TOPICONE–Process,OpenJusticeandFairnessProceduralLaw

- Procedurallawistheruleswhicharedirectedtogoverningorregulatingthemodeorconductofcourtproceedings:McKainvRWMiller&Co(SA)(1991)

- Regulatesthewayinwhichsubstantiverightsandobligationsareclaimedandenforced- Purposeofprocedurallawistoguaranteeproceduralfairness,achieveaccuracyindecisionmaking,

enforcementofsubstantiverights,criticaltotheperceptionoffairness,canbeusedtoaddressproblemsofcost,complexityanddelay

- Ruleoflawisputintoactionthroughtheactsofindividualsexercisingdiscretion-Discretion:makingadecisionwhenfacedbetweentwoormorealternatives-Ethicalrulesdesignedtoguidelawyersinthechoicestheymakewhenrepresentingclients

- Functionofprocedurallawistoproducecivilorder- CivilProcedureActsection56–guidingprincipleforprocedure:facilitatethejust,quickandcheapresolution

oftherealissuesintheproceedingsAdversarialModelofLitigation

- Mainfeatures:a) Partycontrolleddispute(partiesdefinethedisputeandpresentevidenceandargument)b) Useofprecedent,proceduralrulesandlawsofevidencec) Areactive,impartialjudgewhoactsasumpired) Relianceonoraltestimonyadducedfromwitnessesandsubjecttocross-examinatione) Trialistheclimacticendofthelitigationprocess,asdistinctforthepre-trialstagesofproceedings

- Commonlycontrastedtotheinquisitorialmodel:

a) Thejudge’sroleisbothproactiveandinquisitiveb) Mainsourcesoflawarecodeswithcommentaryfromlegalscholarsc) Thereareminimalrulesofcourtroompracticed) Emphasisondocumentaryproofandnotcross-examinatione) Norigidseparationbetweentrialandpre-trialphases

ReformsoftheAdversarialSystem

- Criticismoftheadversarialmodelonthegroundsitpreventsaccesstojusticeduetoitscostanddelay- Unjust,unequalandproducinginaccurateresults- LordWoolfreviewedtheadversarialsystem,recommended:

-Earlysettlementofdisputes-Greateruseofalternativedisputeresolution-Singleexpertwitnesses-Encouragingcooperationamongstlawyers-Identificationandreductionofissuesasabasisforcasepreparation-Movingtotrialasquicklyaspossible-Useofoverridingobjectivesincourtrules

InherentandImpliedJurisdiction

- Inherentpowerinsuperiorcourtsofrecordtoregulatetheirprocessesandpreventanabuseofprocess–JagovDistrictCourtofNewSouthWales

- TheDistrictandLocalcourtshavelimitedjurisdictionwhicharisesexpresslyunderstatuteorisderivedbyimplicationfromstatutoryprovisionsconferringparticularjurisdiction–GrassbyvR

- Animpliedpowermaybefoundwhereacourthasjurisdictionunderitsstatutebutnoprovisionismadeinthestatuteforthemakingofanorderwhichisnecessarytocarryoutthecourt’sstatutorypower–RvMosely

- Thereisanimpliedpowertodothatwhichisrequiredfortheeffectiveexerciseofitsjurisdiction–TKWJvTheQueen

CivilProcedureThemesBalancingCompetingObjectives[NB:Theseobjectivesarenotalwayscompeting]

- Openjusticeandfairtrial- Tensionbetweenefficiency(costanddelayreduction)andjustice- Accesstojusticeandtheroleoflitigationinsociety- Theroleofjudicialdiscretioninmanagingcases

PerceivedProblemswithCivilProcedure

- Cost-Thewaylawyerschargefortheirservices,encourageslawyerstocomplicatelitigationtoincreaserevenue-Excessivecostsmayhamperaccesstojustice-Maybeusedasatacticalweapontoforceapartywithfewerresourcestodiscontinueproceedingsoracceptalessersettlement-Casemanagementisatoolwhichattemptstominimisecosts

- Delay- Lackofaccess(usuallyduetocostanddelay)- Uncertainty- Unfairness- Excessivecomplexity

OpenJustice

- SpigelmaninJohnFairfaxPublicationsPtyLtdvDistrictCourtofNSW:“OpenjusticeisoneofthemostfundamentalaspectsofthesystemofjusticeinAustralia…noinherentpowerofthecourttoexcludethepublic”

- Accountabilityandlegitimacy- RvRichards&Bijkerk:“Publicityofproceedingsisoneofthegreatprotectionsagainsttheexerciseofarbitrary

power”

Thecourtcandepartfromtheprincipleofopenjusticeinvariousways- Thecourtcanclosethecourttothepublic(s71CivilProcedureAct)“ifthepresenceofthepublicwoulddefeat

theendsofjustice”(s71(b))orincasesconcerningtheguardianship,custodyormaintenanceofaminor(s71(c))

- Prohibitpublicationofallorpartoftheproceedings(CourtSuppressionandNon-PublicationOrdersAct2010)- Restrictaccesstoconfidentialinformationbysuppressionorder(SevenNetworkLimited&OrsvJames

Warburton[2011])- Pseudonymorders–realnamenotusedinreporting,nophotosorfilming:WitnessvWarsden(2000)- Commonlawtest:Acourtcanonlydepartfromthisrulewhereitsobservancewouldfrustratethe

administrationofjusticeorsomeotherpublicinterestforwhoseprotectionParliamenthasmodifiedtheopenjusticerule…ifitisnecessarytosecuretheproperadministrationofjusticeinproceedingsbeforeit…mustdonomorethanisnecessarytoachievethedueadministrationofjustice:McHughJAinJohnFairfax&SonsPtyLtdvPoliceTribunalofNSW(1986)

- Testofnecessitydoesnotmean‘convenient,reasonableorsensible’mustbereallynecessary:HoganvAustralianCrimeCommission(2010)

- Commonlawexceptions:protectinformers,protectnationalsecurity,blackmailandextortioncases

HoganvHinch(2011)- Facts:Hinch(radiobroadcaster)violatedasuppressionorder–peoplewerereleasedfromprisonunderSerious

SexOffendersMonitoringAct,identitiesandaddressesweresuppressed–Hinchbroadcastthenamesofthesepeople–arguedthesuppressionorderdiminishedtheintegrityofthecourtsandwasunconstitutional

- Hinch’sconductdeliberatelyfrustratedtheeffectofanorder,limitngtheabilityofthecourttoacteffectively–normallycan’tbindanon-partytotheoriginalproceedings

- PowertomakesuppressionorderswasnotincompatiblewithChapter3oftheConstitution–itmaybeinthepublicinteresttograntsuppressionorderstoensurejusticeisdone

RinehartvRinehart(2014)- Facts:GinaRineharthavingadisputewithherchildrenoveratrustfund–questionforthecourtwaswhethera

suppressionorderwasnecessarytopreventtheadministrationofjusticeoverGina’sallegedmismanagementoftheirtrustfund

- Gina’sargument:realriskofcommercialharmiforderwasrefused,potentialinvestorsmaydeclinetodealwithher/hercompany

- Held:partieshavetoacceptthepotentialfordamagetotheirreputationandconsequentialloss–therefore,nosuppressionorder-Alotoftheinformationasalreadyinthepublicdomain-Sophisticatedinvestorswouldbeabletoreadthestatementofclaimanddecidewhethertheallegationshadanybasis

FairTrial

- Courtshaveanoverridingdutytomaintainpublicconfidenceintheadministrationofjustice- Thefunctionofprovidingpropernoticeisfundamentaltothebasicrequirementofproceduralfairness- Whatconstitutesafairtrialmaybecomplexinanygivencircumstance- Elements

-Obeynaturaljustice-Fairnotice-Onusofproof

Spigelman,“Thetruthcancosttoomuch:theprincipleofafairtrial”

- Principleofafairtrialisreflectedinnumerousrulesandpractices- TheHighCourthas,overabout15years,giventheprincipleofafairtrialconsiderableemphasisand

elaboration- Moreproperlyaprinciplethanaright(inherentlyflexible,notaconstitutionalrightinAustralia)

SteadvStateGovernmentInsuranceCommission

- Facts:actionfornegligencearisingoutofamotoraccident–whethertheaccidentwasacauseoramaterialfactorintheapplicantdevelopinganeuroticconditionwasamajorissueatthetrial–defendantreliedonanexpertreportwhichtheplaintiffarguedshouldbeignored–judgeacceptedtheexpertreport–plaintiffappealedtotheHighCourt

- Appealallowed- Difficultforacourtofappealtoassessawitnesstestimony–thiswasanissuesuitablefordeterminationby

theprimaryjudge- Appealsaredesignedtoconsiderwhetherare-trialwouldresultinadifferentoutcome

MastronardivNSW

- Facts:Mastronardiwasaprisonerandwasseriouslyassaultedinhiscellbyfellowprisoners–assaultedbecausehewasrecognisedasaformersecurityguard–proceedingsagainsttheStateofNSWforfailingtoprovideprotectionagainstathreatofphysicalattack–claimrejected–appealed

- Issue:whethersomesubstantialwrongormiscarriagehadtherebybeenoccasionedtoallowfortheorderingofanewtrialpursuanttoUCPPR51.53

- Held:appellantdidnothaveatrialuntaintedbymaterialfactualerrors,hecanproperlycomplainhehasnothadhiscaseconsideredaccordingtolaw

- Substantialmiscarriageofjusticeisnotlimitedtoanassessmentoftheultimateoutcome(notinthepoweroftheCourtofAppealtomakesuchanassessment)

CrownastheModelLitigant

- Lawyersactingforthegovernmentarerequiredtoensuretheirclientactsasamodellitigant- ThecourtexpectstheCrowntopursuethepublicinterestwhenitappearsasalitigant:HughesAircraft

SystemsInternationalvAirServicesAustralia(1997)- RequirestheCrowntoavoida“purelytechnicalpointofpleading”andpursuefairness:MelbourneSteamship

CovMoorehead(1912)- Amodellitigantisrequiredtoactwithcompletepropriety,fairlyandinaccordancewithprofessionalstandards

CivilCourtSystemsStateLocalCourt

- SmallClaimsDivision:claimsuptotheamountof$10,000- GeneralDivision:claimsbetween$10,000and$100,000- Jurisdictionallimitof$60,000forpersonalinjuryclaims(section29LocalCourtAct2007)- Jurisdictiontohearcriminalsummaryprosecutions,committalhearings,somefamilylawmatters,children’s

criminalproceedings,juvenileprosecutionsDistrictCourt

- Civiljurisdictionallimitof$750,000- Unlimitedjurisdictioninclaimsfordamagesforpersonalinjuriesarisingoutofamotorvehicleaccidentora

workinjurySupremeCourtofNSW

- HighestStatecourtinNSW- OperatesundertheSupremeCourtAct1970andtheCivilProcedureAct2005- Unlimitedciviljurisdiction- ItcanhearallmattersnotwithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheFederalCourt

FederalFederal

- RegulatedbytheFederalCourtofAustraliaAct1976(Cth)- Jurisdictionconferredbyvariousfederalstatutes- Civilmattersunderfederallaw(includingmattersarisingundertheConstitution)- Industrialdisputes,corporations,tradepractices,judicialreviewandfederaltaxmatters- Appellatejurisdictiontoherappealsfromdecisionsofsinglejudgesfromvariouscourts(Circuit,Supreme

courtsofStatesandTerritories)FederalCircuitCourt

- Dealswitharangeoflesscomplexfederaldisputes- Jurisdictionincludesfamilylawandchildsupport,admiralty,administrativelaw,bankruptcy,copyright,

consumerprotectionlawandtradepractices,privacy,migration,unlawfuldiscrimination- HasaFairWorkDivision

Family

- JurisdictionundertheFamilyLawAct1975(Cth)HighCourt

- Createdin1901- CommonwealthjudicialpowerconferredontheHighCourtunders71oftheConstitution- OriginaljurisdictionpursuanttotheConstitution(sections75and76)

-Mattersarisingunderanytreaty-Mattersaffectingconsultsorotherrepresentativesofothercountries-WheretheCommonwealthisaparty-Betweenpeopleindifferentstates-Constitutionalinterpretation

- Hasanappellatejurisdiction–canhearappealsfromtheHighCourt,federalcourts,StateSupremeCourts(HighCourtmustgivespecialleavetoappeal)

CaseManagement- Aroseasaresponsetothetwinevilsofdelayandexcessivecoststhatcouldarisefromleavingthecontrolof

litigationinthehandsofthepartieswithoutjudicialsupervision- Priortocasemanagement,delayhadbecomeaculturalnorm- Broaddiscretiongiventothecourtstomakesuchordersfortheconductofanyproceedingsasappear

convenientforthejust,quick,andcheapdisposaloftheproceedings(rule2.1)SpigelmanAC:“CaseManagementinNSW”–featuresofcasemanagement:

1) Courtmustmonitorandmanageitscaseloadandindividualcases2) Managementcannotbesuccessfulwithoutjudicialleadershipandcommitment3) Proceduresmustbeclearlyestablishedinthelegislation4) Casesmustbebroughtundercourtmanagementsoonaftertheircommencement5) Differentkindsofcasesrequiredifferentkindsofmanagement6) Thedegreeandintensityofmanagementmustbeproportionatetowhatisindisputeandtothecomplexityof

thematter7) Numberofcourtappearancesmustbeminimised8) Realisticbutexpeditioustimetablesmustbesetandadheredto9) Identifytheissuesearlyintheproceedings10) Trialdatesestablishedassoonaspracticable11) Alternativedisputeresolutionconsideredandsometimesmandated12) Monitoringofthecaseloadmustprovidetimelyandcomprehensiveinformationtojudgesandcourtofficers

involvedinmanagement13) Communicationandconsultationwithinthecourtandwithothersinvolvedinthelitigationprocessisan

ongoingprocessCivilProcedureAct2005(NSW)Sections56-59KeyIssueinCivilProcedure

Howtobalance:Speedydispositionofcasesvindividualjustice

AONvANU(2009)

- Facts:ANUcommencedproceedingsintheSupremeCourtoftheACTagainstthreeinsurers,claiminganindemnityforlossesasaresultofafire–AonwasANUsinsurancebroker–ANUsoughtanadjournmentofthetrialofitsclaimagainstAon–foreshadowedanapplicationforleavetoamendthatclaimtoaddanewclaimagainstAon

- Purposestateinrule21(UCPR)reflectsprinciplesofcasemanagement:timelydisposalofproceedingsatanaffordablecost

- Extentandeffectofdelayandcostsaretoberegardedasimportantconsiderationsintheexerciseofthecourt’sdiscretionaswellasanyprejudicewhichmightreasonablybeassumedtofollow

- Muchmaydependonthepointthelitigationhasreachedrelativetoatrialwhentheapplicationtoamendismade

- Needtoshowapplicationisbroughtingoodfaithandbringthecircumstancesgivingrisetotheamendmenttothecourt’sattention

- Inthiscase,thecourtdemandedfurtherexplanationfromANUregardingthecircumstancesgivingrisetotheamendedstatementofclaim

QldvJLHoldings(1997)

- Facts:JLHoldingssuedQLDfor60million- 6monthsuntil4-monthtrialwouldbelisted,QLDsoughtleavetoamenddefencetoaddadditionalgrounds- Aleavetoamendpleadingscanbegrantedatanystageofproceedingsatdiscretionoftrialjudge- Herejudgerefusedoncasemanagementgrounds-focusedonthedelay(1year)causedbytheamendment- QueenslandappealedtoHighCourt- Majorityfoundthat‘casemanagementisnotanendinitself.Itisanimportantandusefulaidforensuringthe

promptandefficientdisposaloflitigation.Butitoughtalwaystobeborneinmind,eveninchangingtimes,thattheultimateaimofacourtistheattainmentofjusticeandnoprincipleofcasemanagementcanbeallowedtosupplantthataim’

JackamaravKrakouer- Delaywillalmostalwaysimpedetheproperdispositionofanycasethatdoesnotcometotrialpromptly- Impedimentsmaybeovercomebuttheirpresenceisanaddedburdenforbothlitigants- Delaywillalmostalwaysaddtothecosts- Delayprolongsuncertainty

ERAvArmstrong(2013)

- Facts:inadvertentdisclosureofdocumentsbyplaintifftothedefendantaspartofdiscovery- Consideredtheoverridingpurpose(section56CPA–just,quickandcheapresolutionoftherealissuesinthe

disputeorproceedings)- CPAimposesapositivedutyuponapartyanditslegalrepresentativestofacilitatetheCPA’spurpose- Requiringthecourttoruleuponwaiverandthegrantofaninjunctivereliefinthecircumstancesinthepresent

casewasinconsistentwiththisduty–shouldhavereturnedprivilegeddocuments,privilegehadnotbeenwaived

AlternativeDisputeResolutionTypesofADR

1. Facilitative–disputeresolutionpractitionerassiststhepartiese.g.mediation,facilitationandfacilitatednegotiation

2. Advisory–disputeresolutionpractitionerconsidersandappraisesthedisputeandprovidesadvicee.g.expertappraisal,caseappraisal,casepresentation,mini-trialandearlyneutralevaluation

3. Determinative–processinwhichadisputeresolutionpractitionerevaluatesthedisputeandmakesa

determinatione.g.arbitration,expertdeterminationandprivatejudging

4. Hybrid–processesinwhichthepractitionerplaysmultiplerolese.g.wherethepractitionerfirstmediatesthenarbitrates

Arbitrationvs.MediationMediation

- MostwidelyusedformofADR- Involvesafacilitatednegotiationaimedandreachinganagreement- Aneutral3rdpartyassistsandfacilitatesanagreementbetweenthepartiesandthepartiesdon’tseekto

convincethemediatorbutratherpersuadetheotherparty- Mediatorischosenbypartiesunlessmediationisconnectedtoacourt- Compulsorymediationreferstomediationorderedbyacourtthathasthepowertoreferamatterto

mediationwithouttheparties’consent- Thedevelopmentofcompulsorymediationhasseenanincreaseinitsusebutalsogivenrisetoquestions

abouthowsuccessfulamediationwillbeifitismandatedandnotwhatthepartieswanttodoProcess

1. Mediators,partiesandanylawyersintroducethemselvesandmediatorexplainstheprocessandgroundrules2. Openingstatementsbyeachpartyinwhichtheyexpresstheirviewofthedisputeandtheissuesinvolved3. Identificationofissuesanddevelopmentofanagenda4. Mediatorssupporttheexplorationofissues5. Confidentialprivatesessionsinwhichthemediatorcantestordevelopoptions6. Evaluationofoptionsoroffers7. Partiesnegotiateanagreementorterminatethemediation8. Ifparticipantsagreeonsomeoralloftheissuesanagreementispreparedandsigned

Arbitration

- Quasi-judicialprocesswheredisputeissubmittedtoanarbitrationwhorendersabindingdetermination- Partiesmayagreetoarbitrationattheoutsetofdealingse.g.contractwithanarbitrationclause,ormaybe

privatelyagreedto,orsomethingmandatedbylaworcourtontheparties- Itisanadversarialprocesswherearbitratoractsinajudicialmanner–hearsevidenceandmakesanaward- Courtmayorderthatproceedingsbeforeitbereferredfordeterminationbyarbitration(s38CPA)

AdvantagesandDisadvantagesofADRAdvantages

- Savestimeandmoneybyallowingresolutioninashortertimeframewhencomparedwithcourtprocesses- Greaterflexibilityinoptionsforresolutionandremedies(partieshavemoresay)- Preserverelationships- Keepprivatedisputesprivate- Whateverissaidbyalitigantinanunsuccessfulmediationcannotbeusedasevidenceinanylaterproceedings

–designedtofacilitatethegenuinenegotiationofsettlements:section30CPA- Canpermitmoreparticipationandencouragecooperation- Settlementratesoftenveryhigh(between50and85%)

Disadvantages

- Compromise:indisputesofaseriousnature,compromisemaynotbeanoption- Settlementsarenotinthepublicrecordandthereforenotexposedtopublicscrutiny- UnsuccessfulADRresultsinlitigation–inevitablyaddingonsubstantialcoststotheentireprocess- Lackofcourtprotectionsandenforceability- Delayingtactics- Inequalityinbargainingpowermorepronounced

Section26oftheCivilProcedureAct2005(1)Ifitconsidersthecircumstancesappropriate,thecourtmay,byorder,referanyproceedingsbeforeit,orpartofanysuchproceedings,formediationbyamediator,andmaydosoeitherwithorwithouttheconsentofthepartiestotheproceedingsconcerned.(2)Themediationistobeundertakenbyamediatoragreedtobythepartiesorappointedbythecourt,whomay(butneednotbe)alistedmediator.(2A)Withoutlimitingsubsections(1)and(2),thecourtmayreferproceedingsorpartofproceedingsformediationundertheCommunityJusticeCentresAct1983.(3)Inthissection,"listedmediator"meansamediatorappointedinaccordancewithapracticenotewithrespecttothenominationandappointmentofpersonstobemediatorsforthepurposesofthisPart.CostsofLitigation

- Costsimpactonaccesstojustice–canplacelitigationbeyondthereachofthosewhocannotafford,orcannotaffordtorisk,thecostimplicationsofresolvingdisputes

- Theimpositionofcostsduringthecourseofanactionisatthetotaldiscretionofthecourt- Costsarenotintendedtopunishbutareintendedtocompensatethesuccessfulpartyforthesolicitor’s

professionalcostsanddisbursements(nottravel,losttimeetc.)- Costscanalsobeusedasamechanismtoencouragesettlement- Thecourtcantakeintoaccountanyfailureoftheparties’dutytoassistthejust,quickandcheapresolutionof

therealissues[statutoryduty–CPAs56(3)and(4)]- UCPRr42.10–thecourthasthepowertoorderapartywhofailstocomplywiththerulesoranyorderofthe

court,topaysuchoftheotherparties’costsasareoccasionedbythefailure- OrdinaryCosts:coststhatcourtusuallyordersonepartytopayanotherparty- IndemnityCosts:allcostsincurred

PriestvNSW[2007]

- Applicationconcerningdiscoverabilityofdocuments- Costorderagainstthegovernmentfornotactingasamodellitigant- Governmentalbodies,includingtheCommonwealthofAustraliaorStateofNewSouthWalesoughttobe

regardedashavingmodellitigantobligationsextendingbeyondthoseoftheprivatelitigant- Defendantheldtonothavedischargeditsobligationsunders56oftheCPAorunderitsmodellitigant

obligations

ProposalsforContainingCosts

- Costscapping:maximumamountofcostspartiescanrecover- Stopwatchtrials–hasbeentrialled,therearelimitationsofthisapproach(timelimitsoneachstageofthe

trial)- Costscanbeawardedagainstthelegalpractitioner- Alawyermustreasonablybelievebasedonthefactsandthelawthattherearereasonableprospectsof

success- Preventlawyersfromtakingonhopelesscases

LawyersEthicalObligationstotheProcessCivilProcedureActSection56

(1) TheoverridingpurposeofthisAct…istofacilitatethejust,quickandcheapresolutionoftherealissuesintheproceedings

(2) Thecourtmustseektogiveeffecttotheoverridingpurposewheninterpretinganyprovisionofstatutoryrules(3) Apartytocivilproceedingsisunderadutytoassistthecourttofurthertheoverridingpurpose(4) Solicitors,barristersandanypersonwitharelevantinterestintheproceedingsmustnot,bytheirconduct,

causeapartytoproceedingstobeputinbreachofaduty(5) TheCourtmaytakeintoaccountanyfailure…inexercisingadiscretionwithrespecttocosts

LegalProfessionUniformLawAustralianSolicitors’ConductRules2015- Alawyer’sparamountdutyistothecourtandtheadministrationofjusticeandprevailstotheextentofany

inconsistencywithanyotherduty:Rule3.1- Includeslimitinghearingstotherealissuesindisputeandpresentingtheclient’scaseasquicklyandsimply

consistentwithitsrobustadvancements- Asolicitormustactinthebestsinterestsofaclient,behonestinalldealings,delivercompetentandprompt

legalservicesandavoidanycompromisetotheirintegrityandprofessionalindependence:Rule4LegalProfessionUniformLawApplicationAct2014(NSW)

- Obligationonlegalrepresentatives- Schedule2.2(1)-Alawpracticemustnotprovidelegalservicesonaclaimordefenceofaclaimfordamages

unlessalegalpractitionerorassociatedresponsiblefortheprovisionofservicesreasonablybelievesonthebasisofprovablefactsandareasonablyarguableviewofthelawthattheclaimorthedefencehasreasonableprospectsofsuccess

- Mayconstituteprofessionalmisconduct–notacriminaloffence- Costordersmaybemadeagainstalawpracticethatactswithoutreasonableprospectsofsuccessandthose

costsarenotrecoverablefromtheclient:Schedule2.5- Acourtmayordercostsagainstalegalpractitioner:s99CPA

TOPICTHREE–MattersPrecedingLitigation1. Whentocommence–limitationperiods2. Wheretocommence–whichcourthasjurisdiction3. Whotocommenceagainst–preliminarydiscovery4. Whattocommencewith–originatingprocess:statementofclaim,summons,commercialliststatement5. Howtoserveoriginatingprocess

IssuestoConsider

- Thecauseofactionandremedies- Evidencerequiredtoprovethecauseofaction- Disadvantagesoflitigation(uncertain,timeconsumingandcostly)- Whetherthepartyhasthefundstolitigatethematter- Whetherthepotentialdefendanthastheassetstosatisfythejudgment

Jurisdiction

- Prospectiveplaintiffwillneedtoidentifywhichcourthasjurisdictiontohearthematter- Allwilldependonthesubjectmatterandvalueoftheclaim- IftheplaintiffseeksequitablereliefthenitcanonlybegrantedbytheSupremecourt(DistrictCourthassome

equitablejurisdiction)- Ifapartyseeksalegislativeremedy,itmustsueinthecourtortribunalspecifiedbythelegislation- Originaljurisdictionofcourts–identifiedintopicone(“civilcourtsystems”)

Cross-Vesting

- Legislationintroducedtoaccountforcircumstanceswheremultiplemattersinadisputemeantplaintiff’shadtopleadseparatecasesinseparatecourts

- StatescannotconferjurisdictioninStatemattersontheFederalandFamilyCourt(ReWakim)- ConferralofFederaljurisdictiononStatecourts- Cross-vestingofStatejurisdictionamongStatecourts- Transferofproceedingsbetweencourtsparticipatinginthescheme(transfertothemostappropriatecourt)

BHPBillitonvShultz

- Facts:Schultzsufferedfromasbestosisandasbestos-relatedpleuraldiseaseandsuedBHPfornegligence,breachofcontractandbreachofstatutorydutyintheDustDiseasesTribunalofNewSouthWales

- Pursuanttosection5JurisdictionoftheCourts(Cross-Vesting)ActappliedtoremoveproceedingsfromtheTribunaltotheSupremecourtofNSWandthentransferthemtotheSupremeCourtofSA

- Applicationwasrefused–wentonappealtotheHighCourt- Plaintiff’schoiceofTribunalandthereasonsforitarenottobetakenintoaccountindeterminingwhether

proceedingsshouldbetransferredtoanothercourt- Factorsrelevanttothechoiceofforum:

-Placewherethepartiesresideorcarryonbusiness-Locationofsubjectmatterofthedisputes-Importanceoflocalknowledgetotheresolutionoftheissues-Lawgoverningtherelevanttransaction-Proceduresavailableindifferentcourts-Likelyhearingdatesinthedifferentcourts-Whetheritissoughttotransfertheproceedingstoaspecializedcourt

PreliminaryDiscovery

- Orderforpreliminarydiscoveryismadebeforethecommencementofproceedings- Part5oftheUCPRhasexpandedtheambitofpreliminarydiscoveryorderstoincludeanyinformationthat

couldassistapartytodeterminewhethertheyshouldcommenceanaction- Anorderforpreliminarydiscoverycanrequiredocumentstobeproducedand/orapersontobeorally

examinedincourt- Thejudgehasdiscretiontomakeanorderunderparty5oftheUCPR- Ifthesubstantiveproceedingshavenotyetcommenced,theorderwouldbesoughtbyfilingasummons- Preliminarydiscoveryforidentityorwhereabouts:UCPRrule5.2- Preliminarydiscoveryfordecidingwhetherornottocommenceproceedings:UCPRrule5.3

RTAvAustralianNationalCarParks- Facts:ANCPoperatedcarparksandrequiredentrantstoobtainanddisplayaticketorpass–someentrants

parkedwithoutdoingso–defendantwishedtosuethemincontracts–anyclaimbroughtagainstthedriverofthecarwouldinvolvelessthan$100

- RespondentsoughtpreliminarydiscoveryfromtheRTAforthenames/addressesofallvehicles–UCPRrule5.2- Applicantmustbeunabletosufficientlyascertaintheidentityorwhereaboutsoftheintendeddefendant

despitehavingmadereasonablyinquiries-HavingothermeansofascertainmentdoesnotmakeitunreasonabletomakeaclaimunderUCPR-Cost,delayanduncertaintyisrelevanttotherule’s“reasonableinquiries”

- Applicantmustshowtherespondentmayhaveorhavehadinformationintheirpossession- Held:RTAorderedtoprovidepreliminarydiscovery

-Informationwouldassisttherespondentinitstaskofestablishingthedriverontheday-Furtherinquiriesmaybenecessary-Doesnotmeantheinformationlacksforensicworth

HatfieldvTCNChannelNine

- Facts:applicantsoughtordersthattherespondentsgivepreliminarydiscoveryofanepisodeof,andthetranscriptofanyepisodeoftheTVseries“underbelly”todeterminewhethershehadaclaimindefamationandwhethershemightbeentitledtoanurgentinjunction–UCPRrule5.3

- Trialjudgerejectedtheclaim- Onappeal,theevidencesatisfiedallrequirementsoftheUCPR–matterofjudicialdiscretion- TheTVshowrepresents"faction"(fact/fiction,factualeventswithabitofembellishmentorinterpretation),

andisbasedoneventswhichwerealreadymadewellknown(andpublicdomain)inaRoyalCommissionsome15yearsbefore

- TheDefamationActdoesnotseektoplaceunreasonablelimitsonfreespeechorfreedomofexpression- Appealwasdismissed

RinehartvNineEntertainmentCoHoldingsLtd

- Facts:GinaRinehartsoughtpreliminarydiscoveryofanepisodeofthedefendant’sminiserieswhichportrayedincidentsofthelifeofRinehart

- ApplicationwasgrantedgiventhepossibilityofseriousdefamationLimitationPeriods

- Limitationperiod:thetimeperiodwithinwhichtobringaclaim- Dictatedbyvariousstatutes- Rationaleforimposinglimitationperiods–McHughJinBrisbaneSouthRegionalHealthAuthorityvTaylor

-Wherethereisdelay,thequalityofjusticedeteriorates-Important,decisiveevidencemaydisappearwithoutpeopleknowingiteverexisted-Oppressivetoadefendanttoallowanactiontobebroughtlongafterthecircumstanceswhichgaverisetoit-Businesseshaveaninterestinknowingtheyhavenoliabilitiesbeyondadefiniteperiod-Publicinterestrequiresdisputesbesettledasquicklyaspossible

- Limitationperiodsareamatterofsubstantive,notprocedural,law- Thecauseofactionwillbeunenforceableifbroughtoutsidethelimitationperiod- Aplaintiffmaybeabletoapplyforanextensionoftimewithinwhichtobringtheirclaim

SpecificLimitationPeriods

CauseofAction Period(LimitationAct1969(NSW))Contract 6yearsfromthedateonwhichthecauseofactionaccruestothe

plaintiff–s14(1)(a)àE.g.fromdateofbreachTortGeneral 6yearsfromthedateonwhichthecauseofactionaccruestothe

plaintiff–s14(1)(b)Breachoftrustorrecoveryoftrustproperties 6yearsfromthedateonwhichthecauseofactionaccruestothe

plaintiff–s48Causeofactionfoundedonadeed 12yearsfromthedateonwhichthecauseofactionaccruestothe

plaintiff–s16Recoveryofland 12yearsfromthedateonwhichthecauseofactionaccruestothe

plaintiff–s27(2)Defamation 1yearfromthedateonwhichthecauseofactionaccruestothe

plaintiff–s14B

Personalinjury(after5December2002) 3yearsfromthedateonwhichthecauseofactionisdiscoverablebytheplaintiffor12yearsrunningfromthetimeoftheactoromissionallegedtohaveresultedintheinjuryordeath,whicheverperiodisthefirsttoexpire–s50C(1)(a)or50C(1)(b)

Workinjury 3yearsafterthedateonwhichtheinjurywasreceived–s151DWorkersCompensationAct1987(NSW)

Motoraccident 3yearsafterthedateofthemotoraccident–s109MotorAccidentsCompensationAct1999(NSW)

Baker-MorrisonvStateofNewSouthWales[2009]NSWCA

- Facts:May262004plaintiff(2)wasinjuredatGosfordpolicestation–takentohospitalandrequiredanamputationofpartofherrightringandlittlefingersandsomereconstructionoftendons–motherconsultedasolicitor,whowrotetothepolicestationconcerningaclaimfordamages–solicitorinspectedandphotographedtheoffendingdoorJune42004

- 21June2007(3yearsand26daysaftertheincident)astatementofclaimwassealedandissued,itwasservedon29June2007

- TheStatesoughttohavetheclaimstruckoutpursuanttos50C–statutebarred- Issuefordeterminationonappeal:

-Whetherthecauseofactionwas“discoverable”bytheplaintiff’smotherwithinthe26-dayperiodaftertheaccident-Whethertheplaintiff’smotherwasawarethattheinjurytoherdaughterwascausedbythefaultofthedefendantandthattheinjurywassufficientlyserioustojustifythebringingofanaction

- PlaintiffsucceededPreservationOrders

- Prospectivepartymayobtaincourtorders(an“interiminjunction”)tosearchforandpreserveevidence- Canbeobtainedonanexpartebasis(intheabsenceoftheotherparty)

-Ifyou’retryingtopreventthedestroyingofevidence,forexample,theymaydestroyituponreceivingnoticeoftheorder

1. AntonPillerOrders(SearchOrders)

- NamedafterAntonPillerKGvManufacturingProcessesLtd[1976]- Authorisetheseizureofdocumentsandotherevidence- Courtmustappointindependentsolicitorstosupervisesearchorders:Rule25.23- Usualundertakingastodamages:Rule25.8

Purpose:topermitpersonstoenterpremisesandsearchfor,inspect,copyandremovethingsdescribedinthesearchorder.ItisdesignedtopreserveimportantevidencependingthehearingoftheclaimRequirements:UCPR25.20

(a) Applicanthasastrongprimafaciecase(b) Potentialforloss/damagetoapplicantseriousifordernotmade(c) Importantevidenceandrealpossibilityofdestruction

AustressFreyssinetPtyLtdvJoseph[2006]

- Plaintiffallegeddefendantusedconfidentialmaterialtostealcustomforhisownnewbusiness- Gainedsearchorderexpartebutdefendantappliedtohaveitsetaside- Verystrongprimafaciecase,evidencethatdefendanthademaileddocumentstohishomecomputerand

deletedthemwhenconfronted- Ordermodifiedsothatonlytheplaintiff’ssolicitorscouldcarryoutthesearch

2. MarevaInjunction(FreezingOrders)

- NamedafterMarevaCompaniaNavieraSAvInternationalBulkCarriersSA[1975]- Preventsapartyfromdisposingofassetstofrustratetheenforcementofajudgment- Derivesfromthecourt’sinherentequitablejurisdiction- Mustbearealriskthatanyjudgmentintheproceedingsmaynotbesatisfied

Purpose:topreventfrustrationorabuseoftheprocessofthecourt

- Extraordinaryinterimremedybecauseitrestrictstherighttodealwithassets- Canbemadeagainst3rdparties:CardilevLEDBuildersPtyLtd(1999)

Requirements

- Plaintiffmustprovide- -Detailsofthejudgmentortheun-litigatedcauseofactiononwhichtheapplicationisbased- -Detailsofthenatureandthevalueofassetstobethesubjectoftheorder- UCPR25.11

-Plaintiffmustshowtheorderisnecessarytopreventthefrustrationorinhibitionofthecourt’sprocesses-Thiscanbedonebydemonstratingthatthereisadangerthatjudgmentmaynotbesatisfied

- Plaintiffmustshowtheyhaveagood,arguablecase:Rule24.14(1)(b)- Anapplicantforanexpartefreezingorderisunderadutytodiscloseallmaterialfactstothecourt- Usualundertakingastodamages:Rule25.8

JacksonvSterlingIndustriesLtd(1987)- AppellantorderedbyFederalCourttoprovidesecurityof$3mtoFederalCourt- Wentbeyondwhatwaspermissible- Normallypartymustfirstobtainjudgmentandthenenforceit- Ordershouldnothavebeenmadeasprovidingsecurityintocourt

OriginatingProcess–SummonsorStatementofClaim

- Originatingprocessmeanstheprocessbywhichproceedingsarecommenced,andincludestheprocessbywhichacross-claimismade

- InNSWproceedingsarecommencedbyeitherasummonsorastatementofclaim- Thedateoffilingtheoriginatingprocessisconclusiveforthepurposesofanylimitationperiod- Iftheplaintiffusesthewrongoriginatingprocess,therearerulesthattaketheproceedingstohavebeenduly

commencedandprovidethecourtwiththepowertomakeappropriateorders:Rule6.5,6.6- Aftertheoriginatingprocesshasbeenserved,thedefendanthastheopportunitytorespondwithan

appearanceordefencebyusingtheprescribedform- Afailuretoservetheoriginatingprocesswithintheprescribedtimedoesnotpreventtheplaintifffrom

commencingfreshproceedingsviaaneworiginatingprocess:Rule6.2(5)- Statementofclaimisusuallyrequiredwhentheactioninvolvesdisputedcontentionsoffact- Summonsisusuallyrequiredwherethereisaquestionoflawatissue(initiatesasummaryprocedure)- Summonsandstatementofclaimmustbepersonallyservedonthedefendant- Validforservicefor6monthsafterthedateonwhichitwasfiledintheSupremeCourtorLocalCourt(1month

inDistrictCourt)–canbeextendedbyorderofcourtStatementofClaimMustinclude:

- Court,parties(name,addresses,contactdetails),typeofclaim,reliefclaimed(damages,interest,costs),pleadingsandparticulars,plaintiff’slegalrepresentativeandtheircontactdetails

- Noticetodefendanttellingthemiftheydonotfileadefencewithin28daysofbeingservedthentheywillbefoundindefaultintheproceedingsandjudgemayenterjudgmentagainstthemwithoutanyfurthernoticetothem

CanRespondby:

- Filingadefenceorcross-claimiftheyintendtodisputetheclaim- Wheremoneyisowed,defendantmaychoosetopayallorpartofthemoneyclaimed)

Service- Serviceisthetermusedformethodsofalertingpeoplethatthereareproceedingsagainstthem- Serviceisthefoundationofjurisdiction- Itisanessentialrequirementofnaturaljustice–othersidemustbeawareoftheproceedingstoexercise

entitlementtobeheard- Purposeofserviceistobringproceedingstotheattentionofthedefendant:UnitedGroupResourcesPtyLtd

ABN17114888201vCalabro(No4)[2010]- Apartywhofilesadocumentmustassoonaspracticableservecopiesoneachotheractiveparty:Rule10.1- Adocumentisfiledwhenitislodgedatthecourtregistry–stampedwiththecourtsealandthenservedonthe

defendant- Adocumentcanalsobefiledduringcourtproceedings- ServicecanbeprovedbyfilinganaffidavitofserviceinaccordancewithRule35.8

-Astatementastowhen,where,howandbywhomservicewaseffected-Astatementasnearaspracticabletotheactualwordsusedbythepersontowhomtheprocesswasdelivered-Astatementthatthepersonmakingtheaffidavitisovertheageof16years

VariousMethodsofService–UCPR10.5(1)PersonalService

- Wherepersonalserviceisrequired:Rule10.20- Howpersonalserviceiseffected:Rule10.21- Personalservicerequirementsmaybedispensedofifaparty’ssolicitoracceptsservice–mustmakeanotation

onthedocumentthatheorshehasacceptedserviceonbehalfofthepersonbeingserved:Rule10.13- If,byviolenceorthreatofviolence,apersonattemptingserviceispreventedfromapproachinganotherperson

forthepurposeofdeliveringadocumenttotheotherperson,thepersonattemptingservicemaydeliverthedocumenttotheotherpersonbyleavingitasnearaspracticabletothatotherperson:GraczykvGraczyk

- Corporationscanbeservedpersonallybypostagetoaregisteredoffice:s109X(1)(a)oftheCorporationsAct2001

ServicebyAgreement,AcknowledgmentorUndertaking–UCPR10.6

- Acontractcanstipulateanagreementthatserviceinregardtojudicialproceedingswillbeeffectedinaccordancewiththecontractratherthantherulesofthecourt

- SuchanagreementmustspecificallypertaintothemodeofserviceSubstitutedandInformalService–UCPR10.14

- Thecourt’spowertomakeanorderforsubstitutedservicedependsontheapplicantestablishingtheimpracticabilityofserviceinaccordancewiththerules

- Courtmustalsobesatisfiedthatthemethodofsubstitutedservicesoughtisinallreasonableprobabilityislikelytobringtheproceedingstotheknowledgeofthedefendant

- OrdersaretypicallymadewherethedefendanthasbeenevadingserviceThresholdRequirements

- Evidenceshouldbeputforwardthatpriorattemptstoserveinaccordancewiththerulesfailedorthatsuchservicewouldbefutile-Merecostorinconveniencewillnotbepersuasive-Affidavitevidencewillneedtoexplainbyserviceisnotpracticableorwhypreviousattemptsfailed

- Evidenceshowingthatthesubstitutedserviceisreasonablylikelytobringtheproceedingstothedefendant’sattention

FloRidavMothershipMusicPtyLtd[2013]- Courtheldthattherewasinsufficientevidencetoestablishtheimpracticabilityofservice- AnorderforsubstitutedservicewasmadeintheDistrictCourt–FloRida’sappealwasupheldintheNew

SouthWalesCourtofAppeal–orderforsubstitutedserviceshouldnothavebeenmade- Issueinquestion:whetherUCPRr10.14permittedthemakingofanorderforsubstitutedservice- EvidencesuggestsFloRidawasinAustraliawhentheorderforsubstitutedservicewasmade- Orderoughtnottohavebeenmadeintheabsenceofevidencethatthemeansofsubstitutedservice

sanctionedbytheorderwerelikelytobringserviceofthestatementofclaimtoFloRida’sattentionwhilsthewasinAustralia

- Hadtheeffectoforderingsubstitutedserviceonadefendantwhowasoverseasandnotlawfullyabletobepersonallyservedoverseas

- Theevidencedidnotestablish,otherthanbymereassertion,thattheFacebookpagewasinfactthatofFloRideanddidnotprovethatpostingonitwaslikelytocometohisattentioninatimelyfashion

- Substitutedservicebyemail–intendedrecipientsoftheemailswerenotidentifiedintheorderBulldogsRugbyLeagueClubvWilliams[2008]

- Facts:SonnyBillWilliamswasallegedtohavebreachedhiscontracttoplayRugbyLeaguefortheBulldogs–leftAustraliatoplayinFrance–commencedproceedingsbywayofsummonsagainstWilliamsintheSupremeCourtofNSW–summonsproveddifficulttoservepersonally

- Courtwasinformed,indetail,ofthefailedattemptstoeffectpersonalservice- Substitutedserviceordered(Sydneyaddress,Franceaddress,textmessages)- Substantialcompliancewiththeseorders- Personalservicewasultimatelyachieved

AppearanceAppearance

- Apartymaynottakeanystepintheproceedingwithoutenteringanappearance- Havingreceivedthestatementofclaim,thedefendantmustfileanoticeofappearancewithin28days:Rule

6.10- Havingreceivedasummons,thedefendantmustfileanoticeofappearancebeforethereturndatestatedon

thesummons- Defendantmustservetheirappearanceontheplaintiff

-Thiswaivedobjectiontoanyfailureswithserviceoforiginatingprocessandindicatedsubmissiontojurisdiction-Serveontheplaintiff’saddressforserviceasindicatedontheoriginatingprocess

- Ifdefendantwishestoobject,shouldusenoticeofmotionwithoutenteringanappearance:Rule12.11- Adefendantwhofilesadefenceistakentohaveenteredanappearanceintheproceedings:Rule6.9(2)- Whereadefendantfilesanappearance:

-Statementofclaim:preventstheplaintifffromenteringadefaultjudgment-Summons:preventstheplaintifffromseekingjudgmentforthereliefclaimed

- Ifthedefendantwishestoobjecttothejurisdictionororiginatingprocess,anoticeofmotionshouldbefiled:Rule12.11

GhoshvNinemsnPtyLtd[2014]- Respondenthadnotfiledanoticeofappearanceastheydisputedproperservice- Courtfoundtheyhadappearedandevenobtainedafavourablecostsorderandwererequiredtofilenoticeof

appearancepursuanttoUCPR6.1- Courtdoesn’thavemuchsympathywithserviceargumentswhenyouknowaboutproceedings:consider

overallpurposeofserviceistobringproceedingstotheattentionofthedefendant3TypesofAppearances

1. Conditionalappearance–defendantonlyappeartocontestrightofcourtorparty2. Unconditionalappearance–defendantacceptscourt’sjurisdictionbutconteststheplaintiff’sclaim3. Submittingappearance–defendantsubmitstocourt’sdecision.Noactiveroleinlitigation(uncommon)

TOPICFOUR–PleadingsandParticularsPleadings

- Pleadingsareformaldocumentsexchangedindicatingtheclaimsanddefences,filedintheregistryofthecourtorincourt

- UCPRdictionaryindicatesthat‘pleading’includesastatementofclaim,across-claim,adefence,adefencetocross-claims,areplyandanysubsequentpleadingforwhichleaveisgrantedunderpart14–doesnotincludeasummonsornoticeofmotion

- Applicabletomattersbeingdealtwithattrial(asopposedtomattersbeingdealtwithbysummarydetermination)

- Pleadingsarebindingontheparties- Oncethestatementofclaimhasbeenfiledandservedonthedefendant,ifthedefendantdoesnot‘traverse’

bydenyingorbymakingastatementofnon-admissioninregardtoeachofthefactualallegationsinthestatementofclaim,thosefactsaredeemedtobeadmitted

- Afterthedefencehasbeendeliveredthelastunansweredpleadingisdeemedtobedeniedunlessfurtherpleadingsareserved

- Pleadingsmaybeamendedduringtrial- Acourtmaydecidebasedontheevidencethatthecauseofactionhasbeenpleadeddefectively

ObjectiveofPleadings

- Provideapermanentrecordoftheboundariesofthecaseandallowthecourttoknowtheissuesintheproceedings

- Canpreventlitigationatalaterdateonthesameissues- Providesufficientinformationtothepartiestoalloweachofthemafairopportunitytomeettheissuesin

proceedings- Expressionoftheadversarialsystem–partiesdefinethedispute- Admissionstopleadingscanbeimportanttosavingtimeandmoney- Limittheextentofdiscoveryandinterrogatoriesandgoverntheextentoftherelevantevidence- Apartycanonlypresentacasetoacourtonthebasisoftheirpleadings- Ifevidencearisesbeyondthescopeofthepleadingsinthetrialdoesn’tmeanthecasecan’tbedecidedonthat

basis–theothersidehastobegivenafairopportunitytorespondtothatevidenceMatterstobePleadedPlaintiff

- Theparties- Thematerialfacts,substantiatingeachelementofeachcauseofaction- Materialfacts:criticalfactstosupportingeachoftheelementofeachcauseofaction- Shouldnotcontainmereallegationsorconclusionsoflaw- Evidenceisthemeansbywhichmaterialfactsareprovedandshouldnotbepleaded- Particulars- Ifcertainmaterialfactsaren’tpleaded,theresultis‘surprise’,dealtwithunderUCPRr14.14- Remedies(relief)

Defendant

- Whatthedefendantadmits,doesnotadmitordenies(doesnotadmit:notwithintheirknowledge)- Materialfactssubstantiatingeachelementofeachcauseofaction- Particulars- Defencesrequiringapositivepleading

DraftingPleadings

- Form–numberedparagraphs(14.6)- Asbriefaspossible(14.8)- Materialfactsnotevidence(14.7)- Referencesinpleadingstodocumentsandspokenworks(14.9)- Pleadingstobeconsistentastoallegationsoffact(14.18)- Pleadingsmayraiseapointoflaw(14.19)- Mustpleadspecifically(14.14)

NoSurprisesGlovervAustralianUltraConcreteFloorsPtyLtd[2003]NSWCA80

- Plaintiffclaimeddamagesforworkinjury,lostattrial–appealed- Defendant’spleadingsimpliedacceptanceofplaintiff’sversionoftheaccident,didnotadmitnegligence- Giventheimpressionhewouldbechallengingwhetherplaintiff’sversionofeventsconstitutednegligence- Caseattrial–defendantallegingtheplaintiff’sclaimisfraudulentbuthadnotputthisintheirpleadings- Plaintifftakenbysurpriseattrial,contrarytothesurpriserule- “Cardsonthetable”approach

JoinderofIssue

- Jointmeanstakeissue/disputeamatter- Anexpressjoinderofissue(forexample,“Theplaintiffjoinsissueonthedefendant’sdefence”or“Theplaintiff

joinsissueonthedefendant’sdefenceexceptforparas1to5inclusivewhichareadmitted”)operatesasadenialastoeveryallegationoffactinthepreviouspleadingotherthanthoseexpresslyadmitted:r14.27(1)and(6)

- Thereisanimpliedjoinderofissueifthereisnoreplytoadefenceornoanswertoasubsequentpleading:r14.27(2)and(3).Animpliedjoinderofissueoperatesasadenialofeveryallegationoffactmadeinthepleadingtowhichitrelates:r14.27(5).

Particulars

- Whereaspleadingscovermaterialfacts,particularsaredetailsofthosefacts- Theyareprovidedeitherinthestatementofclaimordefence,orprovidedseparately- Particularslimitthegeneralityofpleadingssoastomoresharplydefinetheissuesbutdonotmodifythecause

ofaction- Submissionmustprovideallparticulars‘asarenecessarytoenabletheoppositepartytoidentifythecasethat

thepleadingrequireshimorhertomeet’(UCPR15.1)- Sobasicallypleadings=materialfacts,particulars=detailsofthosefacts- E.g. Pleading: ‘I tripped and fell.’ Particulars: ‘This occurred at Woolworths on December 20th 1993 in the

presenceof50othercustomers.’Etc.- E.g.Pleading:‘Statementwasmadeconfirmingthecarwassafe.’Particulars:‘Thiswassaidbythemanagerof

thecompanyon20thofDecembertomeandmyhusband.’ DefectivePleadingsPleadingsaredefectiveiftheydonotcomplywiththeUCPR

a) Notincorrectform(14.5)b) Pleadevidence(14.7)c) Notspecificorbrief(14.14/14.8)d) Inconsistentallegationsoffact(14.18)e) Noreasonablecauseofaction(14.28)f) Prejudice,embarrassmentordelay(14.28)g) Abuseofprocess(14.28)h) Frivolous,vexatious,abuseofprocess,noreasonablecauseofaction(13.4)

Consequencesofdefectivepleadings

1. Strikingoutpleadingsàpleadingscanbestruckoutifdonotdiscloseareasonablecauseofactionoradefence,ifithastendencytocauseprejudice,embarrassmentordelayintheproceedingsorisotherwiseanabuseofthecourt’sprocess(Rule14.28)

2. Dismissalcanbeordered(UCPR13.4)ifproceedingsarefrivolousorvexatiousornoreasonablecauseofactionisdisclosed,ortheproceedingsareanabuseoftheprocessofthecourt

PriestvNSW

- Pleadingsconsideredembarrassingbecauseitwasambiguous,unintelligibleortoovagueorgeneral- Embarrassment:pleadingsusceptibletovariousmeanings

AshbyvSlipper- Slipper’sallegedmisconduct–governmentexpenseaccountfraudandsexualharassment- Counselarguedproceedingswereanabuseofprocess(broughtforthepurposeofapoliticalattack)- Irrelevant,scandalousallegationscalculatedtoinjureSlipper- Firstinstance:abuseofprocess- Decisionwasappealed- Ashbyeventuallydiscontinuedproceedings

AmendmentofPleadings

- Maybenecessaryifapartymakesamistake,wanttoaddapartyorcauseofactionorfactordefence,fixerror/mistake

- Aplaintiffmay,withoutleave,amendastatementofclaimoncewithin28daysoffilinghoweverifadatehasbeenfixedfortrialwithinthattimeanorderfromthecourtisrequiredtoamendthestatementofclaim

- Ifthestatementofclaimisamendedafterthedefendanthasalreadyfiledadefence,thedefendantmayamendthedefencewithin14daysafteraserviceoftheamendedstatementofclaim(Rule19.2)

- AmendingastatementofclaimisdealtwithintheUCPR- Themainpoweravailabletoamenddocumentsissections64and65oftheCPA- Courthasbroaddiscretionallowamendmentsasjusticerequires,subjecttotheir‘overridingpurposeof

efficiency’(section56ofCPA),prejudice,costsandeffectonpublicresources- Theoverridingpurposeofefficiencyandstuff(asdealtwithinAonvANU)hastobebalancedwithpurposeof

justiceinordertodeterminewhethertheyallowforamendmentofpleadings- Modeofamendment:UnderRules19.5and19.6,modeofamendmentrequiresthefilingofafreshdocument

thatindicatesamendmentsviaunderlineorsomethingAonvANU(2009)

- Thirddayof4-weektrialandplaintiffappliesforadjournmentandleavetoamenditsstatementofclaimtoaddasubstantialnewclaimagainstD

- HCAsaidtheyweren’tallowedbecauseitwouldbecontrarytotheoverridingpurposeofefficiency- Showshowthe‘overridingpurposerule’works

ReasonableProspectsofSuccess

- Section347ofLegalProfessionsAct2004placesrestrictionsoncommencingproceedingswithoutreasonableprospectsofsuccess(seelegislationsection)

- Section348providesthatcostordercanbemadeagainstlawpracticeactingwithoutreasonableprospectsofsuccess

- However, costs are only intended to compensate the party for the solicitor’s professional costs anddisbursements such as barristers’ fees in conducting the case. They are not intended as a dividend or as apunishment.

- However,inLemoto[2005]NSWCA153,McCollJAfoundthat‘reasonablemindsmaydiffer’- Section99CPAgoesintoliabilityoflegalpractitionerforunnecessarycosts

TreadwellvHickey[2010]

- Withoutreasonableprospectsofsuccessmeans‘solackinginmeritorsubstanceastobenotfairlyarguable’ - ‘Reasonablebelief’astotheprospectsofsuccessmusthaveitsobjectivefoundationinmaterialavailabletothe

practitionerattherelevanttime - Authoritiesshowthatacostorderundersection348oftheLegalProfessionActisnottobelightlyimposedupon

apractitionerwhohasrepresentedanunsuccessfulpartytoaproceeding - Thereisahighthreshold,whichmustbesatisfiedbeforethecourtwillconsiderexercisingitsdiscretiontomake

suchanorder GatheringEvidenceDiscovery

- Enablesthepartiestoobtaindocumentsfromeachother- Processiswhereonepartyseeksdocumentswithinaclassorclassesofdocumentsorsamplesofdocuments

withinaclassfromtheotherparty- Classesofdocumentsarespecifiedbyrelevancetooneormorefactsinissueorbydescriptionoftheirnature

andtimeperiod- Canbeagreedtoinformallybetweenthepartiesoritcanbesubjectofacourtorder

- Partyprovidingdiscoverycreatesalistoftherelevantdocumentsandthenmakesthedocumentsavailabletobeinspectedbythepartythatseeksdiscovery–disclosureandinspectionofthedocumentsinthediscoveryprocessissubjecttoprivilege(seesectiononprivilege)

- Excludeddocumentsdonotneedtobeincludedinthelistofdocuments- Thereisalsoacontinuingobligationtogivediscovery(Rule21.6)- Noorderfordiscoveryinpersonalinjurycases(Rule21.8)- Intendedtopromoteafairtrialandreducesurpriseinlitigation–partiesareawareofthecasetobetmetat

trial(PercyvGeneralMotorsHoldenPtyLtd[1975]) - Cannotdestroydocumentsinanticipationoflitigation - Discoverytakesplaceafterpleadingshaveclosed- SupremeCourtPracticeNote127encouragestheuseoftechnologyforthepurposesofinformationexchange

ERAvArmstrong

- Solicitorsforpartygivingdiscoverysentadiskwillalldiscovereddocuments–solicitordiscovereddocumentstheythoughtshouldhavebeenthesubjectofaprivilegeclaim

- Inadvertentdisclosure- WenttotheHighCourtonwhetherprivilegehadbeenwaived- Althoughdiscoveryisaninherentlyintrusiveprocess,itisnotintendedthatitbeallowedtoaffectaperson’s

entitlementtomaintaintheconfidentialityofdocumentswherethelawallows- Courthighlycriticalofthepartywhowasrefusingtoreturntheprivilegeddocuments- Ethicalreasons-shouldhavereturneddocuments- Courtatfirstinstancecouldhaveuseditsbroaddiscretiontoordertheotherpartytoreturnthedocuments

ProblemswithDiscovery3categoriesofdiscoveryabuse

- Makingunnecessarilybroaddiscoveryrequests- Withholdinginformationtowhichtherequestingpartyisentitled- Trolleyloadlitigationortrialbyavalanche:providingmanyirrelevantdocumentstooverwhelmtheotherside,

ortoimproperlyconcealdocumentsExcessiveandwastefuldiscoverymayconflictwithanumberofprofessionalandethicalduties

- Actingwithcompetence,honestyandcandour- Facilitatingthequick,justandcheapresolutionofdisputes- Actwithfairness- Narrowtheissuesindisputeandidentifyrelevantmaterial

ProcessofDiscovery

1. PartyAfilesandservesanoticeofmotionseekingdiscoveryfromPartyB(UCPRr21.2)2. Interlocutoryhearing(noticeofmotionisheard)–thecourtdoesnotordergeneraldiscovery3. Within28daysoftheorderPartyBpreparesalistofdocumentsthatdescribesthedocuments,stateswhether

privilegeisclaimed(andcircumstancesgivingrisetoprivilege)4. ThelistmustbeaccompaniedbyasupportingaffidavitbyPartyB(UCPRr21.4(2))andasolicitor’scertificateof

advice(UCPRr21.4(3))a. Verifiesthelistb. Solicitor’scertificateofadvicetoconfirmthesolicitorhasadvisedPartyBastotheirobligationsarising

underdiscoveryandthesolicitorisnotawareofdocumentsnotonthelist5. PartyBmakesthedocumentsreadilyavailableandcapableofconvenientinspection(UCPRr21.5)6. ContinuingobligationonPartyBtomakeavailablesubsequentlydiscovereddocuments(UCPRr21.6)

a. Privilegeddocumentsthatceasetobeprivilegedalsoneedtobemadeavailable7. Noinformationfromadocumentobtainedindiscoveryistobedisclosedorusedinlegalproceedings,unless

a. Withthecourt’sleaveorwherethesedocumentshavebeenadmittedintoevidence8. Thecourtwillnotorderdiscoveryinpersonalinjurycases,unless“forspecialreasons”(UCPRr21.8)

DisclosureintheEquityDivision–SupremeCourtPracticeNoteSCEquity11

- Measuretakentocontroldiscoveryabuse–reducethecostofdiscovery- AppliestoallnewandexistingproceedingsintheEquityDivision- Requiresthat:

1. Thecourtwillnotorderdisclosureuntilthepartieshaveservedtheirevidence,unless“exceptionalcircumstances”necessitatedisclosure

2. Therewillbenoorderfordiscoveryunlessitisnecessaryfortheresolutionoftherealissuesindisputeintheproceedings(notessential,butreasonablyrequiredforthefairdispositionofthematter)

3. Anyapplicationfordisclosuremustbesupportedbyanaffidavit,outlining:i. Whydisclosureisnecessaryii. Theclassesofdocumentssoughtiii. Thelikelycostofdisclosure

IntheMatterofMempollPtyLtf,AnakinPtyLtdandHoldKingsPtyLtd

- Question:whatconstitutesexceptionalcircumstance- Noall-encompassingdefinitionofwhatisanexceptionalcircumstance- Mustbesomethingoutoftheordinary- Mustbesomethingthatnecessitatesdisclosure–party’scasecannotbeputwithoutthedisclosure- Courtoftheviewthatthosecircumstancesexistedinthissituation

GraphiteEnergyPtyLtdvLloydEnergySystemsPtyLtd[2014]

- Consideredthemeaningofthephrase:untilthepartiestotheproceedingshaveservedtheirevidence- Doesnotmeantheyhavetohaveservedalloftheirevidence- Intentofthepracticenote–formaldiscoveryshouldbedeferreduntilpartieshaveservedtheiraffidavitsof

evidence- Intention:reducetheburdenofdiscovery–issueshavebeendefinedbythepleadings,andrefinedbyaffidavit

evidence(limitsitsscope)- Avoidsthemischiefofpartiesconstructingtheirevidencearounddiscovereddocuments

Subpoena

- Asubpoenaaprocesscompellingapersontogiveorproducesomething- Caneitherbeasubpoenatogiveevidence(attendatrialasawitness)ortoproducedocuments- Onceasubpoenaisfiledincourtandserveditbecomesanorderofthecourt- Personorentityservedwiththesubpoenatoproducemustgatherthedocumentssoughtandproducethem

tothecourtbythereturndatestatedonthesubpoena- Failuretocomplywithasubpoenaisacontemptofcourt- Partyrequiredtoproducemayseektohaveasubpoenasetasideongroundsthatislacksalegitimateforensic

purposeorisoppressiveorhasanimproperpurpose- Apersonorentitycanclaimprivilegeoversubpoenaeddocumentsinordertoresistaccessbeinggrantedto

thepartyissuingthesubpoena- Anypartytotrialproceedingsmayseekanorderfromthecourttoissueasubpoena- Issuedthroughthecourtregistry- Subpoenamustbepersonallyservedontheaddresseeandthenoneachotherparty

SettingAsideaSubpoena

- Apartyorapersonwithasufficientinterestcanseekanordersettingasidethesubpoena- Subpoenasarenotasubstitutefordiscovery–can’tbeoppressiveorhaveanimproperpurpose- Musthavealegitimateforensicpurpose

AGvChidgley

- Asubpoenawithoutalegitimateforensicpurposeisanabuseofprocessanditsrecipientcanapplytothecourttohaveitsetaside

- Testfordetermining‘legitimateforensicpurpose’isinthiscase- Beforesubpoenaisgranted,partymust:

a. Identifyalegitimateforensicpurposeforwhichaccessissought;andb. Establishthatitis‘onthecards’thatthedocumentswillmateriallyassisthisorhercase.

NoticetoProduce- UCPRallowspartiestoservenoticestoproduceanyspecifieddocumentorthingonanotherparty- Actinasimilarwaytosubpoenasbutdonotneedtobefiledwiththecourt- After party is served with notice to produce, must provide inspection of the document or thing within a

reasonabletime(takentobe14daysafterserviceofnotice)- Anoticetoproducecanonlybeservedonapartytotheproceedings- Unlessthecourtordersotherwisethepartyservedmustcomplywithanoticetoproduce(UCPR21.11and34.2) - Can’tbeservedonthirdparties - Unlessthecourtordersotherwise,partymustcomplywiththenoticetoproduce

NoticetoAdmit

- Anoticeservedbyonepartytotheproceedingsonanother,requiringthepartytoadmitspecifiedfactsforthepurposesoftheproceedingsonly(UCPR17.3)ortoadmittheauthenticityofspecifieddocuments(UCPR17.4)

- Usedtonarrowtheissuesindisputeinaproceedingtosavetimeandcost- Apartymaywithdrawanadmissiononlywithleaveofthecourt- Iftheadmittingpartydoesnotserveanoticedisputingthefactsortheauthenticityofthedocumentwithin14

daysofservice,thatfactis,forthepurposesoftheproceedings,takentohavebeenadmittedbytheadmittingpartyinfavouroftherequestingpartyonly(UCPRr17.3)

Interrogatories

- Discoverybyinterrogatoriesisaprocedurewhereapartymaybeorderedtoanswerspecifiedquestions- Questionsareusuallyansweredonoathandcanbetenderedasevidenceinthetrial- Canbeorderedatanystageofproceedings- Mustrelatetotheissuesinthepleadings- Forpersonalinjurymattersthecourtmustbesatisfiedthatspecialreasonsexist

SummaryofwhatUCPRprovides:

1. Partycanseekorderfromcourttoadministerinterrogatoriesatanystageofproceedings2. Orderwillonlybemadeif‘necessary’3. Answeringpartymaybeorderedtoanswerspecifiedquestions4. Answersareusuallyrequiredtobeverifiedbyaffidavit5. Partymayobjecttoansweringonbasis itdoesnotrelatetoanymatter in issuebetweenparties,questionis

vexatiousoroppressionand/oranswerwoulddiscloseprivilegedinformation6. Insufficientanswers–courtmayorderforfurtheranswer7. Answerscanbetenderedasevidencedinthetrial8. Noorderwillbegrantedinpersonalinjuryactionsunlesscourtissatisfiedthatspecialreasonsexist9. Partycanobjecttoansweringinterrogatories

VanacomPtyLtdvMorganBrooksPtyLtd[2006]

- CampbellJobservedthatunderUCPR211.1(4)thecourtwasnottomakeanorderforinterrogatoriesunlessitwassatisfiedtheorderwasnecessaryatthetimeitwasmade

- Thecourtdidnotmakeanorderinthiscaseastheplaintiff’sevidenceinchiefhadnotbeenfiledanditwasprematureforanyinterrogatoriesatalltobedeliveredatthetimeinquestion

TOPICFIVE–OpposingDisclosure:PrivilegeIntroductiontoPrivilegesWithrespecttodiscoveryofdocuments,firstask:

- Isthisafishingexpedition?- Doesitservealegitimateforensicpurpose?- Istheinformationrelevanttotheothersidescase?- Isitoppressive,then?- Considerprivilege

Privilege

- Privilege:ameansofresistingdisclosure,existstoprotectdifferentinterestsand/orrelationships- Canberaisedatthetrialtoobjecttotheadmissibilityofevidenceatthestagewhenevidenceisbeingadduced- Attachestotheinformation,ratherthanthedocumentitself- Informationsubjectoftheprivilegemaybeinoralformorinwriting- Thetestofwhetherprivilegeorimmunityattachesisdifferentineachprivilege- Therighttoclaimprivilegeandpreventaccesstoinformationbelongstothepersonvestedwiththeinterestor

relationshipprotectedbytheprivilege(theprivilegeholder)-Theprivilegeholdermayormaynotbeapartytothecase:NewSouthWalesvPublicTransportTicketingCorporation[2011]

- Aprivilegeclaimisusuallysupportedbyaffidavitevidencethatprovesthenecessaryfactsforaprivilegeclaim

ContextforPrivilegeClaimAclaimforprivilegecanbeassertedinthefollowingsituations:

a) Inresponsetoasubpoenaseekingproductionofdocuments(objecttoproductionorinspection)b) Inresponsetoanorderfordiscovery

a. RegulatedbyUCPRPart21b. Ifthepartyseekingdiscoverywishestochallengeaclaimforprivilege,theymustfileandservea

noticeofmotionseekinganorderthattherelevantdocumentbeproducedforinspectionc) Toobjecttoansweringaninterrogatory-UCPRr22.2(c)d) Inresponsetoanoticetoproducee) Toobjecttoanordertoproduceorinspectdocumentsmadebythecourtpursuanttosection68oftheCivil

ProcedureAct2005(NSW)f) Toresistotherformsofcompulsoryacquisitionofdocuments(e.g.searchwarrants/orders)g) Toobjecttothetenderofadocumentduringahearing(atatimewhenevidenceisadduced)h) Toobjecttotheoralexaminationofawitnessduringahearing

ApplicableLawandProcedureforaPrivilegeClaim

- TheprivilegesintheEvidenceAct1995(NSW)applywhenevidenceisbeingadduced- Theeffectofsection131A(1)isthattheEvidenceActappliestopre-trialproceedings

-Courtmustapplytherulessetoutintheactfordeterminingthedisclosurerequirementfordocumentsinallpreliminaryproceedings

- 3pointsregardingthelimitationsofs131AoftheAct(1) Doesnotappeartoapplytoinvestigatoryornon-curialprocesses(2)Applieswhenthepersonrequiredbyadisclosurerequirementtogiveinformationortoproduceadocument,isthepersonwhoalsoobjectstogivingthatinformation(3)Hasbeenheldtoapplyonlyatthestageofobjectiontoproduction

NewSouthWalesvPublicTransportTicketingCorporation[2011]

- Issue:whethertheStatecanbeapersonwithinthedefinitionsoftheAct- Held:yes–butthepersonobjectinghastobethesamepersonwhoissubjecttothedisclosurerequirement- HeretheStatewasathirdpartytoproceedings(PTTChadbeenorderedtoprovidediscovery)- Section131Adidnotapplytotheseproceedings:Statecouldn’tclaimPII- Principle:onlythepersonsubjecttothedisclosurerequirementcanclaimprivilegeunders131A- Thirdpartiescaninterveneandclaimprivilegeinacasewheretheyarenotaparty–commonlawapplies

ClientLegalPrivilege- Clientlegalprivilegeprotectsconfidentialcommunicationsmade,andconfidentialdocumentsprepared,for

thedominantpurposeofalawyerprovidinglegaladviceoralawyerprovidinglegalservicesrelatingtolitigation

- Client’sprivilege,notthelawyers–clientistheonlypersonwhocanwaiveit- Legalpractitionerasostensibleauthoritytowaiveprivilegeonbehalfoftheirclient- Existstoensureproperlegaladvice–clientsarefrankandopen,allowinglawyerstoprovidefullyinformed

legaladvice:OslandvSecretarytotheDepartmentofJustice[2008],EssovFCT- Aruleofsubstantivelawandanimportantcommonlawimmunity- Thelegalpractitionerhasadutyofprotectingandupholdingtheprivilege- Canbeabrogatedbystatute–e.g.forobtainingdocumentsinrelationseriousterrorismoffences- AFPCommissionervPropend–seenasmorethanamereruleofevidence,itisasubstantivegeneralprinciple

whichplaysanimportantroleintheeffectiveandefficientadministrationofjusticebythecourts- Acopyofanunprivilegeddocumentcanbeconsideredprivileged(testisanchoredtothepurposeforwhich

thedocumentwasbroughtintoexistence):CommissionerAFPvPropendFinanceExpenseReductionAnalystsGroupPtyLtdvArmstrongStrategicManagementandMarketingPtyLtd[2013]HCA46

- Facts:ExpenseReduction(representedbyNortonRose)wasorderedtoprovidediscoveryof60,000documentstoArmstrong–documentswereprovidedondisks–DuringthediscoveryprocessNortonRoseinadvertentlydisclosed13documentsclaimedtobeprivileged

- AppealtotheHighCourtconcernedthisinadvertentdisclosureofdocumentssubjecttoclientlegalprivilege- HighCourtheldthiswasamistakethatwasnecessarytobecorrected- Therewasnodelayinthemistakebeingnotifiedorconfirmed- Armstrongwouldnotbeprejudicedbyrequiringthediskstobereturned

ElementsofClientLegalPrivilege

1. Confidentialcommunicationordocument2. Lawyerandclientrelationship(corporateclientsandin-houselawyerscanclaimit)3. Dominantpurposeofthecommunicationisforexistingoranticipatedlitigation,orforlegaladvice

DominantPurposeTest

- Dominantpurposetestoverruledthepreviouscommonlawtest–thesolepurposetest- Thepurposeinexistenceatthetimeofthemakingoftheconfidentialcommunicationorpreparationofthe

confidentialdocumentisdeterminative- Proofofadominantpurposewillnotbesatisfiedbyapersonstatingtheypreparedthedocumentforthe

dominantpurpose-evidenceisrequiredtoestablishthecircumstancesforthecreationofthedocument/communication

- Dominantpurpose:“purposewhichwastheruling,prevailing,ormostinfluentialpurpose”–FCTvSpotless(1996)

- Thecommonlawtestforpurposeisalsothedominantpurposetest:EssoAustraliaResourcesLtdvCommissionerofTaxation(Cth)(1999)

- Dominanttestwasexpressesas“clearparamountcyshouldbethetouchstone”inMitsubishiElectricAustraliaPtyLtdvVictorianWorkcoverAuthority(2002)

- Thedominantpurposeistobedeterminedobjectively,butthesubjectivepurposewillalwaysberelevantandoftendecisive

PublicInterestImmunity

- Publicinterestimmunityprotectsinformationoradocumentwhenitisinthepublicinterestfortheretobenodisclosure

- Aprivilegethatcanberaisedbythecourtonitsown- Balancingexercise–whether,inallthecircumstances,thepublicinterestinprotectingtheconfidentialityof

informationoutweighsthecountervailingpublicinterestinthepublicavailabilityofinformation- Wherethecourtbelievesorderingproductionofthedocumentwould“puttheinterestofthestatein

jeopardy”ismustdeclinetoorderproduction:ConwayvRimmer[1986]AC- EganvChadwick(1999)46NSWLR563:essentiallyincommensurablefactors(significanceoftheinformationto

theissueintrialvs.publicharmfromdisclosure)

SankeyvWhitlam(1978)–Commonlawbasisforstatutory‘balancingtest’forPII- ‘Thegeneralruleisthatthecourtwillnotordertheproductionofadocument,althoughrelevantandotherwise

admissible, if itwouldbe injurious to thepublic interest todisclose it.However thepublic interest has twointereststhatmayconflict’

- Referringheretotheirinterestthat:1. Noharmbedonetothenationbydisclosureofcertaindocumentsand;2. Theirotherinterestthattheadministrationofjusticeshallnotbefrustratedbythewithholdingofdocuments

thatmustbeproducedifjusticeistobedone.–GibbsACJStandingandProcedureforPIIClaims

- AclaimofPIImaybemadebyanyperson,includingapersonwhoisnotpartytotheproceedings- PIIcannotbewaived- Claimusuallysupportedbyanaffidavit

-Suchanaffidavitmaycontaininformationwhich,ifdisclosed,woulditselfbeinjurioustothepublicinterest-PermissibleforthecourtstouseconfidentialaffidavitsinsupportofaPIIclaim-Norighttocross-examineadeponentofanaffidavitwhoprovidesevidenceinsupportofaPIIclaim

ExamplesofTypesofInformationwhereaPIIClaimcouldbemade

- Informationwheredisclosurecouldprejudicethefunctioningofgovernment:StateofNewSouthWalesvPublicTransportTicketingCorporation[2011]NSWCA6

- Documentsthatrevealtheidentityofpoliceinformers–policewouldbehinderedintheirdutyofpreventinganddetectingcrime:AustralianCompetitionandConsumerCommissionvPrysmianCaviESistemiEnergiaSRL[2011]

- Documentscontainingconfidentialpolicemethodology–couldharmtheproperconductoflawenforcementactivities

- Informationthatcouldharmnationalsecurity:NationalSecurityInformation(CriminalandCivilProceedings)Act2004(Cth)

NegotiationPrivilege

- Protectsinformationcreatedinanattempttosettleadispute- Rationale:restricttheabilityofinformationtobeusedagainstonepartyifthedisputeeventuallygoesto

litigation–participateingoodfaith- Nojudicialdiscretiontodeterminewhetherprivilegeattachestocommunications

FieldvCommissionerforRailways(1957)

- Applicationofnegotiationsprivilege- Inprocessofnegotiatingsettlement,plaintiffwasexaminedbydoctorappointedbydefendant- Plaintiffmadeanadmission- Althoughsawdoctorduetonegotiations,courtfoundthatthiswasoutsidethescopeoftheprivilegebecause

thedoctorvisitwasnotreasonablyincidentaltothenegotiations–itwasmadewithoutanyproperconnectionwithanypurposeconnectedwiththesettlementoftheaction

- Thereforedoctor’sevidencewasadmissible WaiverofPrivilegeWaysinwhichprivilegemaybewaived:

1. Waiverbyintentionaldisclosure–knowingandvoluntarydisclosure:section122EvidenceAct2. Inadvertentwaiver

a. Courtreluctanttofindprivilegewaivedwherepossiblyinadvertent,bylawyererror:ERAvArmstrongb. Clericalerrorisnotknowingandvoluntary:FenwickvWamboCoalPtyLtdc. Distinguishinadvertentdisclosurefromdisclosurebasedonanerroneousbeliefthatthedocumentis

notprivileged–inthelattersituation,privilegeiswaivedifdisclosurewasmadeknowinglyandvoluntarily:FenwickvWambo

3. Waiverbydisclosuretoathirdpartya. Notawaiverunless,bytheclient’sconduct,theyhaveeitherexpresslyorimpliedlyactedinawaythat

isinconsistentwiththemaintenanceofprivilege:MannvCarnell(1999),section122EvidenceAct

TOPICSIX–TrialorNoTrialAdjournments

- Anadjournmentisthepostponementordelayinproceedings- Section 66 ofCPA provides courtwith discretion, in appropriate circumstances, to grant an adjournment of

proceedingsoranyaspectofproceedings- Mustadjourntoa‘specifiedday’- Factthatbothpartiesconsenttoadjournmentdoesnotnecessarilymeanitwillbegranted- Anapplicationforadjournmentwillberefusedifitisnotintheinterestsofjusticetoadjournthehearing:Bank

ofWesternAustraliavCallipari[2011]- Powertograntanadjournmentmustbeexercisedinaccordancewiththeoverridingpurposeprinciplesofthe

CPA- Ifanadjournmentisgranted,thepartywhoseconductisresponsiblefortheadjournmentisusuallyorderedto

paythecostsincurredbytheotherparty(s)asaresultoftheadjournment- Mustultimatelydo‘whatisnecessarytodojusticebetweentheparties’(CityofSydneyCouncilvSatar[2007])

SpencervNSWMinisterforClimateChangeandtheEnvironment

- McCollJA:thereisnorighttoadjournment–exercisedinconsiderationwiththejust,quickandcheapresolutionoftheissues

AonvANU

- Anapplicationwhichhastheeffectofadjourningaciviltrial,acourtshouldconsiderthefollowingmatters:a) Theneedtomaintainpublicconfidenceinthejudicialsystemb) Inefficienciesintheuseofresourcesarisingfromadjournmentsc) Whethertherewouldbeanunfairprejudiceindelayingproceedingsunnecessarilyd) Specifictermsofthelegislationorrulesofcourtcalleduponasasourceofpowerforthegrantingoftheorders

soughtAbuseofProcessandtheDoctrineofFinality

- Resjudicata:‘athingjudges’–partiescannotre-litigatematters- Issueestoppel:preventsnewclaimthatwouldrequirenewcourttoreconsideranissuealreadydeterminedin

priorproceedings- Anshunestoppel:preventspartiesfrombringingnewclaimsthatshouldhavebeenaddressedinprevious

proceedings- Courts–mustdistinguishbetweenclaimsthatareseparateandentitledtobesubjectofnewproceedingsand

thosethatmustberuninsingleproceedingDefaultJudgment

- Appliestoproceedingscommencedbyastatementofclaim- Itisajudgmententeredbyvirtueofcourtrulesratherthanoneorderedbycourtbasedonevidence- Canbeenteredifthedefendantisindefaultunderrule16.2ofUCPR- Intendedtoprovideanincentivefordefendantstofileanappearanceordefencewithintheprescribedtime

period(28days)- Theeffectofadefaultjudgmentisthesameasajudgmentgivenaftertrial- Thecourthasthepowertosetasideadefaultjudgmentonapplicationbythedefendant,providedtheycan

adequatelyexplainthedelayandshowthereisadefencetotheclaimthathasmerit- Defaultjudgmentwilldependonwhethertheplaintiff’sclaimisliquidatedorunliquidated

1.Liquidatedclaim:amountclaimedisknownorcanbecalculatedbyaformulaorscalewithoutrecoursetoassessmentoropinion–applicationforadefaultjudgmentismadepursuanttoRule16.6whichrequiresanaffidavitinsupport2.Unliquidatedclaim:usuallycasemanagedpursuanttosections56and57CPA

BorowiakvHobbs[2006]

- Courtsaidthatifthedefendantcontestingthedefaultjudgementhasabonefidedefence,thenthecourtwillbereluctantnottosetasidethedefaultjudgmentanddecidethecaseonitsmerits

- Inthisparticularcase,thedefaultwasextreme:‘NoevidencethatD’sinsurerhadanyregardtothetimelimitsimposedbytherulesforthefilingofdefence

- Theywereeitherdisregardedentirelyortreatedwithdistainorindifference…thecourtmustseektogiveeffecttotheoverridingpurpose’

NationalAustraliaBankLtdvMcCann(No.2)[2010]- Facts:defaultjudgmententered–applied3timestosetaside- Held:failedonthirdapplicationtosetasidejudgment-wasanabuseofprocess(oppressivetotheotherparty)- Afurtherapplicationwhichisasdeficientastheearlierapplication,andwhennorealefforthasbeenmadeto

dealwiththeissuesclearlypointedoutintheearlierjudgmentthatresultedintheearlierapplicationfailing- Makingafurtherapplicationonthatbasisseemstobeunjustifiableoppressivetotheotherparty–bringsthe

administrationofjusticeintodisreputeSummaryDisposal

- Summarydisposalisalabelusedtodescribeapplicationstothecourtthatcanresultinproceedingsbeingconcludedbeforeatrial

- UsuallyprovidedforinUCPR- StandardforsummaryjudgmentorsummarydismissalhasbeenlessenedinsomecourtssuchastheFederal

Court- Section31FederalCourtofAustraliaAct1976providesthatjudgmentmaybeenteredwhereapartyhasno

reasonableprospectsofsuccessfullydefendingorprosecutingtheproceedings- Anorderforsummarydismissalwheretherehasnotbeenahearingonthemeritsoftheclaimwillnotprevent

theplaintifffromissuingfreshproceedings- Animportantconcernfortheplaintiffwillbetoensurethestatuteoflimitationhasnotexpired- Unsuccessfulpartyalsohastheoptiontoappealtheorderforsummarydismissal- Mostlyamatterofjudicialdiscretion–courtsmustweighthedesiretobeefficientandpreventunfair

proceedingswiththeneedtoensurepartiesarefairlyheard

Summarydispositionpreventsthecourtsbecomingcloggedwithunmeritoriouslitigation(therebyimprovingaccess)

vs.Summarydispositiondeniespartiesahearing(therebydenyingaccess)

SummaryJudgment

- PlaintiffcanapplyforsummaryjudgmentagainstadefendantunderRule13.1- Wherethedefendanthasfiledadefencethatdoesnotrevealavaliddefencetotheplaintiff’sclaimorwhose

onlydefenceisinregardtotheamountofthedamagesclaimed- Deprivesapartyofitschancetohaveitscaseheardonthemerits- AnapplicationunderRule13.1canbemadeforthewholeorpartofthejudgmentclaimedbytheplaintiff- Applicationforsummaryjudgmentrequirestheplaintifftoadmitaffidavitinsupportoftheorderconfirming

thefactsthattheapplicationisbasedon- Anordershouldonlybemadewhereitisclearthatthereisnorealissuetobetried

DeyvVictorianRailwaysCommissioners(1949)

- Proceedingsmaynotbesummarilydismissedunlessaclaimordefencecanproperlybedescribedas“soobviouslyuntenablethatitcannotpossiblysucceed,”“manifestlygroundless”or“somanifestlyfaultythatitdoesnotadmitofargument

E-CCommercevBidwell[2005]NSWCA81

- DefendantappealedsummaryjudgementforplaintiffmadeinDistrictCourt.CourtofAppealfoundfordefendant

- Held:althoughthedefencewasverybadlydrafted,therewereatleasttriableissuesandsummaryjudgementshouldonlybemadewhentherearenorealissues

- Sufficientuncertaintyastotheexistenceandformoftheagreement,whetheritwasbreachedandwhoexactlywasinvolved

SummaryDismissal- Thedefendant’scorrespondingrighttotheplaintiff’srighttoapplyforasummaryjudgment:Rule13.4- Effect:youcanstillbringfreshproceedings(s91CPA)orappealsummarydismissaltotheCourtofAppeal- Frivolous:notworthseriousattention[husbandbumperstickercase–dismissedasa“wasteofpublicmoney”]- Vexatious:undertakenforthepurposeofharassment,aproceedingthatcannotsucceedorisintendedto

wastetimeorcausedelay- Categoriesofclaimsthatareanabuseofprocessarenotclosedbutmayinclude:1) Proceedingsinvolveadeceptionofthecourt,sham,fiction2) Proceedingswherecourtprocessesarenotbeingfairlyorhonestlyusedbutratheremployedforsomeulterior

orimproperpurpose3) Proceedingsthataremanifestlygroundless4) Multipleorsuccessiveproceedingslikelytoamounttoharassment5) Proceedingswhereitisimpossibleforthedefendant

VanDerLeevNSW[2002]NSWCA286

- Facts:theStateofNSWwasthedefendantineightproceedingsrelatingtothelandslideinThredboin1997–theStatecross-claimedagainstLendLeaseCorporationseekingdamages,contributionand/orindemnity

- Cross-claimantsfilednoticesofmotionseekingthecross-claimsbestayedordismissedasanabuseofprocess- LeaseLandfailedtofulfiltheironustoshowthetheStateactedforthepredominantpurposeofgaininga

collateraladvantage,orabenefitnotreasonablyrelatedtosuchjudgmentFawcettvCannon[2007]NSWCA1267

- Facts:GeoffreyCannonplacedaverylargefireworkinsideamortartubeandlitit,expectingittolaunchintotheskyandexplode–thefireworkdidnotlaunchbutexplodedonthegroundcausingseriousinjuriestoJustinFawcett–FawcettsuesCannonandthewholesalesuppliersofthefireworks,theretailersandanumberofothercompanies

- SchofieldCompaniesmovedtodismisstheproceedings–submittedtheproceedingswereanabuseofprocessandseekdismissal–suingthembecauseheultimatelydidnotknowwhowasliable

- Mustbe“impossibleforthepartyconcernedtosucceedonhisclaim”- ThefactsonwhichtheSchofieldcompaniesreliedwerenotaccepted–notpossibletosaytheplaintiffcan’t

succeedorthatproceedingsareunjustifiable- PossiblethatanyoneoftheSchofieldcompaniescouldhavebeeninvolvedinthesale

DismissalforWantofProsecution

- Aclaimordefencecanbedismissedforapartyfailingtoproceedwithduedispatch:UCPR12.7- Casemanagementhasmadethislessfrequent- Courthasinherentpowertodismissaclaim,strikeoutdefenceormakeotherorder- Courtwillconsideroverridingpurposeprinciplesinss56-60ofCPAregarding‘just,quickandcheap’resolution

BuildingInsurers’GuaranteeCorporationvTouma[2010]NSWSC4

- Facts:Toumawasabuilder–hecontractedtoconstructed26villaswiththeseconddefendant–seconddefendantownedtheproperty–plaintiffallegesMr.Toumaandtheseconddefendantconstructedthevillasinadefectiveway–Toumafailedtoconductvariousstepsintheproceedingsthatwereorderedsuchasdiscovery,soughtnumerousadjournments(unwell,overseas,changingsolicitor)–plaintifffiledamotiontostrikeoutMr.Touma’sdefence

- Defencestruckout–plaintiff’sconductwasotherwisefaultlessandunarmedwithanypowertocontrolwhatoccurs

- Hadnoattendedtohissideofthelitigatinginatimelymanner,hasdisregardedhisobligationtoconformtodirectionsthathavebeenmade

- Cannotcontinuetoseekadjournmentsinthehopethattheinconvenienceanddisruptionwillbecometheproblemoftheplaintiff

PhornpisutikulvMileto[2006]- Dfilednoticeofmotionfordismissalunderr12.7onbasisthatproceedingsgoingsince2003–morethan12

monthssincePorderedtofileaffidavitsandplaintiffhad‘Notfiledasinglepieceofpaperthatadvanceshercaseinchief’

- ‘Thereissomereluctanttodismissacasewheretherehasnotbeenahearingonthemerits.However,apartymaybyherownconductpreventahearingtakingplacewherebyrepeatedfailurestocomplywithdirections,shedemonstratesthatsheisnotpreparedtoplayherpartinexpeditiousadvancingoftheproceedings.’

Discontinuance- Procedurethatallowsaplaintifftoterminateproceedingsagainstadefendantbecausetheynolongerwishto

continuethelitigation- Maybeduetoalackofresources,acceptancethattheclaimwillfail,orbecausethematterhasbeenresolved

asaresultofsomeformofADRorofferofcompromise- Apartywhodiscontinuesmustordinarilypaytheotherparty’scostsofthediscontinuedclaimunlessthecourt

otherwiseordersorthenoticeofdiscontinuancemakessomeotherprovision- Discontinuancedoesnotbarsubsequentproceedingsunlessthediscontinuancewasonthetermsthatnonew

proceedingswouldbebrought- Aplaintiffwillnotnormallybeforcedtocontinuetolitigateaslongastherewillbenoinjusticecausedtothe

defendant CovellMatthews&PartnersvFrenchWoolsLtd[1997]

- Court will review all relevant circumstances and consider whether ‘the defendant is not deprived of someadvantagewhichhehasalreadygainedinthelitigationandshouldbereadytogranthimadequateprotectiontoensurethatanyadvantagehehasgainedispreserved.’

SecurityforCostsCostsinLitigation

- Costsordersareasignificantaspectofmostcivillitigation- Typicalcostsorders:noorderastocostsorcostsinthecause- Adefendantmayobtainasecurityforcostsordertoensureanothercanpayanadverseorder- Section98CivilProcedureAct–courts’powerasto

SecurityforCosts

- Thecourthaspowertoorderaplaintifftogivesecurityforthedefendant’scostofdefendingtheplaintiff’sclaimandcanorderastayofproceedingsuntilthesecurityisgiven

- Anapplicationforsecurityforcostsshouldbemadepromptly,beforetheplaintiffhasexpendedmoneyonclaim

- Unlikelytobegrantedwheretheplaintiff’sclaimbonafideandreasonableprospectsofsuccess- Ifthereisnon-compliancewithasecurityforcostsorder,thecourtmayordertheplaintiff’sproceedingsbe

dismissed:UCPRrule42.21- Thefactthatanaturalpersonlacksresourcesisnotasufficientreasonforasecurityforcostsorder–

impecuniositymaybearesultofthedefendant’sconduct- Theimpecuniosityoftheplaintiffisafactortobeweighedintheexerciseofthediscretionandisneithera

sufficientconditionfortheorderingofsecuritynorasufficientconditionfortheCourttodeclinetheorderforsecurity:LucasvYorke(1983)

- Asecurityforcostsorderisdiscretionaryandthoughsuchdiscretionisabsoluteandunfettered,itwillnotbemadeautomatically–itmustnotbemade“arbitrarilyorsoastofrustratethelegislativeintent

- Effectistostayproceedingsuntilsecurityisgiven(maybedismissedifsecurityisnotgiven)- Morelikelytobegrantedagainstacorporationthananaturalperson- SupremeCourthasinherentjurisdictiontoordersecurityforcostswhichare‘necessaryfordueadministration

ofjusticeandpreventabuseofthecourt’sprocesses’–RajskiIdopportvNationalAustraliaBank[2001[NSWSC744

- Discretiontoawardsecurityforcostsrequirestotakeintoaccountallrelevantfactsandcircumstances- 7guidelinesthecourtissaidtotypicallytakeintoaccount(KPCableInvestments)1) Suchapplicationsshouldbebroughtpromptly2) Regardistobehadtothestrengthandbonafidesoftheapplicant’scase3) Whethertheapplicant’simpecuniositywascausedbytherespondent’sconductsubjectoftheclaim4) Whethertheapplicationforsecurityisoppressive(todenytherightofanimpecuniousapplicanttolitigate)5) Whetherthereareanypersonsstandingbehindthecompanywhoarewillingtoprovidethenecessarysecurity6) Whetherpersonsstandingbehindthecompanyhaveofferedanypersonalundertakingtobeliableforthe

costs7) Securityonlyorderedagainstapartywhoisinsubstanceaplaintiff,andanorderoughtnottobemadeagainst

partieswhoaredefendingthemselves

IncentivestoSettle- Settlementisthemostcommonwaymattersaredisposedofwithouttrial- Settledproceedingsmustbediscontinued- Settlementofferscanaffectcostsorderswheresettlementfailsandthematterproceedstotrial- TheUCPRofferofcompromiseprocedureandthecommonlaw‘Calderbankletters’aredesignedtoencourage

areasonedapproachtosettlementbyplaintiffsanddefendants(inadditiontoformalADRoptions)- Offertosettlemustbegenuineandiftheofferisunreasonablyrejectedcostconsequencescanfollow- Ifthesettlementofferisrejected,themattergoestotrial–adversecostsordercanbemadeagainsttherejecting

partyiftheoutcomeislessfavourablethanthesettlementoffer- Offermaybefromeitherside- OffersofcompromiseregulatedbyUCPR

CalderbankLetters

- Calderbanklettersareoffersofcompromiseinlettersmarked‘withoutprejudicesaveastocosts’–theyareaproceduralalternativetooffersofcompromiseundertheUCPR

- The cost consequencesof unreasonably rejecting anoffer contained in a Calderbank letter is in the generaldiscretionofthecourtratherthantheUCPRrulesthatgovernoffersofcompromise

- Calderbank letters lack the certainty and explicit consequences of the UCPR formal system of offers ofcompromise

- CalderbanklettersandUCPRofferofcompromisearedesignedtoencourageareasonedapproachtothesettlementbybothplaintiffsanddefendants

- Calderbankletters:-Offersofcompromiseinlettersmarked“withoutprejudicesaveastocosts”-Offertosettlemustbegenuine-Iftheofferisunreasonablyrejected,costconsequencescanfollow(generaldiscretionofthecourt)

- CalderbankletterslackthecertaintyandexplicitconsequencesoftheUCPRformalsystemofoffersofcompromise

- Moreflexiblethanoffersofcompromise(rulesareincreasinglyflexible)

ExampleAdverseCostOrdersExample1Plaintiffservesofferofcompromiseon4/1/16for$1,000,000pluscostsasagreedorassessed.Defendantrejectsthe

offer.Judgmententeredfor$2,000,000on22/3/16–Whattypeofcostorderwilltheplaintiffapplyfor?

- Defendantwouldhavebeenbetteroffiftheyhadnotrejectedtheoffer- Plaintiffcanapplyforindemnitycostsfortheremainderoftheperiod- Costsuptothedateoftheoffercalculatedonanordinarybasis

Example2

Defendantservesofferofcompromiseon4/1/16for$1,000,000pluswillpayplaintiff’scostsasagreedorassessed.Plaintiffrejectstheoffer.Judgmententeredfor$500,000on22/3/16–Whattypeofcostsorderwillthedefendant

applyfor?

- Plaintiffworseoffthanwhatthedefendantoriginallyoffered- Plaintiffwillgetordinarycostsuptothedateoftheoffer- Defendantwillgetindemnitycostsfromtheofferofcompromiseuptoandincludingthetrial

BriefSummaryoftheConductofaCivilHearingThewayatrialisrunisdependenton

1. Thecourt2. Thedivision3. Thenumberofparties4. Thedispute–whatisinissuefordetermination5. Theevidence6. Thejudge

HowisaHearingConducted:wheretheplaintiffbearstheburdenofproof(mostcommontest)GovernedbyUCPR

- Plaintiffgivesopeningaddress- Plaintiffcallsevidence- Plaintiffclosesevidentiarycase- Defendantcanopencase–maygiveaddress- Defendantmaycallevidence- Defendantclosesevidentiarycase- Defendantaddressescourt- Plaintiffaddressescourt- Note:ifdefendantdoesnotcallevidencethenplaintiffmustaddressfirst

ConclusionofTrial

- Notusuallyjuriesincivilproceedings(exception:defamation)- Ifthereisajury,thejurymakesfindingsoffactandarethendischarged- Usuallyjudgesmakefindingsoffactaspartoftheirjudgment- Judgmentcontainsordersmadebythecourt- Judgementisenteredbytheordersbeingentered

Appeals

- Anappealistheformalproceedingbywhichanunsuccessfulpartyseekstohavetheformalorderofacourtsetasideorvariedinhisfavourbyanappellatecourt:CBAvBankNSW(1949)

- Mostjudgmentsarenotappealed- Thereasonsforcreatingavenuesofappeal:

a)Toallowforthecorrectionoferrorsoflaworfactsorthemiscarriageofjusticeoftheexerciseofadiscretionb)Toallowforthedevelopmentofthelaw

- Thereisnoappealatcommonlaw:FoxvPercy(2003)- Appealsareacreatureofstatute–thereforenecessarytoexaminethestatutethatprovidesforanappeal

fromthatparticulartribunal- Timelimitsapplytoallappealsandapplicationsforleavetoappeal- AppealsinCourtofAppealaresubjecttoverystrictproceduralrulesre:processanddocuments(UCPR)

AccesstoAppeals

1. Appealasofright- ThereisanappealasofrightfromtheSupremeCourttotheCourtofAppealagainstfinaljudgmentsand

orderswhereanerroroflaw,factordiscretioncanbeshown:SupremeCourtAct1970section101(1)- ThereisanappealasofrightfromtheDistrictCourtinrespectofanamountof$100,000ormore:District

CourtAct1973

2. Whereleavetoappealisrequired- Therequirementofleavetoappealisdesignedtorestricttheappealproceduretoappropriatemattersand

therebytopromotetheefficiencyofthecourt’sappealprocedures:CoultervR(1988)- Appealsfrominterlocutoryordersrequireleave

i. Section101(2)SupremeCourtAct1970ii. Section127(2)DistrictCourtAct1973

3. AppealstotheHighCourt–requirespecialleaveandeveryonegets20minutestopresenttheircase:Judiciary

Act1903section35PossibleOutcomes

1. Appealdismissed2. Appealallowed

i. Setasidejudgment,andii. Enternewjudgment,and/oriii. Setdownforrehearing(e.g.“remittotrialjudgeforquantum”)