First, on the question of costs, proportionality is starting to develop in the courts and, in time, it will become a very significant aspect of civil litigation. It may or may not obviate the need for capping of costs; that remains to be seen. The second is the extent of innovation and creativity across the Australian courts, in particular, the Victorian courts. There is an evident responsiveness by jurisdictions to meet problems. In other words, courts are taking the initiative themselves, rather than awaiting reforms driven by the profession or introduced by government. They are also finding opportunities to work collaboratively with government departments to effect important and innovative reform. The theme I note is the responsiveness of the courts on an incremental basis, as distinct from a global or bang’ approach. There is much to be said for that approach as it facilitates the ‘big ongoing commitment and involvement of all those who participate in the administration of civil justice. Again I cite the example of the The Victorian courts would reject any Civil Procedure Act. suggestion of “inertia”. In closing I suggest some forecasts for the future, or topics to be aware of: (1) Tribunal jurisdictions will expand. (2) There will be more class actions. (3) ADR will continue to expand. (4) Judicial control will increase indeed, it is now an expectation. (5) Technology will transform the courts. Case Outcome The conduct of a may be such as to warrant dismissal of Actrol Parts Pty Ltd v Coppi [2015] VSC 758 proceedings rather than an award of nominal damages. (No 3) is warrant’ for giving a restricted meaning to the terms ‘no power’ or order’ under section 28 and 29 of the Act. ‘any ‘any Costs may be awarded against an expert personally where the Hudspeth v Scholastic Act and/or Code of Conduct have been contravened. Cleaning and Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (No 9) [2014] VSC 622 [2015] within the meaning of section 30(2) of the Act Kenny v Gippsreal Ltd ‘Finalisation’ VSC 284 must be its ordinary and natural meaning’, and assessed in a practical, and not technical sense.
First, on the question of costs, proportionality is starting to develop in the courts and, in time, it will become a very significant aspect of civil litigation. It may or may not obviate the need for capping of costs; that remains to be seen. The second is the extent of innovation and creativity across the Australian courts, in particular, the Victorian courts. There is an evident responsiveness by jurisdictions to meet problems. In other words, courts are taking the initiative themselves, rather than awaiting reforms driven by the profession or introduced by government. They are also finding opportunities to work collaboratively with government departments to effect important and innovative reform. The theme I note is the responsiveness of the courts on an incremental basis, as distinct from a global or ‘big bang’ approach. There is much to be said for that approach as it facilitates the ongoing commitment and involvement of all those who participate in the administration of civil justice. Again I cite the example of the Civil Procedure Act. The Victorian courts would reject any suggestion of “inertia”. In closing I suggest some forecasts for the future, or topics to be aware of: (1) Tribunal jurisdictions will expand. (2) There will be more class actions. (3) ADR will continue to expand. (4) Judicial control will increase indeed, it is now an expectation. (5) Technology will transform the courts. Case Outcome Actrol Parts Pty Ltd v Coppi (No 3) [2015] VSC 758 The conduct of a may be such as to warrant dismissal of proceedings rather than an award of nominal damages. is ‘no warrant’ for giving a restricted meaning to the terms ‘any power’ or ‘any order’ under section 28 and 29 of the Act. Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning and Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (No 9) [2014] VSC 622 Costs may be awarded against an expert personally where the Act and/or Code of Conduct have been contravened. Kenny v Gippsreal Ltd [2015] VSC 284 ‘Finalisation’ within the meaning of section 30(2) of the Act must be its ordinary and natural meaning’, and assessed in a practical, and not technical sense.
the+future+of+civil+procedure+innovation+and+inertia.docx