*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 or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 97 Part 5) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n FAMILY LAW<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Richard Ingleby<\/strong><\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL FOCUS<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Professor Stuart Kaye<\/strong><\/p>\n FROM THE LAW SCHOOLS<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Emeritus Professor David Barker<\/strong><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean<\/strong><\/p>\n Suing Foreign Defendants in Contract: Does a Court Have Jurisdiction Where the Contract May Not Exist?<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 <\/strong>Dan Butler KC<\/p>\n The rules of court delineate the circumstances in which a foreign defendant can be served with an originating process. This article discusses the outer limits of the court\u2019s jurisdiction in relation to contractual claims against a foreign defendant. In particular, does a court have jurisdiction over a foreign defendant where the issue confronting the court is whether the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract at all? If such a proceeding were to continue to trial, the court may conclude that no such contract was entered into. Does such a \u00a0possibility mean that a court should conclude, when confronted with a challenge to its jurisdiction, that such a claim is beyond jurisdiction? This article considers the differing views expressed by the authorities on this issue. It contends that the court does have jurisdiction in those circumstances, even though on a final hearing on the merits it may ultimately decide that no such contract ever existed.<\/p>\n Compelling Production of a Defamatory Draft<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013<\/strong> Michael Douglas<\/p>\n In Ajaka v Nine Network Pty Ltd<\/em>, the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered an application by persons who believed they would soon be defamed by forthcoming media publications for interim injunctive relief and preliminary discovery, among other things. The Court compelled the media defendants to produce the draft story to the applicants, so the applicants\u2019 lawyers could review the material in advance of the hearing of an interlocutory injunction to restrain publication. While this kind of pre-publication order is \u201cextraordinary\u201d, there is a principled basis for a court to make this kind of order. In the right circumstances, an Australian court may compel production of a defamatory draft through various procedural means. The powers of superior courts, including State Supreme Courts and the Federal Court of Australia, to compel the production of a defamatory draft by a would-be publisher are abundant, and may be exercised in rare circumstances.<\/p>\n The Rule of Law in a Social Media Age Sir Francis Burt Oration 2022<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 <\/strong>Peter Quinlan<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – ALJ Vol 97 No 5 Contents<\/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
\n