Skip to content
Solved Assignments

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.

Preview 1 of 2 pages

See the first page exactly as it appears in the document.

  1. Page 1
    Read page 1 as text

    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.

1 more page in the full document

Unlock it once and it stays in your library, ready to chat with or turn into flashcards.

Unlock the full document

More Civil Law study materials

See all

Study this document with CramX

Once it is in your library, every tool can work from it.