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\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 (Volume 92 Part 12) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth<\/strong><\/p>\n CRIME AND EVIDENCE<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Phillip Priest<\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Emily Vale<\/strong><\/p>\n Commonwealth<\/strong><\/p>\n New South Wales<\/strong><\/p>\n Victoria<\/strong><\/p>\n Western Australia<\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth C A Higgins SC<\/strong><\/p>\n Corporations \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Service of Originating Process \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 6.2 Provided for Service Within Six Months \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules r 2.7 Provided for Service as soon as Practicable After Filing and, in any Case, at Least Five Days Before Date Fixed for Hearing \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Whether r 2.7 Inconsistent with r 6.2<\/p>\n By the Skin of Our Teeth \u00e2\u20ac\u201c The Passing of the Women’s Legal Status Act 1918: Francis Forbes Lecture 30 May 2018<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong>\u00c2\u00a0The Hon Virginia Bell AC<\/p>\n This year marks the centenary of the enactment of the Women\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Legal Status Act 1918 (NSW). The common law had long been resistant to recognition of women as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153persons\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for the purposes of holding public office and admission to the legal profession. A group of remarkable women fought, inch by inch, Act by Act to overcome that resistance. While the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 (Cth) gave women the right to vote and made them eligible to stand for election to the new Commonwealth Parliament, suffragists quickly appreciated the vote was of little account while women were excluded from a voice in the State Parliament, which was responsible for so much legislation that affected women\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s lives. And they fought to support Ada Evans in her long struggle to be admitted to the New South Wales Bar. It would be many decades before fundamental social and economic changes allowed women to begin to take advantage of the rights that the Women\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Legal Status Act conferred. A lesson from 100 years of history is that changing the legislative framework is only one part of the struggle, and that the resistance to practical equality is not so easily overcome.<\/p>\n Judicial Review of the Fairness and Reasonableness, as between Class Members, of Federal Class Action Settlements<\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong>Vince Morabito<\/p>\n Settlement is the most common way in which federal class actions are resolved in Australia. In order to safeguard the interests of absent class members the settlement or discontinuance of class actions must be judicially approved. A crucial component of this judicial scrutiny entails a determination of whether the settlement in question gives preferential treatment to some class members over others and, if so, whether there are strong reasons that justify the approval of the settlement agreement notwithstanding this differential treatment. Despite the conceptual and practical importance of this dimension of the judicial review of class action settlements, it has been largely ignored in the legal literature. The aim of this article is to address this lacuna by exploring the way in which federal trial judges have, over the last 25 years or so, evaluated the fairness and reasonableness, between the class members inter se, of federal class action settlements.<\/p>\n Corporate Knowledge: The Search for the Relevant Mind(s)<\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong>Daniel Reynolds<\/p>\n The law of corporate knowledge is a complex field, engaging principles of company law, agency, statutory interpretation, and others. This article is an attempt to summarise the law in this area, in particular arguing that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153directing mind and will\u00e2\u20ac\u009d formulation should no longer be understood as a test of general application, but rather as one subsumed into the taxonomy set out in Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission; attempting to provide a more detailed explanation of how each category of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153rules of attribution\u00e2\u20ac\u009d might work in practice; and making the case that there may yet be some work for aggregation to do.<\/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 12 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n