The laws and rules governing the professional obligations of lawyers, including the allocation of legal costs, vary between different Australian jurisdictions. This chapter will explain the different types of legal costs and discuss generally how courts deal with costs disputes between lawyers and their clients (solicitor-client costs). This chapter will also consider how courts allocate costs between parties in litigation (party-party costs and indemnity costs), including the important impact of settlement offers on costs consequences and the growing role of litigation funders. This chapter will also consider the use of costs as both a compensatory and deterrent mechanism, including in the context of interlocutory skirmishes and personal liability of legal practitioners for costs.

Geographers have always had a love affair with fieldwork. It has been their staple since the beginning. Geography teachers have a collective understanding of and consensus about what fieldwork is and its role within their geography teaching. In its simplest form, fieldwork helps to make sense of what students learn in the classroom, but it is much more than that. Teachers unanimously affirm its central role in providing an extension to classroom learning by involving students in active data collection in the field.The importance of generating a ‘culture’ of fieldwork cannot be under-estimated. The earlier students are introduced to the expectations of fieldwork, the more effective future fieldwork activities will be, resulting in development of their skills, independence and enjoyment of the activity.

As Geography teachers, it is necessary to show students what it is that makes geography distinctive, relevant and therefore powerful. The distinctiveness and relevance of a subject is shown through both content and pedagogy – pedagogical content knowledge, powerful knowledge, powerful pedagogy – bringing content knowledge to life for students through the way the subject is taught. Imagine a geography lesson without fieldwork, or without the use of geographical tools such as maps and visual representations, or without the interpretation of information through the lens of place-based analysis, spatial reasoning and human-environment interconnections. The chapter explores the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of developing distinctive and powerful geography lessons through posing an overarching question for reflection: ‘What makes your geography lesson geographical?’ Throughout the chapter, the reader is challenged to reflect on and consider how they can continue to identify, maintain and build their pedagogical practice.

This chapter introduces the key types and uses of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and their role in civil dispute resolution (CDR). ADR refers to the alternatives to litigation which individuals may wish to pursue instead of, before, or during, litigation. ADR is usually less formal than litigation — the procedures tend to be more flexible and more variable so the procedures discussed in this chapter are, of necessity, simply examples of how various forms of ADR can occur.

With the digital revolution of the turn of the century, fast internet, widespread digital and mobile devices such as tablets, smart watches, smartphones and the increasing functionality of the web-based tools that we use have combined to bring some amazing geographical technologies into our homes and classrooms. Tools such as Google Earth, handheld GPS units and mobile smartphones have changed the way geography teachers bring the world to our students, and the smartphone, tablet, virtual reality (VR) and whatever technology is coming next will continue to make the subject even more relevant and useful to students. The Australian Curriculum: Geography and all state syllabi require geography students to use geospatial technologies from early primary school onwards, so interest in geospatial tools is at its highest and these tools will only become more widespread in geography as these trends continue. All this background information brings us to you and your geography teaching. Through this chapter, we will explore the following questions: ● Why should you use geospatial tools in your classroom? ● What geospatial tools are appropriate? ● What will you do with your students to help them use these tools effectively to enhance their geographical learning?

This chapter considers the issues arising in relation to the pleading phase of litigation, which is the first phase of court proceedings. After proceedings have been commenced by the originating process (which is often itself a pleading), the defendant (or defendants) must decide whether, and how, to defend the proceedings. The pleading process continues many of the key themes of civil dispute resolution discussed in Chapters 8 and 9. The procedures for pleading a case emanate from the same aims as the originating process of making justice accessible, maximising efficiency, giving all parties the right to be heard and ensuring open justice.1 Matters can involve large numbers of pleadings, with the most common types of pleadings required being defences, cross-claims, cross-defences and replies. Once all the pleadings have been filed and served, including any amendments to pleadings required and allowed by the court, the pleadings are said to have closed. The parties can then complete evidence gathering and preparation for trial.

The theory underlying this book is that civil dispute resolution (CDR) can be explained by the need to balance four key themes which pervade the resolution of civil disputes. The key themes of civil dispute resolution themselves involve balancing conflicting objectives and, hence, it is the conflicts within the conflict resolution process which drive that process. This chapter will explain each of these key balancing acts and how they are managed by courts and outside courts. The key themes of civil dispute resolution are based upon fundamental moral and societal imperatives. Viewed through this thematic lens, current civil dispute resolution practices, including the rules of civil procedure, are both logical and explicable and their apparent conflicts are shown to be necessary rather than nonsensical.

This chapter focuses on obtaining information and documents other than through interparty discovery. As for interparty discovery,1 this chapter concerns the pre-trial collection of information and potential evidence which is critical to all four of the key balancing themes in civil procedure, particularly balancing efficiency with due process and balancing privacy and openness.2 The ability of parties to access relevant information to prove their case is essential for due process, but can be costly and inefficient if not managed well and can impose unfair burdens on unrelated parties whose only involvement is their possession of relevant information. The processes discussed in this chapter (other than FOI applications) are all interlocutory procedures which are commonly commenced through motions in court or as part of agreed court timetables.

This chapter concerns the role of witnesses in litigation pre-trial and will focus on the preparation of affidavits and witness statements for use in trials but will also consider affidavits used in interlocutory disputes.1 Obtaining evidence from witnesses, both lay and expert, is one of the key procedures available in litigation which is absent from other forms of civil dispute resolution. Witness evidence is also one of the most time-consuming and expensive aspects of case preparation, particularly expert evidence as experts can be extremely costly.2 Expert witnessing has been the subject of considerable contention, reform and debate, both within the legal fraternity and in the broader community. The preparation of expert evidence demonstrates many of the key conflicts explored in Chapter 2.3, particularly the balancing of efficiency with due consideration. The preparation of witness evidence also engages with the key civil dispute resolution issues of access to justice and open justice. The time and expense associated with locating witnesses and preparing affidavits highlights the potential for the wealthy to be unfairly advantaged when preparing for litigation.