Ending the life of the act/omission dispute: Causation in withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining measures

My aim in this paper is to challenge the increasingly common view in the literature that the law on end of life decision making is in disarray and is in need of urgent reform. My argument is that this assessment of the law is based on assumptions about the relationship between the identity of the defendant and their conduct, and about the nature of causation, which, on examination, prove to be indefensible. I then provide a clarification of the relationship between causation and omissions which proves that the current legal position does not need modification, at least on the grounds that are commonly advanced for the converse view. This enables me, in conclusion, to clarify important conceptual and moral differences between withholding, refusing and withdrawing life-sustaining measures on the one hand, and assisted suicide and euthanasia, on the other.

Seen but not heard? The significance of shareholders under Pt 5.3A of the Corporations Act

The article considers the interests of company members as stakeholders in the event of a company entering voluntary administration and suggests that while shareholders hold a residual interest, they nonetheless have an interest in ensuring that that the company is rescued and perhaps therefore have a role to play in the rescue of the company’s business. In doing so it argues that there is some inconsistency in recent changes in Ch 5 regarding the role of shareholders with some changes recognising their role while others have sought to downplay it.

The human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 : a multidisciplinary workshop

Event report following a multidisciplinary workshop at the Economic and Social Research Council's Genomics Policy and Research Forum, which took place at the University of Edinburgh on 20 January 2011.

The application of the statutory derivative action in Pt 2F.1A of the Corporations Act to companies in liquidation under Ch 5 : Well oiled machine or is Pt 2F.1A in need of a tune up?

The statutory derivative action was introduced in Australia in 2000. This right of action has been debated in the literature and introduced in a number of other jurisdictions as well. However, it is by no means clear that all issues have been resolved despite its operation in Australia for over 10 years. This article considers the application of Pt 2F.1A of the Corporations Act to companies in liquidation under Ch 5. It demonstrates that the application involves consideration of not only proper statutory interpretation but also policy matters around the role and the supervision by the court of a liquidator once a company has entered liquidation.

Learning to act in uncertain environments : technical perspective

The problem of decision making in an uncertain environment arises in many diverse contexts: deciding whether to keep a hard drive spinning in a net-book; choosing which advertisement to post to a Web site visitor; choosing how many newspapers to order so as to maximize profits; or choosing a route to recommend to a driver given limited and possibly out-of-date information about traffic conditions. All are sequential decision problems, since earlier decisions affect subsequent performance; all require adaptive approaches, since they involve significant uncertainty. The key issue in effectively solving problems like these is known as the exploration/exploitation trade-off: If I am at a cross-roads, when should I go in the most advantageous direction among those that I have already explored, and when should I strike out in a new direction, in the hopes I will discover something better?

Actions for declaratory or injunctive relief by the Corporate Regulator under s 471B of the Corporations Act

This article by Ben McEniery discusses the matters a court will consider when leave to commence or proceed against a company in liquidation is sought not by a creditor seeking to prove a debt, but by the corporate regulator pursuing declaratory or injunctive relief.

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

On 17 March 2010, the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) was assented to.

Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner : Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule

The fundamental personal property rule – no one can transfer a better title to property than they had – is subject to exceptions in the Sale of Goods legislation, which aim to protect innocent buyers who are deceived by a seller’s apparent physical possession of property. These exceptions cover a limited range of transactions and are restrictive in their operation. Australia now has national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) - which will apply to many transactions outside the scope of the Sale of Goods Act and which includes rules for sales by non-owners which will provide exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule for many common commercial transactions. This article explores the effect of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) on the Sale of Goods exceptions, explains that the new provisions are so wide that there is little continuing relevance for the Sale of Goods Act exceptions, and indicates where they may still apply.

Surviving the Personal Property Securities Act (2009) Cth

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which is expected to commence operating in February 2012. Previous personal property securities legislation was very complex, with more than seventy pieces of legislation in the states and territories, and more than forty registers. This reform package is the culmination of a process that began many years ago and various drafts have been the subject of much investigation and consultation. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.