We’d like to thank Seamus E. Byrne an Australian Lawyer and Computer Forensic Expert who’s recently been in touch with us about his blog In Pursuit of Relevance
Byrne delivers Asia-Pacific advisory services to resolve disputes in relation to electronic evidence and discovery (e-discovery).
With diligence he assists legal counsel and their clients, government agencies, corporate bodies and the judiciary.
He has just informed us about his latest update on the James Hardie litigation in Australia and writes:
James Hardie Litigation – Update
November 22, 2008
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald [2008] NSWSC 995 (22 September 2008).
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 1020 (29 September 2008).
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 3) [2008] NSWSC 1099 (20 October 2008).
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 4) [2008] NSWSC 1101 (23 October 2008).
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 5) [2008] NSWSC 1169 (4 November 2008).
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 6) [2008] NSWSC 1175 (6 November 2008).
Preliminary
In recent months, Gzell J has released a number of ex tempore decisions in the on-going James Hardie litigation. This entry outlines notable commentary pertaining to e-trial cost sharing and ASIC’s management of electronic evidence.
Second Judgment
The second judgment focused exclusively on establishing an interim cost sharing model for the electronic courtroom, which has been established for trial.
Variable costs, not limited to, in-court computer technology, technical support and transcript subscription costs, are to be paid by each party on a "user pays" basis.
Fixed costs, not limited to <e.law> support staff and courtroom Internet access costs, are to be distributed on a 20/80 basis. That is, ASIC is to pay 20% of the fixed costs, with the remaining 80% to be split equally, in 10% shares, between eight law firms, who collectively represent eleven defendants.
At [10], His Honour rejected a argument that ASIC, as the only plaintiff, should account for 50% of the fixed costs:
Read the full post here
Other recent posts include:
- Different Solutions Pty Ltd v Commissioner, AFP (No 2) [2008] FCA 1686
- NAK Australia Pty Ltd v Starkey Consulting Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1142
- Leighton v Shire of Kalamunda [2008] WAICmr 5
- Removing Infringing or Offensive Content from the Internet
- Digital Evidence, Fraud and Security – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Media Report – "Federal Court lags on e-discovery"
- James Hardie Litigation – "Document Dump"
Having developed experience through his prior engagements in top-tier legal, chartered accounting and corporate sectors, Seamus has performed key roles in the advisory, discovery and life-cycle management of electronically stored information (ESI) in several high-profile litigation matters, representing a number of S&P/ASX 200 and blue-chip international clients. This has included dealings involving the global collection of ESI, handling issues of spoliation, multiple languages and multiple parties, including foreign Governments and outsourced technology providers.
He has extensive experience in the forensic investigation of matters pertaining to corporate fraud and financial crime, intellectual property (IP) theft and contractual disputes. This has included assisting investigations of law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
He is the only practising lawyer in Australia to attain the CCE or EnCE qualifications and has provided expert opinion (written and oral) in matters to a Supreme Court level. He has previously been engaged as Executive Counsel for a significant, privately-held group of worldwide companies with diverse interests in mobile technology, online gaming, online banking, oil and mining.
