Defining Civil Disputes: Lessons from Two Jurisdictions
Elizabeth G. Thornburg
Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law
Melbourne Law School
November 28, 2011
Melbourne Univeristy Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2011
U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 567
SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 94
Court systems have adopted a variety of mechanisms to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite litigation. This article analyses the largely unsuccessful attempts in two jurisdictions - the United States and Australia - to achieve early and efficient issue identification in civil disputes. Procedures that rely on pleadings to provide focus have failed for centuries, from the common (English) origins of these two systems to their divergent modern paths. Case management practices that are developing in the United States and Australia offer greater promise in the continuing quest for early, efficient dispute definition. Based on a historical and contemporary comparative analysis of the approach to pleadings in the United States and Australia, this article recommends that courts should rethink the function of pleadings, alter litigation incentives, and refine case management practices. This will lead to earlier issue identification, better framing of the discovery process, and a more efficient litigation process.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 29
Keywords: United States, Australia, civil disputes, litigation
JEL Classification: K19, K39
Date posted: November 29, 2011 ; Last revised: March 21, 2012
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.203 seconds