{"id":4383,"date":"2012-11-23T16:11:48","date_gmt":"2012-11-23T05:11:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=4383"},"modified":"2012-11-23T16:11:48","modified_gmt":"2012-11-23T05:11:48","slug":"the-queensland-lawyer-update-november-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2012\/11\/23\/the-queensland-lawyer-update-november-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"The Queensland Lawyer update: November 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU. If you are still using Legal Online, the links can be found in the LOLA PDF at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n

The latest issue of the The Queensland Lawyer<\/em> (Volume 32 Part 4) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

Enduring powers of attorney: An effective advanced planning tool or an avenue for financial abuse<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Tsharna Stewart<\/p>\n

Power of attorney documents are important legal documents which assist in ensuring the availability of a substitute decision maker. They are relatively simple and inexpensive to make, though they are not without weaknesses. Power of attorney documents have a history of being both under utilised, and misused. The desire to reform the law of powers of attorney to protect the elderly, and other persons with impaired capacity is gaining momentum, having been the increasing subject of interest to national and international law reform bodies. A number of potential safeguards to be implemented have been canvassed, though for the purposes of this article, only implementing a mandatory registration system for power of attorney documents, a mandatory notification system and a system of increased accountability of attorneys will be discussed.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Queensland\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s single expert UCPR provisions: Dead-letter law or underutilised opportunity?<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Keith W Wylie<\/p>\n

Following calls for reform within Queensland and other civil jurisdictions, in 2004 Pt 5 Expert Evidence was introduced within Ch 11 of Queensland\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Uniform Civil Procedure Rules<\/em>. This article considers the court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s application of these provisions; in particular, the Pt\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s promotion and focus on the use of single jointly appointed or court-appointed experts. Jurisprudence on these and similar provisions in other jurisdictions indicate that courts are reluctant to force litigants to jointly appoint experts against their will, nor will they readily appoint experts of their own accord. Further, should a single expert be appointed, courts are likely to permit litigants to adduce subsequent evidence if required. Finally, this article notes that contrary to the purported philosophy of the Pt 5 provisions, the use of single experts should not be seen as the general rule, however, their use remains appropriate and worthy of consideration within limited circumstances.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Coal seam gas development, environmental legislation and power: Towards a pathway for conflict resolution and environmental justice<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Dr Edward Christie<\/p>\n

Controversy over potential adverse environmental impacts from CSG mining in Australia has led to polarised scientific and public opinion, creating a political firestorm. There is also a community perception that approvals under environmental legislation are completely weighted in favour of the mining industry. The Environmental Protection Act 1994 <\/em>(Qld) and the Water Act 2000 <\/em>(Qld) have direct application for administrative decision-making and environmental regulatory control of the CSG industry in Queensland. The Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012 <\/em>(Qld), passed on 14 August 2012, amended both statutes; in particular, a new licensing framework and approval regime was introduced for the Environmental Protection Act<\/em>. Legal rights and duties under these statutes which are relevant for environmental protection and ecologically sustainable development, together with the new licensing and approval regulatory controls for the CSG industry, are reviewed and analysed as a source of knowledge power for balancing power and conflict resolution. Strategic use of knowledge power of legal rights, duties and judicial review does not necessarily mean more litigation between parties holding competing environmental interests for future land use in regional Queensland: rather, to act as a catalyst for government to consider sharing its power, meaningfully, with the community, farmers and miners to resolve CSG-related issues \u00e2\u20ac\u201c where co-existence not conflict is the goal and environmental justice prevails.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sections<\/h3>\n

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Bill Lane <\/em>and Eleanor Dickens<\/em><\/p>\n