DOCSLIB.ORG

ALJ Vol 92 No 1 Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ALJ Vol 92 No 1 Contents Australian Law Journal GENERAL EDITOR Justice François Kunc ASSISTANT GENERAL EDITORS Nuncio D’Angelo Angelina Gomez Ruth Higgins Emily Vale Solicitor, Sydney Lawyer, Perth Barrister, Sydney Solicitor, Sydney The mode of citation of this volume is (2018) 92 ALJ [page] The views expressed in editorial comment, articles or notes are those of the author or contributor, and are not to be taken as being the views of, or endorsed by, the journal editors unless otherwise indicated. The Australian Law Journal is a refereed journal. Australian Law Journal Reports PRODUCTION EDITOR Carolyn May CASE REPORTERS John Carroll Colleen Tognetti Stefan Skopelja The mode of citation of this volume is: 92 ALJR [page] (2018) 92 ALJ 1 1 THE AUSTRALIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume 92, Number 1 January 2018 CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc Same Sex Marriage Law Reform ........................................................................................... 7 Religious Freedom Review .................................................................................................... 7 Judicial Conduct and Training ............................................................................................... 8 Voluntary Assisted Dying in Victoria ..................................................................................... 9 Guest Contributions ............................................................................................................... 9 Campaign for a National Anti-corruption Body .................................................................... 10 The Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation ........................................................... 10 Paperless Trials in the NSW Land and Environment Court ................................................... 11 ALJ Assistant General Editor: Hail and Farewell .................................................................. 12 CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth Intersection Between Informal Wills and Testamentary Competence ................................... 13 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Editor: Anne Twomey A Tale of Two Cases: Wilkie v Commonwealth and Re Canavan ......................................... 17 EQUITY AND TRUSTS – Editor: Justice Mark Leeming Ex Parte Candour, Solicitors’ Liens and Set-off .................................................................... 22 RECENT CASES – Editor: Ruth C A Higgins Family Law: Financial Agreements – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt viiia – Pre-Nuptial and Post-Nuptial Agreements – Whether Agreements Voidable for Duress, Undue Influence, or Unconscionable Conduct ........................................................................... 25 United Kingdom: Criminal Law – Dishonesty – Gambling Act 2005 (UK) s 42 – Test in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 ............................................................................................ 27 Practice: Costs: Non-Party Costs – Plaintiff Company Insolvent – Unable to Meet Order for Costs – Costs Against Applicant Director – Whether Applicant “Real Party” to Litigation ........................................................................................................................... 30 2 (2018) 92 ALJ 1 ARTICLES THE AUSTRALIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM: CAUSES FOR DISSATISFACTION K M Hayne There are causes for dissatisfaction with the Australian judicial system. Some are unalterable but some causes for dissatisfaction can, and must, provoke change. Time and cost are the chief problems. The courts must respond by changing the way in which litigation is conducted and judges do their work lest the judicial system become irrelevant. ................... 32 BARWICK, BANKRUPTCY AND THE HUMAN DIMENSION Hon Justice Andrew Greenwood This article is the text of an address given by the Hon Justice Andrew Greenwood in 2016 in opening the International Personal Insolvency Conference held in Australia at the Queensland University of Technology. The theme of the Conference was “The Human Dimension to Bankruptcy”. The address illustrates the theme by reference to the circumstances that confronted Sir Garfield Barwick as a young barrister leading to his bankruptcy in June 1930. The address also comments upon some aspects of the issues relating to proposed changes to bankruptcy laws the subject of discussion at the Conference. ............................................... 48 OBITUARIES The Honourable Rosemary Balmford AM ............................................................................. 61 The Rt Hon Sir Ninian Martin Stephen PC KG AK GCMG CGVO KBE QC ..................... 61 General Editors of the Australian Law Journal 1927 to 1946 – Mr (later Sir) Bernard Sugerman 1946 to 1958 – Mr (later Justice) Rae Else-Mitchell 1946 to 1961 – Mr (later Sir) Nigel Bowen 1958 to 1967 – Mr (later Justice) Russell Fox 1967 to 1973 – Mr (later Justice) Philip Jeffrey 1974 to 1992 – Professor J G Starke QC 1992 to 2016 – The Hon Justice P W Young AO 2016 to present – The Hon Justice François Kunc (2018) 92 ALJ 1 3 Australian Law Journal Reports HIGH COURT REPORTS – Staff of Thomson reuters DECISIONS RECEIVED IN NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2017 ALDI Foods Pty Ltd v Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees Association (Industrial Law) ([2017] HCA 53) ............................................................................................................... 33 Dimitrov v Supreme Court (Vic) (High Court of Australia) ([2017] HCA 51) ..................... 12 HFM045 v Republic of Nauru (Citizenship and Migration) ([2017] HCA 50) .................... 1 Nash (No 2), Re (Constitutional Law) ([2017] HCA 52) ...................................................... 23 4 (2018) 92 ALJ 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Review Essay Open Chambers: High Court Associates and Supreme Court Clerks Compared
    REVIEW ESSAY OPEN CHAMBERS: HIGH COURT ASSOCIATES AND SUPREME COURT CLERKS COMPARED KATHARINE G YOUNG∗ Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court by Artemus Ward and David L Weiden (New York: New York University Press, 2006) pages i–xiv, 1–358. Price A$65.00 (hardcover). ISBN 0 8147 9404 1. I They have been variously described as ‘junior justices’, ‘para-judges’, ‘pup- peteers’, ‘courtiers’, ‘ghost-writers’, ‘knuckleheads’ and ‘little beasts’. In a recent study of the role of law clerks in the United States Supreme Court, political scientists Artemus Ward and David L Weiden settle on a new metaphor. In Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court, the authors borrow from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s famous poem to describe the transformation of the institution of the law clerk over the course of a century, from benign pupilage to ‘a permanent bureaucracy of influential legal decision-makers’.1 The rise of the institution has in turn transformed the Court itself. Nonetheless, despite the extravagant metaphor, the authors do not set out to provide a new exposé on the internal politics of the Supreme Court or to unveil the clerks (or their justices) as errant magicians.2 Unlike Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong’s The Brethren3 and Edward Lazarus’ Closed Chambers,4 Sorcerers’ Apprentices is not pitched to the public’s right to know (or its desire ∗ BA, LLB (Hons) (Melb), LLM Program (Harv); SJD Candidate and Clark Byse Teaching Fellow, Harvard Law School; Associate to Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, High Court of Aus- tralia, 2001–02.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Law.Adelaide.Edu.Au Adelaide Law Review ADVISORY BOARD
    Volume 40, Number 3 THE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW law.adelaide.edu.au Adelaide Law Review ADVISORY BOARD The Honourable Professor Catherine Branson AC QC Deputy Chancellor, The University of Adelaide; Former President, Australian Human Rights Commission; Former Justice, Federal Court of Australia Emeritus Professor William R Cornish CMG QC Emeritus Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of Cambridge His Excellency Judge James R Crawford AC SC International Court of Justice The Honourable Professor John J Doyle AC QC Former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South Australia Professor John V Orth William Rand Kenan Jr Professor of Law, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Professor Emerita Rosemary J Owens AO Former Dean, Adelaide Law School The Honourable Justice Melissa Perry Federal Court of Australia The Honourable Margaret White AO Former Justice, Supreme Court of Queensland Professor John M Williams Dame Roma Mitchell Chair of Law and Former Dean, Adelaide Law School ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Editors Associate Professor Matthew Stubbs and Dr Michelle Lim Book Review and Comment Editor Dr Stacey Henderson Associate Editors Kyriaco Nikias and Azaara Perakath Student Editors Joshua Aikens Christian Andreotti Mitchell Brunker Peter Dalrymple Henry Materne-Smith Holly Nicholls Clare Nolan Eleanor Nolan Vincent Rocca India Short Christine Vu Kate Walsh Noel Williams Publications Officer Panita Hirunboot Volume 40 Issue 3 2019 The Adelaide Law Review is a double-blind peer reviewed journal that is published twice a year by the Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide. A guide for the submission of manuscripts is set out at the back of this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Macquarie Uni Sir Edward Mctiernan a Ninetieth Year Memoir
    318 MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY AUSTRALIAi''!AUSTRALLfu~ JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY SIR Em:ARD McTIEKll\NMcTlEKll\N A NINI NET! ETH YEAR MEMOMEHO IRI R The Hon. Mr ..Justice M.D. Kirby Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Conunission March 1982 ------------------- MACQU ARIE UNIVERSITY . AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY SIR EDWARD McTIERNAN: A NINETIETH YEAR MEMOIR The Hon. Mr. Justice M.D. Kirby * Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission THE CULT OF JUDICIAL PERSONALITY The creation of the High Court of Australia as a Federal supreme court at the 8!?eXB!?eX of the Australian judicial system and the appointrn ent to the Court of a small number of lawyers -inevitably attracts attention to the personalities of its members. Generations of lawyers have s[?ent-s[!ent- countless hours analysing the written words emanating from the High Court in the pages of the Commonwealth Law Reports. Vigorous speculation, now spilling over to the public press, attends the apDointment of new Justices. Great national controversy attended the retirement of Sir Garfield Barwick as Chief Justice and the appointment 'of his successor. I The r~tirement of Sir Ninian Stephen to accept appointment to the office of Governor-General of Australia from July 1981 likewise sparked a controversy which is current at this time of writing. In the public media, betting odds are offered on the chances of prospective candidates for appointment, the names of the haplesshal?less alternatives, and their comparative professional distinctions being reduced to the mathematical equation of some unnamed speCUlator'ssl?eculator's fancy. Endless hours of gossip have engaged succeeding decades of Australian lawyers concerning the personality, performance, te~perament and judicial attitudes of the Justices of the High Court.
    [Show full text]
  • The Comparative Distinctiveness of Equity
    (2016) 2(2) CJCCL 403 The Comparative Distinctiveness of Equity Justice Mark Leeming Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales* 2016 CanLIIDocs 51 Comparative law is difficult and controversial. One reason for the difficulty is the complexity of legal systems and the need for more than a merely superficial knowledge of the foreign legal system in order to profit from recourse to it. One way in which it is controversial is that it has been suggested that the use of comparative law conceals the reasons for decisions reached on other grounds. This paper maintains that equity is distinctive, and that one of the ways in which equity is different from other bodies of law is that there is greater scope for the development of equitable principle by reference to foreign jurisdictions. That difference is a product of equity’s distinctive history, underlying themes and approach to law-making. Those matters are illustrated by a series of recent examples drawn from appellate courts throughout the Commonwealth. * I am grateful for the assistance provided by Kate Lindeman and Hannah Vieira in the preparation of this article. All errors are mine. 404 Leeming, The Comparative Distinctiveness of Equity I. Introduction II. The Problem of Generality III. The Use of Foreign Equity Decisions IV. The Variegated Common Law of the Commonwealth V. Three Examples of Equitable Principle in Ultimate Appellate Courts A. Barnes v Addy: Liability for Knowing Assistance in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom B. Qualifications to the Rule in Saunders v Vautier C. Judicial Advice 2016 CanLIIDocs 51 VI.
    [Show full text]
  • 5281 Bar News Winter 07.Indd
    CONTENTS 2 Editor’s note 3 President’s column 5 Opinion The central role of the jury 7 Recent developments 12 Address 2007 Sir Maurice Byers Lecture 34 Features: Mediation and the Bar Effective representation at mediation Should the New South Wales Bar remain agnostic to mediation? Constructive mediation A mediation miscellany 66 Readers 01/2007 82 Obituaries Nicholas Gye 44 Practice 67 Muse Daniel Edmund Horton QC Observations on a fused profession: the Herbert Smith Advocacy Unit A paler shade of white Russell Francis Wilkins Some perspectives on US litigation Max Beerbohm’s Dulcedo Judiciorum 88 Bullfry Anything to disclose? 72 Personalia 90 Books 56 Legal history The Hon Justice Kenneth Handley AO Interpreting Statutes Supreme Court judges of the 1940s The Hon Justice John Bryson Principles of Federal Criminal Law State Constitutional Landmarks 62 Bar Art 77 Appointments The Hon Justice Ian Harrison 94 Bar sports 63 Great Bar Boat Race The Hon Justice Elizabeth Fullerton NSW v Queensland Bar Recent District Court appointments The Hon Justice David Hammerschlag 64 Bench and Bar Dinner 96 Coombs on Cuisine barTHE JOURNAL OF THEnews NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 2007 Bar News Editorial Committee Design and production Contributions are welcome and Andrew Bell SC (editor) Weavers Design Group should be addressed to the editor, Keith Chapple SC www.weavers.com.au Andrew Bell SC Eleventh Floor Gregory Nell SC Advertising John Mancy Wentworth Selborne Chambers To advertise in Bar News visit Arthur Moses 180 Phillip Street, www.weavers.com.au/barnews Chris O’Donnell Sydney 2000. or contact John Weaver at Carol Webster DX 377 Sydney Weavers Design Group Richard Beasley at [email protected] or David Ash (c) 2007 New South Wales Bar Association phone (02) 9299 4444 Michael Kearney This work is copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chief Justice and the Governor-General Chief Justice Robert French
    Melbourne University Law Review Annual Dinner The Chief Justice and the Governor-General Chief Justice Robert French 29 October 2009, Melbourne It would be something of an exaggeration to describe Law Reviews as the only drivers of intellectual discourse about law, justice and the legal system. In fact they have been rather harshly treated in the past in the United States and in Australia. Fred Rodell's famous denunciation "Goodbye to Law Reviews" was published in the 1930s in the United States 1 and in 1999 in the Australian Law Journal 2. His paper, bolstered in the Australian Law Journal by some like-minded sentiments from John Gava, included laments about bad writing, mediocrity and lack of humour. As to the latter, he observed: 3 The best way to get a laugh out of a law review is to take a couple of drinks and then read an article, any article, aloud. That can be really funny. ______________________ 1 F Rodell, "Goodbye to Law Review" (1936) 23 Virginia Laaw Review 38. 2 F Rodell, "Goodbye to Law Reviews" (1999) 73 Australian Law Journal 593. 3 F Rodell, "Goodbye to Law Reviews" (1999) 73 Australian Law Journal 593 at 594 2. On the other hand a measured defence and some praise was offered by Justice Kirby in 2002 in his piece "Welcome to Law Reviews" published in this University's Law Review. He said: 4 Law reviews can have a value that transcends even the work of the High Court of Australia. They must criticise, cajole and analyse the law. They must question received wisdom and current orthodoxy.
    [Show full text]
  • Garfield Barwick
    ADDRESS Garfield Barwick The following is an edited version of an oration given by the Hon Tom Hughes AO QC at the 2012 Garfield Barwick Address. Any memoir of Garfield John Edward Barwick should begin with a brief description of his family background. He was born on 22 June 1903, the eldest of three sons of Jabez Edward and Lily Grace Barwick. Both parents were of English stock; each of them had a rural background. After marriage they settled in Sydney, first at Stanmore, where Barwick was born; and then at Paddington, in a rented terrace house situated in Glenview Street. Barwick was born into a stable marriage. His father was a printer, an occupation requiring close proximity to lead so that he later suffered incapacity for work from lead poisoning. Barwick's mother was an Ellicott. She was probably the stronger partner in the marriage. They were practising Methodists, a non-dogmatic religion that sets great store on the importance of hard work as a pathway to Picture by Steven Siewert / Fairfax. salvation. Barwick attended Sunday school. He showed brilliance as a student at primary school this gap by working as a managing clerk in a firm of and obtained a scholarship to Fort Street Boys High, solicitors run by Roy Booth, also an old boy of Fort a selective high school that was a seedbed for the Street. later development of professional skills. His career at Barwick was admitted to the bar on 1 June 1927. Fort Street won him a scholarship to the University Then he had to find chambers in which to establish a of Sydney in A rts/L a w where he graduated in 1925 practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutory Norms and Common Law Concepts in the Characterisation of Contracts for the Performance of Work
    STATUTORY NORMS AND COMMON LAW CONCEPTS IN THE CHARACTERISATION OF CONTRACTS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK PAULINE B OMBALL* While the relationship between statute and common law has attracted increased interest in the labour law field, limited attention has been directed at exploring this relationship in cases involving the characterisation of contracts for the performance of work. The characterisation of a work contract as an employment contract or an independent contract carries significant consequences in a number of different contexts, including tort law, employment law and taxation law. Many Australian statutes invoke the common law concept of employment as a criterion by which to confer rights and impose obligations. In determining whether a contract is one of employment and thereby covered by the relevant statute, Australian courts have not generally had regard to the purposes of the statute. However, in some Australian cases, it has been suggested that statutory purpose can, and should, guide the characterisation exercise. This article explores that suggestion, focusing particularly on statutes that confer rights and entitlements upon employees. In doing so, it draws upon decisions of the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States that have adopted a ‘purposive approach’ to the employment concept. This article seeks to begin a conversation about the utility and viability of a purposive approach to the employment concept in Australia. It does so by canvassing the arguments in favour of a purposive approach and identifying some of the primary barriers to the adoption of such an approach by Australian courts. CONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................. 371 II The Australian Approach to the Characterisation of Work Contracts .........
    [Show full text]
  • The Hon. Justice Mark Leeming's1 Remarks at the Launch of So
    The Hon. Justice Mark Leeming’s1 remarks at the launch of So help me God: a history of oaths of office Parliament House, Sydney 10 June 2021 Since the creation of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly in 1823 and 1856, members have taken various oaths of office. The form of the oath has changed with the changing role of the chamber. Let me give you three examples. The original oath taken by the first five councillors who were sworn in in August 1824 extended to a promise of secrecy:2 “I swear, that I will not, directly or indirectly, communicate or reveal to any Person or Persons, any Matter which shall be so brought under my Consideration, or which shall become known to me as a Member of the said Council. So help me GOD”. It may seem strange to modern ears for a councillor to keep events in the Legislative Council entirely secret, until one remembers that in 1824, before the first glimmer of representative government had arrived, deliberations of all five nominated councillors were confidential. In April 1843, when the Council became partially elected, the oath was much longer, not to mention quite lively. It included:3 “I … do sincerely promise and swear … that I will defend Her [Majesty], to the utmost of my Power, against all traitorous Conspiracies and Attempts whatever which shall be made against Her Person, Crown and Dignity; and that I will do my utmost Endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, all Treasons and traitorous Conspiracies and Attempts which I shall know to be against Her or any of them; and all this I do swear without any Equivocation, mental Evasion or secret Reservation, and renouncing all Pardons and Dispensations from any Persons or Persons whatever to the contrary.
    [Show full text]
  • Ageless in the 'Age of Statutes'
    JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 4 SESS: 3 OUTPUT: Wed Sep 16 20:48:43 2015 /journals/journal/joe/vol09pt2/part_2 Articles Equity: Ageless in the ‘Age of Statutes’ Mark Leeming* Current legal writing is replete with references to the ‘Age of Statutes’ — for the most part invoking a very different meaning from that intended by Professor Guido Calabresi’s book A Common Law for the Age of Statutes. Identifying what Calabresi was responding to, and what most current writing is responding to, reveals a doubly simplified approach to important aspects of the legal system. One aspect is easily seen: statutes do not speak with one voice, and should not be treated as a single class; complaints about the ‘Age of Statutes’ refer to particular sorts of statutes. The other unduly simplified aspect is less easily seen: Equity’s response to statute is different from the response of common law, for reasons deriving from its different conception of its role and different approach to precedent. When those differences are analysed, patterns of historical continuity may be observed. 1 Introduction There is a lot of casual reference to this ‘Age of Statutes’. The term readily trips off the tongue. In that respect it resembles the so-called ‘Principle of Legality’, whose limited capacity to provide useful guidance has been powerfully criticised,1 despite which it continues regularly to be invoked, mostly in submissions,2 and mostly as a euphonious rebranding of an ancient approach to the construction of statutes which impair certain ‘common law’ rights. * Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales; Challis Lecturer in Equity, University of Sydney.
    [Show full text]
  • The Former High Court Building Is Important As the First Headquarters of the High Court of Australia
    Australian Heritage Database Places for Decision Class : Historic Identification List: National Heritage List Name of Place: High Court of Australia (former) Other Names: Federal Court Place ID: 105896 File No: 2/11/033/0434 Nomination Date: 13/06/2006 Principal Group: Law and Enforcement Status Legal Status: 15/06/2006 - Nominated place Admin Status: 16/06/2006 - Under assessment by AHC--Australian place Assessment Recommendation: Place meets one or more NHL criteria Assessor's Comments: Other Assessments: : Location Nearest Town: Melbourne Distance from town (km): Direction from town: Area (ha): Address: 450 Little Bourke St, Melbourne, VIC 3000 LGA: Melbourne City VIC Location/Boundaries: 450 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne, comprising the whole of Allotment 13B Section 19, City of Melbourne. Assessor's Summary of Significance: The former High Court Building is important as the first headquarters of the High Court of Australia. It operated from 1928 to 1980, a time when many Constitutional and other landmark judicial decisions were made affecting the nation’s social and political life. The whole of the building and its interior design, fitout (including original furniture) and architectural features bear witness to these events. As the first purpose built building for the home of the nation's High Court, it combines the then budgetary austerity of the Commonwealth with a skilled functional layout, where the public entry is separated from the privacy of the Justices’ chambers and the Library by the three central Courts, in a strongly modelled exterior, all viewed as a distinct design entity. The original stripped classical style and the integrity of the internal detailing and fit out of the Courts and Library is overlaid by sympathetic additions with contrasting interior Art Deco design motifs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Francis Forbes Society for Australian Legal History
    THE 2020 ANNUAL FORBES LECTURE Lawyers' uses of history, from Entick v Carrington to Smethurst v Commissioner of Police PROGRAMME Lecturer: The Hon Justice Mark Leeming NSW Court of Appeal Chair: The Hon Justice Stephen Gageler AC High Court of Australia Date: Tuesday 19 May 2020 Time: 5.30pm – 6.30 pm Venue: virtually from Banco Court Law Courts Building , Queen's Square, Sydney CONTEXT: The Forbes Society, and the annual Forbes Lecture sponsored by the Society, are named for Francis Forbes (1784-1841), the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW, 1824-1837. He was knighted in 1837. ORDER OF EVENTS 1. WELCOME – by the Hon Justice Stephen Gageler, High Court of Australia 2. PRESENTATION OF THE LECTURE – by the Hon Justice Mark Leeming THE FORBES LECTURER Justice Mark Leeming was appointed a Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 2013, before which he had practised at the New South Wales Bar since 1995 and had been appointed Senior Counsel in 2006. He has taught at the University of Sydney part-time since 1995, where he is Challis Lecturer in Equity. He is the co-author of two leading practitioner texts and a casebook on equity and trusts, and has published widely in the areas of constitutional law, administrative law, equity, trusts and intellectual property, including Resolving Conflicts of Laws (2011); The Statutory Foundations of Negligence (2019); Authority to Decide: The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (2012), (2nd ed 2020). He is a member of the Editorial Boards of the Journal of Equity and the Australian Bar Review.
    [Show full text]