A Legal Analysis of Finkelstein, Civil Procedure
Finkelstein’s critique of Australia’s civil justice system, discusses reforms to improve truth-seeking, explores Olijnyk’s aims of civil procedure, and reviews legal strategy in contractual and pre-litigation contexts.
Mason Bennett
Contributor
4.8
59
3 months ago
Preview (1 of 2)
Sign in to access the full document!
Problem 1
a) What does Finkelstein see as the biggest problem with the civil justice system in Australia?
Of his main proposals for reform, which do you think have the most merit?
Finkelstein in "The Adversarial System and the Search for Truth', tells that his biggest
problem with the civil justice system in Australia is that it is not well adapted to arrive at the
truth. Finkelstein poses two main reforms to change Australia's adversarial system to solve
this problem. This includes changes to the court's role and changes in lawyer's
responsibilities to the courts. The reform that I think has the most merit would be to change
the court's role. I think the arguments presented for this reform are attainable and legitimate.
Finkelstein points out that a judge should be aware of their limitations of knowledge and seek
out an active role in understanding the case if needed. With the judge's role being limited in
this matter, this change could be useful. Finkelstein suggests pre-trial examinations by
independent examiners to question witnesses, instead of solely relying on each of the parties
to understand the case. This was an interesting suggestion which I believe could be useful in
some cases, however the selection process would need to be extremely reliable for it to work.
As well, Finkelsteins proposal of independent expert witnesses would promote a fairer
system in Australia as it would give the court its own expert witness to assist in coming to the
truth. Ultimately, I think the proposal of making changes to the court's role is one that has
more merit than the latter, inspiring more efficiency and likelihood.
b) In your opinion, should civil procedure aim at the 'truth' as Finkelstein suggests?
I believe that civil procedure should aim at the 'truth'. I don't know that an ultimate truth can
ever be found in each case, but it is the responsibility of the legal system to try and come
close to it. If it didn't, there would be no hope or trust in it. I don't think there is a point to
legal proceedings at all if it is not aimed for. One party holds the truth or as close to what the
truth is and if civil procedure doesn't aim for it then there is no reward for the party trying to
prove the truth. Nor no highlight of how the other side has manipulated the truth. Due to this,
yes, I believe in my opinion that civil procedure should aim at the truth as Finkelstein
suggests.
c) What does Olijnyk consider the main aims of civil procedure? What are the various 'trade-
offs' that she identifies in these aims?
Olijnyk considers the main aims of civil procedure to be justice and efficiency. The 'trade
offs' identified is the relationship between the objectives of justice for the parties, justice for
the public ('the claims of other litigants') and public efficiency ('efficient use of court
resources'). The 'trade offs' surround the idea of compromising efficeny for justice.
Problem 2
Part A
In this matter, I would first look deeper into the facts that give the client a right to enter
proceedings. I would overview the joint venture agreement and confirm that the faults which
the second company have said are minor and can be seen as maintenance/or servicing under
the responsibility of our client do not align with Australian design rules.
a) What does Finkelstein see as the biggest problem with the civil justice system in Australia?
Of his main proposals for reform, which do you think have the most merit?
Finkelstein in "The Adversarial System and the Search for Truth', tells that his biggest
problem with the civil justice system in Australia is that it is not well adapted to arrive at the
truth. Finkelstein poses two main reforms to change Australia's adversarial system to solve
this problem. This includes changes to the court's role and changes in lawyer's
responsibilities to the courts. The reform that I think has the most merit would be to change
the court's role. I think the arguments presented for this reform are attainable and legitimate.
Finkelstein points out that a judge should be aware of their limitations of knowledge and seek
out an active role in understanding the case if needed. With the judge's role being limited in
this matter, this change could be useful. Finkelstein suggests pre-trial examinations by
independent examiners to question witnesses, instead of solely relying on each of the parties
to understand the case. This was an interesting suggestion which I believe could be useful in
some cases, however the selection process would need to be extremely reliable for it to work.
As well, Finkelsteins proposal of independent expert witnesses would promote a fairer
system in Australia as it would give the court its own expert witness to assist in coming to the
truth. Ultimately, I think the proposal of making changes to the court's role is one that has
more merit than the latter, inspiring more efficiency and likelihood.
b) In your opinion, should civil procedure aim at the 'truth' as Finkelstein suggests?
I believe that civil procedure should aim at the 'truth'. I don't know that an ultimate truth can
ever be found in each case, but it is the responsibility of the legal system to try and come
close to it. If it didn't, there would be no hope or trust in it. I don't think there is a point to
legal proceedings at all if it is not aimed for. One party holds the truth or as close to what the
truth is and if civil procedure doesn't aim for it then there is no reward for the party trying to
prove the truth. Nor no highlight of how the other side has manipulated the truth. Due to this,
yes, I believe in my opinion that civil procedure should aim at the truth as Finkelstein
suggests.
c) What does Olijnyk consider the main aims of civil procedure? What are the various 'trade-
offs' that she identifies in these aims?
Olijnyk considers the main aims of civil procedure to be justice and efficiency. The 'trade
offs' identified is the relationship between the objectives of justice for the parties, justice for
the public ('the claims of other litigants') and public efficiency ('efficient use of court
resources'). The 'trade offs' surround the idea of compromising efficeny for justice.
Problem 2
Part A
In this matter, I would first look deeper into the facts that give the client a right to enter
proceedings. I would overview the joint venture agreement and confirm that the faults which
the second company have said are minor and can be seen as maintenance/or servicing under
the responsibility of our client do not align with Australian design rules.
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%