*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).
The latest issue of the Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice (Volume 6 Part 2) contains the following material:
- New Zealand Lawyer-Litigants to be Treated Regarding Costs Just Like Other Unrepresented Litigants
- Miiko Kumar: General Editor
The Alluring Promises of Technology-assisted Review – Elijah Pear
Pre-trial discovery and disclosure are not what they used to be. Electronically sorted information is expected to grow exponentially, and the costs of manually reviewing these documents will only increase. Technology-assisted review (TAR) holds unquestionable potential as a means of coping with unmanageable data sets. Proponents contend that it will replace the unreliability and inefficiency of manually reviewing electronically stored information. While the promise of TAR is alluring, many questions remain for New Zealand corporations and law firms: Who is responsible for understanding this technology? When will a court approve it? What is required for its implementation? Why has it not been universally accepted in New Zealand? This article explores the “who”, “when”, “what” and “why” of TAR. It argues that legal practitioners responsible for civil discovery must stay ahead and remain technologically competent. The courts can be expected to take a more informed and proactive approach in granting the implementation of this technology. Litigants are encouraged to adopt a more co-operative framework around discovery and disclosure. As technology evolves, they must understand nuances and make informed decisions on its implementation. These considerations reflect the wider theme of reasonableness and proportionality. Change is not immediate. The solution to acceptance of this technology is a generational one, and it will radically transform the nature of how legal services are provided.
- Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions: Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd – James O’Hara
- Advocate’s Immunity after Attwells and Kendirjian – Matthew Barry
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: JCivLP Vol 6 No 2 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.