Beyond the separation of powers : judicial review and the regulatory proscription of terrorist organisations

Administrative law remains the key defence against an over-zealous executive arm of government, but administrative law needs to be understood in an international context. Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than in relation to legislation designed to counter terrorist activities. The co-ordination of terrorist activities knows no borders, and state-centered executive action designed to address the threat of terrorism necessarily operates in a broader global environment. An important but controversial part of Australia's counter-terrorism legislation suite is the power to proscribe terrorist organisations. The authors contend that the scope of judicial review available in relation to decisions of the Commonwealth executive to proscribe terrorist organisations is inadequate and may jeapordise Australia's compliance with international standards, such as those provided in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Now is an opportune time to reassess the structure and operation of the power to proscribe organisations in Australia.

Examining the approaches to diminish judicial intervention in statutory adjudication in Australia

In Australia, statutory construction adjudication is a fast payment dispute resolution process designed to keep the cash flowing down the hierarchical contractual chain in construction projects. Its rapid, highly regulatory and temporarily binding nature have led to it being often described as a ‘quick and dirty’ process that delivers ‘rough and ready’ justice. Adjudicators often have to grapple with complex legal issues related to jurisdictional facts and interpretation of contract provisions, though the majority of them are not legally trained. This has often led to a poor quality of adjudication outcome for large and complex payment claims which has, in turn, led to a mounting dissatisfaction due to the many judicial challenges to adjudicators’ determinations seen in recent years. The evolving tension between the object of the security of payment legislation and excessive involvement of the courts has often been the subject of comment by the judiciary. This paper aims to examine the legislative and judicial approaches to support the object of the security of payment legislation to ease cash flow. The paper adopts a desktop study approach whereby evidence is gathered from three primary sources – judicial decisions, academic publications and governmental reports. The paper concludes that there is a need to adopt other measures which can provide more convenient relief to aggrieved parties to an adjudication process, such that the adjudication process is kept away from the courts as far as is possible. Specifically, it is proposed that a well-designed expanded legislative review scheme of allegedly flawed adjudication, based on that provided in the Western Australian legislation, might stand as a promising remedy to eliminate the evolving tension.

Taking statutory adjudication to the next level: a proposal for review mechanism of erroneous determinations

Statutory adjudication was introduced in the security of payment legislation to quickly and fairly resolve payment disputes in the construction industry. One of the interesting features in some legislation is the availability of an express limited right of aggrieved parties to apply for review against erroneous adjudication decisions. In Singapore, the legislation has no equivalent elsewhere in that it provides for a full review mechanism of erroneous determinations considering the fact that adjudicators often have to grapple with complex issues as sheer volume of documents within a very tight timeframe. This paper discusses the various review mechanisms of erroneous adjudication determinations then asks the question as to whether an appropriately devised legislative review mechanism on the merits, should be an essential characteristic of any effective statutory adjudication scheme. The paper concludes by making the case that an appropriately designed review mechanism as proposed in the paper could be the most pragmatic and effective measure to improve the quality of adjudication outcome and increase the disputants' confidence in statutory adjudication. This paper is based upon a paper by the author which received a High Commendation in the Student Division of the Society of Construction Law Australia Brooking Prize for 2016.

Preventative detention and the right of personal liberty and security under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Preventive detention enables a person to be deprived of liberty, by executive determination, for the purposes of safeguarding national security or public order without that person being charged or brought to trial. This paper examines Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 to assess whether preventive detention is prohibited by the phrase 'arbitrary arrest and detention '. To analyse this Article, this paper uses a textual and structural analysis of the Article, as well as reference to the travaux preparatoires and case law of the Human Rights Committee. This paper argues that preventive detention is not explicitly prohibited by Article 9(1) ofthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. If preventive detention is 'arbitrary', within the wide interpretation of that term as argued in this paper, it will be a permissible deprivation of personal liberty under Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Preventive detention will, however, always be considered 'arbitrary' if sajeguards for those arrested and detained are not complied with, in particular the right to judicial review of the lawfulness of detention.

Models for reform : the directors’ duty of care in a modern commercial world

The Australian responses to corporate collapses in the modern commercial world have been
implemented at both judicial and legislative levels over a period of decades. South Africa has lagged behind the reform process, only recently reviewing its company laws with a view to legislatively incorporating, inter alia, its directors’ duties. The consequence of such review of the duty of care is found in subsection 76(3)(c) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. This article critically evaluates the existing South African common law and the new legislative directors’ duty of care in light of the equivalent duties in Australia and the United States. The analysis ultimately aims at determining whether the approach taken in any of these jurisdictions provides useful guidance in regard to reform options for the duty of care. While the Companies Act contains features that are preferable to the Australian Corporations Act 2001, the impact of the Companies Act on crucial features, such as the objectivity of the duty of care, is unclear and will have to await judicial review. It is concluded that while the South African measures at times echo Australian law in a positive manner, the Australian legislative regime is not without legitimate criticism as it can be unnecessarily complicated. Ultimately it is the United States and Australian common law duty of care that provides the best model for legislative reform.

Accepted Doctrine at the Time of Federation and Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales

This article critiques one aspect of the High Court’s reasoning in its landmark 2010 decision of Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales, namely its reliance on ‘accepted doctrine at the time of federation’ to determine the ‘defining characteristics’ of the state Supreme Courts. I argue that the relevant passages in Kirk are ambiguous and capable of two alternative readings, which I term the ‘pre-Federation entrenchment theory’ and the ‘on-Federation entrenchment theory’. With extensive reference to primary and secondary materials from the Federation era, I argue that both theories are flawed and, indeed, contrary to accepted doctrine at the time of Federation. Consequently, if the holding in Kirk is to be defended, other justifications for the entrenchment of judicial review in the state jurisdictions, which were only touched upon in Kirk, need to be developed and articulated with greater thoroughness and rigour.

A proposed roadmap to optimise the adjudication of complex payment disputes in Australia

In Australia, statutory construction adjudication has recently received a lot of criticism due to the increasing amount of determinations that have been quashed upon judicial review, and anecdotal evidence from some quarters showing dissatisfaction with the quality of adjudication decisions. Such criticism is particularly aimed at adjudications of large and technically and legally complex payment disputes, where adjudicators are under pressure to consider substantial volumes of submissions in very tight timeframes. More specifically, criticisms have been directed at, inter alia, adjudicator’s regulations, procedural fairness, jurisdictional powers and finality of decisions. This paper reviews the measures to improve the quality of adjudications of complex payment disputes then proposes a roadmap by selecting the Qld model as a benchmark but suggesting further improvements identified and explained via specific steps or pit stops. The pit stops include criteria for timeframes of complex claims, appointment, regulation and powers of adjudicators and a review system on the merits to control the quality of adjudication decisions replicating the Singapore model. The findings remain as blunt instruments and deemed as hypotheses to inform subsequent empirical research which the authors are currently undertaking to further investigate, strengthen and validate the findings of this study in order to propose a reliable and useful guide to any parliament seeking to optimise its statutory adjudication to effectively deal with complex payment disputes.

Australian security of payment legislation: impact of inconsistent case law

In Australia, a supreme court has a supervisory role over the statutory adjudication process that has been established within the security of payment legislation. In this role, the courts have quashed many adjudication determinations on the grounds of jurisdictional error in recent years. This is a problem as the courts’ involvement in statutory adjudication is contrary to the object of the legislation. When reviewing adjudication determinations, the courts have adopted different approaches with respect to determining the role of adjudicators and the essential jurisdictional facts that must exist in order for an adjudicator to have jurisdiction to hear a referred disputed matter. This diversification of judicial interpretation with respect to jurisdictional error is confusing, not only to construction professionals, but also to many lawyers. Via a desktop study– where the evidence is mainly garnered from case law, governmental reports and commentaries – this paper reviews the legal complexities involved in diagnosing jurisdictional errors. In doing so, the paper aims to answer the question as to why the adjudication process has become bogged down in the quagmire of judicial review. The paper concludes that the evolving inconsistency of case law in relation to statutory adjudication is a crucial factor contributing to the erosion of the object of the security of payment legislation in Australia. Moving forward, the paper argues that establishing a legislative review mechanism of jurisdictional challenges may be sufficient to address this problem.

The application of building information modelling in a construction project in China

Previous studies have proved the application of Building InformationModelling (BIM) can lead to greater efficiencies. Slowly adopting newtechnologies and limited technological innovation are criticised for theconstruction industry. In this paper, we present research that examinesthe practices of BIM technologies for the clash detection and coordination among building structure, equipment and pipelines, quantity statistics and construction simulation in a construction project in China. The BIM application significantly promotes the abilities to achieve construction schedule, quality, budget, and scope objectives in the project. The technological capabilities of BIM, the illegal issues of BIM outputs and developing cooperative project management culture are needed in order to promote BIM application in the construction industry.

Child testimony in custody cases: a review

The authors provide a brief historical review of judicial trends in child custody placement. In contrast to the start of the 19th century, by its end, courts took into consideration children's best interests, maternal rights, and prevailing sex role ideologies. Statutory changes began to reflect similar concerns by the end of that century. Modern practices, relying on the best interests of the child standard, also include consistent consideration of children's preferences in making custody determinations. An important factor in this context is the accuracy with which a child describes domestic relations, especially in contested cases with contradictory allegations by parents. Research dealing with children's report accuracy and techniques to enhance it are reviewed, and a description of various practical considerations when questioning children is provided.

Book review. Historical justice in international perspective

The notion that something can — and must — be done to address injustices of the past has gained signifieant political currency around the world in recent decades. As demands for apologies, reparation, restitution, and restorative justice have grown louder, the attempt to make amends has emerged as an important national marker in what Elazar Barkan has called a new era of intemational morality. For historians, this seemingly new way of engaging with the past is particularly intriguing, perhaps signalling a significant change in historical consciousness in the contemporary world. Historical Justice in International Perspective offers a window onto these events, surveying the political, judicial, and historical landscapes of what has become known as historical justice. In doing so, this collection demonstrates the widespread and increasing significance of historieal redress in contemporary political life.