Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 3) - [2017] VSC 311

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2016 01842

REBEL MELANIE ELIZABETH WILSON	Plaintiff
v
BAUER MEDIA PTY LTD & ANOR	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	John Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 May 2017
DATE OF RULING:	31 May 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 311

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Witnesses — Application to take evidence by video link — Requirement to make out a case for such an order to be made — What the interests of justice require in a particular case — Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958, s 42E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Dr M Collins QC, with Ms R Enbom and Mr J C Hooper	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Defendant	Ms G Schoff QC, with Mr S Mukerjea	Johnson Winter & Slattery

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff seeks a direction pursuant to s 42E of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act1958 that Sharon Jackson may give evidence in this proceeding via video link.

The relevant provision of the Act is in the following terms.

Appearance, etc. by audio-visual link or audio link
(1)Subject to section 42F and to any rules of court, a court may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party to the legal proceeding, direct that a person may appear before, or give evidence or make a submission to, the court by audio-visual link or audio link from any place within or outside Victoria, or outside Australia, that is outside the courtroom or other place where the court is sitting.
(2)A court must not make a direction under subsection (1) unless it is satisfied that the technical requirements specified in section 42G are met, or can reasonably be met, in the case of the particular link.
(3)The court may, at any time in the course of a proceeding, vary or revoke a direction under subsection (1) either on its own initiative or on the application of a party to the proceeding.
(4)Without limiting subsection (3), circumstances in which a court may vary or revoke a direction under subsection (1) include the failure of the link to which the direction relates.
(5)Each party to a proceeding may address the court in respect of the making, variation or revocation of a direction under subsection (1).

Sharon Jackson is the plaintiff’s talent agent in the United States. She lives in Los Angeles. Ms Jackson has two children aged three and seven. She has no arrangements for the care and welfare of her children if she were to travel to Australia. Her husband is unable to provide care to an appropriate level because of his work commitments. In addition, Ms Jackson and her family are moving house in the week of 5 June 2017.

Ms Jackson is a talent agent at William Morris Endeavour Entertainment LLC (WMEE), which is the largest talent agency in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 3)

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 3) [2017] VSC 311
Case: [2017] VSC 311
Decision Date: 31 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 3) involved the applicant, Mr Wilson, seeking to call witnesses from overseas via video link during the proceedings. The primary dispute centred around the admissibility of such evidence under the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 and whether the application met the threshold for such an order to be granted. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by His Honour Judge Smith.

The court was tasked with determining whether the interests of justice warranted allowing evidence to be taken by video link, particularly considering the witnesses' unavailability to give evidence in person. The statutory provisions, specifically section 42E of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958, were central to this decision. The court needed to assess whether the applicant had made out a sufficient case for the order to be made and what factors should be considered when weighing the interests of justice.

His Honour Judge Smith ruled that while the applicant had demonstrated a compelling need for the witnesses' evidence, the application did not sufficiently address the statutory requirements and the broader interests of justice. The judge emphasised that a strong case must be made out to justify the use of video link evidence, considering factors such as the witness's availability, the relevance and importance of their testimony, and any potential prejudice to the opposing party. Ultimately, the application was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to meet the necessary threshold under the Act.

The final orders included a clear directive that the applicant must provide more comprehensive evidence and arguments to support the application for future consideration. The court's decision underscored the need for a robust demonstration of the necessity for video link evidence and the importance of the interests of justice in such applications.

Orders