*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a088 Part 10) contains the following material:<\/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: VICTORIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Clyde Croft<\/b><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean<\/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 The anti-deprivation rule in Australia<\/i><\/b><\/a> — Nishad Kulkarni<\/p>\n Whether the anti-deprivation rule that has recently been applied in England exists in Australia has not yet been judicially considered. The ground covered by the rule has traditionally been understood as a manifestation of the so-called pari passu principle. The English cases have, however, identified it as a separate rule with distinct operation. This article examines the English cases and seeks to identify the proper legal foundation of the rule. It asks whether a distinct anti-deprivation rule might exist in Australia consistently with the High Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision in International Air Transport Association v Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd (2008) 234 CLR 151. The article discusses the suggested operation in this context of the illegality principle recently applied by the High Court and considers whether it may supply a statutory footing for an Australian anti-deprivation rule.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>. <\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Response to the 2013 Whitmore Lecture by The Hon Wayne Martin AC, Chief Justice of Western Australia<\/i><\/b><\/a> — Chris Wheeler<\/p>\n It has been argued in recent years by various commentators that consideration should be given to the concept of an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153integrity\u00e2\u20ac\u009d branch of government incorporating the various agencies that have been established in each jurisdiction to ensure the integrity of government. In the 2013 Whitmore Lecture (Martin W, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Forewarned and four-armed: Administrative law values and the fourth arm of government\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (2014) 88 ALJ 106), the Chief Justice of Western Australia criticised this notion of an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153integrity\u00e2\u20ac\u009d branch in the context of a more general criticism of the legislative framework for integrity agencies in Western Australia and how they have exercised some of their functions. This article is a response to the views expressed by the Chief Justice, and argues that the criticism of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153integrity\u00e2\u20ac\u009d branch concept appears to be based on the problematic premise that the historical arrangements between the existing three branches of government are still adequate to ensure an appropriate balance between them. This article also argues that some of the Chief Justice\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s criticisms of the Western Australian integrity framework and legislation are misconceived.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>. <\/i><\/b><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/b><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n