Australia: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

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.

Rules 223, 224 and 225 of Queensland's Uniform Civil Procedure Rules give courts significant control over disclosure in civil litigation. When does the ordinary disclosure process require judicial intervention? What evidence must parties provide when documents are missing, and what are the consequences of failing to disclose documents that should have been produced?

This monthly roundup examines five significant NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions from August 2026 that clarify critical aspects of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999, including payment claim validity, procedural fairness in adjudications, and enforcement of judgment debts. The cases address contentious issues such as the 12-month limitation period for payment claims, the relevance of unpaid judgment debts in security for costs applications, and the scope of sec

Recent Personal Injury Commission decisions have established a consistent framework for assessing sleep disorder claims in workers compensation matters, clarifying when insomnia and sleep disturbances qualify as independently assessable neurological impairments. This analysis examines the evolving jurisprudence and its practical implications for insurers defending permanent impairment claims.

Separating parents often ask whether they have a right to equal, week-about care of their children, but Australian family law does not work that way. This article examines when shared care arrangements succeed, how courts now assess applications for equal time following major 2024 reforms, and why no parent can claim a legal entitlement to a 50/50 split.

This monthly roundup examines five significant NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions from August 2026 that clarify critical aspects of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999, including payment claim validity, procedural fairness in adjudications, and enforcement of judgment debts. The cases address contentious issues such as the 12-month limitation period for payment claims, the relevance of unpaid judgment debts in security for costs applications, and the scope of sec

Recent Personal Injury Commission decisions have established a consistent framework for assessing sleep disorder claims in workers compensation matters, clarifying when insomnia and sleep disturbances qualify as independently assessable neurological impairments. This analysis examines the evolving jurisprudence and its practical implications for insurers defending permanent impairment claims.

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.

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.