DOCSLIB.ORG

Amy Douglas-Baker Curriculum Vitae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AMY DOUGLAS-BAKER BARRISTER SIX ST JAMES HALL CHAMBERS Level 6 St James Hall | 169 Phillip Street | Sydney NSW 2000 | DX 328 Sydney T +61 2 9236 8650 | M +61 2 423 278 917 | E [email protected] W http://www.sixstjameshall.com.au/amydouglasbaker LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/adouglasbaker ADMISSIONS 2009 Barrister, New South Wales High Court of Australia 2007 Supreme Court of New South Wales PRACTICE AREAS I practise in commercial, equity and administrative law, with particular expertise in strata, property, statutory product liability, sale of goods, trade practices and consumer law, professional negligence and disciplinary proceedings, and commissions of inquiry. I appear for and advise government entities, multinational corporations, owners corporations and private individuals. I have appeared in all state and federal courts in NSW and regularly appear unled inter-state in statutory product liability matters, in particular for defendant manufacturers. In May 2016 I was appointed to the NSW Department of Justice Junior Counsel Prequalification Panel to provide legal representation to the Department and to assist in coronial inquests and inquiries. I regularly appear for and advise the Registrar- General of NSW in relation to claims against the Torrens Assurance Fund, instructed by the Solicitor for the Registrar-General. I regularly appear for and advise the NSW Children’s Guardian and the NSW Commissioner of Police in merits review matters in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal on instructions from the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office. TERTIARY EDUCATION 2009 Master of Laws (Coursework), University of Sydney Honours Equivalent Specialising in administrative law, intellectual property, trade practices and competition law, professional negligence and disciplinary proceedings 2006 Bachelor of Laws (Hons), University of Sydney 2004 Bachelor of Arts (Hons), University of Sydney Thesis: “Censorship and Scandal: The Trials of Oscar Wilde and Lady Chatterley’s Lover” Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE May 2009 Barrister Six St James Hall Chambers Read in Nigel Bowen Chambers (May 2009 to December 2009) June 2007 – April 2009 Associate/Deputy Associate Judge Nicholls Federal Circuit Court of Australia March 2007 – May 2007 Precedents Officer/Paralegal Crown Solicitor’s Office, New South Wales Apr 2006 – Mar 2007 Legal Researcher/Tipstaff The Hon. Justice P M Hall QC Supreme Court of New South Wales Aug 2005 – Mar 2006 Research/Administrative Assistant Michael Christie SC, Barrister Sixth Floor Selborne/Wentworth Chambers 2003 – 2005 Research Assistant Sophie Goddard SC, Barrister Nigel Bowen Chambers PUBLICATIONS Forthcoming Laws of Australia, Civil Procedure Subtitle “Summary Dismissal, Settlement & Discontinuance” (Thomson Reuters) 2013 – Current Intellectual Property Precedents (LexisNexis) Author, “Brand Management” 2009 – Current Administrative Law Decisions (LexisNexis) Head-noting and Reporting 2009 The Contract Issue: “Valid Repudiation and the Consequences of Termination” (2009) Precedent (95) 25-27 2008 “The Constitutional Validity of the Interim Control Order Regime: Thomas v Mowbray [2007] HCA 33” (2008) Precedent (84) 43-45 AWARDS 2015 Finalist for the Women Lawyers Association of NSW Woman Barrister of the Year Award 2015 for excellence in professional practice and advancing opportunities for women in the law 2 2004 The University of Sydney Administrative Law Moot, Joint Champion Mooter (awarded by President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Margaret Beazley and Associate Professor Mary Crock) 1996-2000 Gold, Silver and Bronze Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS & COMMITTEES § Member of Six St James Hall Chambers Formerly a Director and Treasurer of Sixth Floor, St James Hall Pty Ltd § Member, New South Wales Bar Association Current member of a Professional Conduct Committee; formerly a member of the Costs & Fees Committee and the Equal Opportunity Committee § Member and (formerly Secretary), Women Barristers Forum A section of the New South Wales Bar Association § Member, Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH), PALS@PILCH § Member, Australian Association of Constitutional Law § Member, Australian Institute of Administrative Law SIGNIFICANT CASES – RESOLVED AT TRIAL § CKK v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 45 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § CKU v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 36 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § Roberts v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2016] NSWCATOD 129 (appearance on behalf of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application to stay appeal proceedings concerning a decision of the Board to refuse registration to a nursing practitioner). § CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § Application of the Attorney-General of New South Wales (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Button J, 13 September 2016 (appearance on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office in an application under the Evidence on Commission Act 1995 (NSW)). 3 § CDF v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 187 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office in relation the preliminary issue of jurisdiction). § CLK v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 183 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § CFR v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 159 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § CEP v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 148 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § CFK v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 140 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § CLH v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 142 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § CFL v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 114 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § CDD v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 85 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § CFC v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 127 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § Mfula v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCCA 161 (unled – appearance for the Minister for Immigration, successfully resisting an application for judicial review in respect of the Migration Review Tribunal). § BXJ v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 11 (appearance on behalf of the Children’s Guardian instructed by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office on an application for merits review of refusal to issue a working with children clearance). § Islam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCCA 3024 (unled – appearance for the Minister for Immigration, successfully resisting 4 an application for judicial review in respect of the Migration Review Tribunal). § Balven v Thurston [2015] NSWSC 1103 (unled – appearance on behalf of respondent in relation to the assessment of aggravated damages for trespass to land, successfully resisting an appeal against a decision of the Local Court). § Thomas v Owners Corporation (NCAT, 2015) (unled – appearance on behalf of the owners of “Diesel” Thomas, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, successfully seeking permission to live with his family in strata). § The Trust Company v Feiner [2014] NSWSC 1492 (unled – appearance on behalf of the Registrar-General of NSW, successful application for default judgment in mortgage fraud/Torrens Assurance Fund case). § Khan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 168 (unled – appearance for the Minister for Immigration, successfully resisting an appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court). § SZSJL v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCCA 1338 (unled – appearance for the Minister for Immigration, successfully resisting an application for judicial review in respect of the Refugee Review Tribunal). § Shandil v Animal Welfare League NSW [2013] NSWADT
Recommended publications
  • Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia

    Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia

    Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium Chief Justice Robert French AC 7 October 2016, Canberra Thank you for inviting me to deliver the opening address at this Colloquium. It is the first and last time I will do so as Chief Justice. The soft pink tones of the constitutional sunset are deepening and the dusk of impending judicial irrelevance is advancing upon me. In a few weeks' time, on 25 November, it will have been thirty years to the day since I was commissioned as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The great Australian legal figures who sat on the Bench at my official welcome on 10 December 1986 have all gone from our midst — Sir Ronald Wilson, John Toohey, Sir Nigel Bowen and Sir Francis Burt. Two of my articled clerks from the 1970s are now on the Supreme Court of Western Australia. One of them has recently been appointed President of the Court of Appeal. They say you know you are getting old when policemen start looking young — a fortiori when the President of a Court of Appeal looks to you as though he has just emerged from Law School. The same trick of perspective leads me to see the Judicial Conference of Australia ('JCA') as a relatively recent innovation. Six years into my judicial career, in 1992, I attended a Supreme and Federal Courts Judges' Conference at which Justices Richard McGarvie and Ian Sheppard were talking about the establishment of a body to represent the common interests and concerns of judges, to defend the judiciary as an institution and, where appropriate, to defend individual judges who were the target of unfair and unwarranted criticisms.
  • Un Day Lecture – 2019

    Un Day Lecture – 2019

    UN DAY LECTURE – 2019 25 YEARS OF CROSS BORDER INSOLVENCY LAW REFORM 1994–2019 Since 1994, UNCITRAL has been developing model laws on Cross Border Insolvency (CBI), which have been adopted in Australia and most leading economies. These laws support globalisation of world trade by providing for cooperation in international insolvencies, through a process of mutual recognition by courts of foreign insolvency regimes and representatives. This year’s UN Day Lecture series will outline how the CBI framework operates, and examine the contribution made by Australian courts and practitioners to many of the developments in this field over the past quarter-century. The UN Day Lecture series is an annual initiative of the UNCITRAL National Coordination Committee for Australia (UNCCA) to highlight the work of UNCITRAL for practitioners and students. A Lecture will be held in each Australian capital city, with a local speaking panel. Light refreshments will be available afterwards, sponsored by the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA). Your city’s details are set out below. Registration is required, with a fee for non-members of $25 and students of $5. There is no charge for members of UNCCA, ARITA, the Judiciary, court staff or the APS. Application will be made, where required, for CPD accreditation. PROGRAMME Wednesday 23rd October 2019: 5.00pm – 6.15 pm BRISBANE Venue: Federal Court of Australia, Court 1 Chair: Justice Roger Derrington Speaker: Adjunct Professor Rosalind Mason Queensland University of Technology Commentator: Scott Butler, McCullough Robertson HOBART Venue: Federal Court of Australia, Court 1 Chair: Justice Duncan Kerr Speaker: Tim D.
  • Megan Evetts CV 2019 Copy

    Megan Evetts CV 2019 Copy

    Megan Evetts Barrister-at-law, Nigel Bowen Chambers Background and Practice Overview Megan has over nine years of litigation experience. She has predominantly practiced in intellectual property law, but also has experience in other areas of commercial and migration law. Prior to being called to the Bar, Megan was Associate to the Hon Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia. During that time, she had exposure to a wide variety of legal cases, in both first instance and appellate jurisdictions. This included intellectual property, admiralty, migration and general commercial law cases. Megan has also previously been a Senior Associate in MinterEllison’s intellectual property disputes team; in-house IP Counsel for a major international generic pharmaceutical company (Hospira, now Pfizer); and solicitor at King & Wood Mallesons. Megan has substantial experience in intellectual property litigation, intellectual property advisory work and patent and trade mark prosecution. Examples of significant cases that she has been involved in include the High Court appeal of AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd, regarding pharmaceutical patents for cholesterol drug rosuvastatin (Crestor); the first patent repair case in Australia, Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd; and the trade mark dispute Singtel Optus Pty Limited v Optum Inc. Megan is also a Trade Mark Attorney and holds a Bachelor of Biomedical Science and Bachelor of Laws (Hons) from Monash University. Admissions Barrister 2019 High Court of Australia 2012 Supreme Court of Victoria 2012 Professional Experience Federal Court of Australia Associate to the Hon Justice Burley 2018-2019 Sydney MinterEllison Senior Associate 2016-2018 Melbourne Associate 2014-2015 Lipman Karas Associate 2015-2016 Adelaide Hospira (now part of Pfizer) IP Legal Counsel 2014-2015 Melbourne (Secondee, then part-time employee) King & Wood Mallesons Solicitor 2012-2013 Melbourne Houlihan2 Trade Mark Attorney 2008-2012 Melbourne Technical Assistant Monash University, Physiology Dep.
  • House of Representatives By-Elections 1902-2002

    House of Representatives By-Elections 1902-2002

    INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND ADVICE FOR THE PARLIAMENT INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Current Issues Brief No. 15 2002–03 House of Representatives By-elections 1901–2002 DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY ISSN 1440-2009 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2003 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Current Issues Brief No. 15 2002–03 House of Representatives By-elections 1901–2002 Gerard Newman, Statistics Group Scott Bennett, Politics and Public Administration Group 3 March 2003 Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Murray Goot, Martin Lumb, Geoff Winter, Jan Pearson, Janet Wilson and Diane Hynes in producing this paper.
  • National Security and Human Rights

    National Security and Human Rights

    DEAKIN LAW SCHOOL ORATION 2004 NATIONAL SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS * PHILIP RUDDOCK I INTRODUCTION My predecessor, Alfred Deakin, after whom this Oration and this University are named, became Australia’s first Attorney-General in 1901. He subsequently became Prime Minister in 1903. I think it says something about Alfred Deakin that this is one of a number of lectures named in his honour. The Melbourne University Lib- eral Club established a lecture trust in his honour in 1967 -- their lectures continue today. In 2001, the Victorian Government held a series of lectures as part of the centenary of Federation celebrations and in 2005, there will be a further series of lectures named after Deakin dealing with innovation. What makes Deakin the touchstone that these institutions seek to draw inspiration from? I think there are two reasons. Firstly, Deakin was a great 19 th century Victo- rian liberal. As Harold Holt observed in 1967: in those turbulent days when the life of the colony was raw and privilege rated high, the liberals spoke for most of the people against the entrenched representatives of the aristocracy of wealth and property…1 * Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Deakin Law School Oration was held at The McInerney Lecture Theatre, Toorak Campus of Deakin University, Thursday, 19 August 2004. 296 DEAKIN LAW REVIEW VOLUME 9 NO 2 As a minister in the Victorian Parliament, he sought to improve the conditions of workers in factories and was President of the anti-sweating league. Deakin’s liberalism is evident in the laws he promoted as a Commonwealth Minis- ter such as the Customs Act 1901, the Judiciary Act 1902 and the High Court Pro- cedure Act 1903.
  • WINTER 2015 | WINTER ASSOCIATION BAR NSW the of JOURNAL the ���THE JOURNAL Ofne�S the NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 201

    WINTER 2015 | WINTER ASSOCIATION BAR NSW the of JOURNAL the THE JOURNAL OfneS the NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 201

    THE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 2015 barTHE JOURNAL OFnes THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 201 Parental responsibilities and the bar PLUS ‘Barristers work’ and ADR The NSW Bar and the Red Cross Missing and Wounded Enquiry Bureau William Lee barnewsTHE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | WINTER 2015 Contents 2 Editor’s note 54 Bench and Bar Dinner 2015 Red Cross Missing and Wounded Enquiry Bureau 3 President’s column 56 Practice Barristers v Solicitors rugby match, Technology, flexibility and the Uniform Rule 11, ‘barristers’ work’ 1956 twenty-first century advocate and barristers conducting ADR processes 83 Bullfry 4 Chambers Expected value and decision making QC, or not QC? The opening of New Chambers under conditions of uncertainty 85 Appointments 5 Bar Practice Course 01/2015 Learning the art of court performance The Hon Justice R McClelland 6 Recent developments Chambers employment with a The Hon Justice D Fagan difference 28 Features 87 Obituaries Parental responsibilities and the bar The Best Practice Guidelines Geoffrey James Graham (1934–2014) 73 Bar history The powers of the ICAC to 89 Book reviews investigate William Lee: first barrister of 96 Poetry Corrupt conduct: The ICAC’s Chinese descent admitted to the Cunneen Inquiry NSW Bar Alternatives to Australia’s war on drugs Bar News Editorial Committee ISSN 0817-0002 © 2015 New South Wales Bar Association Jeremy Stoljar SC (chair) Views expressed by contributors to Bar News are This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, and subsequent amendments, no part may be Greg Burton SC not necessarily those of the New South Wales Bar reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means or Richard Beasley SC Association.
  • Mark Maconachie|Barrister

    Mark Maconachie|Barrister

    MARK MACONACHIE | BARRISTER Ground Floor Wentworth Chambers [email protected] Tel: +61 2 9230 3210 | Fax: +61 2 8023 9537 180 Phillip Street, Sydney NSW 2000 | DX 449 Sydney Admissions ▪ Admitted as Barrister and Solicitor to the High Court of New Zealand – 2017 ▪ Admitted to the New South Wales Bar – 2010 ▪ Admitted as a Lawyer to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and High Court of Australia – 2006 Qualifications ▪ Master of Law and Legal Practice: University of Technology, Sydney – 2006 ▪ Bachelor of Arts: University of Sydney – 1999 Professional Experience ▪ 2010 - present Barrister, Ground Floor Wentworth Chambers ▪ 2006 - 2010 Solicitor, Pryor Tzannes and Wallis ▪ 2004 - 2006 Tipstaff to the Honourable Mr Justice R. S. Hulme, Supreme Court of New South Wales Areas of Expertise ▪ Administrative Law ▪ Competition and Consumer Law ▪ Bankruptcy and Insolvency ▪ Corporations ▪ Building and Construction ▪ Equity and Trusts ▪ Commercial ▪ Insurance Professional Memberships ▪ Member, New South Wales Bar Association ▪ Member, New Zealand Law Society Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation Select Cases ▪ NT Beverages Group Pty Ltd v PT Bromo Tirta Lestari, in the matter of NT Beverages Group Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 775 ▪ Ghosh v Miller (No 2) [2017] FCA 890 ▪ Ghosh v Miller (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 791 ▪ Ghosh v Miller [2016] NSWSC 430 ▪ Carol Anne Kidu v Hollie Fifer [2016] NSWSC 982 – led by Mr R Potter ▪ Kempsey Shire Council v Slade (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 10 ▪ Kempsey Shire Council v Slade
  • Recent Developments in Misleading and Unconscionable Conduct

    Recent Developments in Misleading and Unconscionable Conduct

    NATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW SEMINAR SERIES Recent Developments in Misleading and Unconscionable Conduct The expert panel will discuss recent appellate authorities on misleading or deceptive conduct and statutory unconscionable conduct, including ASIC v Kobelt (High Court) and ACCC v Medibank (Full Federal Court). This seminar will provide an insight into the presenters’ differing perspectives – academic, corporate lawyer and regulatory lawyer. CHAIR The Honourable Justice Michael O'Bryan Date: Wednesday, 16 October 2019 Judge, Federal Court of Australia Time: 5.15pm – 6.15pm PRESENTERS Venue: Court 8A, Federal Court of Australia Professor Bryan Horrigan, Dean, Monash Law Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts School and member of the Australian Government Building 305 William Street, Melbourne Panel whose recommendations led to reform of the law of statutory unconscionability RSVP: Monday 14 October 2019, online at Caroline Coops, Partner, King & Wood Mallesons https://forms.gle/LcWtKURmLo9v2b9c6 Katrina Close, Melbourne Director, Australian Government Solicitor The Federal Court of Australia will video cast the seminar to the following locations, pending registrations. Adelaide Brisbane Canberra Darwin 16 October 2019 at 4:45 pm 16 October 2019 at 5:15 pm 16 October 2019 at 5:15 pm 16 October 2019 at 4:45 pm ACST Federal Court of AEST Federal Court of AEST Federal Court of ACST Federal Court of Australia Courtroom No.3 Australia Courtroom No.2 Australia Courtroom No. 1 Australia Courtroom No.9 Roma Mitchell Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Nigel Bowen
  • Billy Snedden: the Challenge of Incipient Inflation

    Billy Snedden: the Challenge of Incipient Inflation

    Billy Snedden: the challenge of incipient inflation John Hawkins1 Billy Snedden was Treasurer in very challenging circumstances, with the global financial system undergoing intense change and the government in which he served in political difficulty. This made it hard for him to address effectively the emerging inflationary pressures. Source: National Library of Australia2 1 The author formerly worked in the Domestic Economy Division of Treasury. This article has benefited from comments and suggestions provided by Selwyn Cornish, Ian Hancock and Fiona Snedden. Thanks are due to the Snedden family for allowing access to the Snedden papers in the National Library of Australia. The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Australian Treasury. 2 B.M. Snedden, Liberal Party member for Bruce, Victoria [picture]/Australian Information Service, Bib ID: 3660355 21 Billy Snedden: the challenge of incipient inflation Introduction Sir Billy Mackie Snedden was generally regarded as ‘affable, charming, friendly’3 and many contemporary accounts refer to his good looks.4 He possessed considerable ambition5 and all his life was a hard worker.6 Friends recalled him as having ‘a quick mind which absorbs and retains detail’.7 These traits allowed him to rise from his humble origins and become a Liberal Treasurer and leader without the benefits of the family wealth or establishment links that assisted peers such as William McMahon and Malcolm Fraser. He once described himself as ‘the first of the middle class radicals’.8 His weakness was his need to be liked and approved, and that he was ‘too trusting and insufficiently ruthless for his own good’.9 This sometimes left him trying to present a toughness he did not possess.10 Snedden had a lifelong aversion to ‘bullying’.
  • M I C H a E L G L E E S

    M I C H a E L G L E E S

    M I C H A E L G L E E S O N Barrister W A R D E L L C H A M B E R S Level 10, 111 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 DX 379 Sydney T + 61 2 9231 3133 F + 61 2 9233 4164 M + 61 405 029 940 E [email protected] Called to the Bars of both England and Wales and New South Wales, and having acquired a wealth of experience as a barrister in both jurisdictions, Michael’s principal areas of practice include criminal law, sports law, regulatory and compliance, as well as inquests and commissions of inquiry. He possesses widespread experience across a broad range of jurisdictions including the District Court of New South Wales, Supreme Court of New South Wales, New South Wales Court of Appeal, New South Wales Crime Commission, Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and ACC. His solicitor clients commend him for his ability to understand the needs of their mutual client, as well as his responsiveness and strong ability to expeditiously navigate through the real issues in a matter. Following ten successful years in continuous practise as a barrister in well-regarded chambers in the United Kingdom (www.cobden.co.au), Michael transferred his highly-developed advocacy and advisory skills to Australia. Initially maintaining a mixed practice in common law, Michael later moved into specialising in complex and often high-profile criminal matters. Since that time, he has developed a well-balanced practice prosecuting for the State and Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions, as well as engaging in private defence work.
  • Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: Fair Work No: ACD97/2017

    Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: Fair Work No: ACD97/2017

    Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: Fair Work No: ACD97/2017 CATHERINE DUCK Applicant AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA Respondent ORDER JUDGE: JUSTICE BROMWICH DATE OF ORDER: 19 October 2018 WHERE MADE: Sydney UPON THE UNDERTAKING: by each of Augusta Ventures Limited, the applicant and Adero Law (Adero) to each other and to the Court, in the terms set out in Annexure A to this order (being that they will comply with their obligations under the Funding Terms (being Annexure B to this order) and the terms of orders 1 and 2), copies of which, signed by each of Augusta Ventures Limited, the applicant and Adero Law, are to be filed within seven days of the date of this order, THE COURT ORDERS THAT: Common Fund 1. Pursuant to s 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act), subject to a further order, upon Resolution (as defined in the Funding Terms) the applicant and group members pay from any Resolution Sum (as defined in the Funding Terms), the amounts referred to in sub-clauses 6(a) to (c) of the Funding Terms prior to any distribution to group members, in accordance with the Funding Terms. 2. Upon Resolution, the aggregate amount payable by the applicant and group members pursuant to order 1 is not to exceed the aggregate amount that would otherwise have been payable by the applicant and group members in the event that order 1 had not been made. Prepared in the Australian Capital Territory District Registry, Federal Court of Australia Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Building, Childers Street, Telephone 02 6267 0666 - 2 - Opt Out 3.
  • Chapter 11 – the Road to the New Australian Copyright Act

    Chapter 11 – the Road to the New Australian Copyright Act

    Chapter 11 – The road to the new Australian Copyright Act The 1960s A long delay in implementation Completed in 19591 the Spicer Report met public indifference. The newspapers and Parliament said nothing. The Attorney General, Garfield Barwick, kept the report “under consideration” for 14 months, before informing the House of Representatives in April 1961 that he intended to call for public submissions on the Committee’s findings. Barwick’s dilatoriness perhaps owed something to external interference. Sometime in 1960, he prepared a draft cabinet submission recommending the preparation of a copyright bill based on the report’s recommendations but the draft went no further. The recording and broadcasting industries were disappointed with the details of the report recommendations, and probably pressured Ministers to postpone legislative action. At any rate, in 1961, Barwick announced that the “representations indicate that perhaps the committee had not sufficient material before it and that additional material which is now available might have altered its conclusion.” He made plain that no-one should expect rapid progress towards a bill. At budget estimates hearings, Barwick reported that the task of assimilating new material, and reviewing the report findings burdened his department. His own priorities seemed to lie elsewhere: “I must confess for my part that I have not attempted to deal with it [the material] finally, and it cannot be expected that any legislation will be presented during the life of this Parliament.” In April 1962, he told Gough Whitlam, Labor Deputy Leader, that he hoped to introduce copyright legislation in the autumn session of 1963 – hardly a promise of alacrity.