that the use of audio-visual links did not impede the fairness of the proceedings.

In conclusion, the court determined that the defendants were not unfairly prejudiced by the witnesses giving their evidence via audio-visual link. The court found that the use of such technology was appropriate in the circumstances and that the defendants had the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses. The court allowed the contested application, permitting the witnesses to give their evidence via audio-visual link. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the principles of natural justice and the specific facts of the case.