Of remedies, access to justice, the enforcement of private law and judicial efficiency: the need for a damages claims grouping procedure in all Australian jurisdictions

Article


Mayanja, James. 2016. "Of remedies, access to justice, the enforcement of private law and judicial efficiency: the need for a damages claims grouping procedure in all Australian jurisdictions." Australian Bar Review. 43, pp. 347-362.
Article Title

Of remedies, access to justice, the enforcement of private law and judicial efficiency: the need for a damages claims grouping procedure in all Australian jurisdictions

ERA Journal ID37154
Article CategoryArticle
Authors
AuthorMayanja, James
Journal TitleAustralian Bar Review
Journal Citation43, pp. 347-362
Number of Pages16
Year2016
Place of PublicationAustralia
ISSN0814-8589
Abstract

The class action procedure plays an essential role in protecting the rights of numerous persons with claims involving common questions of fact or law or both. It facilitates the determination of the rights of many similarly situated individuals in a single proceeding. In so doing, it significantly lowers the cost of litigation. This has the potential to assist individuals who, because of the cost of legal services, would not be able to take action individually to vindicate the violation of their rights, to do so. Further, by enabling individuals to engage in litigation, it serves to promote greater enforcement of private law. As well, to the extent it facilitates the resolution by the courts of the claims of numerous persons who share a common legal position in one lawsuit, it achieves economies of time, effort and expense. This serves to promote judicial efficiency. It also assists to achieve uniformity of adjudication. Clearly, these are matters of significant public importance. Unfortunately, this procedure is, presently, not available in all Australian jurisdictions to several similarly situated persons seeking the remedy of damages. In light of the important role that the class action procedure can play in promoting the interests of numerous individuals with common claims for damages and society in general, it is highly desirable that all Australian jurisdictions reform their laws to introduce an improved claims grouping procedure. This paper explores ways in which the law can be reformed achieve this objective.

Keywordsaccess to justice; class actions; cost of litigation; enforcement of private rights; judicial efficiency; remedies
ANZSRC Field of Research 2020480502. Civil procedure
Public Notes

Files associated with this item cannot be displayed due to copyright restrictions.

Byline AffiliationsSchool of Law and Justice
Institution of OriginUniversity of Southern Queensland
Permalink -

https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q3y78/of-remedies-access-to-justice-the-enforcement-of-private-law-and-judicial-efficiency-the-need-for-a-damages-claims-grouping-procedure-in-all-australian-jurisdictions

  • 1391
    total views
  • 8
    total downloads
  • 0
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

Clarifying the object of directors’ endeavours: what Australia can learn from the United Kingdom
Mayanja, James. 2014. "Clarifying the object of directors’ endeavours: what Australia can learn from the United Kingdom." University of New South Wales Law Journal. 37 (3), pp. 874-913.
Why prohibiting creeping takeovers would not be such a good idea
Mayanja, James. 2014. "Why prohibiting creeping takeovers would not be such a good idea." Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 29 (3), pp. 322-341.
Restricting foreign acquisitions of Australian enterprises: who benefits?
Mayanja, James. 2012. "Restricting foreign acquisitions of Australian enterprises: who benefits?" Australian Business Law Review. 40 (6), pp. 398-409.
Understanding company law by P Lipton and A Herzberg
Mayanja, James. 2002. "Understanding company law by P Lipton and A Herzberg." Insolvency Law Journal. 10, p. 75.
Enhancing private enforcement of Australia's corporate continuous disclosure regime: why unshackling litigation funders makes eminent sense
Mayanja, James. 2010. "Enhancing private enforcement of Australia's corporate continuous disclosure regime: why unshackling litigation funders makes eminent sense." Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 25 (1), pp. 48-69.
The proper role of shareholders in the decision-making processes of modern large Australian public companies
Mayanja, James. 2009. "The proper role of shareholders in the decision-making processes of modern large Australian public companies." Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 24 (1), pp. 9-32.
Promoting enhanced enforcement of directors' fiduciary obligations: the promise of public law sanctions
Mayanja, James. 2007. "Promoting enhanced enforcement of directors' fiduciary obligations: the promise of public law sanctions." Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 20 (2), pp. 157-182.
Reforming Australia's takeover defence laws: what role for target directors? A reply and extension
Mayanja, James. 1999. "Reforming Australia's takeover defence laws: what role for target directors? A reply and extension." Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 10 (2), pp. 162-191.
Directors' duties, business judgment & takeover defences: agenda for reform
Mayanja, James. 1997. "Directors' duties, business judgment & takeover defences: agenda for reform." Corporate and Business Law Journal. 10 (1), pp. 39-67.
Takeover control under the Trade Practices Act: Towards a more efficient and competitive corporate Australia
Mayanja, James. 1998. "Takeover control under the Trade Practices Act: Towards a more efficient and competitive corporate Australia." Trade Practices Law Journal. 6 (1), pp. 33-45.
Enforcing the director's statutory duty to act honestly
Mayanja, James. 1997. "Enforcing the director's statutory duty to act honestly." Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 7 (2), pp. 268-274.
The equal opportunity principle in Australian takeover law and practice: time for review?
Mayanja, James. 2000. "The equal opportunity principle in Australian takeover law and practice: time for review?" Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 12 (1), pp. 1-19.
No-shop, no-talk and break-up fee agreements in merger and takeover transactions: the case for a fresh regulatory approach
Mayanja, James. 2002. "No-shop, no-talk and break-up fee agreements in merger and takeover transactions: the case for a fresh regulatory approach." Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 14 (1), pp. 1-25.
A mandatory bid rule for Australia: an idea whose time has come
Mayanja, James. 2004. "A mandatory bid rule for Australia: an idea whose time has come." Australian Journal of Corporate Law. 16 (3), pp. 205-227.