|
||||
|
||||
Defining Civil Disputes: Lessons from Two JurisdictionsElizabeth G. ThornburgSouthern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law Camille CameronMelbourne 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 Abstract: 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 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: November 29, 2011 ; Last revised: March 21, 2012Suggested Citation |
|
||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.313 seconds