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 6) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
- Vale Emeritus Professor Michael Coper AO FAAL
- Social Media Law Reform in Response to Killings in Christchurch
- Family Law Developments
- Religious Freedom Remains Topical
- Alleged Breach of Suppression Orders Pursued
- Family Law for the Future – A “Radical” Recommendation
- A Note from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor
- The Curated Page
LETTER TO THE EDITOR – The Hon Ian Holloway PC QC
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth
- Fixtures and Forge
- Valuable, Invaluable or Unvaluable? The High Court on Native Title Compensation
CLASS ACTIONS – Editor: Justice Michael B J Lee
- Looking into the Fishbowl – Open Justice and Federal Class Action Settlements
AROUND THE NATION: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – Editor: Justice David Mossop
CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES – Editor: Jason Harris
- The Changing Landscape of Corporate Fundraising
PERSONALIA – Editor: Emily Vale
- Justice Paul Anastassiou
- Justice Michael Wheelahan
New South Wales
- The Hon Margaret Joan Beazley AO QC
Statistics on Trial – Professor John S Croucher AM
The understanding of statistics in the legal context can be a difficult task for the uninitiated. History has demonstrated numerous examples where basic errors have been made when attempting to draw conclusions from probabilities in which an incorrect application of the principles is evident. As probability is often misunderstood by most members of the public, it is not surprising that it also poses a real challenge to legal practitioners. This has led to erroneous conclusions “based on the evidence” that have become known as a variety of “fallacies”, including those of both the prosecutor and defence. It is essential that lawyers can correctly understand and interpret the statistical information provided by witnesses, expert or otherwise. This article provides a step in that direction by examining four high profile cases.
Limitation of Actions and Specific Performance – Perry Herzfeld
There is recent English and Australian authority that, where a contract is breached, a claim for specific performance may be maintained even though a claim for damages is statutebarred. This article contends that this authority is wrong. The correct view is that, once the claim for damages for breach of contract is no longer maintainable, the claim for specific performance to remedy that breach is also not maintainable.
Liability of Educational Institutions for Child Abuse – Jack Maxwell
If a teacher abuses a student, is the school authority liable in damages to the student? Over the past 20 years, courts in Australia and England have invariably treated this as a question of vicarious liability. In this article, I argue that this approach is wrong and disruptive of the principled development of the law of torts. In cases of institutional child abuse, breach of a non-delegable duty of care is the more appropriate ground of liability. The prevailing approach in Australia and England reflects a continuing confusion about and between these two quite distinct forms of liability. This confusion has meant that, in Australia, abuse victims have been denied compensation while, in England, the doctrine of vicarious liability has had to be seriously distorted in order to provide a remedy.
After World War II, Australia joined the Allied nations in responding to the allegations of shocking war crimes having been committed by the Axis Powers. In relation to the Pacific theatre of the war, Australia participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East held in Tokyo from 1946–1948. Australian Military Courts also convened 300 war crimes trials of accused Japanese in various locations pursuant to the War Crimes Act 1945 (Cth). This article provides a brief overview of the legal framework and context of the military court trials. Many members of the Australian legal community served in the Australian Army Legal Corps during the war. After the war, some of them were posted to serve at the trials, as prosecuting and defending officers, as judges-advocate or reviewing officers and, very occasionally, as court members. This article briefly examines three prominent members of the Australian legal community who dealt with atrocities committed on Ambon: John Myles Williams (NSW), Alexander Davies Mackay (WA) and Kenneth Russell Townley (Qld). The military service of these and many other legal officers at the trials is not well known and much remains to be discovered about how their service intertwined with or affected their civilian legal or judicial careers.
Law Schools and The Burden Of Bureaucracy: Release The Yoke (A Plea From The Coalface). Part 2: International Comparators and A Proposal – Olivia Rundle and Lynden Griggs
In Part 1 of this two-part series, we spoke about how compliance obligations are stifling the ability of Australian law schools and legal academics to engage in the core activities of research and teaching. There are multiple bodies who certify, accredit, monitor and/or impose reporting requirements upon legal educators, and the legal profession is involved in more than one of these regulatory systems. The Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC) is currently trialling an additional and separate system of regulation of law school teaching. In Part 1 we overviewed the legal profession’s role in legal education, and critiqued the LACC Standards. In this Part 2 article we draw from international experiences to compare the Australian regulatory regime; we then focus upon the underlying needs of the legal profession and law schools, and make a proposal for change. Legal academics must be released from the burden of unnecessary and duplicative administrative work. Law schools must retain ultimate control over what and how law is taught. The legal profession has a collaborative and constructive role to play with the relationship between the academe and the profession grounded in trust and respect.
BOOK REVIEW – Editor: Angelina Gomez
- Control of Government Action: Text Cases & Commentary, by R Creyke, M Groves, J McMillan and M Smyth
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 93 No 6 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: email@example.com.