//
[2025] ACTSC 176
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-05-02
McCallum CJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Reynolds v Tsirimokos Citation: [2025] ACTSC 176 Hearing Date: 2 May 2025 Decision Date: 2 May 2025 Before: McCallum CJ Decision: (1) Pursuant to rule 6700(3)(a) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), grant leave to the first plaintiff to give evidence at the trial of this matter by affidavit. (2) Costs of this application to be costs in the cause. Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to give evidence by affidavit – where proceedings concern complex commercial transaction – where plaintiff requires translator Legislation Cited: Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6700 Parties: Bin Reynolds (First Plaintiff) Aranda Holdings Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff) Archie Tsirimokos (First Defendant) Meyer Vandenberg Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) James Douglas Campbell (Third Defendant) CSD (ACT) Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant) Representation: Counsel T Crispin (Plaintiffs) R Walls (First and Second Defendants) A Rizk (Third and Fourth Defendants) Solicitors Legal on London (Plaintiffs) Wotton Kearney (First and Second Defendants) Gilchrist Connell (Third and Fourth Defendants) File Number: SC 507 of 2023 McCALLUM CJ: Introduction
Before the Court is an application in proceeding brought by the first plaintiff, Bin Reynolds, for leave to give her evidence at the trial of the matter by affidavit. The usual rule is that evidence at the trial of a proceeding started by originating claim must be given orally in open court: r 6700(1) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). However, the Court has power under r 6700(3) to order otherwise.
The grounds for the application are set out in the affidavit of Peter Anthony Hohnen sworn on 19 March 2025. In short, Mr Hohnen states that he considers it desirable for Ms Reynolds to give her evidence by affidavit because of her limited command of English and the complexity of the issues in the proceedings.
The proceedings concern a commercial arrangement in which the defendants acted in a professional capacity as advisors to a Mr Pan, who was a de facto director of a company referred to as RH Property. That company was in the market for the purchase of a property to be sold at a premium by reason of an expected development proposal. The defendants acted as accountants and financial advisors to the plaintiff and are alleged to have held themselves out as experts who could advise on the viability of such acquisitions. They recommended to her the purchase of the land as a sensible investment and, so it is alleged, induced her to enter into a retainer with the first and second defendants.
It is clear, having regard to the nature of the issues that will arise in the proceedings, the complexity of the commercial arrangement alleged, the plaintiff’s limited English and, as she alleges, her limited understanding of the arrangements into which she entered, that it would be preferable in the circumstances of this case to depart from the usual rule and for the evidence to be given by affidavit. That will enable her to be able to prepare her evidence so as to present her best evidence in the calm of the solicitor’s office rather than in the more stressful atmosphere of the court through an interpreter.
Orders
I certify that the preceding five [5] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Chief Justice McCallum. Associate: Date:
Reynolds
Tsirimokos [2025] ACTSC 176