Revised Federal Court Practice Note 17

The revised Federal Court of Australia's Practice Note 17 has now been issued.

Please read the Court's announcement for further information.

Update on February 4, 2009 by Seamus Byrne

Visual Guide to the Revised Federal Court Practice Note 17

Update on April 6, 2009 by Seamus Byrne

Guide to the Federal Court of Australia's Revised Practice Note 17

Comments

[Robyn Lucienne]

The use of technology was intended to be efficient, enable multiple parties to recieve the same information immediately, stop duplication and save paper, hence, being better for the environment. Turns out solicitors can now charge for an email and the same letter in hard copy, then charge a fee for both, now that's duplication if ever I saw it.
So using technology turns out to be twice as bad for the environment and twice as costly for the client and generally the courts nor do the OLSC accept email. There is also confusion because a solicitor can impliedly agree to communicate by email for two years before a matter goes to court then without reason, or justification, suddenly refuse to accept emails as the matter is about to be heard or settle.
This is particularly distressing for clients who are in remote regions and have to travel through floods, or distances to send documents by registered mail, and force them to wait sometimes months in a small regional Post Office for a post box number to become available, if ever.
The only alternative is to pay a aolicitor to seek a court order that the opposing solicitor receive emails and that is another expense and can delay the original hearing for quiet some time. There is no consistency in the use of technology and it means everything has to be revisited twice or more, because solicitors profit from inefficiency in their practice, while they put people who elevate them to their status, live's on hold. The process can't be described as justice!!!