The law of evidence in civil cases,

Index remade and enlarged by James M. Henderson. cf. Foreword.

Pace of Civil Litigation in the Queensland Supreme Court

The overriding philosophy of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 in Queensland is to facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of the issues in a civil proceeding at minimum expense. The court is enjoined to apply the rules to avoid undue delay, expense and technicality. Parties impliedly undertake to the court and each other to proceed expeditiously. These rules adopt management theories developed to contain delay and cost in the civil justice system. A survey was designed to determine whether the overriding objective is being achieved in practice. The results indicate a reduction in the time from initiation of a proceeding to termination as compared to a sample of similar cases determined under the repealed Rules of the Supreme Court.

Court-provided trial technology : efficiency and fairness for criminal trials

In Australia, trials conducted as 'electronic trials' have ordinarily run with the assistance of commercial service providers, with the associated costs being borne by the parties. However, an innovative approach has been taken by the courts in Queensland. In October 2007 Queensland became the first Australian jurisdiction to develop its own court-provided technology, to facilitate the conduct of an electronic trial. This technology was first used in the conduct of civil trials. The use of the technology in the civil sphere highlighted its benefits and, more significantly, demonstrated the potential to achieve much greater efficiencies. The Queensland courts have now gone further, using the court-provided technology in the high proffle criminal trial of R v Hargraves, Hargraves and Stoten, in which the three accused were tried for conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth of Australia of about $3.7 million in tax. This paper explains the technology employed in this case and reports on the perspectives of all of the participants in the process. The representatives for all parties involved in this trial acknowledged, without reservation, that the use of the technology at trial produced considerable overall efficiencies and costs savings. The experience in this trial also demonstrates that the benefits of trial technology for the criminal justice process are greater than those for civil litigation. It shows that, when skilfully employed, trial technology presents opportunities to enhance the fairness of trials for accused persons. The paper urges governments, courts and the judiciary in all jurisdictions to continue their efforts to promote change, and to introduce mechanisms to facilitate more broadly a shift from the entrenched paper-based approach to both criminal and civil procedure to one which embraces more broadly the enormous benefits trial technology has to offer.

Uncetainty in claiming damages for defects in property

In Project Management Company No 2 Pty Ltd v Cushway Blackford & Associates Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 102 the appellant sought leave to join its parent company party (Project Management Company No 1) as a plaintiff to the proceedings and to amend its statement of claim. It was argued that the parent company had suffered the loss claimed in the proceedings, rather than the appellant. Rule 69(1)(b)(ii) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) allows a court at any stage of the proceeding to order that ‘a person whose presence before the court would be desirable, just and convenient to enable the court to adjudicate effectually and completely on all matters in dispute connected with the proceeding’ be include as a party. To determine this issue, the Court of Appeal had to review the law relevant to the proceedings – a claim in negligence for pure economic loss, in particular, the principles espoused by the High Court in Bryan v Maloney(1995) 182 CLR 609 and Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515.

District Court debt decisions

This article examines the distinction between a "liquidated demand" and a claim for "unliquidated damages" and the implications of that distinction on the procedure for obtaining a judgment if the defendant fails to file a notice of intention to defend.

A nod to consent : in step with the UCPR

This article considers the decision of Robin DCJ in CTP Manager Limited v Ascent Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 74 and the likely impact of the decision on the practice in the court registries in similar circumstances.

Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd

In Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd [2011] QSC 183 Applegarth J considered complaints made by the defendant about the approach the plaintiff had taken in its endeavour to comply with its disclosure obligation under r 211 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The judgment also provides an indication of the direction the court is taking in relation to disclosure and document management in matters involving large numbers of documents.

Default judgment set aside without costs

A recent District Court case is believed to be the first in Queensland in which UCPR r 5 has been used to support the setting aside of a regularly entered default judgment without a costs order.

Non-party disclosure - UCPR r 242(2)

In TSPD Pty Ltd v Resortrez Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 001 Fryberg J made an order permitting the applicant to inspect and copy documents which had been produced to the court under a subpoena, but had remained in the registry. Though not essential to the decision the judgment contains some interesting discussion about the construction of r 242 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

UCPR rule 687 - exercise of discretion to fix costs - applicable principles

Although the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) have always included a power for the court to order a party to pay an amount for costs to be fixed by the court, until recently the power was rarely used in the higher courts. In light of recent practice directions, and the changes to the procedures for assessment of costs contained in the new Chapter 17A of the UCPR, this is no longer the case. The judgment of Mullins J in ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 9 provides some helpful guidance for practitioners about the principles which might be applied.

Take care with 'care and consideration', and keep an eye on fees for reasons

In Southwell v Jackson [2012] QDC 65, McGill DCJ examined a number of rules in Chapter 17A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) dealing with costs assessment as well as relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). This article looks at issues of general principle raised by the decision.

Full circle on costs

This article considers the implications of the decision in Paroz v Clifford Gouldson Lawyers [2012] QDC 151, which examined provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) dealing with costs disclosure and assessment, and also considered associated provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Costs - UCPR rr 681 and 684

In BHP Coal Pty Ltd v K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64 McMurdo J considered the circumstances in which the ordinary rule under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) that costs should follow the event should be departed from in favour of a party who was unsuccessful overall, but who succeeded on particular questions. When the court is satisfied that a departure from the usual order under r 681 of the UCPR is justified, it appears increasingly willing to exercise the power in r 684(2) to declare what percentage of costs was applicable to a particular issue

UCPR 229 - defamation proceedings – damages to be assessed – application to interrogate as to defendant’s motive - implications of Defamation ACT 2005 - application to interrogate before action - when in the interests of justice

In Hogan v Ellery [2009] QDC 154 McGill DCJ considered two applications for leave to deliver interrogatories under r 229 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The judgment provides useful analysis of the circumstances in which a plaintiff may obtain leave to deliver interrogatories to a defendant in defamation proceedings, and also to a non-party before action.