*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 91 Part 3) 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 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Anne Twomey<\/strong><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: WESTERN AUSTRALIA <\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Kenneth Martin<\/strong><\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL FOCUS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ryszard Piotrowicz<\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth C A Higgins<\/strong><\/p>\n ARTICLES<\/strong><\/p>\n Not worth the paper they’re not written on? Executing documents (including deeds) under electronic documentation platforms: Part B<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Diccon Loxton<\/p>\n This article examines the growing phenomenon of signing documents electronically through cloud-based platforms, and is in two parts. The first, Part A, published last month, described the process and concluded that documents signed in that way can generally satisfy requirements for signing and writing, not only when electronic transactions legislation is applied, but also under general law. This second part, Part B, concludes that documents can be signed in that way under s 127 of the Corporations Act 2001<\/em> (Cth). It also concludes that where electronic transactions legislation applies one can have effective electronic deeds. Where such documents would not be effective, then printouts can be effective as signed original hard copy counterparts.<\/p>\n Burqas and Niqabs in the courtroom: Finding practical solutions<\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/em><\/strong>\u00c2\u00a0Renae Barker<\/p>\n Courts from around the common law world have been required to decide whether a witness may give evidence while wearing a burqa or niqab. In the majority of documented cases the court has determined that the witness must remove her face covering. In coming to this conclusion the court has in many instances also considered alternative arrangements which may be put in place to minimise the witness\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s discomfort and respect her religious beliefs as far as possible. This article analyses the existing case law to determine which practical solutions considered by the courts are the most effective both in terms of respecting the witness\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s religious beliefs and in facilitating the administration of justice. It concludes that the removal of non-essential men and\/or the screening of the witness along with ancillary orders, offers the best compromise for all concerned.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 91 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n