On the construction of costs: McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company (No.2) [2014] QSC 213

The decision in McDermott v Robinson Helicopter Company (No 2) [2014] QSC 213 involves an extensive examination of authorities on the general principle relating to the awarding of costs to a successful party. The court concluded that there was a predilection in favour of distributing costs according to the outcome or 'event' of particular issues in the action.

Evidence in view: Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256

Rule 478 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(view by court) is silent as to the manner in which a court might be expected to exercise the discretion to order an inspection or demonstration under the rule and also as to the use which may be made of any inspection or demonstration ordered. The decision in Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256 provides guidance on both matters. This case provides some guidance on the circumstances in which a court may exercise its discretion to order a view or demonstration

An abuse of process - traditionally: Smith v Lucht [2014] QDC 302

In Smith v Lucht [2014] QDC 302 McGill DCJ considered whether in Queensland the concept of abuse of process was sufficiently broad as to encompass circumstances in which the resources of the court and the parties to be expended to determine the claim were out of all proportion to the interest at stake. Stay of proceedings - abuse of process - whether disproportionality between interest at stake and costs of litigating may amount to abuse of process - plaintiff with good cause of action entitled to pursue it.

Obvious error in approach to default costs assessment

The decision of Henry J in Ginn & Anor v Ginn; ex parte Absolute Law Lawyers & Attorneys [2015] QSC 49 provides clarification of the approach to be taken on a default costs assessment under r708 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

Costs on review - what charges are appropriate?

In Picamore Pty Ltd v Challen [2015] QDC 067 McGill DCJ considered the nature of a review under r742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) in the context of a review of a costs assessment conducted under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). His Honour increased the amount that had been allowed by the costs assessor for a number of items. The judgment includes observations about what may appropriately be charged for particular items of legal work.

Safeguard your access to trial by jury

In Watney v Kencian & Wooley [2014] QDC 290 Morxone QC DCJ considered the implications for defendants who desired a trial by jury, but who had relied on the election for that mode of trial made by the plaintiff in the statement of claim.

Defamation proceedings - Limitation of Actions Act 1974

In Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered for the first time the provision permitting extension of the limitation period for a defamation action under s32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

Civil Procedure

This text provides a summary of Australian procedural law to its bare essence to assist students to rapidly come to grips with the main principles, theories and reality of civil litigation. The LexisNexis Study Guide series is designed to assist students in learning the foundations for effective, systematic exam preparation and revision. In each chapter of LexisNexis Study Guide - Civil Procedure, Stephen Colbran, Roger Douglas, Sheryl Jackson and Molly Townes O'Brien clearly identify and explain the pertinent and often difficult topics within civil procedure. The most important and recent cases are summarised to consolidate practical understanding of the theoretical concepts involved in civil procedure.

Trial by jury election less of a trial

In Kencian v Watney [2015] QCA 212 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the decision in Watney v Kencian & Wooley [2014] QSC 290 and ordered, pursuant to r475(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the trial proceed as a trial by jury.

No variance for filed orders: Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260

In Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260 the Queensland Court of Appeal examined the relationship between rules 7 (extending and shortening time) and 667 (setting aside) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and held that r667(1) does not enable the court to set aside or vary an order after the order has been filed. The court found that, to the extent that this conclusion was contrary to the decision in McIntosh v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] 1 Qd R 152, the decision in McIntosh was wrong and should not be followed.

Representing clients from courtroom to mediation settings : switching hats between adversarial advocacy and dispute resolution advocacy

In the vast majority of cases legal representation in mediation can provide many advantages for clients. However, in some, progress can be thwarted when lawyers do not understand the goals of the mediation process and their dispute resolution advocacy role. This article will explore some of the similarities and differences between the knowledge and skills that lawyers can draw upon when representing clients in adversarial court hearings as compared with non-adversarial settings, such as in mediations. One key distinction is the different approaches that legal representatives can use to effectively act in the best interests of clients. This article will highlight how an appreciation of such distinctions can assist lawyers to “switch” hats between their adversarial and non-adversarial roles. In particular, an understanding that the duty to promote the best interests of clients in mediation is consistent with a collaborative and problem-solving approach can greatly assist in the resolution process.

Assisting future lawyers to conceptualise their dispute resolution advocacy role

This article discusses the key concepts that underpin an elective subject, Dispute Resolution Practice, offered in the Queensland University of Technology undergraduate law curriculum. They were conceptualised during a Teaching Fellowship when research was conducted into how to assist future lawyers to conceptualise their dispute resolution advocacy role. The unit also contains the majority of content recommended in the recent National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council Report, “Teaching Alternative Dispute Resolution in Australian Law Schools”. The environments in which lawyers operate and the knowledge and skills they require to represent clients in negotiation, mediation and conciliation processes will be examined.

Alternative dispute resolution : are apology and forgiveness simply two sides of the one coin?

Alternative dispute resolution (a.d.r.) processes are entrenched in western style legal systems. Forms of dispute resolution are utilised within schools and health systems; built in to commercial contracts; found in workplaces, clubs and organisations; and accepted in general day-to-day community disputes. The a.d.r. literature includes references to ‘apology’, but is largely silent on ‘forgiveness’. Where an apology is offered as part of a dispute resolution process, practice suggests that formalised ‘forgiveness’ rarely follows. Mediators may agree there is a meaningful place for apology in dispute resolution processes, but are most unlikely to support a view that forgiveness, as a conscious act, has an equivalent place. Yet, if forgiveness is not limited to the ‘pardoning of an offence’, but includes a ‘giving up of resentment’, or the relinquishing of a grudge, then forgiveness may play an underestimated role in dispute management. In the context of some day-to-day dispute management practice, this paper questions whether forgiveness should follow an apology; and concludes that meaningful resolutions can be reached without any formal element of ‘forgiveness’ or absolution. However, dispute management practitioners need to be aware of the latent role other aspects of forgiveness may play for the disputing parties.

An evaluation of the sustainability of agreements reached through mediations conducted by the dispute resolution centres of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Queensland between 1999 to 2003

In 1990 the Dispute Resolution Centres Act, 1990 (Qld) (the Act) was passed by the Queensland Parliament. In the second reading speech for the Dispute Resolution Centres Bill on May 1990 the Hon Dean Wells stated that the proposed legislation would make mediation services available “in a non-coercive, voluntary forum where, with the help of trained mediators, the disputants will be assisted towards their own solutions to their disputes, thereby ensuring that the result is acceptable to the parties” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). It was recognised at that time that a method for resolving disputes was necessary for which “the conventional court system is not always equipped to provide lasting resolution” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). In particular, the lasting resolution of “disputes between people in continuing relationships” was seen as made possible through the new legislation; for example, “domestic disputes, disputes between employees, and neighbourhood disputes relating to such issues as overhanging tree branches, dividing fences, barking dogs, smoke, noise and other nuisances are occurring continually in the community” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). The key features of the proposed form of mediation in the Act were articulated as follows: “attendance of both parties at mediation sessions is voluntary; a party may withdraw at any time; mediation sessions will be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible; the rules of evidence will not apply; any agreement reached is not enforceable in any court; although it could be made so if the parties chose to proceed that way; and the provisions of the Act do not affect any rights or remedies that a party to a dispute has apart from the Act” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). Since the introduction of the Act, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General has offered mediation services through, first the Community Justice Program (CJP), and then the Dispute Resolution Centres (DRCs) for a range of family, neighbourhood, workplace and community disputes. These services have mirrored those available through similar government agencies in other states such as the Community Justice Centres of NSW and the Victorian Dispute Resolution Centres. Since 1990, mediation has become one of the fastest growing forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Sourdin has commented that "In addition to the growth in court-based and community-based dispute resolution schemes, ADR has been institutionalised and has grown within Australia and overseas” (2005, 14). In Australia, in particular, the development of ADR service provision “has been assisted by the creation and growth of professional organisations such as the Leading Edge Alternative Dispute Resolvers (LEADR), the Australian Commercial Dispute Centres (ACDC), Australian Disputes Resolution Association (ADRA), Conflict Resolution Network, and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA)” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). The increased emphasis on the use of ADR within education contexts (particularly secondary and tertiary contexts) has “also led to an increasing acceptance and understanding of (ADR) processes” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). Proponents of the mediation process, in particular, argue that much of its success derives from the inherent flexibility and creativity of the agreements reached through the mediation process and that it is a relatively low cost option in many cases (Menkel-Meadow, 1997, 417). It is also accepted that one of the main reasons for the success of mediation can be attributed to the high level of participation by the parties involved and thus creating a sense of ownership of, and commitment to, the terms of the agreement (Boulle, 2005, 65). These characteristics are associated with some of the core values of mediation, particularly as practised in community-based models as found at the DRCs. These core values include voluntary participation, party self-determination and party empowerment (Boulle, 2005, 65). For this reason mediation is argued as being an effective approach to resolving disputes, that creates a lasting resolution of the issues. Evaluation of the mediation process, particularly in the context of the growth of ADR, has been an important aspect of the development of the process (Sourdin, 2008). Writing in 2005 for example, Boulle, states that “although there is a constant refrain for more research into mediation practice, there has been a not insignificant amount of mediation measurement, both in Australia and overseas” (Boulle, 2005, 575). The positive claims of mediation have been supported to a significant degree by evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. A common indicator of the effectiveness of mediation is the settlement rate achieved. High settlement rates for mediated disputes have been found for Australia (Altobelli, 2003) and internationally (Alexander, 2003). Boulle notes that mediation agreement rates claimed by service providers range from 55% to 92% (Boulle, 2005, 590). The annual reports for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General considered prior to the commencement of this study indicated generally achievement of an approximate settlement figure of 86% by the Queensland Dispute Resolution Centres. More recently, the 2008-2009 annual report states that of the 2291 civil dispute mediated in 2007-2008, 86% reached an agreement. Further, of the 2693 civil disputes mediated in 2008-2009, 73% reached an agreement. These results are noted in the report as indicating “the effectiveness of mediation in resolving disputes” and as reflecting “the high level of agreement achieved for voluntary mediations” (Annual Report, 2008-2009, online). Whilst the settlement rates for the DRCs are strong, parties are rarely contacted for long term follow-up to assess whether agreements reached during mediation lasted to the satisfaction of each party. It has certainly been the case that the Dispute Resolution Centres of Queensland have not been resourced to conduct long-term follow-up assessments of mediation agreements. As Wade notes, "it is very difficult to compare "success" rates” and whilst “politicians want the comparison studies (they) usually do not want the delay and expense of accurate studies" (1998, 114). To date, therefore, it is fair to say that the efficiency of the mediation process has been evaluated but not necessarily its effectiveness. Rather, the practice at the Queensland DRCs has been to evaluate the quality of mediation service provision and of the practice of the mediation process. This has occurred, for example, through follow-up surveys of parties' satisfaction rates with the mediation service. In most other respects it is fair to say that the Centres have relied on the high settlement rates of the mediation process as a sign of the effectiveness of mediation (Annual Reports 1991 - 2010). Research of the mediation literature conducted for the purpose of this thesis has also indicated that there is little evaluative literature that provides an in-depth analysis and assessment of the longevity of mediated agreements. Instead evaluative studies of mediation tend to assess how mediation is conducted, or compare mediation with other conflict resolution options, or assess the agreement rate of mediations, including parties' levels of satisfaction with the service provision of the dispute resolution service provider (Boulle, 2005, Chapter 16).