Clayton Utz

About: Clayton Utz is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Tribunal & High Court. The organization has 41 authors who have published 42 publications receiving 176 citations.

Judicial Restraint and Activism in Administrative Law

Abstract: The history of migration litigation in Australia is discussed, and it is argued that judicial review has had an untoward impact on the administration of the law and the adjudication of disputes in that area. An analysis of immigration litigation is apposite, because a key justification offered in support of an assertive judicial role in that arena is that judicial review can provide a safeguard for the human rights of people who seek sanctuary under Australia's immigration laws.

Litigation Funding in Australia

Abstract: Litigation funding has been argued to be an important development in Australian civil litigation that provides access to justice, allows for the spreading of the risk of complex litigation and can improve the efficiency of litigation by bringing commercial considerations to bear. Since the High Court decision in Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Limited v Fostif Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 386, the Australian litigation funding industry has enjoyed significant growth. However, the operation and proper constraints on litigation funding remains a live issue with concerns that the relatively unregulated nature of the litigation funding market creates the possibility for harm to consumers and the abuse of court processes. This paper reviews the development of litigation funding in Australia and the proposals for its regulation, including the decision in Brookfield Multiplex Limited v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd (2009) 180 FCR 11 where the Full Federal Court found that the litigation funding arrangements under consideration constituted a 'managed investment scheme' that was subject to the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The Push to Reform Class Action Procedure in Australia: Evolution or Revolution?

Abstract: [Class actions were introduced in Australia over 15 years ago and, despite their initially slow uptake, are now well entrenched. In many respects, Australian class action procedure is more ‘plaintiff-friendly’ than its United States counterpart, such that Australia has become the next most likely place after North America where a corporation will find itself defending a class action. However, it has been suggested by commentators that current Australian practice and procedure are hampering the healthy development of class actions, as well as limiting their use, and should thus be reformed. The authors believe that many of the proposed changes run counter to the legislative aims of class action procedure and would remove the remaining safeguards that presently operate to limit the prosecution of claims inappropriately brought in the form of a class action. This article provides a detailed analysis of the most significant proposals for change and why many of them should be rejected.]