2 recent High Court judgments and the implications for historical sexual abuse matters

Recently, the High Court has recognised that an “impoverishment of evidence” will not, in and of itself, give rise to successful applications for permanent stays of proceedings. Here, a BigLaw partner unpacks two recent decisions from the court and what those matters mean for litigators. In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, host Jerome Doraisamy speaks with Clyde & Co partner Luke O’Kane about his career as a litigator and why there is an increase in the number of claims being brought pertaining to historical sexual abuse and personal injury, the lessons and takeaways from two recent High Court decisions, and the implications of those judgments for stay applications.

O’Kane also delves into how an absence of evidence should be treated in such matters moving forward, the need for courts to treat such matters in more idiosyncratic ways and not take blackletter approaches to proceedings, what such rulings mean for claimants, how the rulings change the landscape for litigators on both sides of the table, and his broad guidance to litigators nationwide in the wake of the High Court’s decisions.

If you like this episode, show your support by  rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au for more insights!