*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 5) contains the following material:<\/p>\n A response to Professor Finn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Fiduciary reflections\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/i><\/b><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/b>Andrew Eastwood and Luke Hastings<\/p>\n Given his status as one of the most respected commentators in Australia on fiduciary law, the latest contribution by Professor Paul Finn (Fiduciary reflections (2014) 88 ALJ 127) is very much to be welcomed. His article provides food for thought in a number of important areas. The purpose of this article is not to comment generally on the matters raised by Professor Finn in his article, but rather to respond to the criticisms that Professor Finn makes of the decision of Jacobson J in Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd [No 4] (2007) 160 FCR 35, and, more briefly, the New South Wales Court of Appeal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision in Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney (2013) 295 ALR 760.<\/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 The principle in Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd: Back to the drawing board<\/i><\/b><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/b>Paul A Walker<\/p>\n The principle in Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418 provides for an essentially uniform construction of contractual provisions which are intended to bring about an automatic or self-executing termination of a contract, upon the happening of an event that may be caused by the default of one or both of the parties. This article argues that the principle in Suttor should be re-evaluated on the basis that it is not well adapted to achieve the policy goals which underpin it. In its place, the courts should directly apply the rule or presumption that a party may not take advantage of their own wrong.<\/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 Under the oak tree: Institutional reform in the deep north<\/i><\/b><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/b>Andrew Trotter and Harry Hobbs<\/p>\n Strong institutions are a prerequisite to good governance and a critical aspect of the rule of law. The independence of a legally qualified judiciary and the transparency and accountability of government are the cumulative result of many centuries of progress. Recent reforms to the legislature, the judiciary, and the Executive in Queensland place these important principles under threat. This article places these reforms in their historical context to illustrate that they weaken the institutions of the state in a manner inconsistent with the course of history.<\/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 OVERSEAS LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Colin Picker<\/b><\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL FOCUS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ryszard Piotrowicz<\/b><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO<\/b><\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0WAU – ALJ Vol 88 Pt 5 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
Sections<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n