Hamish mcnair norton rose

Details and instructions on how to disable those cookies are set out at nortonrosefulbright. By continuing to use this website you agree to our use of our cookies unless you have disabled them.

People search. Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors. To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq. Section 4 of the CDR Act provides guidance as to the kinds of steps which will satisfy the obligations imposed by the legislation and includes the following: notifying a prospective defendant s or cross-defendant s and offering to discuss how resolution of the dispute can be achieved; responding appropriately to a notification of intention to file proceedings received from another party; attempting to negotiate with the other party with a view to resolving some or all the issues in dispute, or authorising a representative to do so; and providing documentation to another party to help inform them about the dispute or facilitate a resolution.

Hamish McNair. Apprehension of judicial bias O'Sullivan Davies Lawyers. The High Court of Australia recently handed down an important decision on the issue of apprehension of judicial bias. Expert perspective into the use of concurrent evidence KordaMentha. Key themes arising from survey results - from an expert's perspective into the use of concurrent evidence in Australia.

Both Courts have the power to deal with family law matters, despite each operating under a different set of rules. The case relates to historical child abuse, when the plaintiff was in both Catholic and State institutional care in NSW.

If the injuries were sustained as a result of "child abuse", Part 2A of the Civil Liability Act no longer applies. Sign Up for our free News Alerts - All the latest articles on your chosen topics condensed into a free bi-weekly email.

Register For News Alerts. While the benefits of ADR processes over litigation can almost be considered a given in recent times, empirical data is notoriously difficult to come by. The Gillard Government is keenly aware of the efficiencies which can be attained through increased use of ADR, with the former Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland, leading a whole of Government shift away from litigation and towards actively and effectively engaging with disputes early and in a strategic way.

At the centre of the Attorney-General's policy in this area is the foreshadowed requirement for all Australian Government agencies to develop and regularly review "dispute management plans" which will set strategies for agencies to respond to, assess and resolve disputes in a timely and cost effective manner using ADR.

Critical to the successful development and implementation of these plans is an in-depth understanding of the kinds of disputes that commonly affect a particular agency and how they originate. An effective dispute management plan will involve more than just lawyers within an agency, with staff in line areas uniquely placed to identify disputes before they develop into costly battles. To support operational staff in this endeavour, it is important that they receive adequate training to foster awareness of common warning signs and how best to address them.

Communication of identified disputes to senior management is also important in order to address each dispute in the most appropriate way and regular monitoring of such reports will be key to ensure potential disputes are identified early. Systematic processes to ask staff whether they are aware of any disputes, or the seeds of dispute, are a useful way of encouraging this form of upward information flow. As demonstrated in the UK, an increased awareness and use of ADR as a form of dispute management in Australian Government agencies will likely lead to considerable cost savings for individual agencies and the Government as a whole.

Through the development and implementation of effective dispute management plans, dispute management is an area which can be targeted for cost savings to assist agencies in meeting the constraints of the increased efficiency dividend. The resulting savings to the Australian taxpayer in addition to the various non-financial benefits of ADR are important reasons why targeted dispute management plans ought to be developed carefully and implemented across agencies.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. All Rights Reserved. Password Passwords are Case Sensitive. Forgot your password? Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles one-article limit removed from the diverse perspectives of 5, leading law, accountancy and advisory firms. We need this to enable us to match you with other users from the same organisation.

It is also part of the information that we share to our content providers "Contributors" who contribute Content for free for your use. Learn More Accept. This decision further serves as a reminder that Australian Government Agencies and their internal and external legal representatives must act as model litigants at all times, including where it is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the Agency to do so.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. All Rights Reserved. Password Passwords are Case Sensitive. Forgot your password? Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles one-article limit removed from the diverse perspectives of 5, leading law, accountancy and advisory firms.

We need this to enable us to match you with other users from the same organisation. It is also part of the information that we share to our content providers "Contributors" who contribute Content for free for your use.

Learn More Accept. Government, Public Sector. Australia: 'Moral Exemplars': The model litigant's duty to tell the full story. Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors. To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq. The decision at first instance The Applicant subsequently brought an action in the Federal Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal to dismiss the application on the basis that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the responsive content of the Schokker Affidavit.

Full Court Hearing The Applicant appealed from the decision of Gilmour J on the basis that his Honour had erred in finding that the Schokker Affidavit was taken into account by the Tribunal in making its decision. Model Litigant Obligations The Full Court stated that "being a model litigant requires the Commonwealth and its agencies, as parties to litigation, to act with complete proprietary, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards" [at 42].

Consequences This decision of the Full Federal Court highlights the critical importance of Australian Government Agencies to act as model litigants to ensure that its interactions with private litigants are fair and transparent.