*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 90 Part 3) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Guest Editor: Justice James Edelman
- Comity and civility between courts
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editor: Peter Butt
- Off-the-plan purchasers receive protection for sunset clause rescissions
- Rescission under sunset clauses
- Editor’s postscript
PERSONALIA – Editor: Clare Langford
Commonwealth
- Law Council of Australia
New South Wales
- New Chair of Law Reform Commission
- Appointment of Senior Counsel
- Bar Council election
Queensland
- Justice P D McMurdo
- Michael Roderick Byrne QC: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Appointment of Queen’s Counsel
South Australia
- Judge Mary-Louise Hribal
Tasmania
- Daryl Coates SC: Director of Public Prosecutions
Victoria
- Bar Council election
- Appointment of Senior Counsel
Western Australia
- Appointment of Senior Counsel
CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES – Editor: Robert Baxt AO
- The battle resumes for a better business judgment rule
RECENT CASES – Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO
- Donatio mortis causa
- Vendor and purchaser: Purchaser’s equitable rights before completion
- Landlord and tenant: Removal of wall by tenant – Who owns the bricks removed?
- Art auctioneers: Extent of duty of care
Articles
The Widening Net of Preventative Detention and the Unfit for Trial – Kerri Eagle and Andrew Ellis
There has been an increasing trend in Australia towards using preventative detention legislation to supervise and detain high risk offenders. This has now been extended to forensic mental health legislation and in particular to those found unfit for trial. There are strong arguments both for and against such legislation but the potential for unfairness and injustice, particularly in relation to the most vulnerable such as those with mental impairments who are unfit for trial, is significant. In this article a review of the current legislation is undertaken and an attempt made to canvass some of the legal, clinical and jurisprudence issues relevant to any debate regarding the utility and role this type of legislation should have in Australia, particularly with regard to those with mental impairments.
To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale order form and email it to [email protected].
Construction of Contracts after Mount Bruce Mining V Wright Prospecting – Daniel Reynolds
Since Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337 was handed down over 33 years ago, a debate has existed as to whether a written contract must be shown to contain ambiguity before a court may have regard to extrinsic evidence in construing it (the “ambiguity gateway†question). The High Court’s decision in October 2015 in Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 89 ALJR 990; [2015] HCA 37 did not resolve that debate. However, it did reinforce the ascending view, which this article argues is more tenable in light of recent High Court authorities, that the ambiguity gateway is not an extant requirement in Australian law, and that courts may instead admit all extrinsic evidence on a provisional basis in order to decide which evidence can be of use, and for what purposes.
To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale order form and email it to [email protected].
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 90 No 3 Contents.
