Practice and Procedure - Proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries commenced before June 18, 2002

In Inglis v Connell [2003] QDC 029 the court considered s6(3) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in relation to the application of the Act. The conclusion reached was that the provision should be interpreted as providing that the requirements of the Act do not apply in respect of personal injury the subject of any proceeding commenced before June 18, 2002.

The 2008 declaration of independence by the Hong Kong Court and anomalies in the Hong Kong Company Law

Discusses two aspects of Hong Kong law: 1) the judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in A Solicitor v The Law Society of Hong Kong on whether Hong Kong courts were bound, post-1997, by pre-1997 House of Lords or Privy Council decisions, by pre-1997 decisions of their own, or by post-1997 overseas decisions from any jurisdiction; and 2) the need for clarification in the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance of whether a company can have a single legal representative, the ultra vires rule and the duties of company directors

Duty to the court and the administration of justice : some examples, implications and clarifications

No liberal democracy can survive without popular trust in its judicial system. The legal profession and the judiciary enjoy a level of independence and autonomy from the executive that makes them both powerful and privileged. A UNIQUE AND ORGANIC DUTY: So long as the courts are seen to fulfil their duty to guard against encroachments by the executive on the freedoms and rights of individual citizens with integrity and credibility, they maintain enough public support to retain their normative authority. But support for those with power and privilege is easily undermined. It is contingent upon trust. Lawyers who breach that trust in ways that go to the heart of the legal system ought to expect to be made examples of and to suffer severe penalties. The good news is that the sorts of breach discussed here should be neither difficult to anticipate nor to avoid – in theory. In practice, smart and honest lawyers sometimes fall foul of these duties for all sorts of understandable (if not condonable) reasons. Law does not get practised in a social or cultural vacuum. Lawyers are people, and people have weaknesses, failings and stresses...

The court and the factory the legal construction of occupational health and safety offences in Victoria

This thesis reports on an empirically based study of the manner in which Victorian Magistrates Courts constructed occupational health and safety (OHS) issues when hearing prosecutions for offences under the Industrial Safety, Health and Welfare Act 1981 (the ISHWA) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 (OHSA) from 1983 to 1991. These statutes established OHS standards for employers and other relevant parties. The State government enforced these standards through an OHS inspectorate which had a range of enforcement powers, including prosecution. After outlining the historical development of Victoria’s OHS legislation, the magistracy’s historical role in its enforcement, and the development of an enforcement culture in which inspectors viewed prosecution as a last resort, the study shows how the key provisions of the ISHWA and OHSA required occupiers of workplaces and employers to provide and maintain safe systems of work, including the guarding of dangerous machinery. Using a wide range of empirical research methods and legal materials, it shows how the enforcement policies, procedures and practices of the inspectorate heavily slanted inspectors workplace investigations and hence prosecutions towards a restricted and often superficial, analysis of incidents (or “events”) most of which involved injuries on machinery. There was evidence, however, that after the establishment of the Central Investigation Unit in 1989 cases were more thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. From 1990 the majority of prosecutions were taken under the employer’s general duty provisions, and by 1991 there was evidence that prosecutions were focusing on matters other than machinery guarding.

Information Security and Privacy : Proceedings of the 9th Australasian Conference, ACISP 2004, Sydney, Australia, July 13-15, 2004.

Preface The 9th Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy (ACISP 2004) was held in Sydney, 13–15 July, 2004. The conference was sponsored by the Centre for Advanced Computing – Algorithms and Cryptography (ACAC), Information and Networked Security Systems Research (INSS), Macquarie University and the Australian Computer Society. The aims of the conference are to bring together researchers and practitioners working in areas of information security and privacy from universities, industry and government sectors. The conference program covered a range of aspects including cryptography, cryptanalysis, systems and network security. The program committee accepted 41 papers from 195 submissions. The reviewing process took six weeks and each paper was carefully evaluated by at least three members of the program committee. We appreciate the hard work of the members of the program committee and external referees who gave many hours of their valuable time. Of the accepted papers, there were nine from Korea, six from Australia, five each from Japan and the USA, three each from China and Singapore, two each from Canada and Switzerland, and one each from Belgium, France, Germany, Taiwan, The Netherlands and the UK. All the authors, whether or not their papers were accepted, made valued contributions to the conference. In addition to the contributed papers, Dr Arjen Lenstra gave an invited talk, entitled Likely and Unlikely Progress in Factoring. This year the program committee introduced the Best Student Paper Award. The winner of the prize for the Best Student Paper was Yan-Cheng Chang from Harvard University for his paper Single Database Private Information Retrieval with Logarithmic Communication. We would like to thank all the people involved in organizing this conference. In particular we would like to thank members of the organizing committee for their time and efforts, Andrina Brennan, Vijayakrishnan Pasupathinathan, Hartono Kurnio, Cecily Lenton, and members from ACAC and INSS.

The High Court and the Marlboro Man: The plain packaging decision

The High Court of Australia’s ruling on the plain packaging of tobacco products is one of the great constitutional cases of our age. The ruling will resonate throughout the world - as other countries will undoubtedly seek to emulate Australia’s plain packaging regime.

The inherent equitable jurisdiction and the plenary power of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to order the winding up of companies

Not all companies in Australia are amenable to a winding up order pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Supreme Court of New South Wales has previously dealt with such winding up applications by apparently focusing on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to firstly consider the winding up application. This article proposes an original alternative paradigm: the plenary power provided to the court by s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) can be utilised to initially attract the jurisdiction of the court and subsequently the inherent jurisdiction specifically utilising the equitable “just and equitable” ground is available to the court to consider and make such a winding up order if appropriate. Variation of such a paradigm may also be available to the court when considering the inherent jurisdiction in relation to corporation matters more generally.

Conversation, community and kids: blogging for youth at Gold Coast City Council libraries

In late 2007, Gold Coast City Council libraries embarked on an online library project, designed to ramp up libraries’ online services to customers. As part of this project, the Young People’s team identified a need to connect with youth aged 12 to 16 in the online environment, in order to create a direct channel of communication with this market segment and encourage them to engage with the library. Blogging was identified as an appropriate means of communicating with both current and potential library customers from this age group. The Young People’s team consequently prepared a concept plan for a youth blog for launch in Children’s Book Week 2008 and are working towards development of management and administrative models and documentation and implementation of the blog itself. While many libraries have been quick to take up Web 2.0-style services, there has been little formal publication about the successes (or failures) of this type of project. Likewise, few libraries have published about the planning, management, and administration of such services. The youth blog currently in development at Gold Coast City Council libraries will be supported by a robust planning phase and will be rigorously evaluated as part of the project. This paper will report on the project (its aims, objectives and outputs), the planning process, and the evaluation activities and outcomes.

In defence of Victoria's Children's Court : its value and role in the child protection system

Australian child protection systems have been subject to sustained and significant criticism for many decades. As a central part of that system Children’s Courts have been implicated: three recent inquiries into the child protection system in Victoria all criticised the Family Division of the Children’s Court.1 In the resulting debate two diametrically opposed points of view surfaced about the Children’s Court and the role that legal procedures and professionals should play in child protection matters. On one side bodies like the Children’s Court of Victoria, Victoria Legal Aid (‘VLA’), the Law Institute of Victoria (‘LIV’), and the Federation of Community Legal Centres (‘FCLC’) argued that the Children’s Court plays a vital role in child protection and should continue to play that role.2 On the other side a coalition of human service and child protection agencies called for major change including the removal of the Children’s Court from the child protection system. Victoria’s Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) has been critical of the Court3 as have community sector organisations like Anglicare, Berry Street, MacKillop Family Services and the Salvation Army — all agencies the DHS funds to deliver child protection services.4 Victoria’s Child Safety Commissioner has also called for major reform, publicly labelling the Court a ‘lawyers’ playground’ and recommending abolishing the Court’s involvement in child protection completely.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments : are the rules appropriate?

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is an aspect of private international law, and concerns situations where a successful party to litigation seeks to rely on a judgment obtained in one court, in a court in another jurisdiction. The most common example where the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may arise is where a party who has obtained a favourable judgment in one state or country may seek to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country. This occurs because there is no sufficient asset in the state or country where the judgment was rendered to satisfy that judgment. As technological advancements in communications over vast geographical distances have improved exponentially in recent years, there has been an increase in cross-border transactions, as well as litigation arising from these transactions. As a result, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is of increasing importance, since a party who has obtained a judgment in cross-border litigation may wish to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country, where the defendant’s assets may be located without having to re-litigate substantive issues that have already been resolved in another court. The purpose of the study is to examine whether the current state of laws for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia, the United States and the European Community are in line with modern-commercial needs. The study is conducted by weighing two competing objectives between the notion of finality of litigation, which encourages courts to recognise and enforce judgments foreign to them, on the one hand, and the adequacy of protection to safeguard the recognition and enforcement proceedings, so that there would be no injustice or unfairness if a foreign judgment is recognised and enforced, on the other. The findings of the study are as follows. In both Australia and the United States, there is a different approach concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts interstate or in a foreign country. In order to maintain a single and integrated nation, there are constitutional and legislative requirements authorising courts to give conclusive effects to interstate judgments. In contrast, if the recognition and enforcement actions involve judgments rendered by a foreign country’s court, an Australian or a United States court will not recognise and enforce the foreign judgment unless the judgment has satisfied a number of requirements and does not fall under any of the exceptions to justify its non-recognition and non-enforcement. In the European Community, the Brussels I Regulation which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments among European Union Member States has created a scheme, whereby there is only a minimal requirement that needs to be satisfied for the purposes of recognition and enforcement. Moreover, a judgment that is rendered by a Member State and based on any of the jurisdictional bases set forth in the Brussels I Regulation is entitled to be recognised and enforced in another Member State without further review of its underlying jurisdictional basis. However, there are concerns as to the adequacy of protection available under the Brussels I Regulation to safeguard the judgment-enforcing Member States, as well as those against whom recognition or enforcement is sought. This dissertation concludes by making two recommendations aimed at improving the means by which foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in the selected jurisdictions. The first is for the law in both Australia and the United States to undergo reform, including: adopting the real and substantial connection test as the new jurisdictional basis for the purposes of recognition and enforcement; liberalising the existing defences to safeguard the application of the real and substantial connection test; extending the application of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) in Australia to include at least its important trading partners; and implementing a federal statutory scheme in the United States to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The second recommendation is to introduce a convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The convention will be a convention double, which provides uniform standards for the rules of jurisdiction a court in a contracting state must exercise when rendering a judgment and a set of provisions for the recognition and enforcement of resulting judgments.

Practice & procedure : disclosure obligations - Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s27

In Huag v Jupiters Limited [2007] QCA 199 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from interlocutory orders made in the trial division of the court and concluded that, although provisions such as s27 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) should be given a broad, remedial construction, this did not mean the words of limitation in the section could be ignored.

From court to QCAT, or not

In Sutton v Tang [2015] QDC 191 Reid DCJ considered the circumstances that may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to order a transfer of a proceeding to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) under s53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the Act).

Inconsistencies in and the inadequacies of the family counselling and FDR confidentiality and admissibility provisions: The need for reform

In this article the author discusses issues arising from counselling and family dispute resolution (FDR) in relation to confidentiality and admissibility, such as whether an admission of abuse to a child, or a threat to harm the other parent, can be disclosed by the counsellor or family dispute resolution practitioner (FDRP) and used in court proceedings. It is found that the admissibility provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are far more narrowly defined than the confidentiality requirements and have been interpreted strictly by the courts. There are competing policy considerations: the strict “traditionalist” approach, that people can have absolute faith in the integrity of counsellors and mediators and in the confidential nature of the process, must be balanced against a more “protectionist” stance, being the individual rights of victims to have all relevant information placed before the court and to be protected from violence and abuse. It is suggested that legislative reform is required to ensure that courts balance these considerations appropriately and don’t compromise the safety of victims of abuse and family violence.