*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).
The latest issue of the Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice (Volume 6 Part 4) contains the following material:
EDITORIAL – General Editor: Roderick Joyce QSO QC
- An Admirably Humane Interpretation of “Impenetrable” Statutory Instruments Governing Financial Support for Home Care of the Severely Disabled: Chamberlain v Minister of Health
There is uncertainty as to whether an implied term of good faith exists in Australian contract law. Similarly, there is uncertainty in Australia as to the scope and meaning of good faith. While intermediate courts in Australia have held that a duty to act in good faith may be implied into a contract, the High Court of Australia has yet to authoritatively determine whether an implied term of good faith exists in Australian contract law. The High Court has indicated on two recent occasions that it was not, in the circumstances, appropriate to determine whether a duty of good faith is implied into all contracts in Australia. English Courts have confirmed that there is no general doctrine of good faith in English contract law. However numerous recent cases have indicated that, in certain circumstances, English Courts will recognise an implied duty of good faith in contracts.
Exceptions to the “Inglis Price”: In Practice – Katja Levy and Richard Douglas
The general rule in Inglis applies when a mortgagor seeks to restrain the exercise of rights by a mortgagee under a security instrument. The rule requires payment of the amount claimed as due by the mortgagee – either to the mortgagee or into court. The rule is not absolute and there are a number of recognised exceptions. This article will consider four well-established exceptions and a recent decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal about the rule in the context of an application for interlocutory injunction.
Caution: Tweet at Your Own Risk – Social Media and the Australian Legal Profession – Marilyn Bromberg and Andrew Ekert
Australian legal institutions have taken action to inform lawyers of their ethical duties regarding social media. In particular, many have created brief guidelines that address important issues in this area. This article examines three areas in which the guidelines are lacking: online behavioural targeting advertising; unqualified persons misrepresenting themselves as lawyers; and unintended retainers. It argues that changes to the guidelines are necessary to try to prevent ethical misconduct from occurring.
CASE NOTES – Editor: Louise Beange
- Abuse of Process Following Discontinued Proceedings: Tyne (Trustee) v UBS AG (No 2) (2017) 250 FCR 341; 341 ALR 415;  FCAFC 5 – Louise Beange
- Virk Pty Ltd (In Liq) v YUM! Restaurants Australia Pty Ltd: Good Faith, Reasonableness and Unconscionability in Franchise Agreements – Nick Christiansen and Jia Lee
- Worldwide Interlocutory Orders Against Foreign Defendants Who Elect Not to Appear: X v Twitter Inc  NSWSC 1300 – Annabel Clemens
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: JCivLP Vol 6 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.