*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 95 Part 4) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
- Family Court Merger Becomes a Reality
- Australia at the UN Human Rights Council
- A Federal Judicial Commission
- Choice of Counsel a Fundamental Matter
- The End of the Cardinal Pell Media Saga
- A Turn Up for the Books?
- Anzac Lawyers
- Remembering the Hon Mr Justice Russell Le Gay Brereton
- The Curated Page
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth
- The Limits of Expert’s Participation in a Leasing Dispute
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Editor: Anne Twomey
- Who Is Responsible for Quarantine under the Constitution?
This article is based on the personal letters of Russell Le Gay Brereton, who was later a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, written to his family during his service overseas in World War II. Brereton, who served in the Middle East and Pacific theatres, was a key lawyer in the establishment of the War Crimes Tribunal on the island of Labuan in 1945. These letters give a rare personal insight into the formative experiences of a man who was a well-known judge for over 20 years.
Glory without Power: The Nationhood Power and Commonwealth Spending on Sport – Daniel Goldsworthy
The constitutional dimensions of federal spending on sport have yet to be considered by the courts, the academy or various parliamentary inquiries. The current Senate Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants Inquiry provides an opportunity to consider the constitutionality of federal spending on sport, which has not been contemplated since the seminal decisions of Pape, Williams (No 1) and Williams (No 2). In the absence of express or concurrent legislative powers regarding sport, this article considers whether the Constitution’s implied nationhood power might support Commonwealth funding in this area. An appropriate constitutional challenge would likely call into question, and possibly fracture, existing aspects of Commonwealth spending on sport for want of necessary constitutional power. Were the validity of Commonwealth spending on sport to be challenged, the High Court would have recourse to consider whether, constitutionally at least, Australia is truly a sporting nation.
The Power of “National Uniform Legislation”: What Is Its Rate of Proliferation and What Factors Are Driving It? – Dr Guzyal Hill and Dr John Garrick
This research examines the rate of proliferation of national uniform legislation and driving forces behind this proliferation. Although national uniform legislation, as a complex legal phenomenon, has advantages and disadvantages, it is an inevitable occurrence in today’s legal landscape. National law reform debate takes place against a backdrop of ever more complex and heated challenges, both local and global. New and even frightening challenges to sovereign nations have emerged. Yet one thing remains clear: a continued growth of national uniform legislation is foreseeable. Critical forces driving harmonisation have been identified and grouped into four categories: political, economic, social and technological. The list of driving forces we have identified is not exhaustive, but recent developments in connectivity (and serious contestation over who may be allowed to provide new technology to government systems and major infrastructure development) are only likely to add impetus to a further proliferation of national uniform legislation. The ongoing challenges of 2020 and beyond – bushfires, floods, global warming, COVID-19 pandemic and major international trade disputes – all serve to intensify debate over reform directions.
The year 2008 marked the 150th and 50th anniversaries respectively of the original South Australian Torrens registered land title statute and the Victorian Supreme Court decision in King v Smail. The year before the High Court of Australia had rendered its unanimous decision in Farah Constructions. The King decision was doubtful law even though it was decided a decade before the Privy Council and the High Court pronounced upon the issue of immediate indefeasibility of registered title. It is now 13 years since the High Court, in Farah, articulated upon the immediate indefeasibility of title of the registered volunteer. It is a cause for regret that the High Court in Farah and the later case of Cassegrain has not availed itself of the limited opportunity to expressly decide upon the indefeasibility (or otherwise) of the title of the registered volunteer throughout the Australian Torrens jurisdictions.
BOOK REVIEW – Editor: Angelina Gomez
Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Equity, by Dennis Klimchuk, Irit Samet and Henry E Smith (eds)
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 95 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: email@example.com.