Weeks v Bell

[2025] QDC 24

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Weeks & others v Bell & another [2025] QDC 24

PARTIES:

ASHLEY WILLIAM WEEKS
(First Plaintiff)

AND

DEBBIE ANN WEEKS
(Second Plaintiff)

AND

ADBKJ PTY LTD (ACN 633 170 877) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WEEKS FAMILY TRUST
(Third Plaintiff)

v

SUE MAREE BELL
(First Defendant)

BELLS BEACHSIDE REALTY PTY LTD (ACN 145 703 813)
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S: 

3284/23

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

4 March 2025 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2025

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDERS:

1. Application to give evidence by iPhone refused.

COUNSEL:

B.W Wacker for the plaintiffs

SOLICITORS:

Marino Law for the plaintiffs

S. Chau of Carthew Chau & Co for the defendants

1. Possibly for the first time in my judicial career, I am dismissing an application that a party to proceedings be granted leave to give evidence remotely. 

2. The application was made orally by the first defendant’s solicitor, Mr Chau at the start of the second day of the trial, after completion of the plaintiffs’ case on day one.  Initially, he made an oral application that the first plaintiff (Ms Bell) be granted leave to give evidence by telephone.  Subsequently, after he gave some evidence in support of the application, he amended the application to request that Ms Bell be given leave to give evidence by iPhone, that is, by some form of video conferencing facility on an iPhone, whether it be Facetime, Skype or some other such platform.  His application was not clear on that mode to be used.

3. The applicant starts the application holding some important cards (which is an appropriate metaphor for this kind of situation, even if it is not appropriate for European politics).  Those cards are:

   (a)Ms Bell is the first defendant in the case;

   (b)She is the principal witness for the defence; and

   (c)There is, pleaded in the defence, an alternative version of events, which might provide an answer to the plaintiffs’ claims if proved at trial. 

4. It is, however, the law still that the starting position is that a witness in proceedings, civil or criminal, (subject to a couple of limited exceptions), gives evidence in person in the witness box.  The onus lies on the party seeking an exception from that general rule to persuade the court it should divert from its ordinary procedure.

5. It is my experience that in practice, the weight of that onus has become relatively light in most cases.  Even cross-examinations challenging credit, if done by video link with proper provision for a fair cross-examination process, can be done quite effectively.  However, the grant of leave to attend by video link is a discretion, and there will be cases where leave should not be granted, rare though they might have become in practice.  Exceptionally, this is one of them.

6. The circumstances arise broadly in this way.  These proceedings are between Mr and Mrs Weeks and their trustee company against Ms Bell and her company, Bells Beachside…