Review of the Federal Court of Australia's Digital Practices and Procedures
Submission Date: 29 September 2025
The Law Council of Australia provided input to the Federal Court of Australia on the use of digital technology, including feedback on the Technology and the Court Practice Note (GPN-TECH).
The Law Council acknowledges the input of the Legal Technology Committee (Federal Dispute Resolution Section), the Intellectual Property Committee (Business Law Section), the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Law Society of South Australia, and the Queensland Law Society to this submission.
In addition, the Law Council draws on its recent submission Use of Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (June 2025)1 and its Principles for Determining the Appropriateness of Online Hearings (November 2022) (Principles),2 and refers to those documents where relevant.
Virtual hearings
The Law Council supports a balanced approach to the use of online hearings, as set out in the Principles. Briefly stated, the aim is to ensure key principles of fair and open justice are maintained while utilising technology to improve efficiency where appropriate—such as in non-contentious preliminary hearings.
The profession strongly supports the continuation of virtual hearings, which have tangible benefits for access to justice. However, practitioners remain of the view that not all matters should be determined virtually.
The Law Council received feedback that practitioners across the nation appreciate the cost and time benefits associated with virtual hearings: particularly those practising in rural, regional or remote areas or across jurisdictions, individuals with caregiving responsibilities, and those with mobility or health challenges that make physical attendance difficult or impractical.
On the other hand, the Law Council has received consistent feedback that essential curial tasks—such as the assessment of witness credibility in contested cases—predominantly require in-person hearings. There is concern that the probative value of evidence may be diminished in virtual settings, especially where cross-examination is central to the resolution of factual disputes. Attending court in person can also sharpen a client’s focus, reinforce the seriousness of the process, and underscore the ethical and legal obligations involved.
It is important that the technology utilised by the Courts is of a level of quality and reliability that all participants can contribute to the hearing effectively. In addition, technical issues—such as unstable internet connections, audio-visual delays, or platform incompatibility—can disrupt the flow of hearings and affect the quality of participation. The likelihood of these issues arising—and any adjustments that might be required—should be considered by the Court in determining the appropriateness of a virtual hearing.
In some instances, hearings requiring interpreter services can also be more difficult online than in person. It might be useful to consider further guidance to assist the Court, parties, interpreters and witnesses to prepare for, and participate in, virtual hearings.
The Law Council recommends that parties be invited to assist the Court early in the case management process to identify matters that may be suitable for virtual hearings. This proactive approach would support efficient scheduling and ensure that digital modalities are used appropriately, based on the nature and complexity of the matter.
1 Law Council of Australia, Use of AI in the Courts (Submission, 16 June 2025).
2 Law Council of Australia, Principles for Determining the Appropriateness of Online Hearings (November 2022).
Last Updated on 28/11/2025