*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 AEST).
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 95 Part 2) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
- Afghanistan – Office of Special Investigator
- Royal Commission into Police Informants
- Press Freedom
- National Security and the Law
- The AG’s Gambit: National Defamation Reform Enters Its Middlegame
- The Curated Page
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth
- The Mortgagee’s Duty to Account – Rowe and Nom de Plume
AROUND THE NATION: VICTORIA – Editor: The Hon Dr Clyde Croft AM SC
- COVID-19 and Emergency Regulations
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME – Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean
- World in a Box: Impact of Containerisation on Shipping Transactions
By an examination of relevant methodologies of constitutional interpretation, this article evaluates the decision of the High Court in Love v Commonwealth in order to consider the extent to which both the majority and dissenting reasoning can be supported within the range of mainstream techniques of constitutional interpretation. The case is very significant because it was the first in which the High Court had to determine the extent of Commonwealth legislative power at this intersection of indigeneity and the “aliens power” in s 51(xix) of the Constitution.
The Fluctuating Incidence Of The Burden Of Proof Under The Hague-Visby Rules: The Implications Of Volcafe Ltd V Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa  Ac 358 For The Position In Australia – Angus Stewart
The Hague-Visby Rules govern the liability of carriers of cargo by sea for loss of or damage to cargo. The key provisions are the obligations on the carrier to make the ship seaworthy and care for the cargo (Art III rr 1 and 2), and those which except the carrier from responsibility for loss or damage (Art IV r 2). The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recently came to reconsider what had been said in the House of Lords in Albacora SRL v Westcott & Laurence Line Ltd  2 Lloyd’s Rep 53; 1966 SC (HL) 19 and to consider what had been said in the High Court of Australia in Great China Metal Industries Co Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corporation Berhad (1998) 196 CLR 161, and took a contrary view. The article will review these developments and consider what implications there are for the position in Australia.
Overruling Constitutional Precedent – Joshua Thomson SC and Madeleine Durand
The circumstances in which a constitutional precedent decided by the High Court of Australia may be overturned differ from those which apply for other cases. That is due to the unique position of the Court which, practically speaking, has the last word on matters on constitutional interpretation. We seek to develop a set of principles about when constitutional overruling may occur. Despite warnings that this may be a futile exercise, we think that it is possible to provide some guidance, without necessarily being prescriptive. As with most legal problems, the prominent features generally emerge with some consistency from authority. Consequently, we think that it may be helpful to derive a set of general principles. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently attempted a similar exercise.
BOOK REVIEW – Editor: Angelina Gomez
- The Washington Diaries of Owen Dixon, 1942–1944, by Philip Ayres
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 95 No 2 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: [email protected]