Andrew is an Associate Professor in Civil Procedure at the Law Faculty and a Fellow in Law at Mansfield College. He is currently General Editor of Civil Justice Quarterly.
Andrew completed a BA/LLB (hons) at the University of Melbourne in 2001 and the BCL in 2005. He completed a Dphil at Oxford on legal professional privilege in 2011, and published a book on ‘Legal Professional Privilege for Corporations: A Guide to Four Major Common Law Jurisdictions’ with Oxford University Press in 2014. He has been a visiting scholar with NYU's Hauser Global Law School Program and has taught on the Melbourne Law Masters at Melbourne Law School.
Andrew is a (part time) practising barrister at the Victorian Bar, and previously worked as a lawyer at the Australian law firm Slater & Gordon. His main area of practice is mass tort litigation and has worked on asbestos, thalidomide and tobacco litigation amongst others. Since 2011 Andrew has acted as special counsel for the Australian Government in the defence of is tobacco plain packaging laws from constitutional and intentional legal challenges, including Philip Morris' Investor State Arbitration claim and disputes bought by Dominican Republic and others before the World Trade Organisation. Andrew is also an observer of the WHO-Framework Convention on Tobacco Control's expert group on Article 19 'Liability.' He has advised the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on whether the use of light and mild descriptors for cigarettes constituted misleading advertising, assisted the US Department of Justice on its RICO claim against the US tobacco industry, US v Philip Morris et al and received awards for his work exposing British American Tobacco’s “document retention policies” in McCabe v British AmericanTobacco including from a coalition of public health NGOs.
Andrew’s main research interests are civil procedure, tort and causation.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27. Sorted by year, then title.
A Higgins, 'Joinder and Collective Redress ' in A Zuckerman (ed), Zuckerman on Australian Civil Procedure (Lexis 2018)
A Higgins, 'Legal Professional Privilege' in A Zuckerman (ed), Zuckerman on Australian Civil Procedure (Lexis 2018)
A Higgins, 'Privilege Against Self Incrimination' in (ed), Zuckerman on Australian Civil Procedure (Lexis 2018)
A Higgins, 'Public Interest Immunity' in A Zuckerman (ed), Zuckerman on Australian Civil Procedure (Lexis 2018)
A Higgins, 'The Supreme Court turns the judicial rhetoric on access to justice up to 11 as it strikes down unaffordable and disproportionate employment tribunal fees, but key questions about the funding of civil justice remain: The Unison Case' (2018) 37 Civil Justice Quarterly 1
A Higgins, 'Rebooting the cab rank rule as a limited universal service obligation' (2017) 70 Legal Ethics 201
This article critically examines the value and scope of the cab rank rule in England and Australia. Despite the laudable non-discrimination principle underpinning it, the cab rank rule is subject to so many exceptions it is debatable whether the rule has any effect, positive or negative, on access to justice. On the other hand, when the rule is followed, it has the potential to unnecessarily distort the legal services market.
Despite legitimate questions about its continued relevance, the paper argues that the rationale for the cab rank rule remains critically important in an age where most people are unable to afford private legal representation and are ineligible for public legal assistance.
The cab rank rule could play a greater role in delivering access to justice for all, by “rebooting” it as a limited universal service obligation to provide legal representation for all who genuinely need it but cannot obtain it privately. In practice this would involve the creation of a compartmentalized public cab rank in which all practising lawyers dedicate a small percentage of their billable hours to representing eligible clients for a regulated fee.
A Higgins, 'The costs of civil justice and who pays?' (2017) 37 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 687
This article examines current debates about delivering access to justice in a shrinking state, specifically the Supreme Court's claim in Coventry v Lawrence (No 3)  UKSC 50 that it is impossible to deliver access to justice for all litigants without widely available legal aid, and broader claims that the state is failing in its duty to provide access to justice for all. It argues that the level of public subsidy and the balance between public and private funding for civil justice systems is a question of distributive justice. A critical review of private funding models demonstrates that some have been denied access to justice. However, requiring litigants to pay for their own access to justice, or to even subsidise access for other litigants, is defensible in principle and practice. Private funding models based on cross-subsidisation between users could substantially reduce the access to justice 'gap' experienced by many, provided they meet certain criteria.
A Higgins, 'Driving with the handbrake on: competition class actions under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ' (2016) 79 Modern Law Review 442
This paper examines the new class action procedure for competition cases established by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It examines whether the legislation and the procedural rules for the Competition Appeal Tribunal address the failures of previous procedures, focusing on three issues in particular i) the treatment of conflicting interests amongst class members ii) the rules on certifying collective proceedings; and iii) rules on funding. It argues that while the Act is a considerable improvement on what preceded it, the safeguards adopted will act as a drag on meritorious and unmeritorious claims alike, and as such there is likely to be continued under-enforcement of competition law.
A Higgins and Adrian Zuckerman, 'Lord Justice Briggs' SWOT analysis underlines English law's troubled relationship with proportionate costs' (2016) 36 Civil Justice Quarterly 1
A Higgins and Michael Legg, 'A Higgins and M Legg, Responding to cost and delay through overriding objectives successful innovation?' in C Picker and G Seidman (eds), The Dynamism of Civil Procedure Global Trends and Developments (Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice series 2015)
A Higgins, 'Civil justice in a shrinking state
' (2015) 34 Civil Justice Quarterly 221
A Higgins, 'CPR3.9: the Mitchell guidance, the Denton revision and why coded messages dont make for good case management' (2014) 33 Civil Justice Quarterly 379
A Higgins, 'Legal aid and access to justice in England and India' (2014) 26 National Law School of India Review 13
A Higgins, 'A defence of qualified one way cost shifting' (2013) 32 Civil Justice Quarterly 198
A Higgins, J Walker, D Rowe and C Crifo, 'A Higgins, J Walker, D Rowe and C Crifo, Thoughtful practitioners and an engaged legal
community: the impact of the teaching of procedure on the legal profession and on civil justice reform (2013) Osgoode Hall Law Journal 155 - 198.
' (2013) 51 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 155
This paper examines the background to the UK Governments plans announced this year to introduce opt out class actions in competition cases, the EU Parliaments opposition to them on autonomy grounds, and the arguments put forward by corporate lobby groups and the academics funded by them against opt out class actions.
The paper argues that far from being a restriction on autonomy, there are strong grounds for requiring mandatory class actions for the determination of common claims and defences. Procedures for determining common issues in the one proceeding are a crucial feature of any effective and proportionate system of collective redress. We sketch some ways of encouraging individual participation in class actions without undermining the benefits of collective action, including more democratic decision making in the management and settlement of class actions. Moreover, private class actions are a necessary complement to action by public regulators, ensuring that the task of securing redress for mass harms is not borne fully by taxpayers, and that victims can still obtain redress where regulation is not available or ineffective.
A Higgins and Adrian Zuckerman, 'Re Prudential plc  UKSC 1: The Supreme Court leaves to Parliament the issue of privilege for tax advice by accountants, what Parliament should do is restrict privilege for tax advice given by lawyers. ' (2013) 32 Civil Justice Quarterly 313 [Case Note]
A Higgins, 'Open door disclosure in civil proceedings' (2012) 16 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 298
A Higgins, 'Legal lessons from the News of the World phone hacking scandal' (2012) 31 Civil Justice Quarterly 274
A Higgins, 'Referral fees: the business of access to justice' (2012) 32 Legal Studies 109
A Higgins, 'BATAS v Laurie: apprehended bias and actual failure of case management ' (2011) Civil Justice Quarterly 246 [Case Note]
A Higgins, 'ECJ confirms no privilege for in-house counsel: Azko Nobel v European Commission' ' (2011) Civil Justice Quarterly 113 [Case Note]
A Higgins, 'The costs of case management: what should be done post Jackson?' (2010) Civil Justice Quarterly 317
A Higgins, 'Legal advice privilege and its relevance to corporations' (2010) Modern Law Review 371
A Higgins, 'Corporate abuse of legal professional privilege' (2008) 27 Civil Justice Quarterly 377
Corporate abuse of legal professional privilege is a controversial subject. Cases where abuse is exposed often acquire notoriety for the depth of corporate and professional misconduct they reveal, and act as catalysts for debate on the need to reform the rules of privilege. Those with an interest in maintaining or limiting the privilege take up now familiar sides in the debate. Corporate lawyers and lawyers associations usually stress the fundamental importance of the privilege and argue that there is no evidence of widespread abuse. On the other hand regulatory agencies submit that corporate abuse of
privilege has a significant cost to the administration of justice, and that the abuse which has been exposed may only be the tip of the iceberg.
The article aims to put the debate on corporate abuse of legal professional privilege into perspective by analysing the potential for abuse by corporations; its impact on the
administration of justice; examples of abuse that have been exposed from time to time; and the adequacy of existing mechanisms to detect and prevent abuse. The article argues
that the costs of corporate abuse are significant, but due to the nature of the privilege its extent is unknown and largely unknowable. Existing mechanisms for controlling abuse have proved unsatisfactory and have inherent limitations. Accordingly, there needs to be serious examination of alternative solutions for controlling abuse, including
re-examination of the scope of corporate privilege.