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.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree - the profession

The Australian legal profession, as well as the content and pedagogy of legal education across Australia, are steeped in tradition and conservatism. Indeed, the legal profession and our institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence which leaves the way we teach law resistant to change. There has traditionally been pushback against the notion that dispute resolution should have a place amongst black letter law subjects in the legal curriculum. This paper argues that this position cannot be maintained in the modern legal climate. We challenge legal education orthodoxy and promote NADRAC’s position that alternative dispute resolution should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. We put forward ten simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester long course of DR instruction.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree - the academy

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism. The content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia is similarly steeped in tradition and conservatism. Indeed, the practice of law and our institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of our common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice, and think about the role of law, resistant to change. In this article, we lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists. It is our simple argument that alternative dispute resolution should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. There has been traditional pushback against the notion that alternative dispute resolution should have a place amongst black letter law subjects in the legal curriculum. This position cannot be maintained in the modern day legal climate. We put forward ten simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester long course of ADR instruction. With respect to relationships of mutual influence, whether legal education should assimilate the practise of law, or shape the practise of law makes no difference here. Both views necessitate the inclusion of ADR as a compulsory subject in the law degree.

Settlement outcomes in sexual harassment complaints

This article examines the dispute resolution process of conciliation through a detailed study of Australian workplace sexual harassment complaints. It links two data sets: settlement details of a census of conciliated complaints lodged under all federal, State, and Territory anti-discrimination laws in a six-month period; and interviews undertaken with 71 professionals who have extensive, first-hand experience of conciliation processes in anti-discrimination jurisdictions. The article provides a critique of the effectiveness of conciliation as a form of ADR within the individualised constraints of current anti-discrimination laws.

Relationship between head contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry : a critical review

The interaction between head contractor and subcontractor in modern construction often contributes to the degree of success or failure of any large-scale construction project. In this paper, previous research on the relationship and interaction between head contractor and subcontractor is examined in order to establish how these relationships will affect the overall performance of a project. Based on the review, research questions on how to best manage the interaction and relationship between these two vital project participants are proposed and future research direction discussed.

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.