Pleading - self-incrimination and penalty privileges

In Anderson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] QCA 301 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of the primary judge (ASIC v Managed Investments Ltd No 3 [2012] QSC 74. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the defendants’ non-compliance with the pleading rules in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) was justified by the claims to privilege against self-incrimination or exposure to a penalty.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - request for information

In Angus v Conelius [2007] QCA 190 the Queensland Court of Appeal concluded that the obligations under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), and in particular s 45 of the Act (duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer), continue beyond the commencement of court proceedings

Evaluating consent and legitimacy amongst shifting community norms : an EVE Online case study

The legitimate resolution of disputes in online environments requires a complex understanding of the social norms of the community. The conventional legal approach to resolving disputes through literal interpretation of the contractual terms of service is highly problematic because it does not take into account potential conflict with community expectations. In this paper we examine the importance of consent to community governance and argue that a purely formal evaluation of consent is insufficient to legitimately resolve disputes. As online communities continue to grow in importance to the lives of their participants, the importance of resolving disputes legitimately, with reference to the consent of the community, will also continue to grow. Real consent, however, is difficult to identify. We present a case study of botting and real money trading in EVE Online that highlights the dynamic interaction of community norms and private governance processes. Through this case study, we argue that the major challenge facing regulators of online environments is that community norms are complex, contested, and continuously evolving. Developing legitimate regulatory frameworks then depends on the ability of regulators to create efficient and acceptable modes of dispute resolution that can take into account (and acceptably resolve) the tension between formal contractual rules and complex and conflicting community understandings of acceptable behaviour.

The "new advocacy" and the ermergence of lawyer representatives in ADR

This article traces the emergence of “the new advocacy” role for lawyers, that of “dispute resolution advocacy”, describing the role of legal practitioners when representing clients in negotiation, mediation and conciliation processes. The dispute resolution models they may encounter and the different types of assistance that lawyers can provide to their clients in such contexts will be discussed. Whether “dispute resolution advocacy” falls under the umbrella of “non-adversarial practice” or is a separate and distinct role will also be explored, in light of the professional obligations of lawyer representatives, particularly the duty of loyalty to their clients.

Mediation ethics in Australia : a case for rethinking the foundational paradigm

In contemporary Western society, including Australia, professional mediation practice has developed with a specifically defined foundational approach - a problem-solving, facilitative method, in which the mediator's intervention is centred on providing the parties with a series of formal steps to assist their communication and to steer them towards a self-determined and mutually agreeable resolution of the issues in dispute. Facilitative mediation developed, in part, as a response to the adversarial system of law and justice. In that system the parties are said to lose control of their dispute, and a decision is imposed on them which invariably puts one party in a losing position. Facilitative mediation has offered an alternative to this inevitable outcome by offering the parties a democratic, cost-effective, party-centred, empowering, interests-based and principled option for resolving their dispute.

Open for Inspection? Julstar Pty Ltd v Lynch Morgan Lawyers [2012] QDC 272

In Julstar Pty Ltd v Lynch Morgan Lawyers [2012] QDC 272 Dorney QC DCJ considered whether an applicant for an assessment of all or part of their costs under s 335 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (LPA) must provide grounds on which they dispute the amount of the costs charged or their liability to pay them. His Honour also made an order for inspection of the solicitor’s file, despite a claimed lien for unpaid fees.

Settlement offers on appeal : when might costs be awarded on the indemnity basis?

In Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 89 the respondent had offered to settle the appeal, purporting to make the offer under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). Differing views were expressed in the Court of Appeal regarding the impact in the circumstances of the offer to settle, with the majority concluding that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

Plain facts about pleading : how to work with r 166

The decision of Durward SC DCJ in OSM Group Pty Ltd v Holden [2013] QDC 151 involves a useful consideration of the requirements relating to the pleading of denials and non-admissions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). In particular, the decision examines the extent of the obligations when pleading in response to allegations of law, or of mixed fact and law.

Offer to settle in an originating application : is it an offer under the UCPR?

Sheryl Jackson looks at the decision of Justice McMeekin in Northbound Property Group Pty Ltd v Carosi (No.2) [2013] QSC 189.

A clear view of costs ‘of and incidental to’ : Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271

In Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271 Jackson J provided considered analysis of several aspects of costs law. His Honour regarded various orders which are commonly sought or made as reflecting practice that is inappropriate or unnecessary under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

When two wrongs don't make it proportionate.

In Hobbs Haulage Pty Ltd v Zupps Southside Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 319 Jackson J considered the application of the concurrent liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

Statute bar remains firm

In Hall v Don Faulkner Motors Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 331 Mullins j considered some significant questions relating to the construction of s11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) as that provision relates to dependency claims.

What further benefit, if any, might Australia get from the ALI-III Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases?

In 2006, the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) established a Transnational Insolvency Project and appointed Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (Netherlands) as Joint Reporters. The objective was to investigate whether the essential provisions of the ALI Principles of Cooperation among the NAFTA Countries (ALI-NAFTA Principles) and the annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases (ALI-NAFTA Guidelines) may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. In 2012, Professor Fletcher and Professor Wessels presented the report Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“ALI-III Report”) to the Annual Meetings of the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute. In 2013, the Australian Academy of Law (AAL) provided support to the authors to undertake research on the possible benefits for Australia of courts and insolvency administrators of referring to the ALI-III Report when addressing international insolvency cases. This AAL project was at the request of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. This research Report compares the Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases with the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 and the UNCITRAL Model Law as it has been adopted and has force of law in Australia. Further, it examines the Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases in light of Australian cross-border insolvency and procedural law. Finally, it makes brief reference to and commentary on the Global Rules on Conflict–of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases annexed to the ALI-III Report from the perspective of Australian choice of law rules.

Analysis of construction dispute review boards

The construction industry has long been burdened with inherent adversarial relationships among the parties and the resulting disputes. Dispute review boards (DRBs) have emerged as alternatives to settle construction-related disputes outside courts. Although DRBs have found support in some quarters of the construction industry, the quantitative assessment of the impact of DRBs has not been adequately addressed. This paper presents the results of a research project undertaken to assess the impact of DRBs on the construction program of a large-scale highway agency. Three dimensions of DRB impact were assessed: (1) influence on project cost and schedule performance, (2) effectiveness of DRBs in preventing and resolving construction disputes, and (3) costs of DRB implementation. The analyses encompass data from approximately 3,000 projects extending over a 10-year period (2000–2009). Quantitative measures of performance were developed and analyzed for each category. Projects that used DRBs faced reduced costs and schedule growth (6.88 and 12.92%, respectively) when compared to non-DRB projects (11.53 and 28.96%). DRBs were also found to be effective in avoiding and settling disputes; the number of arbitration cases reduced consistently after DRB implementation, and DRBs have a success rate of 97% in settling disputes for which DRBs were used. Moreover, costs of DRBs were found to comprise a relatively small fraction (i.e., approximately 0.3%) of total project budgets. It was concluded that DRBs were effective dispute prevention and resolution alternatives with no significant adverse effects on project performance.

The Australian Nonprofit Sector Legal and Accounting Almanac 2013

INTRODUCTION CASES For a number of years, Professor Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Frances Hannah and Anne Overell have compiled one to two page summaries of cases involving nonprofit organisations and published them on The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Developing Your Organisation (DYO) website.1 You can be alerted of new case summaries as they are posted to the DYO website by subscribing to the ACPNS RSS feed or the ACPNS twitter service.2 There were some very significant cases during 2013, such as Commissioner of Taxation v Cancer & Bowel Research Association (see case notes 2.8.2 and 2.8.11), The Hunger Project case which is under appeal, but could change the face of PBI jurisprudence (see case note 2.8.7) while Home Health Pty Ltd retained the PBI status quo but might have been different if appealed (see case note 2.8.8). For sheer interest there is nothing better in my 30 odd years of reading tax and charity judgements than case involving The Study and Prevention of Psychological Diseases Foundation Incorporated (see case note 2.1.1). It even rivals some of the more bizarre cases from the US jurisdiction of which St Joseph Abbey v Castille (case note 2.10.9) is certainly ‘dead centre’. A set of cases which stand out for attention are those involving New Zealand’s Christchurch Cathedral which anyone with responsibility for heritage-listed buildings should study carefully, for implications in relation to their own circumstances. A number of cases summarised in this Almanac are working their way through the appeals process and care should be taken with their application. In addition, some of the cases are from jurisdictions outside Australia, and readers should exercise caution when considering the implications of these cases for Australian law. LEGISLATION The Almanac includes a review of major statutory amendments during 2013, which are relevant to the nonprofit sector in all Australian jurisdictions. Special thanks must go to Nathan MacDonald and the JusticeConnect team for providing legislative updates for Victoria. SPECIAL ISSUES DURING 2013 A number of legal practitioners have contributed articles on significant legal issues facing nonprofit organisations: charitable trusts giving to government entities (Alice Macdougall); workplace bullying (Tim Longwill); and privacy (James Tan and Nina Brewer). WORLD ROUND-UP Major developments from the UK and Ireland (Kerry O’Halloran), Canada (Peter Broder), New Zealand (Michael Gousmett and Susan Barker) and Jamaica (Frances Hannah) are all summarised in a review of a significant part of the common law charity jurisdictions. WHAT DOES 2014 HOLD The final section moves from looking in the rear view mirror to peering out the front windscreen to discern the reform agenda. The view from the windscreen in 2013 was of considerable reform traffic at the Commonwealth level jostling for a place in the parliamentary agenda. This year is quite different with a smaller number of vehicles ahead, but the potential for significant impact.