*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: [email protected] 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 10 Part 2) contains the following material:
EDITORIAL – General Editors: Roderick Joyce QSO QC and Professor Michael Legg
- The Duty to the Court in Relation to Discovery – Michael Legg
Restoring Legitimacy: The Subpoena to Produce in Civil Litigation – Talitha Fishburn
An essential component in any civil litigator’s toolkit is the subpoena to produce. But it is by no means a given that it will offer a straightforward means of access to an opposing party’s documents. The path to production and access to documents is often obstructed by interlocutory disputes regarding the legitimacy of the request for documents. For some time, a degree of uncertainty has surrounded the proper test for determining the legitimacy of a notice to produce. A smorgasbord of different expressions has emerged to characterise the requirement of a legitimate subpoena to produce. Questions have arisen as to whether they are different tests, or the same test expressed differently but to some extent synonymously. In light of this semantic haze, the recent clarification on the correct approach provided in a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal is a welcome light at the end of the tunnel.
Litigation funding is a key source of financing for class actions. However, its availability depends on the litigation funder being able to recover a fee for the risk that they undertake in an effective manner. One approach to paying the funder is a court-ordered common fund order. The common fund order was adopted in a number of class actions before being subject to a successful, but limited, challenge before the High Court of Australia. This article reviews the legality of common fund orders in Australia class actions and the calls for legislative reform in aid of certainty.
CASE NOTE – NEW ZEALAND – Editor: Roderick Joyce QSO QC
- Fairfax v Voller – Judge David Harvey
CASE NOTE – UNITED KINGDOM – Editor: William Fotherby
- Municipio De Mariana v BHP Group plc  EWCA Civ 1156 – Sam Clarke
COURT WATCH – Editor: Bernard Cairns
- Preliminary Discovery – Bernard Cairns
- Bias and Procedural Fairness at Trial – an Update – Bernard Cairns
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU – JCivLP Vol 10 No 2 Contents or here: New Westlaw Australia – JCivLP Vol 10 No 2 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: [email protected].