User namePassword 

 Print this Issue Home  •  Archive  •  About Us  •  Contact  •  Advertise  •  Merchandise Subscribe  •  Free Trial
Court in the Act
27 April, 2007  
BAT v Slater & Gordon

For those desperate to know the latest skirmishing in the ongoing saga of Batty v Slater & Gordon, here’s a quick update


imageBritish American Tobacco’s battle to prevent Slater & Gordon reopening the Rolah McCabe case with some extremely hot documents from the bowels of Clayton Utz has begun afresh in Melbourne.

On Monday the Victorian Supreme Court declined the Batty Boys’ submission that the far-reaching confidentiality case should be listed for hearing by intellectual property judge David Harper.

Instead, the court rather cheekily wants to appoint a judge itself, next week.

This is good news for Slater & Gordon and its lawyers, Arnold Bloch Liebler, who want one hearing for the whole matter, rather than a series of fragmented and more costly stoushes.

They are seeking declaratory relief from the Victorian Supreme Court based on the same “iniquity” cited in relation to evidence presented to the Victorian Court of Appeal.

Aspects of the iniquity allegedly involves the destruction of evidence by the cancer stick giant and its then law firm Clayton Utz.

NSW Supreme Court Justice Paul Brereton refused to grant declaratory relief last year. That was before he recused himself from the case on the basis of apprehended bias and transferred the whole shebang to Victoria.

Justinian’s most recent report on this topic is here.