*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 8) contains the following material:

CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc

  • Rethinking COVID-19 State Border Closures
  • From the Law Schools – A New Editor
  • Excluded: The Democratic Deficit in Interstate Border Closures
  • The Curated Page

Click here to access on New Westlaw

FROM THE LAW SCHOOLS – Editor: Emeritus Professor David Barker

  • Australian Legal Education – Moving Forward in 2021

Click here to access on New Westlaw

ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME – Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean

  • Admiralty and Maritime and the South China Sea

Click here to access on New Westlaw

TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW – Editor: Lyria Bennett Moses

  • Designing for Consumers: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Google LLC (No 2)

Click here to access on New Westlaw

FAMILY LAW – Editor: Richard Ingleby

  • A Financial Agreements Conundrum

Click here to access on New Westlaw

INTERNATIONAL FOCUS – Editor: Professor Stuart Kaye

  • Australia’s New Foreign Relations Legislation

Click here to access on New Westlaw


Aboriginal Australians and the Common Law – The Honourable Margaret Beazley AC QC

From the earliest days of the colony of New South Wales, the interaction of Aboriginal Australians with a system of law which was alien to them and conducted in a language which they did not speak was fraught. The wrongly attributed common law notion of terra nullius to the lands of which the British Crown took possession has been the source of disadvantage to Aboriginal communities which has outlived its reversal in Mabo v Queensland (No 2). This article examines the early beginnings, and traces the history of, Aboriginal interaction with the common law through to the 21st Century in case law and legislation, with a focus on Aboriginal identity and sovereignty. The topic is huge and it was necessary to be selective. I trust, however, that the issues I have chosen will make a contribution to a fuller understanding of our history.

Click here to access this article on New Westlaw

The Rise of the Anti-arbitration injunction – Justice AS Bell

Click here to access this article on New Westlaw

The Requirement of Property or Possessory Rights for Relief against Forfeiture – Fabian Di Lizia

There are broadly two “heads” of jurisdiction for relief against forfeiture in the modern context: where there is fraud, accident, mistake or surprise; or where the object of the relevant transaction is to secure a stated result. In respect of the latter, although not definitively resolved in Australia, the courts in England hold that the forfeited right must be sufficiently “proprietary” or “possessory” and not “merely contractual”. It is argued that this approach should not be adopted in Australia. Such an approach is not required to uphold the underlying rationale of relief against forfeiture to mitigate against the unconscientious exercise of contractual power. It is unclear why the courts of equity should protect property rights above others. It also leads to courts engaging in confusing debates about what is sufficiently “proprietary” or “possessory” to enliven the jurisdiction to grant relief.

Click here to access this article on New Westlaw

For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU – ALJ Vol 95 No 8 Contents or here: New Westlaw AU – ALJ Vol 95 No 8 Contents.

Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU

Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU

For general queries, please contact: [email protected].