*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 90 Part 4) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO
- My last fling
- The republic debate
- Tertiary education
- “No order as to costs”
- Acting judges
- Solicitors’ advertising
- Multicultural Australia
- Deemed consent
- European civil courts
- Secondary liability
- New South Wales Supreme Court named Australia’s most innovative law firm
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editor: Peter Butt
- Omitted easements
PERSONALIA – Editor: Clare Langford
- Justice Robert Bromwich
- Justice Natalie Charlesworth
- Justice Catherine Carew
- Sex Discrimination Commissioner
New South Wales
- Justice Timothy Moore
- Justice Sam Doyle
- Justice Richard O’Brien
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Editor: Anne Twomey
- Recent constitutional reforms in the United Kingdom
RECENT CASES – Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO
- Financial advisors: Liability to disgorge secret commissions
- Land law: Collapse of boundary retaining wall – Liability for repair
- Wills: Knowledge and approval of will
- Contracts: Commercial lease – Construction – Implied terms
- Listening devises: What is a private conversation? – What is consent to recording?
Orthodoxy Lost: The (Ir)relevance of Causation in Quantifying Breach of Trust Claims – Nicholas A Tiverios and Clare McKay
In FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners  AC 250;  UKSC 45, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom suggested that it would be “highly desirable” for common law jurisdictions to learn from each other, with a view to “harmonising the development of the common law round the world”. In many contexts, this observation holds merit. However, there are limits to the extent to which Australian courts should follow their English counterparts in developing the private law. This article argues that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom’s recent decision in AIB Group (UK) v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors  AC 1503;  UKSC 58 was wrongly decided and should not be followed in Australia. Rather, consistent with orthodox principles, no causation requirement should be necessary for the quantification of loss in claims for breach of trust by misapplication of trust assets.
The question of whether a mother should be liable for harm inflicted upon her unborn child garners heated debate over morality, ethics and the rule of law. The ever evolving scope of the duty of care relationship and the abolition of inter-familial immunity, precipitate the argument that a pregnant woman’s maternal duty of care to her unborn child is a reasonable progression in the law of torts. This article seeks to explore a mother’s tortious liability towards an unborn child and the various policy arguments for and against imposing such a duty of care.
Terrorism, Shari’a and the Isolating of Islam – Neville Cox and Hannah O’Farrell
This article assesses the relationship between Shari’a law and terrorism and specifically the question of whether there is any legitimacy to the truism which is prevalent in western society that the actions of so-called Islamic terrorist groups are authorised by Shari’a. Having concluded that, in fact, behaviour with terrorist characteristics is condemned by Shari’a, the article assesses why the concept of a connection between Islamic law and terrorism is so accepted by many in the west and argues that this is the result of the actions and inactions both of forces within the Islamic and western worlds.
BOOK REVIEW – Editor: Angelina A Gomez
- Zines’s, The High Court and the Constitution by James Stellios
- The Hon Jerrold Sydney Cripps QC
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 90 No 4 Contents.