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 93 Part 7) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
Corrigendum<\/strong> CURRENT ISSUES<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Guest Editor: Dr Nuncio D\u00e2\u20ac\u2122Angelo<\/strong><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: VICTORIA<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Clyde Croft AM<\/strong><\/p>\n FAMILY LAW<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Richard Ingleby<\/strong><\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL FOCUS<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Professor Stuart Kaye<\/strong><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean<\/strong><\/p>\n COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: John Kettle<\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Emily Vale<\/strong><\/p>\n New South Wales<\/strong><\/p>\n Queensland<\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth C A Higgins SC<\/strong><\/p>\n Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Does an Issue Estoppel Arise from a Foreign Court’s Determination of its Own Jurisdiction?<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0Dan Butler<\/p>\n Australian Courts, from time to time, are asked to enforce foreign judgments. A fundamental requirement for enforcement of a foreign judgment is that the foreign Court has exercised a jurisdiction which is recognised by Australian law. However, on an enforcement application in Australia, what is the effect, if any, of the foreign Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s determination of its own jurisdiction? That is, if a foreign Court is asked by a defendant to rule on its own jurisdiction, and decides it does have jurisdiction, does an issue estoppel arise in local enforcement proceedings, preventing the judgment debtor from contending that the foreign Court did not have jurisdiction? This article considers the limited, and differing, authorities on this issue. It contends that an issue estoppel should not be permitted in those circumstances.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Seeking Equal Dignity without Discrimination\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u201c The Australian Human Rights Commission and the Handling of Complaints<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM<\/p>\n The complaint handling role of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is one of the key ways of protecting human rights in Australia, but it is not well understood. This article seeks to fill that gap. There are actually three distinct streams of complaints, a fact that reflects the history of the Commission itself. There is the set of complaints that may be brought under the four federal Discrimination Acts, but there are also two other streams of complaints, based on the international instruments that are scheduled to the AHRC Act, rather than through domestic legislation. As is the story in most legal histories of the development of legislation, it is not a linear narrative. Contemporary criticism or questioning also needs to be placed in the context of that history. An understanding of the role played by the Commission since its foundation also provides essential background for a consideration of improving human rights protections in Australia.<\/p>\n Alternative Facts in the Courts<\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0The Hon Justice Stephen Gageler AC<\/p>\n This article reflects on how our legal system deals with the phenomenon of the assertion of alternative versions of a fact. When a party in litigation asserts the existence of a fact which another party disputes, the question for the tribunal of fact is not the abstract question of whether the fact exists. The question for the tribunal is whether it is satisfied that the fact has been proved to the requisite standard. The tribunal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s judgment is made inevitably under conditions of uncertainty and involves the formation of a subjective belief. That subjective belief is an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153actual persuasion\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that the asserted fact exists. And it is the subjectivity of fact-finding that allows us to understand why a different, probabilistic approach to fact-finding cannot be the measure or the goal of what our courts do.<\/p>\n Exploring New and Old Ideas about Estoppel and Election<\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0The Hon K R Handley QC<\/p>\n The author explores the interaction between old and new ideas in the test of unconscionability, statements about the future, agreements subject to contract, promissory estoppel, testamentary promises, the relevance of Hohfeld\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s analysis of the nature of legal rights, and election between rights.<\/p>\n OBITUARY<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 93 No 7 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nPlease refer to Volume 90 of the Australian Law Journal. An error appears in the article by Daniel Reynolds, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Construction of Contracts after Mount Bruce Mining v Wright Prospecting\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (2016) 90 Australian Law Journal 190, page 204. The list of High Court\u00c2\u00a0 Justices appearing in the first full sentence on that page should have included Justice
\nCrennan. The author apologises for the omission.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n