Unilever Australia Ltd v Revlon Australia Pty Ltd (No 4)

Unilever Australia Ltd brought proceedings against Revlon Australia Pty Ltd concerning alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the sale of Mitchum antiperspirant products. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the parties contested the admissibility of evidence from expert witnesses via video link. The primary legal issue was whether the court should permit Professor Thornthwaite, an expert witness for Unilever, to give evidence from the United Kingdom via video link.

The court was required to weigh the convenience of allowing Professor Thornthwaite to testify remotely against the potential prejudice to Revlon's rights to cross-examine him effectively. Revlon opposed the application on several grounds, including the complexity of Professor Thornthwaite's evidence, the volume of documents to be reviewed, and the anticipated length of the cross-examination. Revlon argued that the central nature of Professor Thornthwaite's evidence and the likelihood of credit issues further underscored the necessity of his physical presence in court. The court acknowledged that Professor Thornthwaite's evidence was likely to be pivotal and that Revlon would be significantly disadvantaged by cross-examining him via video link, especially considering the logistical challenges and the potential for lengthy and detailed questioning. Ultimately, the court determined that the reasons provided for Professor Thornthwaite's absence were insufficient to warrant the use of video link testimony.

The court refused Unilever's application for Professor Thornthwaite to give evidence by video link, while permitting another witness, Ann-Marie Carvell, to testify from the United Kingdom via video link. This decision underscores the court's cautious approach to allowing expert testimony via video link, particularly when the evidence is central to the case and the cross-examination is expected to be extensive.