*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email:\u00c2\u00a0LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0<\/span>Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 90 Part 12) contains the following material:<\/span><\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc <\/strong><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Peter Butt <\/strong><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice John Dominic Burns <\/strong><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: QUEENSLAND<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: John McKenna QC <\/strong><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: VICTORIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Clyde Croft <\/strong><\/p>\n COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Robert Baxt AO <\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth C A Higgins <\/strong><\/p>\n Unconscionability and Promissory Estoppel<\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Acting Justice Peter Young AO<\/p>\n In a speech delivered to the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners in March 2016, the author traces through the development of the concept of promissory estoppel, and analyses it, while at the same time questioning its categorisation as an estoppel. The author examines the possibility that promissory estoppel is not one principle at all but a label covering six different but related equities. Six related situations where equity considers it unconscionable for a person to renege after making a promise which another relies upon. The author explains that this discussion is complicated by the considerable differences in how promissory estoppel is considered in Australia and England and even between New South Wales and Victoria. The High Court of Australia has produced four cases where the judges\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 reasoning often conflicts, leaving it to State courts to distinguish High Court material that does not fit their taxonomy. The author concludes that promissory estoppel is an area of law under development and looks forward to the day when the various theories are melded into a viable principle.<\/p>\n Human Rights and Business Lawyers: The 2011 Watershed<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong><\/em>\u00c2\u00a0John Southalan<\/p>\n Magna Carta\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 800th anniversary saw much celebration and commentary about human rights in articles and conferences. Commercial lawyers should read that material carefully because, post 2011, international human rights standards apply to companies\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 decisions and actions. Even where a business has fully complied with all domestic law, if that law is inconsistent with international human rights standards, there are increasing legal implications for the business. In Australia, this includes a mediation process overseen by a Commonwealth Government official, through the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The law is developing, and relatively unknown, but any lawyer advising a business client needs familiarity with these areas. This article summarises the current human rights standards and procedures relevant to commercial lawyers in Australia, both in advising their clients and also in conducting their own practice.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina A Gomez <\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 90 No 12 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n<\/em><\/li>\n
\n<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n