Federal Court of Australia

Gillham v Melbourne Symphony Orchestra Pty Ltd (Subpoenas and Video link evidence) [2026] FCA 27

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Pursuant to r 24.12(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules):

(a)    the subpoena addressed to Dr Sophie Galaise, a copy of which is annexed and marked “A”, be issued (Galaise Subpoena); and

(b)    the subpoena addressed to Mr Andrew Moore, a copy of which is annexed and marked “B”, be issued (Moore Subpoena).

2.    Pursuant to r 10.44 of the Rules, the First Respondent (MSO) has leave to serve the Moore Subpoena in the United Kingdom.

3.    Pursuant to r 10.24(a) of the Rules, leave be granted to the MSO to serve the Galaise Subpoena by way of substituted method of service by emailing a copy of the Galaise Subpoena to Mr Joel Zyngier, Principal, Gilchrist Connell, at jzyngier@gclegal.com.au.

4.    Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Rules, upon the MSO satisfying the terms of paragraph 3 above, the Galaise Subpoena be taken to have been personally served on Dr Sophie Galaise.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HILL J:

introduction

1    The First Respondent (Melbourne Symphony Orchestra or MSO) is applying for interlocutory orders for subpoenas to be issued to Dr Sophie Galaise and Mr Andrew Moore; and, in the case of Mr Moore, for leave to serve the subpoena outside Australia; and, in the case of Dr Galaise, for an order for substituted service of the subpoena on her lawyers in Australia. The MSO is also applying for Mr Moore to be permitted to give evidence by a video link.

2    On 28 January 2026, I made orders issuing the subpoenas sought by the MSO, and granting leave for the subpoena issued to Mr Moore to be served outside Australia, and for substituted service of the subpoena issued to Dr Galaise. I refused, however, the application for an order permitting Mr Moore to give evidence by a video link. These are the reasons for making those orders.

3    Evidence: The MSO relied on the following affidavits for the purpose of these applications: an affidavit of Mr Leon Zwier sworn on 13 October 2025; an affidavit of Ms Rachel Soh sworn on 21 January 2026; a supplementary affidavit of Ms Soh sworn on 23 January 2026; a third affidavit of Ms Soh sworn on 27 January 2026; and a fourth affidavit of Ms Soh, also sworn on 27 January 2026.

background

4    Applicant seeks relief for termination of employment by MSO: The Applicant has brought proceedings under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), claiming that the MSO took adverse action against him when it terminated his employment in August 2024: see Gillham v Melbourne Symphony Orchestra Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 458 (Gillham (No 1)) at [2]-[5] (Mortimer CJ). This proceeding was re-allocated to me, when the extended time required for hearing no longer made it possible for the Chief Justice to hear the matter: see Gillham v Melbourne Symphony Orchestra Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1355 at [106].

5    The proceeding is listed for trial on 18 May 2026, with an estimate of three weeks.

6    Connection of Dr Galaise and Mr Moore to the dispute: Dr Galaise and Mr Moore are connected to this dispute as follows.

7    Dr Galaise: Between 11 and 15 August 2024, Dr Galaise was the Managing Director of the MSO. Dr Galaise ceased her employment at the MSO on 26 August 2024. Dr Galaise was initially a Respondent in this application, but the Applicant has settled this proceeding against her and she is no longer a party to this proceeding: Gillham (No 1) at [10].

8    Alleged conduct by Dr Galaise (in cancelling Mr Gillham’s performance of the concert and sending the “cancellation message”) forms part of Mr Gillham’s claims against the MSO.

9    At October 2025, the MSO understood that Dr Galaise was residing in Canada. That position has changed, in light of more recent evidence obtained: see [39]-[44] below.

10    Mr Moore: Between 11 and 15 August 2024, Mr Moore was the Director of Programming at the MSO. Mr Moore ceased his employment at the MSO in March 2025. Mr Moore is not a party to the proceeding and he currently resides in the United Kingdom.

11    The pleadings identify Mr Moore as a person who is alleged to have been involved in a number of the matters alleged by Mr Gillham in the proceeding.

12    Interlocutory application for evidence by video link (Sep 2025): On 10 September 2025, the MSO made an interlocutory application seeking (among other orders) that Dr Galaise and Mr Moore be permitted to give evidence by video link. That interlocutory application was accompanied by an affidavit of Mr Zwier sworn on 10 September 2025.

13    Interlocutory application for subpoenas (Oct 2025): The MSO’s interlocutory application dated 13 October 2025 seeks the following orders:

1.     Pursuant to r 24.12(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules):

a.     the subpoena addressed to Ms Sophie Galaise be issued (Galaise Subpoena); and

b.     the subpoena addressed to Mr Andrew Moore be issued (Moore Subpoena).

2.     Pursuant to r 10.44 of the Rules, and subject to such further directions as the Court considers appropriate, the First Respondent (MSO) has leave to serve:

a.     the Galaise Subpoena in Canada; and

b.     the Moore Subpoena in the United Kingdom.

3.     Pursuant to r 10.24(a) of the Rules, leave be granted to the MSO to serve the Galaise Subpoena by way of substituted method of service by emailing a copy of the Galaise Subpoena to Mr Joel Zyngier, Principal, Gilchrist Connell, at [email address].

14    The Galaise subpoena and the Moore subpoena both provide for the person to attend Court in person in Melbourne and give evidence at the trial. However, the MSO presses its application that Mr Moore be permitted to give evidence by video link.

15    As explained below, shortly before the hearing, the MSO amended its interlocutory application, and no longer sought to serve the Galaise subpoena outside Australia.

16    Discussion in Gillham (No 2): The interlocutory applications for subpoenas and for Mr Moore to give evidence by audiovisual link received some consideration by the Chief Justice in Gillham (No 2), although her Honour did not rule on either application.

    In the case of evidence being given by video, it was not necessary to make a ruling because the trial dates were being vacated. The Chief Justice indicated that Mr Moore would be given an opportunity to be heard on whether he wishes to give evidence by audiovisual link, “and what the objective basis for his position is”: Gillham (No 2) at [48].

    In the case of the subpoenas, her Honour considered that Dr Galaise’s apparent unwillingness to give evidence voluntarily meant that the application should be treated as a contested application. The MSO was directed to serve its interlocutory application, supporting material and submissions on both Mr Moore and Dr Galaise, the latter service being permitted to be made through her legal representatives: Gillham (No 2) at [47], [49].

17    On 15 December 2025, I ordered (among other things) that the First Respondent file and serve on Mr Moore and Dr Galaise any further evidence in support of the interlocutory application, and that the application be heard by video link on 28 January 2026. I am satisfied from the first Soh affidavit that the date of this application was sufficiently drawn to the attention of Mr Moore and Dr Galaise.

18    The MSO’s materials stated that they would be re-agitating the application for Mr Moore to be permitted to give evidence by audiovisual link. The Applicant’s lawyers have indicated in correspondence that they were content for this application to be dealt with at the interlocutory hearing on 28 January 2026.

19    Hearing of interlocutory applications (Jan 2026): The MSO’s interlocutory applications were heard on 28 January 2026 by video link. The MSO and the Applicant were represented at this hearing, but there was no appearance on behalf of either Mr Moore or Dr Galaise.

consideration

Application for subpoenas

20    The October 2025 application (as amended) raises three issues: (1) whether to issue the subpoenas to Mr Moore and Dr Galaise; if so (2) whether to grant leave to serve the Moore subpoena outside Australia; and (3) whether to grant leave to issue substituted service of the Galaise subpoena.

Leave to issue subpoenas (r 24.12)

21    The first issue is whether the Court should grant leave under r 24.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to issue subpoenas to Mr Moore and Dr Galaise to give evidence.

22    I accept the MSO’s submission that the evidence of Mr Moore and Dr Galaise is plainly relevant to the proceeding. Indeed, the Chief Justice described Mr Moore as an “important witness”, and Dr Galaise a “critical witness”, to the proceeding: Gillham (No 2) at [32], [36].

23    The Court should grant leave to issue the subpoenas, subject to the issues of service discussed next.

Leave to serve outside Australia (r 10.44)

24    The second issue is whether to grant leave to serve Mr Moore outside Australia. Rule 10.44 of the Rules provides:

Any document other than an originating application may be served outside Australia with the leave of the Court, which may be given with any directions that the Court considers appropriate.

25    Matters relevant to leave: There is undoubted power to serve a subpoena on a person or entity outside Australia: Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd (in liq) v McGraw-Hill Financial, Inc [2016] FCA 401; (2016) 245 FCR 340 at [55] (Wigney J); Bluetag Australia Pty Ltd v BCC Trade Credit Pty Ltd trading as Bond and Credit Co [2023] FCA 1459 at [12] (Stewart J). However, the Court is required to exercise caution and restraint in cases involving the issue and service of a subpoena on a foreign addressee: Ceramic Fuel Cells at [59]. The relevant factors include: the nature of the subpoena; the nature of the particular proceedings and (in the case of a subpoena to produce documents) the importance of the documents to the issues in those proceedings; the attitude of the subpoenaed party (if known or ascertainable); the foreign country involved; and the law in, and attitude of, the foreign country regarding foreign subpoenas and whether they impinge upon the country’s sovereignty: Ceramic Fuel Cells at [59]; Bluetag at [12].

26    Another important consideration is that there is no ready means of enforcing a subpoena authorised to be issued and served on a foreign addressee where the cooperative machinery, whether executive or judicial, of the foreign country is not used for that purpose. In the absence of enforcement procedures, the order embodied by the subpoena is “a mere request couched in imperative terms”: Bluetag at [13], citing Stemcor (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Oceanwave Line SA [2004] FCA 391 at [12] (Allsop J). This factor is a discretionary reason not to issue a subpoena (rather than pointing to an absence of power), and is of less concern if the proposed recipient of the subpoena has indicated a willingness to provide the documents sought: Ceramic Fuel Cells at [61]; see University of New England v Boerner [2024] FCA 191 at [2], [4] (Wheelahan J).

27    Methods of service outside Australia (Div 10.6): Divisions 10.4 to 10.6 of the Rules set out different methods for service of process outside Australia.

28    The MSO seeks leave to serve Mr Moore in the United Kingdom pursuant to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters [2010] ATS 23 (the Hague Convention). The United Kingdom is party to the Hague Convention (and therefore a “Convention country” for the purposes of the Rules).

29    The relevant part of the Rules is therefore Div 10.6 of the Rules, which provides as follows.

    By r 10.64(1), a person may apply to a Registrar of this Court, in the Registrar’s capacity as a forwarding authority, for a request for service in a Convention country. That request must comply with the requirements of r 10.64(2) to (5), such as a draft request be in accordance with Form 25, and a summary of the document to be served be in accordance with Form 26.

    By r 10.65, if the Registrar is satisfied that the application and its accompanying documents comply with r 10.64, the Registrar must sign the request for service abroad, and forward two copies of the relevant documents to either the “nominated additional authority” for the Convention country (if the applicant so requests), or the “Central Authority” for the Convention country (in any other case).

    The Convention country then arranges for service of the document. If the document is served in the Convention country, the Registrar receives a certificate of service. The original of the certificate is filed in the proceeding, and a copy is sent to the applicant’s lawyers (r 10.66).

30    Should leave be given for service outside Australia? The issue then becomes whether leave should be granted to serve the subpoena outside Australia on Mr Moore. The MSO correctly observes that questions of international comity are much less pressing when it is proposed to serve a person in accordance with the Hague Convention, as the relevant country has accepted this means of serving overseas process, and the procedure under the Convention enables the Central Authority for the country to refuse to effect service in a particular case if that would infringe on that country’s sovereignty in that case: Clifton (Liquidator), in the matter of Solar Shop Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] FCA 891 at [12] (White J); Krejci, in the matter of Greatcell Solar Limited (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 723 at [10] (Goodman J); Chua (Liquidator), in the matter of Aoji Enrolment Centre of International Education Limited (in liq) [2024] FCA 1351 at [8] (Burley J).

31    However, even if concerns about international comity may be reduced, there may still be issues about whether the Court’s subpoena can be enforced, especially if the recipient is a person or entity domiciled abroad: see Finnegan v Washington (No 2) [2020] FCA 1587 at [9] (Jackson J). It is necessary to consider the particular position of Mr Moore.

32    Position in relation to Mr Moore: Ms Soh’s first affidavit gives the following evidence about the position in relation to Mr Moore:

    Mr Moore continues to reside in London and will be living in London at the time of the trial commencing on 18 May 2026.

    Mr Moore met with lawyers for the Respondents in preparation of his witness outline, and has indicated that he is willing to give evidence in the proceeding.

33    Mr Moore’s expressed willingness to give evidence in this proceeding greatly reduces any concerns that the Court might have about any subpoena being ignored and unenforceable: see Boerner at [2], [4].

34    For these reasons, I granted leave under r 10.44 of the Rules for the Moore subpoena to be served outside Australia, in accordance with the Hague Convention. I consider below whether to make an order permitting Mr Moore to give evidence by audiovisual link.

Whether substituted service should be ordered in respect of Dr Galaise (r 10.24)

35    The third issue is whether to make an order under r 10.24 of the Rules permitting substituted service of the subpoena issued to Dr Galaise. As noted, the MSO no longer seeks an order that the Galaise subpoena be served outside Australia.

36    Rules r 10.24: Rule 10.24 of the Rules provides as follows for substituted service:

10.24 Substituted service

If it is not practicable to serve a document on a person in a way required by these Rules, a party may apply to the Court without notice for an order:

(a)     substituting another method of service; or

(b)     specifying that, instead of being served, certain steps be taken to bring the document to the attention of the person; or

(c)     specifying that the document is taken to have been served:

(i)     on the happening of a specified event; or

(ii)     at the end of a specified time.

Note:     Without notice is defined in the Dictionary.

37    “Not practicable”: The precondition to engaging r 10.24 is that it is “not practicable” to serve a document on a person in the way required by the Rules. This requirement was explained by Wheelahan J in Boerner as follows:

    An applicant for orders for substituted service is required to demonstrate that it is not sensible or realistic to effect personal service, even though it may be possible or feasible to do so. It is not necessary to go so far as to demonstrate that there is an inability to effect personal service or that it would be extraordinarily difficult to do so. Further, there must be a proper evidential basis upon which to conclude that in all probability the mode of substituted service that is proposed will bring the relevant documents to the attention of the party to be served: Boerner at [7], quoting Commissioner of Taxation v Caratti (No 2) [2018] FCA 1500 at [10] (Colvin J). It is not necessary to adduce evidence of a failed attempt to effect personal service, although it is relevant: see Taylor v Hatzipapas, in the matter of Hatzipapas [2023] FCA 153 at [13] (Goodman J).

    The term “not practicable” is also to be interpreted and applied in a way that best promotes the overarching purpose, which is to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law, as quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently as possible: Boerner at [8], citing Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M.

38    Usual method of service within Australia (r 10.01): A subpoena must be served personally on the addressee (r 24.16(1)). A document that is to be served personally on an individual must be served by leaving the document with the individual (r 10.01).

39    Position of Dr Galaise – evidence: The position in relation to serving Dr Galaise is set out in the Zwier affidavit (as at October 2025) and the Soh affidavits (as at January 2026). The position set out in the Zwier affidavit was as follows:

    The Zwier affidavit indicated that Dr Galaise had stated to her lawyers in May 2025 that she expected that she would no longer reside in Australia after August 2025; instructed her lawyers in June 2025 that “she is neither willing nor able to give evidence voluntarily in the matter”, and “seeks to avoid any further involvement in the matter so far as possible”.

    The MSO’s lawyers had asked Dr Galaise’s lawyers for her address in Canada, and asked whether they had instructions to accept service of a subpoena on her behalf. In August 2025, Dr Galaise’s lawyers stated that they did not have instructions to accept service of a subpoena on her behalf. At October 2025, Dr Galaise’s lawyers had not responded to the request to provide Dr Galaise’s address in Canada.

40    The position in relation to Dr Galaise set out in the first Soh affidavit is as follows:

    The MSO’s lawyers have become aware that Dr Galaise was appointed as a director and the sole secretary of an Australian proprietary company (Jameson Family Foundation Pty Ltd) in June 2025, and she is listed as having those roles in a company search undertaken in January 2026. The MSO’s lawyers observe that at least one of a proprietary company’s secretaries must ordinarily reside in Australia (Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 204A(1)). The company search provides a home address for Dr Galaise; however, searches for that address indicate that it was listed for sale in October 2025, and has been leased since November 2025, and show that Dr Galaise does not own or have an interest in this property.

    The MSO’s lawyers have become aware that Dr Galaise has been appointed to the Board of the Queensland Performing Arts Trust from October 2025 to September 2028. Ms Soh attaches a newspaper article suggesting that Dr Galaise had attended an event at Queensland Government House in November 2025.

    In November 2025, Dr Galaise stated on social media that she was starting a new position at I Musici de Montreal. A search of that body indicates that Dr Galaise is an “administrateur” of that body. These body’s records provide a home address for Dr Galaise in Quebec.

    The MSO’s lawyers have asked Dr Galaise’s lawyers several times to confirm if Dr Galaise is residing in Australia, or Canada, and to confirm her address for service. At the time of Ms Soh’s affidavit, MSO’s lawyers had not received a substantive response.

    However, in December 2025, Dr Galaise’s lawyers stated that they held instructions to accept service of the subpoena on behalf of Dr Galaise.

41    Ms Soh’s supplementary affidavit contains further information about Dr Galaise’s roles obtained from social media, which describe her various roles as follows:

    Director of the Queensland Performing Arts Centre with a location of Brisbane, and a descriptor “hybrid”;

    Director and Board Member for I Musici de Montreal with a location of Quebec, and a descriptor “Remote”;

    “Ambassador” for the Advisory Board of the Arts with a location of Melbourne, and a descriptor “Hybrid”; and

    “Honorary Consul” for the Consulate of Canada in Melbourne (a role confirmed by the Consulate’s website), with a location of Melbourne and a descriptor “Hybrid”.

42    Other social media posts indicate that Dr Galaise attending theatre and other productions in Melbourne and Brisbane between July 2025 and January 2026.

43    Ms Soh’s third affidavit identifies other social media posts indicating that Dr Galaise has been in Australia between June 2025 and January 2026. Ms Soh’s evidence in her third affidavit is that Dr Galaise’s lawyers still not have informed the MSO’s lawyers of Dr Galaise’s location. On the basis of the social media posts and descriptions of Dr Galaise’s various roles (summarised above), Ms Soh expresses the belief that it is likely that Dr Galaise is currently in Australia.

44    Ms Soh’s fourth affidavit states (relevantly) that Dr Galaise’s lawyers instructed on 27 January 2026 that Dr Galaise is “presently in Australia”, and that they continue to hold instructions to accept service of the subpoena on her behalf.

45    Should leave be given for substituted service on Dr Galaise? I accept the MSO’s submission that it is not “practicable” to serve Dr Galaise in the usual way required by the Rules, because the MSO has been unable to obtain Dr Galaise’s address. Ms Soh’s affidavits state that the MSO’s lawyers have not received a substantive response to their request for Dr Galaise’s location.

46    Since the MSO no longer seeks service of the subpoena outside Australia, I do not need to consider whether the subpoena would in practice be unenforceable: cf the discussion in Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v OZI4x4 Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 768 at [51]-[52]; Stemcor at [12].

47    Here, Dr Galaise has indicated that she would not be a willing witness: see [39] above; Gillham (No 2) at [46]. However, Dr Galaise’s lawyers have stated that they have instructions to accept service of a subpoena. There is significant evidence indicating that Dr Galaise is currently residing in Australia or, at least, continues to have enduring ties to Australia. And, as already explained, Dr Galaise’s evidence is critical to this proceeding. I am satisfied that the hearing of the application for the issue of subpoena has been brought to Dr Galaise’s attention. She did not seek to be heard at the hearing on 28 January 2026.

48    In these circumstances, I determined that it was appropriate to permit substituted service of the Galaise subpoena on her lawyers.

Whether order should be made permitting Mr Moore to give evidence by audiovisual link

49    The remaining matter is the MSO’s application for an order that Mr Moore be permitted to give evidence by audiovisual link. Ms Soh’s first affidavit sets out the following on the position of Mr Moore:

    Mr Moore continues to live in London, and will be living in London at the time of the trial commencing on 18 May 2026;

    Mr Moore has commitments as part of his role as Artistic Director at the Royal College of Music in London on 17 May 2026 and in Portugal between 17-22 May 2026. The Royal College of Music’s main examination period begins on 25 May 2026 and runs for three weeks, during which time he will be required to act as a panel chair and oversee or moderate examinations.

    Mr Moore has indicated a strong preference that he be permitted to give evidence by audiovideo link as, given the time difference between London and Melbourne, he will have greater flexibility to appear as a witness outside of business hours (in London).

50    Federal Court Act s 47A(1): The Court has power to direct or allow testimony to be given by video link, audio link or other appropriate means: Federal Court Act s 47A(1). However, before making an order under s 47A(1), the Court must be satisfied of the technical matters set out in s 47C(1)(a) and (b) (the requirements of a video link) and (3)(a) and (b) (the requirements of an audio link): see Deeming v Pesutto [2024] FCA 951 at [11] (O’Callaghan J). Those requirements are:

    The courtroom or other place where the Court or the Judge is sitting is equipped with facilities that enable all eligible persons present in that courtroom or place to see and hear (for video links) or hear (for audio links) the person (the remote person) who is giving the testimony, appearing, or making the submission, by way of the relevant link (s 47C(1)(a) and (3)(a)); and

    The place at which the remote person is located is equipped with facilities that enable all eligible persons present in that place to see and hear (for video links) or hear (for audio links) each eligible person who is present in the courtroom or other place where the Court or the Judge is sitting (s 47C(1)(b) and (3)(b)).

51    In Deeming, O’Callaghan J made the following points about the exercise of the s 47A(1) discretion:

    Each case turns on its facts, and various factors will usually need to be weighed in the balance: Deeming at [13].

    Factors that are commonly considered are: the employment commitments of an overseas witness; whether the credibility of the witness is in issue; the importance of the witness’ evidence to the case; whether the use of video link may frustrate or delay the management of documents in cross examination; and the costs involved in requiring a witness, especially a witness who is not a party, to travel to Australia to give viva voce evidence: Deeming at [14].

    It is necessary for an applicant for an order under s 47A(1) to make out the case for the order, particularly if it is opposed by the other party, where the evidence is contested, the witness is to be cross-examined and questions of credit, credibility and reliability are involved: Deeming at [15].

52    Of these factors, the courts are particularly troubled by the possibility that the cross-examination of an important witness might be rendered less effective by the limitations of video link technology or the absence of the witness from the courtroom: Deeming at [33]-[34]; Southernwood v Brambles Limited (No 2) [2022] FCA 973 at [29]-[30] (Murphy J); ACN 117 641 004 Pty Ltd (in liq) v S&P Global, Inc (No 5) [2025] FCA 687 at [30]-[32] (Shariff J). In that situation, the applicant for a s 47A order must point to convincing reasons why the cross-examination of the witness should be permitted to occur other than in person: Deeming at [35].

53    Should an order be made under s 47A in respect of Mr Moore? The application for an order under s 47A(1) can be determined with these principles in mind.

54    The MSO seeks to address the s 47C requirements by having the parties agree on suitable arrangements for taking evidence from Mr Moore by video link (proposed order 6).

55    I accept that the reasons for seeking the s 47A order have weight: Mr Moore’s employment commitments are relevant, and the costs of bringing a non-party witness to Australia are significant (especially in a no-costs jurisdiction, such as matters arising under the Fair Work Act). It is relevant that Mr Moore is not an employee of the MSO, so this is not a case where an employer who is a party can make the necessary accommodations to enable a witness to give evidence.

56    However, there are compelling factors pointing the other way: Mr Moore is an important witness, and his credit is likely to be a crucial issue (as with any adverse action case). Further, the entirety of his evidence will be given orally, by reason of procedural orders made by the Chief Justice, consistent with this Court’s Employment and Industrial Relations Practice Note (E&IR-1) at [9.1]. And the Applicant opposes the application for Mr Moore to give evidence by video link.

57    This case is therefore similar to Deeming and Southernwood (No 2), where applications under s 47A were refused. As I understand it, Mr Moore has not refused to give evidence other than by a video link: cf ACN 117 641 004 (No 5) at [40]-[41].

58    Conclusion – application for s 47A order refused: For these reasons, I refused the application under s 47A, and did not permit Mr Moore to give evidence by video link. At the hearing, I urged the parties to give consideration to how long Mr Moore will be required for to give evidence, and where his evidence will fit in within the time set down for hearing. The parties were encouraged to prepare a draft timetable of the hearing by the beginning of April 2026 to send to my chambers.

conclusions

59    For these reasons, I granted the orders sought by the MSO in relation to issuing and serving subpoenas on Mr Moore and Dr Galaise to give evidence in this proceeding, but refused the application for Mr Moore to give evidence by video link. No party sought costs: see Fair Work Act s 570.

Associate:

Dated:    2 February 2026