The rules of most Victorian courts permit a party, in certain circumstances, to obtain discovery of material prior to commencing proceedings. Like many rule-based tests, there can be some confusion about the requirements as well as the discretionary factors involved in obtaining preliminary discovery. The Supreme Court in a recent appeal decision has shed some light.
Category: Civil Procedure
A recent decision by Vickery J addresses the practice of “piggybacking” by a plaintiff in the proportionate liability context. The decision means that a plaintiff bringing a claim against a concurrent wrongdoer joined by the defendant must properly plead a cause of action against them; it may be insufficient simply to make reference to the first defendant’s pleading.
Abstract: A December 2016 decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria and a January 2017 practice note on the use of technology in the Court have shown the Court’s acceptance of technology assisted review as an appropriate method of discovery in litigation involving a large amount of electronically stored information.
Paul Hayes will be presenting a CPD seminar on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 5.15pm in the McPhee Room on level 1 of Owen Dixon East. The seminar is entitled: “The Harman Obligation: Policy, Procedure and Punishment”. Further details can be obtained from the Bar Office.
The Legal Services Council’s inaugural guideline and direction deals with lawyers’ costs disclosure obligations. Simply put, we are required to provides single figure estimates of our costs. But even the guideline and direction seems to recognize that things will rarely be that simple…
Civil procedure – non-party costs order against a party’s solicitor – solicitor also a director of client company – conflict of interest – LIV’s Professional Conduct and Practice Rules
No immunity for you: the High Court allows registration of a commercial foreign judgment against Nauru
Can foreign state immunity prevent proceedings to register in Australia a foreign judgment? Not if that judgment would fall within the commercial transaction exception to immunity, the High Court has now told us; though immunity from execution will still be a hurdle.
The Civil Procedure Act 2010 affects every aspect of the conduct of litigation and simply can’t be ignored
The Victorian Court of Appeal has held that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is now statutorily modified by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.
The use of expert evidence is controlled by primary and subordinate legislation. Courts can use their extensive management powers to assist the process but often the parties do not focus early enough on what is required.
Submission by Helen Tiplady
Kennedy v Shire of Campaspe  VSCA 47
In this recent decision, the Court of Appeal grappled, for the first time, with the test for the grant of leave for an appeal under the new civil appeals regime.
Knight v Shuard  VSC 36 In the first decision under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, the Supreme Court has applied the new test for leave to proceed and denied Julian Knight the opportunity to...
The Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) (the “Act”) commenced on 31 October 2014, and repeals the previous single-tier system for dealing with vexatious litigants in (the then) s21 Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).
2014 Victorian Civil Appeal Reforms: requirement for leave to appeal, new time limits, and no entitlement to an oral hearing
The Courts Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2014 implemented changes to the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) that include a requirement for leave to appeal for all civil appeals, with limited exceptions, and there is no entitlement to an oral hearing for leave to appeal. The changes commenced on 10 November 2014, and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 were amended also.
A case study in the importance of compliance with overarching obligations, O44 and the Expert Code of Conduct by lawyers and experts and the serious consequences that can flow from any non compliance.