The latest Part of the Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal includes the following articles: “Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: The Trojan Horse of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its Practical Implications” – Muhammad Zaheer Abbas and Shamreeza Riaz; “Managing the Inter-cultural Dimensions of a Mediation Effectively – A Proposed Pre-mediation Intake Instrument” – Dorcas Quek Anderson and Diana Knight; “Being the Ladle in the Soup Pot: Working with the Dichotomy of Neutrality and Empowerment in Mediation Practice” – Bornali Borah; “Mediation Confidentiality: Origins, Application and Exceptions and Practical Implications” – Judge Joe Harman; “Design in Dispute Resolution Practice: Tips and Tools” – Helen Shurven and Clair Berman-Robinson; “Mediator’s Proposal and Mediator’s Neutrality: Finessing the Tension” – Mohamed Sweify; “Settlement in Court-Connected ADR and the Constitutional Function of the Judiciary: An Imbalance between two Competing Public Interests” – Michael Windeyer. It also contains Case Notes: “Admissibility of a Statement Made at Mediation – Humphreys v Humphreys” and “Mediation Media Watch” – David Spencer.
The latest Part of the Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal includes the following articles: “ADR process design: Considerations for ADR practitioners and party advisors” – Clair Berman-Robinson and Helen Shurven; “Working in ADR with disputants on the Autism Spectrum” – Rebekah M Doley; “Collaborative practice and poverty: Contextualising the process and accommodating the market” – Daye Gang; “ADR and technology” – Stefan RM Lancy; “Applying global standards in using ADR to settle domestic violence cases in Nigeria” – Chukwunweike A Ogbuabor; “Institutional culture in international arbitration” – Fernando Dias Simões; and “Protection of trade secrets in mediation” – Constanze Solveigh Wedding. It also contains Case Notes: “Whether an arbitration agreement is rendered inoperative by a settlement agreement; and mediation media watch” – David Spencer.
The latest Part of the Family Law Review includes the following articles: “Inconsistencies in and the inadequacies of the family counselling and FDR confidentiality and admissibility provisions: The need for reform” – Donna Cooper; and “Let me be me: Parental responsibility, Gillick competence, and transgender minors’ access to hormone treatments” – Katherine France; the following Professional Insights note: “When can a party to contested proceedings have leave to adduce evidence from an adversarial expert when a single expert has already been appointed?” – Richard Ingleby and Anne-Marie Rice; and notes on the following cases: Vadisanis v Vadisanis; Zanda v Zanda; and Cape v Cape.
The latest Part of ADRJ is a special issue, celebrating 25 Years of LEADR. It includes memories and reflections on the story of the first 25 years of LEADR, the beginnings of LEADR, training in Australian and New Zealand, LEADR today and personal retrospectives. Also in this Part are articles on the benefits of ADR in settling sexual harassment complaints, the emergence of lawyer representatives in ADR, the conflict of confidentiality and public interest for a mediator and the provision of FDR in prisons. Not to be missed!
The latest Part of the Australian Law Journal includes the following articles: “Cutting the Gordian Knot or entangling it further?” – David Birch and Alice Zheng; “Nominee board members: A duty of confidentiality?” – Laura Free; and “Competing approaches to beneficiary access to trust information: Perhaps not so much of “a fork in the road”” – Thomas Kaldor. There are also several sections included in this Part: Current Issues; Conveyancing and Property; Family Law; Overseas Law; Recent Cases and Book Reviews.
The proposed client-accountant tax privilege in Australia: How does it sit with the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege?
By Andrew J Maples and Michael Blissenden. Legal professional privilege protects confidential communications between legal advisors and their clients from compulsory disclosure. In the taxation arena, this will include protection from disclosure to taxation authorities using coercive information-gathering powers.