Adventures in pedagogy : the trials and tribulations of teaching common law in China

China is now seen as arguably, the next economic giant of the 21st century. From a country closed in the past to the external world, the Chinese market now presents as one of the most lucrative in the world economy. One area that has drawn increasing international interest is education - it has been estimated that by 2020 there will be 25 million excess demands for higher education places that the Chinese tertiary educational system cannot meet. Many overseas institutions have developed programs to cater for this immense potential market. In 2000 the Law Faculty of the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)introduced a new postgraduate program specifically targeting the Chinese market. This paper is a brief assessment of the program - it examines general issues in the pedagogical delivery of programs in LOTE (Language Other Than English) and the use of 'proxies' in the delivery of LOTE programs. The paper concludes that while the UTS program demonstrates that it is feasible to use proxy lecturers or interpreters in the delivery of programs in LOTE, the exercise entails significant problems that can undermine the integrity of such programs.

Modernising charity : steps to an alternative architecture for common law charity jurisprudence

This chapter addresses the question, how can the common law concept of charity law be modernised? There are difficulties with the present jurisprudential conception. The focus of the chapter is not on those difficulties, however, but rather on the development of an alternative architecture for common law jurisprudence. The conclusion to which the chapter comes is that charity law can be modernised by a series of steps to include all civil society organisations. It is possible if the ‘technical’ definition of charitable purpose is abandoned in favour of a contemporary, not technical concept of charitiable purpose. This conclusion is reached by proposing a framework, developed from the common law concept of charities, that reconciles into a cohesive jurisprudential architecture all of the laws applying to civil society organisations, not just charities. In this section, first the argument is contextualised in an idea of society and located in a gap in legal theory. An analogy is then offered to introduce the problems in the legal theory applying, not just to charities, but more broadly to civil society organisations. The substantive challenge of mapping an alternative jurisprudence is then taken in steps. The final substantive section conceptualises the changes inherent in a move beyond charities to a jurisprudence centred on civil society organisations and how this would bring legal theory into line with sectoral analysis in other disciplines.

Is there a physicality requirement at Common Law? : a survey of the Pre-NRDC cases discussing ‘Manufacture’

One of the fundamental issues that remains unresolved in patent law today, both in Australia and in other jurisdictions, is whether an invention must produce a physical effect or cause a physical transformation of matter to be patentable, or whether it is sufficient that an invention involves a specific practical application of an idea or principle to achieve a useful result. In short, the question is whether Australian patent law contains a physicality requirement. Despite being recently considered by the Federal Court, this is arguably an issue that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved in Australia. In its 2006 decision in Grant v Commissioner of Patents, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that the patentable subject matter standard is rooted in the physical, when it held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patent eligible. That decision, however, has been the subject of scrutiny in the academic literature. This article seeks to add to the existing literature written in response to the Grant decision by examining in detail the key common law cases decided prior to the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, which is the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regards to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This article, in conjunction with others written by the author, questions the Federal Court’s assertion in Grant that the physicality requirement it established is consistent with existing law.

Case studies of statutory interventions into the common law concept of charity

This paper considers four examples of statutory interventions into the common law concept of charity, namely, those of Pennsylvania, Barbados, the definition recommended by the Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of Charities in Australia, and the Recreational Charities legislation of the United Kingdom. It comments on some issues affecting each style of intervention. The paper does not argue against statutory intervention but submits that legislative changes are best made by deeming a particular purpose to be charitable, or not charitable, so that, except to that extent, the common law concept remains intact – this is the approach adopted by the Recreational Charities legislation.

Common law obligations of good faith in non-fiduciary joint ventures

This chapter is devoted to the issue of non-fiduciary common law obligations of good faith, as they may arise in the performance and enforcement of joint ventures. In recent times a rush of commercial contractual claims involving good faith has signified the need for a separate chapter examining this issue. Although most of these decisions have arisen in commercial contexts other than joint ventures, the decisions, nevertheless, warrant careful consideration to the extent that they cast light on the likely contours of the common law good faith obligation as it may apply in the joint venture context.

Meta-regulation approach of law : a potential legal strategy to develop socially responsible business self-regulation in least developed common law countries

In the corporate regulation landscape, 'meta-regulation' is a comparatively new legal approach. The sketchy role of state promulgated authoritative laws in pluralized society and scepticism in corporate self-regulation's role have resulted in the development of this legal approach. It has opened up possibilities to synthesize corporate governance to add social values in corporate self-regulation. The core of this approach is the fusion of responsive and reflexive legal strategies to combine regulators and regulatees for reaching a particular goal. This paper argues that it is a potential strategy that can be successfully deployed to develop a socially responsible corporate culture for the business enterprises, so that they will be able to acquire social, environmental and ethical values in their self-regulation sustainably. Taking Bangladeshi corporate laws as an instance, this paper also evaluates the scope of incorporating this approach in laws of the least developed common law countries in general.

The Workcover Queensland Act 1996 : new procedures for common law claims [Part 2]

This article explains the new pre-court procedures and additional procedures designed to foster settlement of claims introduced by the Workcover Queensland Act 1996, and the implication of the new provisions for practitioners.

In conversation with the Honourable Ian Callinan AC

When, in 1977, the Australian electorate provided a double majority to effect a change of section 72 of the Commonwealth Constitution requiring judges of the High Court of Australia to retire at the age of 70 years old, I doubt we understood the continuing capacity of these esteemed members of the judiciary. For the opportunity to sit and talk with Ian Callinan AC who, in compliance with that amendment, retired from the High Court in September 2007, I needed to wait until he returned from The Hague where he was sitting as a Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice. Although a native of Casino, New South Wales, Mr Callinan is regarded as a Queenslander. Indeed, he grew up in Brisbane, finished high school at Brisbane Grammar and graduated in law at The University of Queensland. Appointed in 1978 as a Queen’s Counsel, Mr Callinan enjoyed this period of his legal career and we discussed an aspect of the Christopher Skase case, which reinforced my belief that Mr Callinan is an incredibly skilful advocate. On 14 September 1998, ABC Four Corners broadcasted the views of some prominent Australians on the appointment of Mr Callinan to the High Court. In assessing the type of person Mr Callinan is, Tony Morris QC said: “Ian Callinan isn't a coward”, while former Commonwealth Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, said: “He was regarded as an absolutely outstanding criminal lawyer within the Queensland legal profession, I mean really a top-notch advocate”. I was not interested in raising any of the controversial issues that Mr Callinan has encountered as an advocate in high profile matters. I wanted to know how he felt about his time on the High Court, what his thoughts are on the operation of the High Court, the IP cases he decided, the real life issues that he feels impact on counsel who are appearing before the High Court and the people he regarded as role models. During our conversation, Mr Callinan laughed often and when he did his eyes lit up, revealing his passion for life. He is an incredibly genuine Australian who loved his time as a barrister, enjoyed his role on the High Court, enjoys his current job as mediator, loves writing novels, has a great desire for continual improvement in the quality of legal education and legal advocacy and sees a need for change in IP law. When I asked: “So, what might the future hold for you?”, he laughed and said: “Well, at my age I don’t have a long horizon time”. I said: “Just enjoy the journey?”, to which Mr Callinan responded: “Exactly”.

Physicality in Australian Patent Law

It is generally understood that the patent system exists to encourage the conception and disclosure of new and useful inventions embodied in machines and other physical devices, along with new methods that physically transform matter from one state to another. What is not well understood is whether, and to what extent, the patent system is to encourage and protect the conception and disclosure of inventions that are non-physical methods – namely those that do not result in a physical transformation of matter. This issue was considered in Grant v Commissioner of Patents. In that case the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patentable subject matter. In doing so, it introduced a physicality requirement into Australian law. What this article seeks to establish is whether the court’s decision is consistent with the case law on point. It does so by examining the key common law cases that followed the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regard to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This is done with a view to determining whether there is anything in those cases that supports the view that the Australian patentable subject matter test contains a physicality requirement.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree - the academy

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism. The content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia is similarly steeped in tradition and conservatism. Indeed, the practice of law and our institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of our common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice, and think about the role of law, resistant to change. In this article, we lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists. It is our simple argument that alternative dispute resolution should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. There has been traditional pushback against the notion that alternative dispute resolution should have a place amongst black letter law subjects in the legal curriculum. This position cannot be maintained in the modern day legal climate. We put forward ten simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester long course of ADR instruction. With respect to relationships of mutual influence, whether legal education should assimilate the practise of law, or shape the practise of law makes no difference here. Both views necessitate the inclusion of ADR as a compulsory subject in the law degree.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree : A cheat sheet for the willing and a primer for the non-believer

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism, which influences the content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia. Indeed, the practice of law and the institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of the common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice and think about the role of law resistant to change. In this article, the authors lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists: that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. The authors put forward 10 simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester-long course of ADR instruction.

Law as lore

Law is saturated with stories. People tell their stories to lawyers; lawyers tell their clients’ stories to courts; legislators develop regulation to respond to their constituents’ stories of injustice or inequality. In legal education, professors devise hypothetical scenarios to test student understanding of legal doctrine; in law examinations and assignments, students construct advice to fictional clients. The common law legal system derives many of its foundational principles from case law — in effect, stories with legal solutions — that have accumulated over time. The civil law system, despite a different design centred on legal codes, also relies on judicial story-telling to interpret the code provisions and flesh out the gaps.

The impact of “empirical facts” on legal scholarship and legal research training

Lawyers have traditionally viewed law as a closed system, and doctrinal research has been the research methodology used most widely in the profession. This reflects traditional concepts of legal reasoning. There is a wealth of reliable and valid social science data available to lawyers and judges. Judges in fact often refer to general facts about the world, society, institutions and human behaviour (‘empirical facts’). Legal education needs to prepare our students for this broader legal context. This paper examines how ‘empirical facts’ are used in Australian and other common law courts. Specifically, the paper argues that there is a need for enhanced training in non-doctrinal research methodologies across the law school curriculum. This should encompass a broad introduction to social science methods, with more attention being paid to a cross-section of methodologies such as content analysis, comparative law and surveys that are best applied to law.

Insurance : The Laws of Australia

Insurance - the laws of Australia provides insurance practitioners, insurance companies and students with a principles-based, practical guide to insurance law in Australia. It provides comprehensive coverage and analysis of common law principles relating to, and the statutory regulation of, insurance contracts and the operation of an insurance business. The common law and statutory provisions are dealt within the context of marine, life and general insurance.