[First filed: August 07, 2009 @ 10:27]
- The presentation and adjudication of the case in the courts below do cause it to merit a place in the precedent books. The reasons for placing it there turn on the numerous examples it affords of how litigation should not be conducted or dealt with. The proceedings reveal a strange alliance. A party which has a duty to assist the court in achieving certain objectives fails to do so. A court which has a duty to achieve those objectives does not achieve them. The torpid languor of one hand washes the drowsy procrastination of the other. Are these phenomena indications of something chronic in the modern state of litigation? Or are they merely acute and atypical breakdowns in an otherwise functional system? Are they signs of a trend, or do they reveal only an anomaly? One hopes for one set of answers. One fears that, in reality, there must be another.
Such is the judgment of all seven Judges of the High Court of Australia on the court system in the ACT.
The Canberra Times has the background. But we should note that the above paragraph was not some mid-judgment aside.
It is the conclusion.
Weekly NewsletterEvery Thursday afternoon, we package up the most-read and trending RiotACT stories of the past seven days and deliver straight to your inbox..
So what should be done?
UPDATED: Vicki Dunne is blaming Simon Corbell for the problems, but is strangely silent on what can be done to improve matters.