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 AEST).
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 93 Part 3) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
- Commissioner Hayne Presents His Report
- ALRC Report on Class Actions
- The Journey Towards a National Integrity Commission Continues
- NSW Magistrate Referred to Parliament
- This Month’s Guest Contributors
- You May Be, From Time to Time, Required to Work Reasonable Additional Hours
- The Curated Page
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth
- Concurrent Leases and the Fragility of the Equitable Estate in the Torrens System
- Possessory Title, Succession Law and the Torrens System: McFarland v Gertos
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Editor: Justice Rachel Pepper
- Significant Environmental Decisions of the Federal Court
FAMILY LAW – Editor: Richard Ingleby
- Racial Vilification and the Practice of Family Law
TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW – Editors: Lyria Bennett Moses and Anna Collyer
- When and How Should We Invite Artificial Intelligence Tools to Assist with the Administration of Law? A Note from America
RECENT CASES – Editor: Ruth C A Higgins SC
- Procedure – Civil Proceedings in State and Territory Courts – Joinder of Causes of Action and Parties – Parties – Where Application to Set Aside Orders on the Basis That Applicants Should Have Been Joined
- Torts – Battery – Misfeasance in Public Office – False Imprisonment – Malicious Prosecution – Malicious Conduct of Police Officers – Police Act 1892 (WA) – Section 137(5) – Solidary Liability
Proportionate Liability in Commercial Cases: Principles and Practice – Graeme S Clarke QC
Under the proportionate liability statutes, the court apportions legal responsibility for causing the plaintiff loss and damage between concurrent wrongdoers, when it is just to do so. The circumstances in which the court makes an apportionment are limited. Strategic decisions by the plaintiff as to how it makes its claims, and by the defendant as to how it claims an apportionment, are critical to whether the plaintiff can avoid an apportionment, or the defendant can obtain one. Aspects of statutory construction are unresolved. It is unclear whether the purposes of the proportionate liability regimes are being achieved.
Barbaro in Queensland: Exceptionalism Again? – H G Fryberg QC
In 2016 the Queensland Parliament passed legislation designed to restore the practice of prosecutors making submissions to a sentencing judge as to the appropriate sentence or range of sentences of imprisonment, a practice prohibited by the decision of the High Court in Barbaro v The Queen. This article considers whether the legislation achieves that objective (it does, despite its wording); how sentencing judges may use such a submission (as part of the sentencing process); and whether any such submission can be received in the course of sentencing for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth (it can, and if the legislation is to be complied with, it must be received).
This article considers the ways in which a school may be liable to its staff or students for sun-related injuries. First, the article considers the possibility of schools’ liability to students in negligence in respect of severe sunburn or skin cancer. The analysis provides an avenue to explore the application of the principles of negligence to a claim of this kind, and concludes that students will face significant challenges in bringing claims against their school. Second, the article considers schools’ liability to employees under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), examining the operation of the legislative scheme in respect of skin cancer.
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 93 No 3 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: email@example.com.