ByLawyers News and Updates

Generative AI – NSW

by

Practice Note SC GEN 23 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence and the associated Judicial Guidelines concerning the use of generative AI in documents that are put before the court apply to all matters in the Supreme Court from 3 February 2025.

The same provisions apply from the same date in the District Court by virtue of a new District Court General Practice Note 2 Generative AI Practice Note and Judicial Guidelines, which adopts the Supreme Court’s practice note and guidelines.

The key provisions of the practice note are:

  • Legal practitioners should be aware of the limits, risks, and shortcomings of any particular generative AI program they use, including the scope for hallucinations.
  • It is impermissible, without the leave of the court, to enter into any generative AI program information to which the implied undertaking, also called the Harman undertaking, applies, such as another party’s affidavits or material produced under subpoena, unless the legal practitioner or person with responsibility for the file is satisfied that the information will remain confidential, will only be used in connection with the proceedings, and will not be used to train the AI program.
  • AI must not be used in generating the content of affidavits, witness statements, character references, or other material intended to reflect a deponent or witness’ evidence or opinion, or any other material tendered in evidence or used in cross-examination.
  • If generative AI has been used in the preparation of written submissions, summaries, or arguments the author must verify in the document that all citations, legal and academic authority, and case law and legislative references exist, are accurate, and are relevant to the proceedings.
  • Affidavits, witness statements, and character references must contain a statement that AI was not used in generating their content.
  • Generative AI must not be used to draft or prepare the content of an expert report, without the prior leave of the court, and parties must bring that requirement to the expert’s attention.
  • There is a procedure for parties to seek leave if an expert proposes to use generative AI for their report, and also imposes disclosure and record-keeping obligations on the expert if leave is granted and AI is used for the report.

The Judicial Guidelines apply to all courts in New South Wales.

The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules have also been amended from 3 February 2025 to reflect these changes.

The following rules have been amended:

  • Rule 31.4: Court may direct party to furnish witness statement
  • Rule 31.27: Experts’ reports
  • Rule 51.12: Party to file and serve White Folder with summons seeking leave
  • Rule 51.13: Opposing party to file a response
  • Rule 51.36: Content of written submissions
  • Rule 51.45: Proceedings in supervisory jurisdiction
  • Rule 59.8: Procedure—Court Book, defendant’s argument and plaintiff’s argument in reply
  • Schedule 7: Expert witness code of conduct

The following new rules have been created:

  • Rule 35.3B: Use of generative artificial intelligence in affidavits
  • Dictionary: Definition of generative artificial intelligence

These amendments to the rules regulate the use of generative AI for:

  • affidavits, witness statements and other evidentiary material;
  • written submissions and summaries of argument; and
  • experts’ reports.

The commentary and precedents in By Lawyers Supreme Court (NSW) and District Court (NSW) guides have been updated in line with these new rules and practice directions. This includes links to the practice notes, and precedents such as letters instructing expert witnesses and clauses for affidavits.

The commentary in By Lawyers Local Court Civil (NSW) guide has been updated in line with the new rules.

Relevant precedents have also been added to the NSW Injuries publications: Personal Injury, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Workers Compensation, and Family Provision Claims.

The Implied undertaking section in By Lawyers 101 Subpoena Answers, available in the Reference Materials folder on all litigation matter plans, has also been updated.

New UCPR Forms 40 and 163 that contain the required disclosure notice that generative AI was not used are also being added to the relevant matter plans.

Costs Court – VIC

by

Changes to the way costs are calculated in the Costs Court have effect from 1 January 2025 following amendments to Order 63 of the Supreme Court Rules, and the Appendix that deals with costs.

The new scale of costs is based principally on time costing, whereas the previous scale was based principally on items of legal work or particular services.

If a client has been charged on the basis of hourly rates for work done, Section 1 of the scale applies and provides that the costs payable to the entitled party are to be allowed on the basis of reasonable hourly rates, up to the maximum hourly rate set out in the scale. There are three tiers of maximum rates according to a practitioner’s years of post-admission experience. There are no minimum rates.

The scale also sets out maximum hourly rates for work done by employees of a law practice who are not legal practitioners. The maximum rates for those employees depend on whether their work required legal skill or knowledge.

The maximum hourly rates are not an endorsement by the Court that those rates are reasonable in every case, or even in most cases, nor an invitation for practitioners to charge clients the maximum hourly rate and then claim that rate as between the parties.

All claims in the Costs Court must be reasonable. In setting rates to be charged to clients, and in making costs claims, practitioners must bear in mind their overarching obligation to ensure that costs are reasonable and proportionate: s 24 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

In assessing costs, the Costs Court will determine whether the amount claimed relative to the work performed is reasonable on an item-by-item basis. This means that the same hourly rate will not necessarily be allowed for all time spent or work done by the same individual.  The hourly rate allowed for a lawyer drafting a letter requiring legal skill may be higher than the rate for the same lawyer collating court books.

An application can be made for the Court to allow an increase to the maximum rates if there are special grounds arising out of the nature and importance, difficulty, or urgency of the case. If the matter runs to trial, then the trial judge will usually be best placed to determine such an application.

The time-based model does not mean that a law practice must charge their clients on an hourly basis. The scale provides for the assessment of costs where the entitled party has not been charged on the basis of hourly rates. In such a case, the Costs Court will allow a reasonable amount for the work.

The scale sets out what the court can consider in determining reasonableness for both time-based costing and alternative costing. These include the actual hourly rates charged to the client, the complexity of the matter, the time required, and the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved.

The By Lawyers Supreme Court – Acting for the Plaintiff (VIC) and Supreme Court – Acting for the Defendant publications have been updated accordingly.

Costs – All states

by

By Lawyers 101 Costs Answers reference manual has been extensively reviewed and enhanced.

This comprehensive reference manual is available in the Reference materials folder on all By Lawyers matters plans. The 101 Costs Answers guide is also as part of the By Lawyers Practice Management publication.

Commentary enhancement

An important new section of commentary has been included dealing with disclosure before settlement in litigation matters. Barrister Philippe Doyle Gray, who we are delighted to welcome to the ranks of our authors, covers in detail the requirement under the Legal Profession Uniform Law for clients to receive advice about the cost implications of settlement. Philippe has also made his helpful Settlement Computer available via a link in the By Lawyers commentaries. This automated spreadsheet assists practitioners with the sometimes complicated calculations required to properly give disclosure before settlement, taking into account the various possibilities for the resolution of a matter.

The new section of commentary has been added to the By Lawyers litigation and injuries guides in those states where the Legal Profession Uniform Law applies, namely New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.

New precedents

Two new precedent letters to the client have been added to provide clients with the necessary disclosure before settlement:

  • Letter to client – Costs disclosure before settlement – NSW, VIC and WA;
  • Letter to client – Costs disclosure before settlement – QLD, SA, TAS, ACT and NT.

There is one precedent letter for Legal Profession Uniform Law states and one for the other jurisdictions where costs disclosure before settlement is not mandatory but is nonetheless best practice.

These new letters are available in the If required – Updating costs disclosure and security for costs folder on all By Lawyers matter plans. They are also available on the relevant litigation and injuries matter plans under Going to court.

Costs agreements

By Lawyers extensive suite of costs agreements that comply with the regulatory requirements in each state are currently under review. Keep an eye out for a future News & Updates post when the revised versions are published.

Publication reviews – All states

by

Publication reviews are part of By Lawyers’ commitment to quality and keeping our subscribers up to date with changes in practice and procedure.

Our publication reviews target commentaries, or precedents, or both. The purpose of the reviews is to update and ensure consistency in styles, formatting, hyperlinks, naming protocols and, if necessary, the substantive content.

The results of a review can include new, amended, or deleted commentary, commentary headings, and precedents.

Sometimes the title or location of a precedent will be altered.

Occasionally there are amendments to the sequence of folders, commentary headings, precedents, and hyperlinks on the matter plan.

Any changes applied will be reflected in an amended matter plan.

Practitioners using our guides will not always realise when a publication review has been conducted. However, sometimes the resulting changes will be apparent, and amendments or enhancements might take a moment to get used to.

Lately, our in-house team, in conjunction with our authors in the various jurisdictions around Australia, have been focussed on reviewing the Full Commentaries in the following publications:

Some of these are still a work in progress, so keep an eye out for any changes.

We love to help our subscribers, and we love feedback. If you have any questions or concerns about changes arising from a publication review, do not hesitate to let us know. We are always happy to discuss any change we have made, or consider others. If you can’t find a section of commentary or a precedent, send us an email and we will point you in the right direction.

And, if you like the changes we have made, please take a moment to let us know so we can continue helping you to enjoy practice more.

Our email is: askus@bylawyers.com.au

1 July – All states

by

1 July updates are always a big focus for By Lawyers. Many Commonwealth and state legislative instruments provide for the scheduled indexing of relevant monetary amounts, and adjustments – usually increases – in government fees and charges. These regular updates occur at the start of every financial year and they impact many different areas of law, and therefore numerous By Lawyers publications.

The 1 July updates include court filing fees, lodgment fees for property dealings, land tax thresholds, minimum weekly compensation amounts for Workers Compensation, the cap on damages in defamation claims, and penalty units for fines for various criminal offences and civil penalty provisions.

By Lawyers always monitor and apply these changes for our subscribers. Each year we ensure our publications are amended where necessary to reflect 1 July updates.

We also monitor and update for similar legislative indexing and increases which occur regularly at other times of the year. These include 1 January changes and other specific dates for various areas of law as prescribed by some statutes.

The 1 July updates have been applied this year, or are in the process of being applied as they get released, to the following By Lawyers publications:

Quite separately, there is also new and amending legislation from both Commonwealth and state parliaments that commences on 1 July. Substantive amendments have been made to a number of By Lawyers publications to account for the commencement of such legislation. Please see the various other By Lawyers News & Updates posts dealing with those updates.

By Lawyers is always up to date!

Civil rules – SA

by

The Uniform Civil Rules 2020 have been amended with effect from 1 January 2024. These rules apply to all South Australian courts that deal with civil matters.

Amendments under the Uniform Civil (No 10) Amending Rules 2023 include the following:

Remote appearances

A  substituted r 15.4 allows the court to direct or permit a party or a lawyer to appear by audio or audio-visual link, if the court considers it is justified in the circumstances.

This requires:

  • an application in the prescribed form; or
  • an oral application at a prior hearing; or
  • ticking the remote appearance box on any form filed via the court’s electronic filing system; or
  • sending an email to the chambers of the judicial officer who will hear the matter.

The request must specify why the remote appearance is necessary.

If a request is granted the requesting party must pay any costs involved, and if they are uncontactable after 15 minutes of the appointed time it will be treated as a non-appearance.

An application for a witness to appear by audio link or by audio visual link must be made by an interlocutory application in the prescribed form supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form, or an oral application at a prior hearing.

Setting aside judgement by consent

A new rule 142.13 provides that a default monetary judgment can be set aside and the proceedings discontinued by consent by the parties filing the new form 126A Application and Consent to Set Aside Default Judgment and Discontinuance, provided there is no cross-claim, third party claim, or interested party.

Publication updates

The commentaries and matter plans in the By Lawyers Magistrates Court Civil guides- Acting for the Applicant and Acting for the Respondent have been updated in line with the amended civil rules.

Personal injury lists – VIC

by

The Supreme Court has introduced new procedures for matters in the personal injury lists.

Changes have been made to first directions orders in the four specialist personal injury lists in the Common Law Division with the intention of increasing efficiency, and reducing delays and adjournments.

Personal injury lists

In the Supreme Court, personal injury claims are dealt with in four specialist lists:

  • Personal Injuries List
  • Dust Diseases List
  • Institutional Liability List
  • Civil Circuit List

New forms for consent orders

Parties submitting minutes of proposed consent orders in these lists must now use the revised First Directions forms available on the Court’s website and on the matter plan in the By Lawyers Personal Injury (VIC) publication.

The major changes to the standard orders include:

  • the ability for the parties to agree to extend or abridge, by consent, the time for interlocutory steps before the post-mediation directions hearing, or, in the case of expedited Dust Diseases List matters, the final directions hearing;
  • time for issuing subpoenas and serving supplementary reports and final particulars of special damages;
  • when supplementary medical and expert reports can be served close to trial; and
  • matters about which the court expects to be informed at the post-mediation directions hearing, including expert evidence.

Practice notes

The personal injury lists are each managed subject to their relevant Practice Note being:

First Directions Hearing

After the defence is filed, the court will contact the parties to arrange a First Directions Hearing.

The court expects a practitioner with conduct of the file, or a good working knowledge of it, to appear at all directions hearings.

The parties are encouraged to submit consent orders to avoid an appearance.

Publication updates

The commentary and matter plan in the by Lawyers Personal Injury (VIC) publication has been updated accordingly.

Investigation Notices – SA

by

Investigation Notices have been introduced in South Australian courts as a new mechanism of enforcing debts.

From 18 September 2023, judgment creditors can serve Investigation Notices on judgment debtors prior to an Investigation Summons being issued.

Section 4 of the Enforcement of Judgments Act 1991 already allows the court to investigate a judgment debtor’s financial position with regard to their means of satisfying the debt.  This is usually the first step in enforcement proceedings. The court issues a summons which requires the judgment debtor to attend and produce documents at a hearing. The judgment creditor is entitled to cross-examine the judgment debtor on their evidence and documents. Failure to appear in response to a investigation summons can render a judgment debtor liable to be arrested.

The process of serving Investigation Notices under the new s 3A inserted into the Act by the Statutes Amendment (Civil Enforcement) Act 2023 is an informal preliminary step. It has the potential to save parties the time and cost involved in an adversarial hearing. The notice is issued by the judgment creditor and requires the judgment debtor to provide information including documents to evidence their ability to satisfy the judgment debt. This new preliminary step is not compulsory – the judgment creditor can elect to issue the notice, or proceed directly to an Investigation Summons and hearing. It is however expected that Investigation Notices will be widely utilised in an attempt to contain costs. Likewise, compliance by judgment debtors might be driven by the desire to avoid the costs of a hearing, which are added to the judgment debt under s 3 of the Act.

The amending Act also tweaks the existing provisions about garnishee orders to remove the requirement for the judgment debtor’s consent before wages or bank accounts can be garnisheed and to include term deposit accounts. Further amendments to 7 of the Act expand the powers of the Sheriff when enforcing judgments against land.

Offers to settle – QLD

by

The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (QLD) were amended from 23 June 2023 concerning the costs implications of rejected offers to settle made by both plaintiffs and defendants.

The Uniform Civil Procedure (Offers to Settle) Amendment Rule 2023 amends r 360 of the of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 as to offers made by a plaintiff, and r 361 as to offers made by a defendant. It also introduces a new r 361A, which deals specifically with the implications of a plaintiff’s claim being dismissed after the plaintiff rejects a costs offer made by a defendant. There are also transitional provisions for offers already on foot before the amendments.

Offers to settle are relevant to the Court’s exercise of discretion concerning costs at the conclusion of any proceedings. The ordinary rule about costs is that they follow the event: r 681. Costs are awarded to the successful party, usually assessed on the standard basis, unless the rules or orders state otherwise: rr 702-704.

If an offer is made by one party and rejected by the other party, and the ultimate outcome of the case ends up being less favourable to the rejecting party than what was offered, the rules provide that the court can award indemnity costs against the rejecting party from the date of the offer. The amendments to the rules clarify when and how this applies.

The commentary on offers to settle has been amended, for both Acting for the plaintiff and Acting for the defendant, in all By Lawyers QLD Litigation guides:

 

Succession & Probate Lists – NSW

by

The New South Wales Supreme Court has introduced combined Succession & Probate lists, for family provision claims and contested probate applications.

The new list replaces the Family Provisions Claims list previously managed by Justice Hallen, who is retiring. The court has never previously had a specialist list for contested probate matters.

Re-issued Practice Note SC EQ 07 – Succession & Probate Lists updates the procedures applicable to family provision and contested probate matters in the Court.

Key points include:

  • These types of matters will be managed and heard in the Succession & Probate List.
  • Directions and the hearing of interlocutory motions will be dealt with on Fridays, with Monday directions being phased out.
  • There will be two judges managing the list, initially Justices Meek and Lindsay.
  • There will be two judges available for the list on Fridays.
  • If possible, family provision applications whether combined with probate or not, will be dealt with by one judge and probate matters will be dealt with by the other judge.
  • Most interlocutory motions for matters in the list will require leave except urgent matters which can be listed by arrangement.
  • Subpoenas and Notices to produce for matters in the list will require leave.
  • Mediation for all matters in the list will be court annexed by default, unless the parties consent to private mediation or the Court otherwise orders.
  • Requirements for the content of the plaintiff’s affidavit in Family Provision matters updated.

The Court has indicated that the emphasis of the new list will be on strict case management and efficiency, in accordance with the overriding principal of just, quick and cheap disposal of the real issues in the proceedings under Section 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 .

By Lawyers Family Provision Claims (NSW) and Supreme Court (NSW) – Equity Division guides have been updated accordingly, including the Retainer Instructions precedents which prompt practitioners to obtain the necessary instructions and documents required by the practice note.

Connect with us