Date: 24 July 2006 15:59:06

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: Extreme prolixity of the High Court of Australia

Fortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada no longer issues serial opinions so that tends to cut down on the prolixity and it doesn't use footnotes very often.

Off hand, the longest set of reasons (including a dissent is) in a tort case that I recall is London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299 (here and here).

London Drugs is about 54,000 words including cases names - it's 102 pages in MS Word using 12 point Times New Roman - and 298 "numbered" paragraphs in the version of the reasons produced by Carswell/Thompson. The official version doesn't have numbered paragraphs. There are more prolix trial judgments, of course, which we will attribute the need to review the evidence adequately.

Regards,

----- Original Message ----
From: Jason Neyers
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:32:15 AM
Subject: ODG: Extreme prolixity of the High Court of Australia

I post this on behalf of Jane Stapleton:

 

Dear Colleagues:

I am trying to find the most extreme example of the prolixity of the High Court of Australia in a tort case: any suggestions? I seem to remember one had over 600 footnotes ... or was that just a nightmare!

Also am I right or wrong to think there is no such parallel elsewhere, such as in the Supreme Court of Canada?

Any help will be most gratefully received!

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>