Evidence (Video and Audio Links Fees and Expenses) Regulations 1999

Scope and trigger: The regulations apply expressly to applications by a party to a civil proceeding in or before a court that result in a court direction to take evidence or receive a submission by video link (r 2(1)). The instrument therefore regulates cost allocation where a party initiates the use of court-arranged remote links in civil matters; the text makes no provision for use in criminal proceedings, nor for court-initiated directions where there was no party application.

Types of financial obligations: The instrument separates obligations into three mechanically distinct categories: a pre-booking or booking charge (r 2(1) and Schedule 1, item 1), a usage-based hourly charge which is levied for each hour or part of an hour of link use (r 3 and Schedule 1, item 2), and reimbursement of actual telecommunications charges incurred by the court in providing the video or audio service (r 4). The hourly charge is calculated per hour or part of an hour, creating a rounding-up effect for partial hours (r 3).

Allocation mechanism where multiple applicants use one link: Where the same video link can be used by more than one party applying for it, regulation 2(2) requires each of those parties to pay to the court an equal portion of the relevant booking fee. The regulation prescribes equal division only for the booking fee; it does not specify division rules for the hourly fee or telecom expenses where multiple parties use the same link.

Timing and recovery: The booking fee is required to be paid to book the link (r 2(1)). The hourly fee and telecommunications charges are payable within 30 days after use (r 3; r 4). Regulation 5 elevates any fee or expense payable under the regulations to the status of a debt due to the Crown and recoverable in a competent court, thereby converting non-payment into a civil recovery pathway.

Discretionary waiver: Regulation 6 grants the court an express discretion to waive a fee or expense in a particular case, but provides no statutory criteria, process, or appellate pathway for waiver decisions, nor does it link waiver to means-testing, public interest considerations, or court programs.

Instrumental architecture: The rates themselves are specified in Schedule 1. The compilation table records repeated amendments and fee updates across years, and the most recent entry shows Schedule 1 was inserted/updated by SL 2025/111 r. 17, which sets the monetary amounts stated above. The regulatory design is modular: the core obligations are in regulations 2 to 4, the payment/recovery rule is in regulation 5, unary court discretion in regulation 6, and the numerical values are confined to Schedule 1 for ease of updating by amendment instruments.

Terminology and limits: The operative provisions use defined functional phrases rather than technical pricing rules. The regulations impose obligations on the party who applies and succeeds in obtaining the court direction, not directly on the witness, the court user vendor, or an external service provider. The regulations do not reference GST, tax treatment, billing procedures, penalty interest, dispute resolution between the court and parties over invoices, or record-keeping requirements.

Primary payers: The regulation identifies the payer as “the party” who made the application to use the video or audio link and whose witness or submission is the subject of the link direction (r 2(1), r 3, r 4). That party is the legal entity required to pay the booking fee to secure the link, the hourly fee after use, and the telecommunications charges incurred by the court. The obligation attaches to parties in civil proceedings; the text explicitly frames the trigger as an “application by a party to a civil proceeding in or before a court” (r 2(1)), so defendants, plaintiffs, applicants, respondents, and other civil parties are within scope when they apply for remote facilities.

Other affected parties: Where more than one party can use the same video link, those parties who each make an application are required to share the booking fee equally (r 2(2)). The regulation imposes no statutory apportionment for hourly fees or telecom charges in that multi-party context, although the practical effect may be that the court will seek payment from the relevant parties under the general debt-recovery mechanism (r 5). Witnesses, legal representatives, private videoconference vendors, and third-party service providers are not direct payers under these regulations, but they are indirectly affected because the regulations make the applicant party liable for those costs and the court may pass on the court-incurred telecom expense to the applicant.

Courts and court administration: The court is the recipient of fees and is the entity that arranges the link and incurs telecommunications charges (r 2(1); r 4). The court also exercises discretion to waive fees or expenses in a particular case (r 6). The regulations do not elaborate on internal court billing practice, timing of invoice issuance, or the administrative steps the court must take before declaring a debt payable to the Crown, but they create a formal pathway for the court to recover its actual telecommunications expenses and statutory fees.

State as creditor: Regulation 5 converts fees and expenses payable under the regulations into debts due to the Crown and recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction. This makes the State the creditor and enables use of civil recovery processes against non-paying parties. That status may have administrative and enforcement implications for both court finance officers and parties who default on payment.

Persons not covered: The regulations do not declare fees for criminal proceedings, summary tribunals, or administrative hearings outside “a civil proceeding in or before a court”. They also do not provide for fee recovery from other sources such as Legal Aid, insurers, or third-party litigation funders. If a party seeks to have someone else pay (for instance, a funder), the regulations do not create or prohibit that contractual arrangement; they merely make the party initially responsible to the court.

Stakeholders exposed to operational risk: Parties who anticipate extensive use of video links (for example multiple witnesses or long hearings) face an exposure to hourly fees calculated per hour or part of an hour (r 3; Schedule 1, item 2). Parties using interstate or overseas links face a higher booking fee (Schedule 1, item 1(b)), and the court’s telecommunications expenses for longer or international connections may be materially higher, with no statutory cap.

Duties imposed on parties

• Pay booking fee to the court to book the link when the court, on an application by a party to a civil proceeding, directs that evidence or submissions be taken/received by video link (r 2(1); Schedule 1, item 1). The booking fee differs for intrastate and interstate or overseas links (Schedule 1, item 1(a) and 1(b)).

• Where more than one party can use the same video link, each party who made an application must pay an equal portion of the booking fee (r 2(2)).

• Pay, within 30 days after the use of a video link, the fee per hour, or part of an hour, that the link was used for the party’s witness evidence or submission (r 3; Schedule 1, item 2). Regulation 3 explicitly applies to both taking witness evidence called by the party and receiving a submission on the party’s behalf.

• Pay, within 30 days after the use of a video link or audio link, the expense of telecommunications charges incurred by the court in taking the party’s witness evidence or receiving the party’s submission (r 4).

• Recognise that any fee or expense payable under these regulations is a debt due to the Crown and is recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction (r 5). That is, non-payment is actionable as a civil debt.

Rights and powers conferred

• The court has express discretion to waive a fee or expense in a particular case (r 6). The regulations do not specify criteria, thresholds, or procedural requirements for seeking a waiver; the power is residual and case-specific.

• Parties have the right to use the court-arranged video or audio link where the court directs such a facility following an application by the party; the regulations do not alter the court’s substantive discretion to grant or refuse such applications, the court’s primary role remaining the decision-maker on whether to direct a link.

Operational or procedural rights implied by the drafting

• The regulations imply an administrative right to be invoiced and to be charged the amounts listed in Schedule 1 and the actual telecommunications expense, although they do not prescribe the format, timing, or content of invoices or specify how disputes about charges are to be handled.

• Where multiple applicants can use the same video link, each applicant has the right to be allocated an equal share of the booking fee per regulation 2(2); the regulation does not provide a right to equitable apportionment of hourly fees or telecom charges, which remain payable by the party under regulations 3 and 4.

Omissions that affect duties and rights

• No statutory guidance for waiver decisions: regulation 6 lacks procedural detail and objective criteria, leaving parties uncertain about the basis on which a court may exercise waiver power.

• No express penalties for late payment, no interest regime, and no dispute-resolution procedure are specified for contested invoices; the principal enforcement mechanism listed is civil recovery under regulation 5.

• The instrument does not mention recovery from third-party funders, insurers, or government assistance schemes, nor does it require the court to seek payment from such third parties.

• The regulations do not address whether fees are taxable or include GST, how credit is to be applied, or whether refunds are due for cancelled bookings, nor do they provide for pro-rating of the booking fee where a booking is cancelled or the link is used for a shorter period than anticipated.

Enforcement mechanism

• The regulations make the enforcement pathway civil rather than criminal. Regulation 5 declares that a fee or expense payable under these regulations is “a debt due to the Crown and is recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.” That converts non-payment into a civil claimable debt enforceable by standard civil recovery procedures available to the Crown and its officers. The regulations do not specify further enforcement details such as administrative garnishee, writs of execution, or statutory interest.

Absence of express monetary penalties or criminal sanctions

• The instrument contains no provision for fines, default interest, penalties, or criminal sanctions imposed specifically under these regulations. Non-compliance therefore results in the status of unpaid fees as a recoverable debt rather than triggering a distinct statutory penalty regime.

Time limits relevant to recovery

• The regulations set payment deadlines for the fees that are not complied with at the payer’s risk: booking fees are required at the time the link is booked (r 2(1)), and the hourly fee and telecommunications charges are payable within 30 days after the use of the link (r 3; r 4). The regulations do not state that failure to pay within those timeframes automatically revokes a party’s entitlement to use the link or that a failure to pay constitutes contempt; instead the remedy is recovery in court under regulation 5.

Court discretion may mitigate enforcement

• Regulation 6 permits the court to waive fees or expenses “in a particular case.” Waiver is therefore a direct statutory mechanism that can prevent enforcement action when exercised. The regulations do not, however, define the scope of the waiver power, the factors to be considered, or whether waiver decisions are amenable to appeal. This creates an enforcement landscape in which recovery steps are available but waiver remains an undefined countervailing discretion.

Practical enforcement implications

• Because the Crown is the creditor under regulation 5, recoveries are likely to be pursued through standard Crown debt recovery channels, which may have administrative precedence over private creditors and, depending on the Crown’s internal practices, may be pursued by legal officers or court administration.

• The lack of an interest provision or specified penalties means that recovered sums will be limited to the principal amounts unless other legal bases exist under separate legislation for interest on debts due to the Crown. The regulations themselves are silent on that point.

• The regulations do not address notice requirements prior to enforcement action, the form of demands for payment, or timelines for default handling; those procedural matters remain governed by general civil procedure and Crown finance practice rather than by these regulations.

Parent Act and subordinate instruments

• These regulations are made under the Evidence Act 1906 (the schedule header identifies the parent Act) and function as subordinate legislation establishing fees and expense recovery for court-provided video and audio links in civil proceedings. The regulations are therefore part of the statutory framework that governs evidence-taking in courts, addressing procedural cost-allocation rather than evidentiary admissibility or the technology used.

Relation to fee-amendment instruments

• The compilation table shows a history of fee amendments effected via instruments titled Attorney General Regulations Amendment (Fees) or (Fees and Charges) and other amendment regulations, culminating in the insertion or update of Schedule 1 by SL 2025/111 r. 17. That history indicates that the numerical fees are updated periodically through separate regulations amending Schedule 1, rather than by changing the substantive regulations 2 to 6. Users must therefore read Schedule 1 in its current amended form for the operative dollar amounts.

Interaction with civil procedure and court practice

• The regulations refer to recovery of debts in “a court of competent jurisdiction” (r 5). Enforcement will therefore interface with civil procedure rules governing debt recovery, judgment, execution, and potentially bankruptcy law should a party fail to pay and judgment be obtained. The regulations do not displace or modify those procedural rules; they provide a statutory basis for the debt claim.

Overlap with other funding or fee regimes

• The regulations do not reference Legal Aid, costs orders, indemnities, or third-party funding arrangements. They do not expressly prevent a party from seeking to recover these fees later as part of an indemnity or costs order, nor do they specify whether a successful party could recover these charges from another party at final costs assessment. Any interaction with court costs regimes or Legal Aid policies will therefore be contingent on those separate instruments and court practice.

No change to substantive evidentiary law

• The regulations do not alter evidentiary rules under the Evidence Act 1906; they are procedural and financial in nature. They do not address admissibility, competence, compellability, or the form of evidence admissible via video or audio link. Courts retain their normal evidentiary functions and discretions separate from these fee rules.

Uncommenced Acts and future changes

• The compilation notes an uncommenced provision in the Evidence Act 2025 (assented 25 Sep 2025, s 387(e)) that has yet to be proclaimed. The regulations do not purport to implement or respond to that uncommenced provision. Any future commencement of the Evidence Act 2025 or other primary legislation could require consequential amendment to these regulations or alter the regulatory framework for remote evidence, but such changes are not reflected in the current text.

Tax and financial law silence

• The regulations do not address GST, tax deductibility, or accounting treatment of fees or expenses. Those matters will be governed by taxation law and agency accounting practice outside the instrument.

International or cross-jurisdictional interfaces

• The booking fee differentiates intrastate from interstate or overseas links (Schedule 1, item 1), but the regulations do not engage with cross-border legal assistance, mutual legal assistance, or foreign court processes. Any interaction with telecom regulation, international telecommunication costs, or foreign judicial processes remains external to the instrument.

Chronology of amendments recorded in the compilation table

• The original Evidence (Video and Audio Links Fees and Expenses) Regulations 1999 commenced 7 December 1999. Since then the compilation table records a sequence of amendment instruments that changed fees or provisions over the period 2003-2025. Specific amendments listed include instruments published in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 (two instruments), 2012 (two instruments), 2013, 2014, 2015 and then a series of Attorney General Regulations Amendment (Fees) or (Fees and Charges) annually from 2016 through 2025.

• The compilation table records several reprints (Reprint 1 at 6 Aug 2004; Reprint 2 at 7 Nov 2008; Reprint 3 at 14 Feb 2014), indicating points at which the body of regulations and amendments were consolidated for publication.

Recent change recorded in the current text

• Schedule 1 was inserted or updated by SL 2025/111 r. 17, as the marginal note in the Schedule indicates. That insertion sets the current numeric amounts in Schedule 1: intrastate booking fee $176.50, interstate or overseas booking fee $260.50, and $138.00 per hour or part of an hour for usage. The marginal note next to regulation 2 also indicates that regulation 2 was amended and that the amendment was published in the Gazette on 9 March 2012, p 931‑2.

Mechanism of fee updates

• The historical pattern in the compilation table shows that the monetary amounts in Schedule 1 have been subject to periodic amendment via separate amendment regulations, typically grouped with Attorney General fee and charge amendment instruments. This indicates that Schedule 1 is the targeted locus for fee adjustments, allowing the government to update numerical values without rewriting the core regulations.

Amendment text visibility

• The document provides marginal annotations that show where the regulations were amended, for example the bracketed note “[Regulation 2 amended: Gazette 9 Mar 2012 p. 931‑2.]” and the Schedule annotations “[Schedule 1 inserted: SL 2025/111 r. 17.]” The compilation table provides a public legislative history listing each amending instrument, its publication date, and the commencement date where applicable.

Uncommenced primary law that could prompt future amendments

• The compilation page includes an uncommenced provision in the Evidence Act 2025 assented on 25 September 2025 (s 387(e)) that is to be proclaimed. The regulations themselves do not reflect any impact of that uncommenced provision, but its eventual proclamation could require review of these regulations for consistency with changed primacy in the Evidence Act domain.

What the amendment history does not record

• The compilation table records amendment instruments and dates, but the regulations themselves do not include a narrative explaining the policy reasons for each fee adjustment, nor do they show transitional arrangements for fees changed mid-proceeding. The regulations do not provide retrospective refund mechanisms where fees have been updated, nor do they require public effect analysis when fees change.

Practical implication of the amendment design

• Because the fees are maintained in Schedule 1 and have been the subject of frequent amendment instruments, practitioners should verify the current Schedule 1 in force at the relevant time rather than rely on historical figures. The 2025 insertion is the latest consolidation recorded in this compilation.

No cases or judicial determinations are cited or recorded in the text of these regulations, the Schedule, or the compilation notes. The compiled instrument is a fee schedule and procedural cost recovery instrument; it contains no embedded case law references, and the notes and compilation table do not report any litigation that interprets, challenges, or applies these specific regulations.

Absence of recorded judicial treatment in the source

• The source document does not include a litigation history section, case notes, sample pleadings, court determinations, or references to appellate review concerning the interpretation or enforcement of these regulations. The compilation table and notes are focused on statutory amendments and commencement data rather than jurisprudence.

Implication for practitioners and researchers

• Because the regulations themselves provide statutory allocations and recovery mechanisms without accompanying judicial clarifications in this compilation, practitioners seeking authoritative judicial interpretation, precedent on waiver exercises under regulation 6, disputes over what constitutes “use” for the purposes of the hourly fee under regulation 3, or challenges to recovery as a Crown debt under regulation 5 will need to search court databases and reports outside this document. The absence of litigation references in the instrument means the text alone should be treated as the starting point for analysis, not the endpoint.

• Any court rulings that may exist concerning the practical operation of these regulations are not summarised in this compilation. Users should be aware that practical questions,such as the application of the 30-day payment deadline, remedies for disputed telecom charges, allocation of hourly fees where multiple parties use the same link, or standards for waiver,may have been considered in judicial decisions elsewhere but are not recorded here.

Regulatory trigger limited to applications by parties in civil proceedings

• The operative trigger phrasing in regulation 2(1) is expressly tied to “an application by a party to a civil proceeding in or before a court.” If a court directs a video link without a party’s application, or if the matter is criminal or administrative, the statutory obligation to pay the booking fee as drafted may not be triggered. Practitioners should not assume these regulations universally apply across all court directions to use remote technology.

Booking fee timing and sharing nuances

• Regulation 2(1) requires payment of “the relevant fee … to book that link.” That language makes the booking fee payable at the booking stage rather than the post-use 30-day regime that applies to the hourly fee and telecom charges. Practitioners should ensure booking fees are paid when required. Where the same video link can be used by more than one applicant, regulation 2(2) prescribes only equal division of the booking fee; the regulations do not specify how the hourly fee or telecom charges are to be apportioned among multiple users, potentially generating disputes about allocation of ongoing costs.

Per-hour rounding effect

• Regulation 3 charges “for each hour, or part of an hour, that the link was used.” That drafting creates a rounding-up effect for partial hours, which can significantly increase costs where many short sessions are booked. There is no statutory requirement for the court to pro-rate, cap, or discount the per-hour fee.

Telecommunications charges uncapped

• Regulation 4 requires payment of “the expense of the telecommunications charges incurred by the court” for the party’s use, with no statutory cap or formula. For interstate or international links, or where premium services are used, those costs may be materially higher than the fixed fees in Schedule 1; the regulation provides no predictive cap, price schedule, or requirement that the court use the most economical provider.

No procedural detail for waiver

• Regulation 6 allows the court to waive fees “in a particular case,” but the regulations include no application process, threshold criteria, timing, or disclosure obligations for waiver requests. This omission may result in inconsistent practice and uncertainty for parties who cannot predict the circumstances in which the court will exercise the waiver power.

Debt recovery but no interest or penalty regime

• Regulation 5 declares unpaid fees are debts due to the Crown and recoverable, but the regulations do not provide for interest, late fees, or administrative penalties. Recovery practice will be governed by general civil and Crown finance rules outside these regulations, creating uncertainty about total exposure for late payment.

No mention of GST or tax consequences

• The regulations are silent on whether fees are inclusive of GST or otherwise taxable, and do not provide guidance on invoicing detail. Parties and their accountants will need to determine tax treatment under tax law and accounting practice; the regulations do not resolve this.

No internal court billing or dispute procedure

• The regulations do not set out how invoices will be issued, how disputes over charges are to be litigated or administratively resolved prior to recovery, or how refunds for unused bookings are to be handled. These operational gaps mean that practical compliance depends on court administrative practice which is not specified in the instrument.

Updating mechanism separated from substantive text

• The numeric amounts are confined to Schedule 1 and have been the subject of frequent amendment via separate regulations. Practitioners must check the current Schedule 1 and the compilation table rather than rely on historical numbers; failure to do so could lead to underpayment or disputes.

Potential misalignment with other court cost recovery

• The regulations do not address whether these fees can be the subject of costs orders, cost indemnities, or are otherwise recoverable from other parties in costs assessments. That omission may mean duplicate recovery claims or disputes at final costs hearings.

Checklist of immediate compliance steps

• Confirm the statutory trigger: ensure the application being made is a party application in a civil proceeding and that the court would be directing the use of a video link or audio link. Regulation 2(1) expressly ties the booking fee to an application by a party to a civil proceeding.

• Pay the booking fee at the time of booking: regulation 2(1) requires payment to the court to book the link. Schedule 1 (current as inserted SL 2025/111 r. 17) lists the applicable booking fees: intrastate $176.50, interstate or overseas $260.50 (Schedule 1, item 1).

• Where multiple applicants can use the same video link, either arrange payment among the applicants or request the court’s direction, but expect that each applicant will be required to pay an equal portion of the booking fee per regulation 2(2).

• Record and document use time precisely: because regulation 3 charges per hour or part of an hour and requires payment within 30 days after use, maintain contemporaneous records of when the link was used, start and stop times, and any pauses or technical delays that could be disputed. Schedule 1, item 2 sets the per hour fee at $138.00.

• Keep invoices and telecom bills: the party must pay the telecommunications charges “incurred by the court” within 30 days after use (r 4). Obtain copies of the court’s telecom invoices or a court itemised statement to reconcile costs and to support timely payment.

• Meet the 30-day payment window: for the hourly fee and telecommunications charges, the regulations set a 30-day deadline after use (r 3; r 4). Prepare internal accounts payable processes to ensure payments are made within that window to avoid debt-recovery actions under regulation 5.

• Use formal payments channels: payments are to be “to the court.” Obtain the court’s payment instructions, references and receipting procedures from court administration, and ensure payments are traceable and receipted by the court.

Practical steps to manage uncertainty and disputes

• Clarify apportionment of ongoing costs in multi-party use: because only the booking fee is expressly apportioned equally under regulation 2(2), obtain the court’s direction where multiple parties will use a link regarding how hourly fees and telecom charges will be allocated, or record agreement among parties before use to avoid later dispute.

• If telecom charges are unexpectedly high, request itemisation: regulation 4 imposes the court-incurred telecom expense on the party. If charges appear excessive, seek itemised invoices from court administration and keep contemporaneous records of the duration and nature of the connection, technical incidents, and alternative options explored.

• Seek a waiver if appropriate: regulation 6 allows the court to waive fees in a particular case. The regulations do not set out a procedure, so make a formal application to the court as early as practicable, explaining grounds for waiver (for example financial hardship or public interest considerations) and providing supporting evidence. Because the text provides no policy criteria, tailor the application to standard judicial approaches to relief and emphasise case-specific factors.

• Retain documentation to defend against recovery: if the Crown pursues recovery under regulation 5, have your proof of payment, invoicing correspondence, and evidence of use ready, because the recovery will proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction and the party will need to respond to a civil claim.

Administrative and financial controls

• Incorporate booking fee and expected hourly fee estimates into litigation budgets when contemplating use of video links. Because Schedule 1 has been updated periodically, check the current Schedule 1 well before hearings and update cost projections accordingly.

• Coordinate with client, funder, or insurer: if a third party is to meet the fees, put that arrangement in writing and ensure the court’s billing protocol accepts payments from that third party, remembering that the regulation imposes liability on the party who applied to the court.

• Engage early with court registry: because the regulations are silent on invoice formats and dispute-handling, engage early with the court registry to confirm the payment process, receipting, and how telecommunication charges will be communicated and charged post-use.

Record-keeping and accounting

• Keep a clear paper trail: booking confirmations, payment receipts, court communications, and telecom invoices should be retained for audit and potential recovery or dispute. The regulations’ elevation of unpaid sums to debts due to the Crown (r 5) means administrative financial procedures may be invoked.

• Tax treatment: the regulations do not address GST or other tax implications. Accountants should determine the tax treatment of the fees and ensure invoicing reflects any applicable tax law requirements, separate from the statutory text.

Ongoing monitoring

• Monitor legislative and schedule changes: the compilation history demonstrates frequent amendment activity, and Schedule 1 was updated as recently as SL 2025/111 r. 17. Practitioners should check the current consolidated regulations or the WA legislation website ahead of bookings to confirm the active fee schedule and any recent amendment to the regulations.

• Plan for contingency: because telecom charges may be uncapped and partial-hour rounding applies, plan for higher-than-expected costs, particularly for cross-jurisdictional (interstate or overseas) connections which attract a higher booking fee under Schedule 1, item 1(b).

In short, compliance requires paying the booking fee at booking, paying hourly and telecom invoices within 30 days after use, keeping contemporaneous records, seeking court directions where multiple parties share a link, and, if necessary, seeking a court waiver under regulation 6 with supporting evidence. The regulations set the statutory framework but leave much of the operational detail to court practice and separate instruments.