*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 Australian Law Journal (Volume 96 Part 6) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n STATUTORY INTERPRETATION<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: The Hon John Basten<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth CA Higgins SC<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: TASMANIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Stephen Estcourt AM<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Risk and Reform in Australian Financial Services Law<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Nicholas Simoes da Silva and William Isdale<\/p>\n This article considers the role that differing understandings of, and approaches to, risk have played in the development of Australian financial services law. In particular, it is argued that there has been a change in the regulatory approach to risk being assumed by Australian consumers, involving greater regulatory intervention in managing and reducing risk. It is argued that legislation concerning prudential and systemic risk regulation has proved to be much more accommodating of such change than has the cornerstone Act of financial services law: the Corporations Act 2001 <\/em>(Cth). The article offers lessons that can inform potential law reform \u00e2\u20ac\u201c in particular, by highlighting the importance of a clear legislative hierarchy.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Post-Brewster Jurisprudence \u00e2\u20ac\u201c The Future of the Common Fund Doctrine<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Ben Slade, Simon Gibbs and Vince Morabito<\/p>\n In December 2019, the High Court of Australia held, in BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster<\/em>, that the making of common fund orders in the early stages of class action litigation was not authorised by the federal legislative class action regime and its New South Wales equivalent. These orders, which were endorsed by the Full Federal Court in October 2016, had increased both the interest of funders in Australian class actions and the types of class proceedings that they funded. This seminal judicial pronouncement has been reviewed closely by a number of federal trial judges, primarily with a view to answering the crucial practical question of whether Brewster prohibits the making of common fund orders when approving a settlement. The principal aim of this article is to explore this post-Brewster jurisprudence.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU \u00e2\u20ac\u201c ALJ Vol 96 No 6 Contents<\/a> or here: New Westlaw Australia \u00e2\u20ac\u201c ALJ Vol 96 No 6 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n