*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 97 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n EQUITY AND TRUSTS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Mark Leeming<\/strong><\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL FOCUS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Professor Stuart Kaye<\/strong><\/p>\n Judicial Legitimacy<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c The Hon Stephen Gageler AC<\/p>\n The Section 75(v) Injunction: History and Principles<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Declan Noble<\/p>\n Accounts of the s 75(v) injunction explain its inclusion in the Constitution by reference to a supposed jurisdiction enjoyed by courts of equity before Federation to restrain the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153unlawful\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153invalid\u00e2\u20ac\u009d acts of public bodies and officers. This work challenges that position. It argues that, before Federation, injunctions were only granted against public bodies and officers on the same grounds as they were granted against other parties, such as to restrain certain torts or to protect property. The modern position \u00e2\u20ac\u201c whereby a party with requisite standing can obtain an injunction to restrain mere want or excess of power \u00e2\u20ac\u201c emerged gradually in the 20th century. Its development reflects peculiar aspects of Australian federalism, as well as attitudes to the relationship between the courts and the Executive rooted in the nature of government in colonial Australia. These matters will continue to inform developments in the scope of the s 75(v) injunction.<\/p>\n Questioning the Mistaken Payment Constructive Trust<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Bernard Porter KC<\/p>\n Wambo Coal v Ariff <\/em>recognised that a constructive trust arose over money paid by mistake at the time the recipient acquired knowledge of the mistaken payment (the Wambo trust). This article questions the recognition of the Wambo trust. It suggests that such a development in the law of constructive trusts is unnecessary, difficult to reconcile with general equitable principles and apt to cause injustice in particular cases. It also suggests that the arguments in favour of that development are open to question. It respectfully suggests that the principle not be applied in future cases.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia \u00e2\u20ac\u201c ALJ Vol 97 No 1 Contents.<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n