[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