*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 97 Part 7) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
Guest Editor: Dr Nuncio D’Angelo
- More on Artificial Intelligence
- More on Climate Change: “Greenwashing” and Climate Risks for Solicitors
- More on Cryptocurrency: Is It “Property”?
- More on “Witness J”
- More on Vicarious Liability
- The Curated Page: A Thank You to Justice Stephen Estcourt
- More on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
- Questions of Secrecy and Validity Arising out of Senator Cash’s Election-Eve Appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
- The Curated Page
- Anonymous or Secret Ministers of State
FROM THE LAW SCHOOLS – Editor: Emeritus Professor David Barker
- Update
Articles
Pretty, Pricy, Perilous? Demystifying Non-Fungible Tokens and Highlighting Some Key Legal Concerns – Mark Giancaspro
There is currently a great deal of hype surrounding non-fungible tokens (NFT), fuelled largely by several high-profile and high-priced purchases. NFTs, which harness blockchain technology and represent digitally tokenised versions of assets, are largely misunderstood by regulators, lawyers, and even their users. Although they tend to have aesthetic and sentimental appeal, NFTs are also something of a legal anomaly. This article seeks to explain, in comprehensible terms, what NFTs are, and to highlight some of the key concerns that arise from their use across a variety of legal fields including contract, consumer, corporate, taxation and intellectual property law. It is ultimately concluded that users should, for the reasons provided, exercise great caution when entering the NFT market.
Development of The Reflective Loss Principle and The Need for Exceptions in Australia – Dominic Rawlings
The reflective loss principle is an English common law rule, founded in policy, which prevents personal recovery by shareholders against a wrongdoer for loss that is not distinct from the company’s, such as a diminution in share value. Despite Australian courts adopting this principle, seemingly without scrutiny, recent Australian jurisprudence has diverged from the latest English approach by maintaining the dual policy justification of the principle, namely the prevention of both double recovery and the circumvention of the rule in Foss v Harbottle. This article proposes that the uniform application of this principle may give rise to injustices by denying shareholders from recovering loss to which they are ought to be entitled. The solution? Expanding the categories of exceptions to circumstances where the two policy considerations are not engaged, for example, when the wrongdoer is insolvent, and where the company and wrongdoer have entered into a covenant not to sue.
A “Duty to Disclose” for Service Offences? Holcombe and Its Implications for Australian Military Law – Brendan Walker-Munro
Military forces around the world occupy a unique position among other employers: they have their own administration system, their own justice system, their own prison system. Yet much of the operation of these independent systems goes unnoticed by members of the public and unrecognised by broader justice frameworks. Such blindness can have tragic results. On 5 November 2017, a former United States Air Force (USAF) airman Devin Kelley opened fire in the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing 26 and wounding another 22. In the civil litigation which followed, the US District Court found the USAF partly liable for failing to disclose a conviction for Kelley which would have prevented him from legally purchasing the firearm used in the shooting. So, under what circumstances might a military force owe a duty of care to the public to notify it of such circumstances? This article engages with that question (particularly examining Australian military law) to mount the argument that in certain circumstances the Australian Defence Force (ADF) may owe a duty of care to civilian authorities to notify them of certain conduct by ADF members.
BOOK REVIEW – Editor: Angelina Gomez
- Judicial Independence under Threat, edited by Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos and Yvonne McDermott
- The Hon Dr JK McLaughlin AM KCSG KCGHS
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – ALJ Vol 97 No 7 Contents.
Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU
For general queries, please contact: [email protected].
