Misplaced Pages

Aon v Australian National University: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:04, 16 December 2024 editMaxnaCarta (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,599 edits fixTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 00:04, 16 December 2024 edit undoMaxnaCarta (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,599 edits xTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:


'''''Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University ''(2009) 239 CLR 175''''''' (''Aon v ANU'') is a decision by the ] that redefined the principles for requests made to a court during a case to resolve procedural or temporary issues for changing the formal written documents outliuning the claims or defence of each party in a case, known as pleadings. '''''Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University''''' '''(2009) 239 CLR 175'''
(''Aon v ANU'') is a decision by the ] that redefined the principles for requests made to a court during a case to resolve procedural or temporary issues for changing the formal written documents outliuning the claims or defence of each party in a case, known as pleadings.


== Background == == Background ==

Revision as of 00:04, 16 December 2024

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175



(Aon v ANU) is a decision by the High Court of Australia that redefined the principles for requests made to a court during a case to resolve procedural or temporary issues for changing the formal written documents outliuning the claims or defence of each party in a case, known as pleadings.

Background

Legal context

The High Court had in its earlier decision of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd decided that when one party in a legal dispute wanted to change their formal written arguments (called pleadings), the most important thing was to ensure fairness between the parties involved. The High Court ruled such changes should mostly be permitted provided they helped the case to reach the correct outcome, provided the other side was compensated for inconvenience through the payment of their costs. This approach mostly disregarded any concerns about how such changes could delay a case or affect the court system more generally. It meant parties could usually delay in making changes, resulting in significant delays and higher costs. Courts did not have the power to reject most requests, despite the potential for disruption or waste of court time.


References

  1. Lyons, Alicia (2010). "Recasting the landscape of interlocutory applications: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University" (PDF). Sydney Law Review. 10: 550–551 – via Austlii.