Palmer v McGowan (No 2)

Palmer v McGowan (No 2) involved a defamation proceeding between the parties, which had been ongoing since 2020. The dispute centred around the manner in which evidence, particularly evidence related to alleged distress and injury to feelings, should be presented during the trial. The court had to decide whether evidence could be given via video link or if it should be presented in person, considering the importance of receiving evidence in person, especially contested evidence related to credit. The court also needed to balance the privileges enjoyed by witnesses, who were members of the Parliament of Western Australia, with the need for them to participate in parliamentary sittings.

The legal issues included whether the principles of parliamentary privilege should be considered, the importance of receiving evidence in person, and the circumstances under which trial dates could be amended to facilitate the participation of witnesses both in the trial and in parliamentary sittings. The court had to balance the need for remote participation with the necessity of in-person evidence, particularly for contested matters involving the credit of witnesses.

The court concluded that while remote hearings had become more common due to the pandemic, the nature of the evidence in this defamation case necessitated in-person testimony, especially concerning allegations of distress and injury to feelings. The court acknowledged the importance of parliamentary privilege but found that it was necessary to accommodate the witnesses' parliamentary commitments while ensuring they could participate in the trial. The court dismissed the interlocutory application and varied the hearing dates to allow for the witnesses to give evidence in person, considering their parliamentary duties. The court emphasised the importance of receiving contested evidence in person to ensure a fair trial.