[LINK] Re: MEGA-LITIGATION
Marghanita da Cruz
marghanita at ramin.com.au
Fri Aug 3 11:44:39 AEST 2007
something seems at odds between this article and the summing up in the C7
litigation below...
> THE cost of business litigation is about to fall by millions of dollars as a result of rule changes by two of the nation's top commercial courts.
>
> The changes have been triggered by widespread discontent in the judiciary at the excessive cost of commercial litigation.
>
> It reached a crescendo with the massive C7 litigation in the Federal Court, which is estimated to have cost $200 million while generating 75,000 documents.
>
> The Federal Court and the NSW Supreme Court aim to put an end to the cost blow-outs by switching some of the most expensive litigation processes to computer technology.
<http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,,22141762-24169,00.html?from=public_rss>
Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
>> 1. THE DISPUTE
>>
>> 1 The heart of the dispute in this case is the complaint by ?Seven?
>> (as I call the Applicants) that in May 2002 it was forced to shut down
>> the business of C7 Pty Ltd (?C7?), a producer and distributor of
>> sports channels for Australian pay television platforms. Seven says
>> that the closure of C7?s business was forced on it because some of the
>> Respondents, notably the News, PBL and Telstra parties and their
>> associated corporations, engaged in anti-competitive conduct in
>> contravention of ss 45 and 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
>> (?Trade Practices Act?), during the period from 1999 to 2001.
>>
>> 2. MEGA-LITIGATION
>>
>> 2 The case is an example of what is best described as
>> ?mega-litigation?. By that expression, I mean civil litigation,
>> usually involving multiple and separately represented parties, that
>> consumes many months of court time and generates vast quantities of
>> documentation in paper or electronic form. An invariable
>> characteristic of mega-litigation is that it imposes a very large
>> burden, not only on the parties, but on the court system and, through
>> that system, the community.
>>
>> 3 Before briefly explaining the issues in the case and the outcome, I
>> wish to record some of the features of this particular example of
>> mega-litigation.
>>
>> 4 The trial lasted for 120 hearing days and took place in an
>> electronic courtroom. Electronic trials have many advantages, but
>> reducing the amount of documentation produced or relied on by the
>> parties is not one of them. The outcome of the processes of discovery
>> and production of documents in this case was an electronic database
>> containing 85,653 documents, comprising 589,392 pages. Ultimately,
>> 12,849 ?documents?, comprising 115,586 pages, were admitted into
>> evidence. The Exhibit List would have been very much longer had I not
>> rejected the tender of substantial categories of documents that the
>> parties, particularly Seven, wished to have in evidence.
>>
>> 5 Quite apart from the evidence, the volume of written submissions
>> filed by the parties was truly astonishing. Seven produced 1,556 pages
>> of written Closing Submissions in Chief and 812 pages of Reply
>> Submissions (not counting confidential portions of certain chapters
>> and one electronic attachment containing spreadsheets which apparently
>> runs for 8,900 or so pages). The Respondents managed to generate some
>> 2,594 pages of written Closing Submissions between them. The parties?
>> Closing Submissions were supplemented by yet further outlines, notes
>> and summaries.
>
> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2007/1062.html#_Ref172619744>
>
--
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: 0414 869202
More information about the Link
mailing list