Oceania: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Subscribe
Litigation law, mediation law, and arbitrage law thought leadership, articles, podcasts, videos and webinars from expert sources across the legal world. Explore insights covering civil law, class actions, dispute resolution, libel and defamation and more in relation to litigation, mediation and arbitration.
Article
When Are Pleadings Closed In Queensland?
Queensland's Uniform Civil Procedure Rules establish specific triggers for when pleadings close in civil proceedings, with significant implications for disclosure obligations and the scope of evidence parties may present. Understanding whether closure occurs 14 days after defence service or immediately upon reply service determines critical procedural deadlines and shapes the strategic decisions parties must make about responding to new allegations raised in opposing pleadings.
Australia Litigation
SL
Stonegate Legal
Article
No Reasons Required: Supreme Court Reinforces The Limits Of Medical Panel Judicial Review
The Victorian Supreme Court has ruled on the procedural framework governing Medical Panel referrals under the Wrongs Act, addressing whether multiple respondents can separately refer identical medical questions to different panels and whether subsequent panels must reconcile their findings with earlier determinations. The decision in Baressi v Cross Yarra Partnerships & Ors clarifies the independence of Medical Panel assessments and the limited grounds available for judicial review of their determinations.
Australia Litigation
K
Kennedys
See more

Related Country Guides

IA
International Arbitration
CA
Class Actions
EF
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Court Procedure

Article
When Are Pleadings Closed In Queensland?
Queensland's Uniform Civil Procedure Rules establish specific triggers for when pleadings close in civil proceedings, with significant implications for disclosure obligations and the scope of evidence parties may present. Understanding whether closure occurs 14 days after defence service or immediately upon reply service determines critical procedural deadlines and shapes the strategic decisions parties must make about responding to new allegations raised in opposing pleadings.
Australia Litigation
SL
Stonegate Legal
Article
No Reasons Required: Supreme Court Reinforces The Limits Of Medical Panel Judicial Review
The Victorian Supreme Court has ruled on the procedural framework governing Medical Panel referrals under the Wrongs Act, addressing whether multiple respondents can separately refer identical medical questions to different panels and whether subsequent panels must reconcile their findings with earlier determinations. The decision in Baressi v Cross Yarra Partnerships & Ors clarifies the independence of Medical Panel assessments and the limited grounds available for judicial review of their determinations.
Australia Litigation
K
Kennedys
See more

Professional Negligence

Article
Forced Adoption Case Summary: Lamont v The Royal Women’s Hospital (No 3) [2026] VSC 490
A Victorian Supreme Court case examines whether a 16-year-old mother's 1968 consent to adopt her newborn son was obtained through coercion by hospital and social welfare institutions. The court must determine if the adoption process breached duties of care under standards that existed nearly 60 years ago, while the plaintiff argues she was prevented from seeing her baby and pressured into relinquishing parental rights.
Australia Family
CO
Carroll & O'Dea
Article
Finding Of Professional Misconduct Over Administrative Error By “coordinating Doctor” In Voluntary Assisted Dying Process
A Victorian tribunal found a coordinating doctor guilty of professional misconduct after an administrative error in the voluntary assisted dying process led to a patient signing their written declaration without required witnesses present. The case examines the heightened responsibility practitioners face when managing VAD documentation and the disciplinary consequences of failing to ensure strict compliance with procedural safeguards, even when errors are unintentional.
Australia Litigation
CO
Carroll & O'Dea
See more

Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Article
No Reasons Required: Supreme Court Reinforces The Limits Of Medical Panel Judicial Review
The Victorian Supreme Court has ruled on the procedural framework governing Medical Panel referrals under the Wrongs Act, addressing whether multiple respondents can separately refer identical medical questions to different panels and whether subsequent panels must reconcile their findings with earlier determinations. The decision in Baressi v Cross Yarra Partnerships & Ors clarifies the independence of Medical Panel assessments and the limited grounds available for judicial review of their determinations.
Australia Litigation
K
Kennedys
Article
Section 22 PIPA Requests In Queensland Personal Injury Claims: A Strategic Tool For Early Claim Resolution
Queensland's Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 provides respondents with a powerful strategic tool through section 22 requests for information. When properly deployed, these requests can expose weaknesses in causation and credibility, lock claimants into early versions of events, and potentially result in claim withdrawals before significant legal expenses are incurred.
Australia Litigation
GC
Gilchrist Connell
See more

Libel & Defamation

Article
Defamation Pleadings In Queensland
Defamation pleadings in Queensland require precise identification of the publication, the defamatory meaning conveyed, the audience, and the serious reputational harm alleged. The defence must respond directly to each element and plead substantive answers—such as truth or privilege—with supporting facts. Imprecise pleadings can trigger requests for particulars, amendment applications, or early strike-out motions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).
Australia Litigation
SL
Stonegate Legal
Article
Defamatory Meaning And The Ordinary Reasonable Person Test
What does it mean for a statement to be defamatory under Queensland law, and how do courts determine whether ordinary reasonable people would interpret a publication as damaging to someone's reputation? This analysis examines the legal test for defamatory meaning, the distinction between reasonable and strained implications, and the additional requirements plaintiffs must satisfy before commencing defamation proceedings.
Australia Litigation
SL
Stonegate Legal
See more

Latest Videos

See more