*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 88 Part 10) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO
- Legal research: By computer or by book
- English law comes into line on equitable proprietary interests
- Chief Justice of Queensland
- Specialist courts
- Filling judicial vacancies
- Arbitration and the courts
- Suspended sentences
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editor: Peter Butt
- Derogation from the grant: Continuing life for an old doctrine
- Assurance fund confirmed as the fund of last resort
AROUND THE NATION: VICTORIA – Editor: Justice Clyde Croft
- On the brink of regulation: The future of litigation funding in class actions
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME – Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean
- General average
INTERNATIONAL FOCUS – Editor: Ryszard Piotrowicz
- Illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and Australia’s international obligations: The debate goes on
RECENT CASES – Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO
- Corporations: Statutory demands – Setting aside – Off setting claim
- Wills: Rectification
- Equity: Recovery of secret commission from agent – Is a proprietary remedy available?
- Wills: Solicitor not negligent for failing to procure execution of informal will
The anti-deprivation rule in Australia — Nishad Kulkarni
Whether the anti-deprivation rule that has recently been applied in England exists in Australia has not yet been judicially considered. The ground covered by the rule has traditionally been understood as a manifestation of the so-called pari passu principle. The English cases have, however, identified it as a separate rule with distinct operation. This article examines the English cases and seeks to identify the proper legal foundation of the rule. It asks whether a distinct anti-deprivation rule might exist in Australia consistently with the High Court’s decision in International Air Transport Association v Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd (2008) 234 CLR 151. The article discusses the suggested operation in this context of the illegality principle recently applied by the High Court and considers whether it may supply a statutory footing for an Australian anti-deprivation rule.
It has been argued in recent years by various commentators that consideration should be given to the concept of an “integrity” branch of government incorporating the various agencies that have been established in each jurisdiction to ensure the integrity of government. In the 2013 Whitmore Lecture (Martin W, “Forewarned and four-armed: Administrative law values and the fourth arm of government” (2014) 88 ALJ 106), the Chief Justice of Western Australia criticised this notion of an “integrity” branch in the context of a more general criticism of the legislative framework for integrity agencies in Western Australia and how they have exercised some of their functions. This article is a response to the views expressed by the Chief Justice, and argues that the criticism of the “integrity” branch concept appears to be based on the problematic premise that the historical arrangements between the existing three branches of government are still adequate to ensure an appropriate balance between them. This article also argues that some of the Chief Justice’s criticisms of the Western Australian integrity framework and legislation are misconceived.
BOOK REVIEWS – Editor: Angelina Gomez
- The Law of Proprietary Estoppel, by Ben McFarlane
- Hon John Patrick Slattery AO KGCSG QC
For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: WAU – ALJ Vol 88 Pt 10 Contents.