*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
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).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice<\/em> (Volume 10 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editors: Roderick Joyce QSO QC and Professor Michael Legg<\/em><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Restoring Legitimacy: The Subpoena to Produce in Civil Litigation <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Talitha Fishburn<\/p>\n An essential component in any civil litigator\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 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.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n The Future of Common Fund Orders in Australian Class Actions After BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Michael Legg<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n CASE NOTE \u00e2\u20ac\u201c NEW ZEALAND<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Roderick Joyce QSO QC<\/em><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n CASE NOTE \u00e2\u20ac\u201c UNITED KINGDOM<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: William Fotherby<\/em><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n COURT WATCH<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Bernard Cairns<\/em><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c JCivLP Vol 10 No 2 Contents<\/a> or here: New Westlaw Australia \u00e2\u20ac\u201c JCivLP Vol 10 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n