Unadulterated twaddle.
The Legal Services Directions have been around for decades and compliance with them has been monitored and enforced for decades.
Obviously not a fan of the former First Law Officer...oh well!
Maybe if our resident, cynical, self appointed, interpreter of legalese and the 'rule of law' had of bothered to read the former AG's speech he may have seen how seriously unconsidered (notice I didn't use the words 'stupid or ignorant'!) the above comment was:
I’d also like to briefly touch on the obligations introduced last year to the Directions.
These oblige parties to consider means of alternative dispute resolution prior to initiating legal proceedings.
..and here's some more of his 'unadulterated twaddle'
The Legal Services Directions and the Model Litigant Obligation
Although I am sure you are all familiar with these terms – I think it’s important to reflect on what the Legal Services Directions require from Commonwealth agencies as parties to Tribunal proceedings.
And also the underlying values reflected in the model litigant obligation.
The Directions set out, in broad terms – the requirement that the Commonwealth and its agencies are to uphold the highest possible standards of fairness, honesty and integrity – going beyond the required ethical or professional standards of lawyers appearing before a court or tribunal.
Specifically, the model litigant obligation requires that the Commonwealth and its agencies:
- act honestly and fairly;
- deal with claims promptly;
- pay legitimate claims without litigation;
- act consistently in the handling of claims and litigation; and
- consider alternative dispute resolution.
The obligation also requires generally keeping costs to a minimum and not taking advantage of claimants who lack resources to litigate a legitimate claim.
This however does not require the Commonwealth to take a soft approach to legal proceedings. The Commonwealth is able to act firmly and properly to protect its interests.
The obligation also doesn’t prevent the Commonwealth from legitimately seeking to recover its costs where appropriate.
Clearly, holding the Commonwealth and its agencies to a high standard is not a new concept.
Although the model litigant obligation was formally articulated in its current form in 2005 – reference is often made in courts and tribunals to the 1912 case of Melbourne Steamship v Moorhead, where Chief Justice Griffith made the following observation:
I am sometimes inclined to think that in some parts - not all – of the Commonwealth, the old-fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects, which I learned a very long time ago to regard as elementary, is either not known or thought out of date. I should be glad to think that I am mistaken.
[2] Almost a century later, this statement is still relevant to Commonwealth’s obligation to act as a model litigant and participant in AAT proceedings.
The old-fashioned standard of fair play remains.
Even the present First (Law) Officer has introduced a recent amendment to the Legal Services Directions 2005, but I don't think her heart is quite in it or too preoccupied defending 'Slippery Pete'!
aroa said: I have plenty of time ( to waste?) putting in submissions, so I guess I'll give it a go. Might make a small noise on the roof...hopefully?
Yep no time like the present, just think some bureaucrat has to deal with it when it lobs into their 'in tray'...they might say.."not that mad bugger again"...but they still have to process and pass on to the next level of bureaucrats!
