*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 Judicial Administration (Volume 28 Part 2) contains the following material:
The study analyses the emergence of independent judicial councils and their role in facilitating judicial control of court administration in Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK, the US and other countries. While much research has been conducted into the relative merits of judicial control of court administration, the study extends the court governance literature by developing an analytical policy framework for a model Judicial Council of Victoria with broad statutory responsibility for improving the quality of justice in the court system. Part I conducts a review of the models of court governance and literature, and contends that greater internal transparency and administrative “corporatisation” of the judiciary is essential in order to improve court performance, enhance the social legitimacy of the courts and reinforce judicial independence. Part II outlines the essential terms of reference for a model Judicial Council of Victoria and proceeds to assess the institutional framework of Court Services Victoria, a judicial council that was established in 2014 to transfer the responsibility for court administration from the executive government to the judiciary. The study concludes that the Victorian court system reform broadly meets the model policy benchmarks, but that the legislation is insufficiently clear in important aspects and requires a set of specific amendments.
This article analyses the doctrine of advocates’ immunity following the High Court’s decisions in Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers and Kendirjian v Lepore. It is argued that the majority judgments in these cases wound back the broad approach of the plurality in the controversial High Court decision of D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid, which construed the immunity in a manner so expansive that it arguably could shield lawyers for any type of misconduct in their running of litigious matters. It is argued that despite laudably narrowing the scope of the doctrine, due to the somewhat strained reasoning in the majority decisions, there are likely to continue to be problems for the lower courts in applying it. It is also underlined that the narrow approach adopted in the majority decisions is consistent with recent legislative reforms which are increasing the accountability of lawyers for their misconduct in litigation.
Literature Review: Cultural Considerations in Alternative Dispute Resolution – Antonella Rodriguez
This literature review was commissioned by the Migration Council of Australia in co-operation with the Judicial Council of Cultural Diversity. It was intended to inform the development of a guidance note for judicial officers with a specific focus on cultural considerations that might arise as part of the family dispute resolution process. A broad overview is provided considering the work undertaken by Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners and the intersection of Western style facilitated dispute resolution practices with culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: JJA Vol 28 No 2 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.