*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 94 Part 4) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
- The Case for Principled and Practical Propensity Evidence Reform
- The Curated Page
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth
- Solar Panels and Restrictive Covenants
- Cryptoassets: Property or Not?
CLASS ACTIONS – Editor: Justice Michael B J Lee
- Recent Developments in Security for Costs Applications in Class Actions
EQUITY AND TRUSTS – Editor: Justice Mark Leeming
- Six Differences between Trustees and Company Directors
AROUND THE NATION: TASMANIA – Editor: Justice Stephen Estcourt AM
- The Mason – Dixon Line
The Law Of Sorcery In Madayin – Dr Danial Kelly
This article examines the sources and purpose of authority in relation to sorcery in the Madayin Aboriginal legal system of Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia. In the Madayin system, sorcery may be considered legally authorised or not legally authorised. While Australian (and English) law has sometimes outlawed sorcery and sometimes allowed it, Madayin has always allowed the authorised forms of sorcery. Acts of sorcery may even be approved as legal punishments in the Madayin system. The article draws upon recognised authors, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, to introduce the reader to this topic.
International contracts will almost always contain a jurisdiction clause designating a particular venue for the resolution of disputes. That is because, in international litigation, venue matters. Generally, parties should be held to their bargain. But there may be exceptional reasons, making it unfair to be forced to litigate abroad. Consequently, over time, a number of different strategies have emerged, which can be deployed by a litigant seeking to extricate itself from a jurisdiction agreement. This article examines those strategies.
This article examines the judicial willingness to consider local conditions in developing the common law of Australia. While there were a few notable exceptions, neither colonial judges nor the Privy Council were inclined to adapt English common law rules to Australian conditions despite having scope to do so pursuant to the so-called “colonial birthright” doctrine. It is highlighted that resistance to examining local conditions in a common law setting persisted for most of the 20th century, as reflected in High Court decisions of the 1970s. However, it is shown that the High Court has been willing to consider Australian-specific factors after the complete abolition of Privy Council appeals. In overturning particular English rules (assumed to be part of the received law), the court has variously reasoned that they were not appropriate to the condition of the Australian colonies or cannot be justified in light of subsequent developments in Australia.
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 94 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: email@example.com.