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.

Queensland civil procedure requires parties to clarify allegations through Further and Better Particulars when pleadings lack necessary detail. Rule 157 mandates particulars that define issues and prevent trial surprises, while rule 161 permits court applications when voluntary compliance fails. Understanding the distinction between material facts, particulars and evidence determines whether amendment or additional detail resolves pleading deficiencies.

When separated parents make child support payments outside the official system—like paying school fees directly or covering car repayments—do those payments actually count toward their legal obligation? Understanding the difference between non-agency payments and prescribed payments, and proving the intention behind them, can determine whether your contributions are officially recognised or disputed later.

Recent Australian commercial litigation developments explore critical questions around fiduciary duties, trust property tracing, and Barnes v Addy liability. The New South Wales Court of Appeal examines whether sale proceeds from shares obtained through breach of fiduciary duty constitute trust property, and whether government bodies can be held liable for knowing receipt of such proceeds.

Queensland civil procedure requires parties to clarify allegations through Further and Better Particulars when pleadings lack necessary detail. Rule 157 mandates particulars that define issues and prevent trial surprises, while rule 161 permits court applications when voluntary compliance fails. Understanding the distinction between material facts, particulars and evidence determines whether amendment or additional detail resolves pleading deficiencies.

Queensland's procedural rules impose detailed obligations when claiming damages, interest and other relief in civil proceedings. Understanding what must be pleaded, how to connect conduct to loss, and when to provide particulars determines whether a statement of claim will withstand scrutiny or require amendment.

Queensland's special defences operate under strict timing rules that determine whether a plaintiff can recover costs when a defence emerges after litigation begins. Payment tenders made before proceedings and set-offs require specific legal foundations, and courts retain discretion over cost orders when defences crystallise mid-case.

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.