*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 98 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW<\/a> \u2013 Editors: Lyria Bennett Moses and Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: WESTERN AUSTRALIA<\/a> \u2013 Editor: The Hon Kenneth Martin KC<\/strong><\/p>\n CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Anne Twomey AO<\/strong><\/p>\n CLASS ACTIONS<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Michael BJ Lee<\/strong><\/p>\n Really Under Pressure? The Federal Commissioner of Taxation, Legal Professional Privilege and the Provisions of Australian Legal Profession Legislation That Dare Not Speak Their Name \u2026<\/em><\/a> \u2013<\/b> Eu-Jin Teo<\/p>\n This article discusses the potential relevance of s 39 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (and its equivalents in non-Uniform Law jurisdictions) to the actions of the Federal Commissioner of Taxation or the Commissioner\u2019s delegates. Conduct by the executive vis-\u00e0-vis s 39, a provision yet to be judicially considered, likely raises broad rule of law concerns, quite apart from the general issue of Crown immunity (the Uniform Law does not purport to bind the Crown in any of its capacities). The potential application of the section to the Crown in right of the Commonwealth raises further issues in relation to intergovernmental immunities and s 109. On balance, it would appear that well-meaning but overzealous Australian Taxation Office officers could potentially expose themselves to criminal culpability if they seek to pressure law practices or legal practitioners in relation to claims of legal professional privilege, contrary to s 39 and its equivalents.<\/p>\n Viability Of a Psychiatric Injury Claim for Bystanders Who Witnessed and Rescuers Who Attended the Sea World Helicopter Accident<\/em><\/a> \u2013<\/b> Anthony Gray<\/p>\n This article considers important potential legal consequences from the helicopter tragedy in January 2023 in which four people were killed. The event raises legal issues including the viability of potential claims for psychiatric injury for those who unwittingly observed the horrible events or who provided rescue efforts, acknowledging that, at this time, no fault has yet been established in any individual. As will be shown, the law in the United Kingdom (UK) has proceeded along a path with respect to these claims that has arguably become untenable and indefensible. The High Court of Australia has not considered claims for psychiatric claims for more than 20 years, presenting our Court with an opportunity, if one arose, to set our law on a different path than the UK example.<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – ALJ Vol 98 No 2 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