Andrew is an Associate Professor in Civil Procedure at the Law Faculty and a Fellow in Law at Mansfield College. He has taught civil procedure on Oxford’s BCL/MJUR course since 2008 and has taught contract and tort for University College and New College respectively. From 2015 Andrew will take on the General Editorship 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 an occasional guest lecturer in civil procedure at Melbourne Law School.
Andrew worked as a solicitor at the Australian law firm Slater & Gordon until 2007, and has been a practising barrister at the Victorian Bar since 2011. His main area of practice is mass tort litigation and has worked on asbestos, thalidomide and tobacco litigation amongst others. 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 advised the Australian Government on the defence of its tobacco plain packaging laws against constitutional and international legal challenges. He has received awards for his work exposing British American Tobacco’s “document retention policies” in McCabe v British American Tobacco including from a coalition of public health NGOs.
Andrew’s main research interests are civil procedure, tort and causation.
- ISBN: 0261-9261This 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.ISBN: 1365-7127ISBN: 0261-9261ISBN: 1748-121XISBN: 0261-9261ISBN: 0026-7961Corporate 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.
Civil procedure, tort, causation
Options taughtContract, Tort, Principles of Civil Procedure