opes and anzs' brand and reputation, page-3

Good post Ant.

Something that was not clear to me is that these discovery documents are all secret for now. You can't reveal the content of documents in public that a court has forced the parties to provide, even though everyone what is in them. I do not think you can quote anything in the press speculating too loudly about what is in the documents either for fear of libel.

So, I now know why ANZ would be very unkeen on Beaconwood trial to proceed, even for those 10 days because everything will then be on the public record. The good old court stenographer will just tap away all day writing their name into permanent infamy in black and white.

At that point, rumour mongering and idle speculation will be over. The howls of "the Opes debacle" will ring even louder in the press than they are now, as direct quotes from cross-examination and judgements get offered up each and every day.

I have also made enquiries about the directions hearing and not much seems to have happened apart from the usual tactics of trying to get the claim thrown out, etc. ANZ also tried to get the case moved to Melbourne to be tried by FJ. Apart from that, discovery documents were requested.

Question: How is it that you can pick your own judge, one who has made all sorts of decisions in your favour recently? Isn't this suss? Surely FJ would have to refuse to try a case where a party actively sought him out? Why would ANZ care which judge tried the case? Surely they are not suggesting that there is some bias and that they would have a better chance if they got to hand-pick the judge.