National Companies & Securities Commission v Aspinall, D.R

[1990] FCA 810

JUDGMENT No. &!.O./..?.L

IN THE FEDERAL COURT	)	NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
OF AUSTRALIA	1
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
DISTRICT REGISTRY	1

GENERAL DIVISION	) NO. VG130 OF 1990
B E T W E E N :	NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITES COMMISSION

Applicant

and

DAVID ROY ASPINaL

First Respondent

and

IAN ROBERT MAXWELL

11 MAR 1991 Second Respondent

FEDERAL COURT OF

AUSTRALIA

PRINCIPAL	and
THE BELL GROUP LIMITED Third Respondent

CORM: LEE J.

DATE : 3 JULY 1990

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

matter, although it was left open for the parties to return to	made to provide for the urgent preparation and trial of the
the Court for further directions in the event that circumstances required variation of the orders made. At all times it was contemplated that the parties to the proceeding would participate and cooperate in accelerated procedures leading to any early trial. It is obvious on the face of the proceeding that it requires swift resolution and no party has been under any misapprehension about that.
The Court appreciates, of course, that parties may find that unforeseen events have occurred which require the variation of existing orders. However, I am not satisfied that this is such a case. Other arrangements could have been made by the first respondent in respect of his affairs and, indeed, the time to be spent by the first respondent in attending on the hearing of this matter may well be accommodated within any other obligations the first respondent may have. As matters now stand I am not disposed to grant the application.
I might point out that the Court has made special heard on the days listed for its hearing and the public arrangements to have a Judge available to have the matter
interest in the efficient use of judicial resources must also be taken into account.
I now turn to the second respondent's application for evidence to be taken by video link. This is a new field
and it will involve trial and error in some respects before the use of such a medium may be shown to be advantageous and of assistance to the speedier disposition of court matters. However, it certainly has potential to be of great assistance in that regard, particularly in a country of this size where you may have persons who are not principal witnesses but witnesses of importance nonetheless, whose evidence may be short in duration and who have other obligations. Such evidence may be accommodated in the trial process by use of a video link with very little being lost in the worth of the court proceedings. The use of a video link allows the trial process to be carried on with little interruption to its usual form.
There may be different considerations to be applied where principal parties are involved and where there may be no real alternative to such parties attending and participating in a trial in the ordinary way. In the present case, the second respondent's position is, to some extent, peripheral; there may be some elements of his testimony that
will be of cardinal importance, but on balance there is no reason to anticipate any lengthy cross-examination. The
second respondent's evidence will come at the latter part of the trial after the principal parties have been heard and cross-examined. It is unlikely that the second respondent's evidence will require cross-examining counsel to engage in a wide-ranging interrogation.
It may be anticipated that the use of a video link for the evidence of the second respondent would be a successful process although it may have to be supplemented by the use of facsimile facilities.
I am prepared, therefore, to grant the application. I will not order at this stage that the time for the video proceedings be as suggested by Mr Ainslie, however, on balance it would appear to be a reasonable proposition. What I would propose is that a minute be prepared and submitted to the Registrar of the proposed arrangements for the video link and that the Registrar settle all necessary arrangements required for the conduct of the video proceeding to include include the matter of time and the provision of facsimile facilities.

I will deal, firstly, as I think I must, with the first respondent's application.

I am not satisfied on the basis of the material
presented that the trial dates should be vacated. Orders were

I certify that the preceding
four (4) pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Lee.

Associate:	-	-	&	L
Date:

Counsel for the Applicant: Mrs L.M. Hudson

Solicitor for the Applicant: J.G. Lightowlers

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr S.J. Archer and

Mr M.N. Arnett

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Sly and Weigall

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr R.J. Ainslie
Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Date of Hearing: 3 July 1990 Date of Judgment: 3 July 1990