Court Update November 28th 2022 Medcan v CGB, page-11

I am not sure who you are asking that question of AE as I have one or 2 posters on ignore.

I read the court decision posted earlier this week. It was pretty standard stuff. Essentially, it was detailing the reasoning behind dismissing the application by the defendent (CGB) for the case to be moved to NSW.

A reasonable read for those interested in some minor Civ Proc. Not much more.

If a poster claims they can't discuss the case because they have been listed as a "likely" witness - that's abject nonsense. In my view, it is mere grandstanding.

The decision in 'Medcan Australia Pty Ltd v Cann Global Limited [2022] QDC 264 re the application by the defendant (CGB) only notes those parties who are "likely" to be called as witnesses. And even then - it is only referred to so as to examine how s 20(4) of the SEPA weighs on the decision.

"The defendant has identified that it will likely call the following witnesses who are resident in New South Wales:"
[para 26] (my bold)

I am not convinced that anyone can claim 'secret squirrel' business simply because they have been referred to as a "likely" witness. Again, that reference was made so as to examine the applicability of s 20(4) of the SEPA to the application for relocating the case.

"... Mr Feldman will give evidence across all of the lay matters in issue. He resides in both Sydney and Los Angeles, California and shares his time approximately equally in both locations." [para 26]

Hmm ... and as for one of the BOD residing equal time between LA and Sydney - that's an interesting fact that has, to the best of my knowledge, not been raised on the CGB threads prior to you posting a link to the decision.

It's not a bad life!