*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 92 Part 9) contains the following material:<\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean<\/strong><\/p>\n FAMILY LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Richard Ingleby<\/strong><\/p>\n STATUTORY INTERPRETATION<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: The Hon John Basten<\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Emily Vale<\/strong><\/p>\n Commonwealth<\/strong><\/p>\n Victoria<\/strong><\/p>\n Western Australia<\/strong><\/p>\n On to Strasbourg or Back to Temple? The Future of European Law in Australia Post-Brexit<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong>\u00c2\u00a0The Hon TF Bathurst AC and Bronte Lambourne<\/p>\n The decisions of the High Court in McCloy v New South Wales and Murphy v Electoral Commissioner represent a successive waxing and waning of the influence of European law on Australian public law. With Britain\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision to sever its ties with the European Union, the question of whether Australian law will further embrace European principles remains a live issue. This article considers the way in which the European principle of proportionality has been received into Australian constitutional and administrative law and questions whether such a principle is compatible with the foundations of our legal infrastructure, specifically, the constitutional separation of powers, the absence of a Bill of Rights and the deductive methodological approach of the common law.<\/p>\n Searching for the Searchers: The Australian Legal Profession and the Operation of the Australian Red Cross Missing and Wounded Enquiry Bureau in World War I<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong>\u00c2\u00a0Tony Cunneen<\/p>\n The searcher is a worker apart. He solves the problem of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153missing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Many aching hearts are lightened or deadened as the result of his labours. With quick perception, keen eye, and silent tread, he moves about the hospitals, convalescent camps, bases, and detail camps, containing in his hand a slip containing perhaps a query as this: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Private\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u201c No 24,537, missing at Pozieres?<\/p>\n Judicial Decision-Making in Times of War and Relative Peace<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong>\u00c2\u00a0The Hon Susan Kiefel AC<\/p>\n During the two World Wars, the High Court gave a broad interpretation to the legislative power with respect to the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the States. However, in some controversial decisions during World War II and in its aftermath, the Court held invalid statutory and regulatory measures. These cases may be seen to presage Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (Communist Party Case), in which the Court said that what was necessary in time of war may not be in a time of ostensible peace. The Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s discussion in the Communist Party Case of the role of the Court, in particular its role in determining constitutional facts, has assumed importance more recently in Thomas v Mowbray. That case may raise further questions for courts in the future.<\/p>\n The Case for Contradictors in Approving Class Action Settlements<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong>\u00c2\u00a0Jeremy Kirk<\/p>\n Class action settlements must be approved by the relevant court. The very fact of settlement means that there will in general be no legally represented persons before the court seeking to test the settlement, aspects of the settlement distribution scheme, or any common fund order. Such settlements involve the determination of legal rights of group members, who are not generally represented. The courts naturally look to representatives of the applicant for assistance, but the interests of all group members are not necessarily uniform nor the same as those of the applicant. Conflicting interests and duties are rife. In this context, this article argues that courts should readily require the appointment of a contradictor to test the settlement proposal, and proposes some guidelines in that respect.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 92 No 9 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n