Australia: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

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 Australian Financial Complaints Authority has published new guidance clarifying how insurers must handle claims, including strict timeframes and expanded compensation rules. Insurers now face potential liability beyond policy limits for unreasonable delays, and may be required to compensate claimants for non-financial losses. With storm season approaching and complaint volumes rising, these changes create significant operational and financial pressure on the insurance industry.

A New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal case examines when an owners corporation can lawfully enter a lot without owner consent to repair common property under emergency provisions. The dispute centered on whether ongoing water leakage constituted an emergency justifying entry, and what damages flow from such access.

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.

When a creditor seeks to make an individual bankrupt through a sequestration order, the process involves strict statutory requirements including judgment thresholds, bankruptcy notices, and court scrutiny. Understanding the procedural steps, potential defects, and strategic alternatives is essential for both creditors pursuing debt recovery and debtors facing insolvency proceedings.

Queensland money judgments do not automatically transfer assets or compel payment, leaving creditors to navigate enforcement procedures tailored to the debtor's actual holdings. Two primary remedies—enforcement warrants for seizure and sale, and charging orders for investment property—offer distinct pathways, each with specific requirements, limitations, and strategic considerations that creditors must weigh before proceeding.

Queensland civil procedure requires defendants to respond to each factual allegation with precision—admissions, denials, or non-admissions must be properly explained, while inadequate responses risk being treated as admissions. Replies serve a distinct and limited purpose, addressing only new matters raised in the defence that could affect the claim's maintainability or introduce unexpected factual questions.

Recent Australian Public Service census data reveals a growing trend in flexible work arrangements, supported by new enterprise agreement provisions. Two landmark Fair Work Commission decisions in Naden and Westpac now provide critical guidance on how employers must handle flexible work requests, highlighting the mandatory requirements and potential consequences of non-compliance that could result in orders granting employee requests even when business grounds exist for refusal.

The High Court of Australia held that India had not waived sovereign immunity in respect of enforcement proceedings by ratifying the New York Convention...

The case provides clear confirmation of the principles applied in determining whether a duty of care exists and establishing negligence.