*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: [email protected] or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).
The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Administrative Law (Volume 25 Part 4) contains the following material:
- Reforming Judicial Review (Again) â€“ Matthew Groves
CURRENT ISSUES â€“ Editors: Justin Davidson, Katie Miller and Stephen Tully
- Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Act 2018 (Cth) â€“ Stephen Tully
CASENOTE â€“ Editor: Nathalie Ng
- Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Egan  FCAFC 169 â€“Â Nathalie Ng
Judicial Review is Dead â€“ Long Live Judicial Review! â€“ Justice Rachel Pepper
Recent studies confirm that judicial review proceedings often result in unsatisfactory environmental outcomes. This article canvasses the efficacy of judicial review as a mechanism to challenge complex environmental decision-making by governments. It focuses on the inherent limitations of its scope, especially within the Australian constitutional context, and examines various legislative attempts to limit the availability of judicial review, while questioning what role, if any, remains for judicial review in an era of dangerous climate change in the Anthropocene age.
With organisations storing troves of valuable user data electronically, the risk of a large scale data breach occurring is higher than ever before. This article examines the remedies available to Australian data breach victims and considers to what extent victims can access effective redress. The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), contract law and tort law are currently the primary avenues of redress for data breach victims, though they are inadequately equipped to provide appropriate and consistent remedies. Many data breach victims are currently unable to access adequate compensation, which is inconsistent with the high value of personal data to both businesses and individuals as well as the intrinsic value of personal privacy. This article proposes that the Privacy Act should be amended to provide data breach victims with an explicit right to compensation as well as proposing the introduction of a cause of action allowing data breach victims to pursue remedies directly though a court or tribunal. By introducing a robust remedial framework, the balance of power will shift further towards the benefit of individuals and will provide claimants with a direct path to enforce their right to privacy.
What Probuild Says about Statutory Interpretation â€“ Steven Gardiner
The High Court of Australiaâ€™s conclusion in Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd (2018) 92 ALJR 248 that the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) excludes certiorari reveals a great deal about statutory interpretation. This article argues that Probuild reflects the lack of assistance â€œtext, context and purposeâ€ provides in explaining how issues of statutory interpretation are resolved, especially where the â€œprinciple of legalityâ€ is involved. The article suggests that a more explicitly functionalist approach focused on the value of accountability would have provided a more compelling explanation of the conclusion reached. Furthermore, the article argues that Probuild reflects the many methodological questions that the High Court still have not addressed as to how the rules of statutory interpretation change.
BOOK REVIEW â€“ Editor: Janina Boughey
- Australian Constitutional Values, by Rosalind Dixon (ed) â€“ Reviewed by Ellen Rock
For the PDFÂ version of the table of contents, click here: AJ Admin L Vol 25 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: [email protected].