Background
Roll’d Australia obtained permission for its counsel, who was in New South Wales, to attend the first case-management hearing in the Western Australian registry by video or audio link. Counsel attempted to connect using a mobile telephone while attending another court hearing. Establishing the connection delayed the hearing, and the link subsequently failed twice.
Although the parties had submitted proposed consent orders, the Court required their meaningful participation so it could assess the dispute, the appropriate steps toward trial and the judicial and administrative resources the proceeding would require. The connection failures prevented that process, and the hearing was adjourned after the Court made the proposed consent orders and reserved costs.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Feutrill ordered Roll’d Australia to pay Sunche’s costs of the aborted case-management hearing, fixed at $1,000. In substance, Roll’d Australia had failed to appear because its counsel could not maintain a continuous and reliable link. The consent orders did not eliminate the wasted hearing because the objectives of the first case-management hearing remained unfulfilled and the matter would need to be relisted unless it settled.
The Court rejected Roll’d Australia’s explanations that the solicitor responsible for the matter had become unavailable for personal reasons and counsel had a pre-existing court commitment. Those assertions were unsupported by affidavit evidence and, even if accepted, did not provide a reasonable excuse. A party requesting remote attendance remains responsible for adequate facilities and may instead seek an advance adjournment or brief alternative counsel.
Key Takeaways
- A party permitted to appear remotely must ensure that it can maintain a reliable video or audio connection throughout the hearing.
- Agreed case-management orders do not remove the obligation to participate meaningfully in the first case-management hearing.
- An unreliable remote appearance that aborts a hearing may expose the responsible party to the other side’s wasted costs.
Why It Matters
The decision treats effective remote participation as the responsibility of the party requesting it, rather than as a technical formality satisfied by briefly establishing a connection. Scheduling conflicts and last-minute personnel problems will not necessarily excuse a failed appearance when an adjournment or substitute counsel could have been arranged.
It also underscores that first case-management hearings serve an institutional function beyond approving consent orders: they allow the Court to test the parties’ proposed approach and allocate judicial resources efficiently.