Towards Proportionality – The “Quick, Cheap and Just” Balance in Civil Litigation

Tronson, Brenda

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21981-3_9

Towards Proportionality – The “Quick, Cheap and Just” Balance in Civil Litigation

Brenda Tronson⁵

Chapter

1065 Accesses
3 Citations

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 48))

Abstract

Recent decades have seen civil procedure reform in many jurisdictions. The concept of proportionality is a common touchstone in those reforms. However, it is at times difficult to give content to the concept in a manner which makes it a useful tool, and it may be better utilised as an aspiration or global aim. This chapter outlines the history of reforms in Australia and the United Kingdom, describes the current approaches in the two countries and compares the success of each in moving towards proportionality.

Barrister, Level 22 Chambers, Sydney Australia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062; The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2008] WASC 239; (2008) 39 WAR 1; Westport Insurance Corporation v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2011] HCA 37; (2011) 244 CLR 239; finally, litigation between Gina Rinehart and three of her children took up a considerable amount of time in the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal during 2011 to 2014.
2.
See, for example, Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 99. This has recently been considered: Re Felicity [2015] NSWCA 19.
3.
Davies, Geoffrey. 2006. Civil justice reform: Some common problems, some possible solutions. Journal of Judicial Administration 16: 5–17, at 6.
4.
Genn, Hazel. 1997. Understanding civil justice. Current Legal Problems 50: 155–187, at 165–166.
5.
Lord Woolf. 1996. Access to Justice – Final Report. Section I [1].
6.
See, for example, Sourdin, Tania. 1996. Judicial management and alternative dispute resolution process trends. Australian Bar Review 14: 185–213; Wolski, Bobette. 2009. Reform of the civil justice system two decades past – implications for the legal profession and for law teachers. Bond Law Review 21: 192-232.
7.
Lownds at [31].
8.
Sir Rupert Jackson. 2009. Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, 37.
9.
See, for example, Zander, Michael. 2003. Where are we heading with the funding of civil litigation. Civil Justice Quarterly 22: 23–40, see generally, and particularly at 25 where there is a description of practitioners’ views about inconsistency, uncertainty and lack of predictability.
10.
Zuckerman, Adrian. 2013. The revised CPR 3.9: a coded message demanding articulation. Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 123–138, 130.
11.
Zuckerman, Adrian. 2013. The revised CPR 3.9: a coded message demanding articulation. Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 123–138, 134.
12.
Zuckerman, Adrian. 2013. The revised CPR 3.9: a coded message demanding articulation. Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 123–138, 132.
13.
Zuckerman, Adrian. 2013. The revised CPR 3.9: a coded message demanding articulation. Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 123–138, 132–133.
14.
Spigelman, J. J. 2009. Case management in New South Wales . Paper prepared for the judicial delegation from India, Sydney 21 September 2009, at 26-30. Spigelman has also observed that the NSW reforms might be better described as a “need to change … driven by new pressures that have emerged”: Spigelman, J. J. 2007. Access to justice and access to lawyers. Australian Bar Review 29: 136–149, 143.
15.
Aon v ANU at 192 [30] (French CJ).
16.
Queensland v JL Holdings at 154–155 (Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); see also 167 (Kirby J).
17.
See, for example, Aon v ANU at 191 [28] (French CJ); see also 205 [72] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
18.
Aon v ANU at 183 ff [9] ff (French CJ); 210-215 [90]-[103], 217-218 [111]-[114] (see in particular 213 [97]) (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ); see also 222-223 [133] (Heydon J).
19.
Local Court of NSW Practice Note Civ 1 [3.4].
20.
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062 [20].
21.
Although that plainly still takes place, and the only practical consequence for defaulting parties and lawyers can be comments made in reasons for judgment: see, for example, Superior IP International Pty Ltd v Ahearn Fox Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys [2012] FCA 282; see also Superior IP International Pty Ltd v Ahearn Fox Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys (No 2) [2012] FCA 977.
22.
Spigelman AC, The Hon J. J. 2007. Access to justice and access to lawyers. Australian Bar Review 29: 136–149, 145.
23.
Sir Rupert Jackson. 2009. Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, 37.
24.
For a discussion of the philosophy underlying the amendments, see Lord Dyson MR. 2014. The application of the amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules. Civil Justice Quarterly 33: 124–132.
25.
Thomas at [9]–[10].
26.
Thomas at [19]-[20] (references omitted).
27.
Thomas at [22].
28.
Thomas at [13] (reference omitted).
29.
Thomas at [22].
30.
Superior IP International at [9].
31.
Superior IP International at [5].
32.
Superior IP International at [2]–[3].
33.
Superior IP International at [7]–[8].
34.
Yara Australia v Oswal at [2].
35.
Yara Australia v Oswal at [39].
36.
Yara Australia v Oswal at [51]–[52].
37.
Yara Australia v Oswal at [57].
38.
Karam v Clark Toop and Taylor [2014] VSC 104 [26].
39.
Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning & Consultancy Services Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 3 [35]–[36], noting that Warren CJ was in dissent in relation to the appeal.
40.
Al-Shennag v Woodcock [2013] NSWSC 696 [6], [111].
41.
Boscolo v Axciom Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAD 28.
42.
See, for example, the NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Eq 11 “Disclosure in the Equity Division”, which continued a general limitation on discovery “unless it is necessary for the resolution of the real issues in dispute” (at [5]) and imposed a strict bar on discovery before service of evidence (at [4]). There has been a significant amount written on discovery, cost and proportionality: see, for example, Black AC, Hon Michael. 2009. The role of the judge in attacking endemic delays: Some lessons from Fast Track. Journal of Judicial Administration 19: 88–99; Davies, Geoffrey. 2006. Civil justice reform: Some common problems, some possible solutions. Journal of Judicial Administration 16: 5–17; Legg, Michael and Turner, Nicholas. 2011. When discovery and technology meet: The pre-discovery conference. Journal of Judicial Administration 21: 54–70; Ryan, Adrian. 2008. Discovery: The law’s need to adapt to changing times. Journal of Judicial Administration 18: 116–135; Vickery, Hon Justice Peter. 2012. Managing the paper: Taming the Leviathan. Journal of Judicial Administration 22: 51–75. Given the existing literature, this chapter does not deal with discovery and its implications.
43.
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited [2013] HCA 46; (2013) 303 ALR 199, 212 [57].
44.
For a discussion of the philosophy underlying the amendments, see Lord Dyson MR. 2014. The application of the amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules. Civil Justice Quarterly 33: 124–132, 129.
45.
Sime, Stuart. 2014. Sanctions after Mitchell. Civil Justice Quarterly 33: 133–156, 142.
46.
Mitchell at 441 [36]–[37].
47.
Mitchell at 442 [39] (emphasis added).
48.
Mitchell at 443 [43].
49.
Denton at [3].
50.
Denton at [31]–[32].
51.
Denton at [43].
52.
Denton at [85].
53.
Sir Rupert Jackson. 2009. Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Preliminary Report, 27.
54.
Zuckerman, Adrian. 2014. Implementation of mark II overriding objective and CPR 3.9. Civil Justice Quarterly 33: 1–12, 9–10.
55.
Zuckerman, Adrian. 2013. The revised CPR 3.9: a coded message demanding articulation. Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 123–138, 132.
56.
Yara Australia v Oswal at [57].
57.
Zuckerman, Adrian. 2013. The revised CPR 3.9: a coded message demanding articulation. Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 123–138, 125.
58.
See, for example, Condensing Vaporisers Aust Pty Ltd v FDC Construction & Fitout Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 89; (2014) 307 ALR 370, 375 [24]-[26], where the NSW Court of Appeal confirmed that the interpretation of s 101(2)(r)(i) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), which provides that leave to appeal is required in respect of matters where less than $100,000 is in dispute, is informed by questions of proportionality.
59.
Denton at [40].
60.
Zuckerman, Adrian. 2015. The continuing management deficit in the administration of civil justice. Civil Justice Quarterly 34: 1–10, 10.
61.
Summit Navigation at [53]–[54].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Level 22 Chambers, 52 Martin Place, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia
Brenda Tronson

Authors

Brenda Tronson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brenda Tronson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Law Faculty, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Colin B. Picker
The Interdisciplinary Center, The Radzyner School of Law, Herzliya, Israel
Guy Seidman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tronson, B. (2016). Towards Proportionality – The “Quick, Cheap and Just” Balance in Civil Litigation. In: Picker, C., Seidman, G. (eds) The Dynamism of Civil Procedure - Global Trends and Developments. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21981-3_9

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21981-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21980-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21981-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics