Rizk v PVH Brands Australia Pty Ltd (No 3)

In *Rizk v PVH Brands Australia Pty Ltd (No 3)*, Manousaridis J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered two requests made by the applicant. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for reimbursement, with the court having previously made orders denying these requests and dismissing the claim. These reasons were published following a directions hearing where the court indicated it would deliver judgment.

The primary legal issue before the court was the exercise of its discretion under s 66(1) of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999* (Cth) to direct or allow testimony to be given by video link. This power is to be exercised in accordance with the overarching principles of the Court, which aim for informality, efficiency, economy, streamlined procedures, and the avoidance of undue delay, expense, and technicality, as outlined in s 3 and s 42 of the Act and r 1.03 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* (Cth).

His Honour noted that there are differing judicial approaches to the use of video link evidence, with some cases favouring its use and others adopting a more cautious stance. The court referred to established authorities such as *Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich* and more recent Federal Court decisions, particularly those arising during COVID-19 lockdowns. The judge emphasised that the party seeking the favourable exercise of discretion, in this instance the applicant, bears the onus of demonstrating why the discretion should be exercised in their favour. Factors to be considered include the nature of the evidence, the assessment of credit, document management during cross-examination, potential technological difficulties, and the anticipated length of cross-examination, though these are not exhaustive.

The court ultimately denied the applicant's requests.