Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution


Author: Piraye Erdem

In civil procedural law, a ban on the expansion and alteration of a claim and defense comes with two exceptions; the other party's consent, and "the amendment". The parties may completely or partially amend their proceedings prior to the end of the investigation phase. Provided that the legal requirements are fulfilled, an amendment may be filed without the consent of the other party or the court, since it is a unilateral and express declaration of will directed at the court1. For instance, the parties may amend the value of the claim, or claim compensation, instead of payment in kind for defective goods.

Read more: Decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments holding that...


Author: Alper Uzu

"Expert Opinion" in Short

The notion of Expert Opinion, which entered into our law through the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), has been a frequently resorted to method of helping to resolve disputes by the parties in our judicial system over the course of time.Expert opinion, which is the reflection of the Anglo-Saxon Law concepts, "party expert" or "expert witness" in our legal system, is defined in Article 293 of the CCP:

1) The parties may obtain scientific opinion from an expert in relation to the subject of the case. Extra time cannot be requested solely based on this purpose.

Read more: Opinion of the Court of Cassation on the Contention of Expert Opinion and Expert Report


Author: McKenzie Moore

Obtaining evidence from persons residing in Australia for use in foreign proceedings can be complicated and time consuming. McKenzie Moore, Special Counsel and Natalie Miller, Lawyer, share their experience of using unconventional channels to fast-track the process.

The need for the production of evidence from persons residing within Australia for foreign proceedings is becoming more prevalent, including the use of depositions for parties outside of the United States. While there are processes under international treaties which can assist parties to foreign proceedings in obtaining evidence from parties residing in Australia, the mechanisms provided for under these treaties can be complex and time consuming.

Read more: Fast tracking evidence for foreign proceedings


Author: Simon Hough

The recent decision of the Technology and Construction Court in Palmer Birch (A Partnership) v Lloyd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2316 (TCC) (24 September 2018) will make for interesting reading both for those who seek to hide behind the corporate veil provided by a limited company and those who find themselves out of pocket as a result of that protection. 

The circumstances in which the protection offered by a limited company will be removed and the corporate veil lifted were considered by the Supreme Court a few years ago in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors [2013] UKSC 34. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that the veil should only be lifted where a private individual had an existing liability that he or she sought to avoid by subsequently making use of a limited company. However, there is more than one way to fix a private individual with liability for the debts of his company, as the TCC has now clarified.

Read more: Peeking around the corporate veil


A shadow has been cast over the seemingly well-accepted ability of courts to make common fund orders in third-party funded representative proceedings. The New South Wales Court of Appeal is to determine whether the Supreme Court has the power to make such orders. This determination coincides with a challenge by Westpac in its application for leave to appeal Justice Lee’s decision in Lenthall v Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited [2018] FCA 1422.

Partner, Anne Freeman, Special Counsel, Susanna Khouri and Law Clerk, Amir Chowdhury provide an update.

Read the entire article.