Sunday, October 22, 2023

Australia's leading commercial law firms and senior jurists accused of pushing a political agenda - conduct likely to have been to the detriment of investors from Asia, even more reasons for an Asian focussed commercial legal advisory and dispute resolution capacity in Australia, free from the shackles of local legal professional and regulatory bodies

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 


LAWASIA promoted the referendum without any regards to Asian interests, proving yet again that it champions

parochial Australian interests,and not the interest of Asia

The Australian's columnist Janet Albrechtsen observes , with regards the conduct of Australia's leading commercial law firms and jurists:


......(a) very prominent legal academic on the Constitutional Expert Group, Anne Twomey, professor emerita of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, kept putting ever more elaborate and intricate arguments in support of this proposition on YouTube. 

Twomey now consults to Danny Gilbert’s firm, Gilbert + Tobin. Which bring us to the practising arms of the legal profession. Along with a few former judges, they were all equally vociferous, and pivotal, in supporting the referendum question. The Law Council of Australia offered its “unwavering support”. So did various bar associations and law societies. Former judges Kenneth Hayne, Robert French and Tom Bathurst were all vocal supporters, too. Of course, when judges tell you not to worry about constant lawfare, judicial activism or “maverick judge risk” but simply trust them, it’s hard not to take that advice with a grain (or perhaps a tonne) of salt. 


Enormous efforts went into harnessing all arms of the legal profession, and indeed corporate Australia, into a single machine. No informed observer of the legal profession doubts Gilbert (ie Danny Gilbert of Gilbert+Tobin) was a key player, perhaps the key player, in pulling many of the strings together.


While the above may have benefitted some Australian businesses, Asian and other foreign investors may have been disadvantaged:

Asian investors will be relieved by rejection of move to amend Australian Constitution led by leading tax lawyer Mark Leibler, but acceptance of Aboriginal superstition by Australia's judges remains a problem


And hence, again, there is an urgent need for an Asian focussed commercial legal advisory and dispute resolution capacity in Australia, free from the shackles of local legal professional and regulatory bodies

Additionally LAWASIA's promotion of the referendum proves yet again that LAWASIA needs Asian leadership, and a new secretariat, for it has again proven that it champions parochial Australian interests without regard to those of Asia's lawyers. 





TO BE READ WITH 

Saturday, October 14, 2023

Australia has potential to be the venue for a multiskilled, multilingual commercial arbitration centre that can win business from Asia, but success will require that younger , better trained multiethnic Australian lawyers be able to offer services unhindered by local legal professional and regulatory bodies

 by Ganesh Sahathevan




In 2019    Professor Graeme Samuel,  lawyer and  former head of the Australian Competition And Consumer Commission (ACCC) , speaking on behalf of himself and the two other living ACCC chairmen (Alan Fels, and the current chairman Rod Sims)   told the ABC that litigants in commercial matters  are better off having their disputes resolved via commercial arbitration rather than before an Australian court of law.

Samuel   identified "judges with no expertise in the issues concerned" and an "intolerably slow court process" as the main reasons why commercial matters cannot be properly dealt with by the Australian legal system.

As a result Australia has lost ground to Singapore as a venue for high end commercial dispute work. Meanwhile, Australian universities have been churning out in large numbers double degreed lawyers, skilled in law and finance , economics , accounting , engineering and other technical areas. Many of these law graduates are from the ethnic communities, for local Anglo-Irish Australian students prefer the softer Arts/Law combinations. 

There is therefore a large pool of multiskilled , multilingual law graduates in Australia  who can provide every aspect of commercial dispute resolution here in Australia. There is also a pool of older practising and retired lawyers and judges who have migrated to Australia from Asia who can provide arbitration services.

There is therefore potential for  Australia  to be the venue for a multiskilled, multilingual commercial arbitration centre that can win business from Asia, the obvious question being why that has not already happened.

The answer may well lie in the fact that the legal profession in Australian is still dominated by legal professional and regulatory  bodies manned by judges and lawyers who come  from the same pool  of "judges with no expertise in the issues concerned" that Samuel spoke of. 


The key then to a viable new area of legal business would seem to be in allowing younger lawyers to offer their services free of the impediments described above. 


TO BE READ WITH 


Monday, September 16, 2019

Arbitration, not court:Former ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel says judges with no expertise in the area ,intolerably slow court process reasons why litigants should prefer commercial arbitration : Singapore, Malaysia arbitration centres get an unexpected boost from a highly regarded Australian business leader



by Ganesh Sahathevan

Story image for graeme samuel from ABC News

Graeme Samuel speaks to The Business

ABC News-10 Sep 2019
The campaign for a crackdown on fees and charges at airports is taking off. Ride share providers, retailers and rental car operators have now ...


Professor Graeme Samuel,  lawyer and  former head of the Australian Competition And Consumer Commission (ACCC) , speaking on behalf of himself and the two other living ACCC chairmen (Alan Fels, and the current chairman Rod Sims) has told the ABC that litigants in commercial matters  are better off having their disputes resolved via commercial arbitration rather than before an Australian court of law.


He has identified "judges with no expertise in the issues concerned" ,and an "intolerably slow court process" as the main reasons why commercial matters cannot be properly dealt with by the Australian legal system.

Samuel's comments have provided an unexpected boost from a highly regarded personality for Singapore and Malaysia's efforts to attract commercial arbitration business from around this region, including Australia. Australian barristers and former judges are already actively seeking work in Singapore and Malaysia,but with not much success. Samuel's comments may well be the catalyst needed to send parties in dispute in Australia to Malaysia or Singapore to have their matters resolved.The additional expense of having matters heard offshore may well be worth the while in terms of savings of time and other costs of having matters heard by arbitrators who are better equipped to handle commercial matters.

END






No comments:

Post a Comment