Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

As Group 2 entities commence their first reporting period under Australia's mandatory climate reporting regime, ASIC's early observations highlight key disclosure expectations and areas for caution.

Music festivals are high-energy and chaotic events with thousands of people in attendance – often involving alcohol and illicit drugs. For years, many young people in New South Wales were taken into tents and portable cubicles at music festivals for strip searches, told to remove their clothing, and made to squat, bend or lift body parts while police looked on. This process is obviously extremely demeaning, and forces people into extremely uncomfortable positions at the demand of authorities.

Australian class action risk is no longer shaped primarily by domestic precedent. Overseas litigation, regulatory action and global funding dynamics increasingly operate as leading indicators – setting the direction, timing and form of claims that later emerge in Australia.

When a defendant in Queensland civil litigation wishes to pursue its own claim against the plaintiff, a counterclaim provides the procedural mechanism to do so within the existing proceeding. Understanding the technical requirements for pleading, serving, and answering counterclaims—including joinder of additional parties, limitation periods, and the effect of discontinuance—is essential for both claimants and respondents navigating commercial disputes.

What does it mean for a statement to be defamatory under Queensland law, and how do courts determine whether ordinary reasonable people would interpret a publication as damaging to someone's reputation? This analysis examines the legal test for defamatory meaning, the distinction between reasonable and strained implications, and the additional requirements plaintiffs must satisfy before commencing defamation proceedings.

When a Queensland money order is granted, creditors face critical decisions about which enforcement method will most effectively recover the debt. The choice between redirection warrants, earnings orders, property seizure, or enforcement hearings depends on the debtor's asset profile, liquidity, and the cost-effectiveness of each approach.

As disputes increasingly rely on vast datasets, expert witnesses face mounting pressure to defend not just their conclusions, but the data foundations beneath them. When courts scrutinize data extraction, transformation, and reliability with the same rigor as expert reasoning, can traditional forensic approaches still withstand challenge?

The Harman undertaking, more accurately termed the implied obligation in Australia, automatically restricts how documents and information obtained through compulsory court processes may be used beyond their original proceeding. This obligation binds parties, solicitors, experts, and others who receive such material, covering disclosed documents, interrogatory answers, subpoenaed materials, affidavits and witness statements.

Legal professional privilege shields confidential communications made for obtaining legal advice or litigation purposes, but Queensland's civil procedure rules impose strict disclosure requirements and affidavit obligations when privilege claims are challenged. Expert reports and drafts face particular scrutiny, as they may not qualify for privilege protection under the rules.

The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) has suspended a specialist surgeon’s registration for six months following serious deficiencies in her surgical care, colonoscopy procedures, post-operative management and record-keeping.

Nurses and other healthcare workers who suffer injuries while caring for patients in hospitals, aged care facilities, or other clinical settings often ask whether their employer may be legally responsible for the harm they have suffered.

A New South Wales Supreme Court case examines the challenges of pursuing a medical negligence claim more than 20 years after surgery, where the plaintiff's credibility was severely undermined during 14 days of cross-examination. The judgment addresses critical issues surrounding limitation periods, the requirement for cogent explanations of delay, and the evidentiary burden of establishing disability or incapacity to suspend statutory time limits.