*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 96 Part 2) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
- Designing an Indigenous Voice
- A New Australian Resource on Modern Slavery
- New Cultural Heritage Legislation in Western Australia
- The Curated Page
- What Happens When the High Court Commits a Logical Fallacy?
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth
- Electronic Conveyancing: What Happens When the Computer Says “No”?
AROUND THE NATION: VICTORIA – Editor: The Hon Dr Clyde Croft AM SC
- COVID-19 and Victoria’s Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme (CTRS)
NEW ZEALAND – Editor: Justice Matthew Palmer
- Te Ao Mārama
EQUITY AND TRUSTS – Editor: Justice Mark Leeming
- “Well hidden” Equity – Four Equity Eucalypts
This article examines the leading cases on the use and misuse of real evidence with a view to recommending (1) legislative reform of the uniform evidence legislation, and (2) statutorily overriding Scott v Numurkah Corp and Kozul v The Queen at common law. Where real evidence takes the form of an out of court experiment, it is contended that s 53(3)(c) of the uniform evidence legislation should be amended to include an expanded version of the Neilan test at common law. Where real evidence takes the form of an in court experiment, it is contended that s 53(4) of the uniform evidence legislation should be amended to allow the court to conduct an experiment. The underlying cause of these present restrictions on the use of real evidence is an apparent distrust by the legal profession of the jury’s capacity to properly handle and assess real evidence.
Cooper v The Owners – Strata Plan No 58068 is arguably the most significant decision to date for millions of Australians who live in strata schemes. While it is the first New South Wales superior court consideration of pet regulation, as well as the s 139(1) prohibition on by-laws that are “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive”, the decision goes much further. The Court held that owners corporations have no power to make any by-law that regulates activity that has no meaningful effect on other people. This article discusses that decision in the context of wider property and political debates, in Australia and other jurisdictions.
BOOK REVIEWS – Editor: Angelina Gomez
- The Constitution of the Australian Capital Territory, by Justice David Mossop
- International Commercial and Investor-state Arbitration – Australia and Japan in Regional Contexts, by Luke Nottage
For general queries, please contact: [email protected].