The new law of Torts

An essential text for tort law students, this is the first to comprehensively cover recent tort reform legislation as enacted in each Australian jurisdiction, and to deal with the impact these reforms have had on the common law. Both authors from Deakin University, Victoria.

Principles of property law

This comprehensive text covers all of the materials relevant to property law in a detailed and thorough manner. The second edition examines the basic tenants of property law,as well as specific property interests such as land interests and the way in which these interests are conveyed, registered and co-ordinated.The book considers the development of native title as a legally recognised form of property in Australia and how such an interest sits within the common law and statutory infrastructure. Principles of Property Law is a vital book for students studying this complex area and is also a valuable addition to the library of academics and practitioners interested in this field.

Labour law

Second edition university text discussing the principles of labour law, first published in 1999. Provides a comprehensive discussion of such topics as the employment relationship, termination of employment, the federal system of labour regulation and legal regulation of trade unions. Revised edition has been updated to reflect recent changes in the common law and under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Features case examples, summary questions and graded exercises for students. Includes table of cases, table of statutes and index. Author is a Barrister and Solicitor and a lecturer in the School of Law at Deakin University.

Historical evolution and modern implications of concepts of consent to, and refusal of, medical treatment in the law of trespass

Many mischiefs arise on the change of a maxim and rule of the Common Law, which those who altered it could not see when they made the change.

Damages for pain and suffering in tort law

Legislation enacted between 2002 and 2005 by each Australian State and Territory reformed and partially codified the common law of personal injuries. This column examines the nature and history of damages for pain and suffering and analyses the approach taken by different Australian jurisdictions to compensation for non-economic loss. Non-economic loss is generally composed of pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and loss of enjoyment of life (some jurisdictions, eg New South Wales, also include disfigurement, and loss of expectation of life). Several jurisdictions have imposed thresholds that a claimant must meet as a prerequisite to suing for damages at common law.

The status of using drug detection dogs under Australian law

In recent years it has become increasingly common for drug detection dogs to be active in and around public transport, busy nightclub precincts, music festivals and dance parties. However, the legal status of police using drug detection dogs is anything but clear in many parts of Australia. The aim of this article is to outline the nature and scope of the powers available to police at common law and under statute that allow their use.

An overview of liability and compensation for personal injury in China under the general principles of civil law

This article reviews the personal injury tort system in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Chinese torts law has a number of unique features. To begin with, it is quite new — the legal framework of torts law was established only in 1986. The unique features of the Chinese torts law also stem from its long and difficult evolution over nearly 40 years. Equally important has been the remarkable blend of influences that have shaped its current law — a mixture of socialist objectives, capitalist pragmatism, and feudal doctrines combined with jurisprudential models taken from a range of western civil codes and, more recently, the common law.

Part one of the article briefly analyses the most important features of the existing Chinese legal system. Part two provides a background to the enactment of the General Principles of Civil Law (GPCL), which incorporates Chinese torts law. The review looks at the development and drafting of the GPCL legislation, and the influences that guided the formulation of legal principles. Part three of the article provides an overview of the torts law provisions in the GPCL. Part four examines the law of personal injury established by the GPCL. Part five uses some case studies to illustrate the principles highlighted in the previous two parts and part six contains a brief conclusion and some pointers to the directions that Chinese torts law may take in the future.

Authorship and fixation in copyright law : a comparative comment

[The present comment considers an issue that has received little discussion in the common law world: namely whether fixation and authorship are parts of the same creative act in relation to literary, dramatic and musical works. The importance of the question is that, if authorship does not entail fixation, it should logically be possible for a person independent of the author to reduce the work to material form for copyright purposes. This would significantly expand the range of works protected by copyright and would extend protection to those works which have never been fixed by their authors. The focus of the comment is Australian law, but its discussion is comparative, with particular attention given to UK law.]

Ignorance of the law as a defence to rape : the destruction of a maxim

In DPP v Morgan, the House of Lords correctly concluded that an accused who entertained a genuine belief that a woman was consenting to carnal knowledge of her person could not be convicted of the common law crime of rape as such a belief and the requisite mens rea to convict were mutually exclusive of one another. Though England and Wales have resiled from this position by virtue of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s. 1 (b), which allows for conviction upon proof that the accused did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting, the Morgan principle has retained its vitality at common law as well as under the various statutory crimes of rape that exist throughout Australia, most notably the provisions of s. 38 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Despite a long line of Victorian Court of Appeal decisions which have reaffirmed the Morgan principle, the court has construed s. 37AA(b)(ii) of the Act as leaving open the possibility of an acquittal despite the fact that the accused acted with an awareness that one or more factors that are statutorily deemed as negating consent under s. 36(a)-(g) of the Act were operating at the time of his or her sexual penetration; specifically, the court held that the foregoing factors do not necessarily preclude a jury from finding that the accused acted in the genuine belief that the complainant was consenting. This article endeavours to explain how the accused could be aware of such circumstances at the time of penetration, yet still entertain such a belief. The article ultimately concludes that such an anomaly can only be explained through a combination of the poor drafting of s. 37AA(b)(ii) and the court's apparent refusal to follow the longstanding precept that ignorance of the law is never a defence to a crime, ostensibly prompted by its adherence to the cardinal precept that legislation is not to be construed as superfluous.

An entrenched bill of rights : a protection for the rights of minorities

This paper is concerned with the question of whether Australia would be better served by the inclusion of an entrenched Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. In particular, attention will focus on the abuses of minorities that are all but certain to arise in any society that is based on majoritarian rule. This paper will also examine the question of whether an entrenched Bill of Rights would serve as an effective safeguard against such abuses, especially where the rights of unpopular minorities are involved. The analysis to follow is undertaken against the backdrop of the efficacy, or the lack thereof, of the Constitution of the United States in preventing such abuses, and particularly that portion of the American Constitution that is known as the Bill of Rights.

The sampling and remix dilemma: what is the role of moral rights in the encouragement and regulation of derivative creativity

The borrowing and rearrangement of musical content, especially in the digital context, raises difficult questions for copyright law. There is significant community support for a loosening of the restrictions on the derivative (and particularly creative) use of copyright material. Law reform is called for. This paper discusses the possible introduction of a new exception to copyright infringement but notes that in the drafting of any such exception not only the economic rights but also the moral rights of the originating author need to be taken into account.

The principle of legality as clear statement rule: significance and problems

In Australia, the common law principle of legality has hardened into a strong clear statement rule that is applied when legislation engages common law rights and freedoms. It has transformed a loose collection of rebuttable interpretive presumptions into a quasi-constitutional common law bill of rights. However, these developments are not without controversy or issue. The analysis undertaken in this article suggests that the principle of legality as clear statement rule -- as mandated by the High Court in Coco v The Queen -- can only work legitimately if Parliament has clear and prior notice of the rights and freedoms that it operates to protect. But it is problematic if what a common law right, such as freedom of speech, requires or guarantees in any given legislative context is unclear and contested, and so must be judicially divined at the point of application. In these cases, the principle operates to enforce a (post-legislative) judicial approximation of what best protects and promotes an abstract legal value or principle. It amounts to the illegitimate judicial remaking of prior legislative decisions on rights. This undercuts the normative justifications for the principle of legality as it obscures from Parliament the common law (rights) backdrop against which its legislation is enacted and interpreted.

The new law of torts

The New Law of Torts third edition continues to question whether foundational principles and policies of torts law, reflect the social and moral values of modern Australian society. Living up to its name as The New Law of Torts, this book has been up-dated with the latest legislative and judicial development as well as the recent major cases, reflecting the changing nature of tort law.This is an essential and accessible text as it provides a clear and succinct discussion of the interface between the statutory regime in each jurisdiction and the common law. It comprehensively covers the law as it is applicable to the whole of Australia. The book has clearly delineated parts, sections and topics for each genus of torts (trespass, action on the case, statutory wrongs, etc.), and each species (battery, assault, negligence, nuisance). Headings and sub-headings provide useful breaks in the text, and selected cases are used not only as authorities, but also as illustrations of principle and judicial reasoning.

A tale of two expropriations: Newcrestia and Agrizania

A comparison will be made between the decision of the High Court of Australia in Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v The Commonwealth1 (“Newcrest”) and the decisions of the South African Courts in the Agri South Africa line of cases.2 Although the mineral law systems of the two countries differ insofar as historical development and content,3 the simplified facts of the Newcrest and Agri SA decisions and principles of expropriation law are similar enough to draw an interesting comparison between the respective cases. Both cases dealt with the issue of whether the mineral rights/mining rights of private holders were expropriated by legislation which prohibited mining in one way or another. A comparison between the cases shows the approaches towards the issues and what exactly constitutes deprivation and/or acquisition of property for purposes of expropriation and whether deprivation and/or acquisition actually took place.The differences between the mineral law systems of Australia and South Africa (before the enactment of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (hereafter “MPRDA”)) and the protection afforded against the resumption/expropriation of mineral rights or mining rights will be set as background information for a better understanding of the respective decisions. The facts of the two cases will first be set out and simplified for comparative purposes before the respective decisions are discussed. At the end, a comparison will be made between the decisions and a conclusion reached about the similarity of principles and the correctness of the respective decisions.