*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 90 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Guest Editor: Justice James Edelman <\/strong><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Peter Butt <\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Clare Langford <\/strong><\/p>\n Commonwealth <\/strong><\/p>\n New South Wales <\/strong><\/p>\n Queensland <\/strong><\/p>\n South Australia <\/strong><\/p>\n Tasmania <\/strong><\/p>\n Victoria <\/strong><\/p>\n Western Australia <\/strong><\/p>\n CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Robert Baxt AO <\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO <\/strong><\/p>\n The Widening Net of Preventative Detention and the Unfit for Trial<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong><\/em>Kerri Eagle and Andrew Ellis<\/p>\n There has been an increasing trend in Australia towards using preventative detention legislation to supervise and detain high risk offenders. This has now been extended to forensic mental health legislation and in particular to those found unfit for trial. There are strong arguments both for and against such legislation but the potential for unfairness and injustice, particularly in relation to the most vulnerable such as those with mental impairments who are unfit for trial, is significant. In this article a review of the current legislation is undertaken and an attempt made to canvass some of the legal, clinical and jurisprudence issues relevant to any debate regarding the utility and role this type of legislation should have in Australia, particularly with regard to those with mental impairments.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Construction of Contracts after Mount Bruce Mining V Wright Prospecting<\/a><\/strong><\/em> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong>Daniel Reynolds<\/p>\n Since Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW)<\/em> (1982) 149 CLR 337 was handed down over 33 years ago, a debate has existed as to whether a written contract must be shown to contain ambiguity before a court may have regard to extrinsic evidence in construing it (the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153ambiguity gateway\u00e2\u20ac\u009d question). The High Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision in October 2015 in Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd<\/em> (2015) 89 ALJR 990; [2015] HCA 37 did not resolve that debate. However, it did reinforce the ascending view, which this article argues is more tenable in light of recent High Court authorities, that the ambiguity gateway is not an extant requirement in Australian law, and that courts may instead admit all extrinsic evidence on a provisional basis in order to decide which evidence can be of use, and for what purposes.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 90 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n