*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 100 Part 4) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n 50 years of the Family Court of Australia<\/p>\n Hate speech and related issues<\/p>\n AI in Victorian courts and tribunals<\/p>\n Farewell to good character references<\/p>\n Marking the opening of law term<\/p>\n The Curated Page<\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY \u2013 Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth <\/strong><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME \u2013 Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean LLD <\/strong><\/p>\n EQUITY AND TRUSTS \u2013 Editor: Aryan Mohseni <\/strong><\/p>\n History of the Australian Law Journal: The 1930s \u2013 Part I: Consolidation and Growth<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Larissa Reid<\/p>\n This article examines the Australian Law Journal during the 1930s, a decade in which the Journal consolidated its place at the centre of Australia\u2019s emerging national legal community. Under the editorship of Bernard Sugerman, the ALJ responded to the practical demands of the Great Depression while also fostering professional identity, legal scholarship and national conversation. The article considers the Journal\u2019s treatment of financial emergency legislation, its support for the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Legal Conventions, its expanding range of contributors and subject matter, and its careful avoidance of partisan political commentary during a turbulent period.<\/p>\n The Potential Use of Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and Disclosure Provisions With Reference To Net-Zero Statements Natania Locke<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Natania Locke<\/p>\n The article explores the legal implications of net-zero statements made by corporations, examining the criteria under which these statements can be considered misleading or deceptive according to the Corporations Act 2001 Cth Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 Cth ASIC Act . It highlights the complexity of proving misleading conduct and provides several recommendations for corporations. These include supporting net-zero statements with evidence, ensuring a reasonable basis for future statements, including clear and prominent disclaimers, and regularly reviewing and updating statements to reflect new information. The article also emphasises the importance of transparency and integrity in corporate climate commitments and advises corporations to follow non-legislative guidance and avoid over-reliance on unproven technologies. By adhering to these recommendations, corporations can enhance the credibility of their net-zero statements and reduce the risk of legal challenges, ultimately supporting effective climate action.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n