*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
<\/strong>NB: <\/strong>Please note that from now on, all updates will include links for Westlaw AU only<\/b> (with the exception of the Journals available on Checkpoint, which will have an extra PDF). For further information, please click here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a088 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n Lessons from a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153conversation\u00e2\u20ac\u009d about restitution<\/i><\/b><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/b>Hon Justice Susan Kiefel AC<\/p>\n In Australia, the law of restitution adheres to the approach exemplified by Lord Mansfield in Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005; 97 ER 676. It does not recognise \u00e2\u20ac\u0153unjust enrichment\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as a definitive principle. In the late 20th century, the English courts recognised the principle and, shortly after, the defence of change of position. These developments may owe much to a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153conversation\u00e2\u20ac\u009d between English and German legal scholars. The German Civil Code (B\u00c3\u00bcrgerliches Gesetzbuch, or BGB) has long recognised the defence, as a counterpoint to its broad \u00e2\u20ac\u0153absence of basis\u00e2\u20ac\u009d ground for liability. Notably, however, English law has not (yet) embraced such a broad ground for liability, and still requires a vitiating factor, such as mistake, to found a restitutionary claim. This article considers what implications the adherence to the considerations in Moses v Macferlan may have for the acceptance in Australia of the change of position defence as it is known to English and German law.<\/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 Murray Gleeson\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s contribution to the development of criminal law <\/i><\/b><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Hon Justice Margaret McMurdo AC<\/p>\n In this article I deal briefly with Murray Gleeson\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s contribution to the criminal law as barrister and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. But I focus principally on his contribution to the criminal justice system through his judgments, extracurial speeches and leadership role whilst Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. I discuss his first and last criminal decisions in the High Court. In between, I briefly analyse his dissents, his influence on the Tasmanian Jury Study, his role as leader of the Australian judiciary and review a representative selection of his judgments from all Australian jurisdictions. Before concluding, I consider how he dealt with the tension between community protection and individual rights and whether the label of black-letter conservative judge, which some gave to him, is apposite.<\/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 Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia and the new jurisprudence of section 92<\/i><\/b><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/b>Michael Coper<\/p>\n Except for an immediate small flurry of cases, s 92 of the Australian Constitution went to sleep for 20 years after the High Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ground-breaking decision in Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360. Then in 2008, this pivotal guarantee of free trade among the States in our 19th-century foundational document came into collision with new, 21st-century, electronic ways of doing business, to which State geographical boundaries were largely irrelevant \u00e2\u20ac\u201c except that it was the States that sought to regulate this business. In Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia (2008) 234 CLR 418, involving State regulation of internet gambling, the High Court reminded us of the gospel according to Cole v Whitfield: the States cannot regulate in a way that discriminates against interstate trade so as to confer protectionist benefits on their own intrastate trade. In the age, however, of the new economy, and of national competition law, some commentators have asked whether the national \u00e2\u20ac\u0153common market\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is adequately fostered by confining s 92 to the prevention of State protectionism. Two further internet gambling cases in 2012 appear to squash any suggestion in the 2008 case that the High Court might stray from the true path of Cole v Whitfield and expand the ambit of s 92 beyond State protectionism \u00e2\u20ac\u201c although a possible issue raised by laws that lessen competition without involving State protectionism was left to another day. In the author\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s view, s 92 is appropriately confined to the prevention of State protectionism, with broader protection of the common market best left to other mechanisms.<\/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 CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO<\/b><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Peter Butt<\/b><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: WESTERN AUSTRALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Kenneth Martin<\/b><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Sienna Merope<\/b><\/p>\n Victoria<\/b><\/p>\n EQUITY AND TRUSTS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Justice Mark Leeming<\/b><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO<\/b><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/b><\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: WAU – ALJ Vol 88 Pt 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
Sections<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n