Blum v Chandler [2019] SASC 43 saw a plaintiff issue proceedings in the District Court of South Australia, then later apply for transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales (where she was by then living).
The defendant submitted that the proceedings should remain in South Australia given that the plaintiff’s concerns could be alleviated by a combination of the appropriate judicial management of the trial coupled with the use of technology.
The court held at [77] – [78]:
I see no forensic unfairness or prejudice in the trial being conducted by the plaintiff and her solicitors remotely using audiovisual links. I agree with counsel for the defendant that inconvenience and cost factors are largely neutralised by the defendant’s undertaking to meet the cost of an audiovisual link to Sydney for the duration of the trial in any event. I further agree that the prudent management of the trial will ensure that the plaintiff is able to present her case fully.
The defendant’s undertaking to meet the cost of the plaintiff travelling to Adelaide to give her evidence in person, if she chooses to do so, in addition to her accommodation and the costs associated with her children accompanying her, should she so wish, removes any residual inconvenience occasioned by the location of the trial. Such inconvenience as that travel may occasion the plaintiff and her children will be the product of her choice.
The application was dismissed.