Unsafe leased residential premises: a landlord's liability in negligence to injured occupants

This article examines the law relating to the liability of landlords in negligence for unsafe residential premises, focusing in particular on the recent High Court decisions in Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris and Jones v Bartlett. The author concludes that the High Court in Jones v Bartlett has placed sensible limitations on landlords' liability, by limiting liability to defects in the premises that were known or ought to have been revealed on a reasonable inspection by the landlord. The author points out that there are compelling policy considerations supporting the court's conclusion in that case that the landlord should not be required to arrange for the premises to be inspected by expert tradespeople.

A need for national regulation on property investment advice and marketeering - suggestions put forward

The property investment advice and marketeering industry is currently unregulated in Australia. There is no uniform national or state regulation in this area. The only protection and remedies currently available are those under the general consumer protection laws scattered in various Acts, and even so, these have numerous problems.This article sets out to argue for a new set of laws to regulate property investment advice and marketeering. In providing suggestions for reform, the article also argues that, to overcome the constitutional difficulty, a national co-operative approach is the only way to move forward in this area and suggests that a new regulator be set up to administer and enforce the new proposed laws on property investment advice and marketeering.

Statutory verification of water rights: the 'insuperable' difficulties of propertising water entitlements

The abolition of riparian entitlements in the early stages of colonial Australia and the vesting of these rights in the Crown represented a turning point for the evolution of private water rights. The extinguishment of common law rights connected to vested land interests and the introduction of new, unaligned statutory entitlements provided a new and fundamentally different system for the creation and regulation of private water entitlements. Unlike riparian entitlements, in the absence of express definition, statutory water entitlements may only be verified as property where such a construction is consistent with the nature and scope of the entitlement. In this respect, the statutory framework has disaggregated the propertisation of water rights from land ownership and linked the process to broader statutory interpretation principles. The shift away from institutional property has generated concerns about the interpretive approaches appropriate for the verification of legislative water entitlements. This article examines the existing interpretive approaches and argues that the blurring of the propertisation process with the separate issue of whether any change or modification of such water rights attracts s 51(xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution has produced a situation where core property indicia is increasingly overshadowed by legislative defeasibility. In the recent High Court decision of ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, the focus of the majority judgements upon the inherent susceptibility of legislative entitlements to variation or extinguishment acted as a catalyst for the non-propertisation of statutory bore water licences in New South Wales. The emphasis the majority judgements gave to legislative defeasibility precluded a full and balanced assessment of other highly relevant property indicia, in particular the expectation interests of the holders. Conflating property and constitutional evaluation in this way is inappropriate in an era where entitlements to natural resource interests are increasingly statute based and the verification process has significant social and economic repercussions. Determining whether a statutory entitlement constitutes property requires a careful balancing of legislative intent, social and environmental context and individual expectation and the vicissitudes of a regulatory context should not eclipse this process.

Fairness and freedom : the final report of the equalities review and starting the dialogue about addressing inequality in Australia

Anti-discrimination law in Britain has been in a state of flux for the last decade. The structure of the law, its enforcement and coverage are under review and due to this activity, there has been much discussion about how best to address disadvantage and promote equality. Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review1 is one voice in that discussion.The Report is an examination of the causes of disadvantage and persistent inequality in Britain, including recommendations for addressing inequality which move beyond traditional legal approaches. The first section of this note outlines the context in which the Report was commissioned and the second section sets out the contents of the Report, including key findings and recommendations, particularly in regard to anti-discrimination law. The final section briefly discusses the relevance of this project for Australia. The limitations British anti-discrimination law has faced in attempting to eliminate systemic discrimination and inequality are similar to the problems we have experienced. It is timely to consider the proposals contained in the Report and to begin the dialogue about the future of anti-discrimination law in Australia, particularly how it could be amended to effectively address disadvantage and promote equality.

Improving the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act: recommendations from the 2008 Senate Inquiry

One way to characterise the Rudd Government’s first year in office would be by the flurry of inquiries and reports that it commissioned. Three related to gender equality. The Productivity Commission conducted an inquiry into a national paid maternity, paternity and parental leave scheme and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations conducted an inquiry into pay equity. This article is concerned with a third inquiry — the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (the committee) inquiry into the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) in eliminating discrimination and promoting gender equality. These inquiries were not the Rudd Government’s only activities in relation to sex discrimination and gender equality. It also enacted legislation which removed discrimination against same sex couples from 68 Commonwealth laws and announced its intention to accede to the Optional Protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Victoria paves the way to eliminating discrimination

In April 2010, the Victorian government passed long awaited amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 1995, which come into force in August 2011. The changes result from a review conducted by former public advocate Julian Gardner. A parallel review examined the exceptions and exemptions. Gardner’s recommendations were aimed at strengthening the Act’s effectiveness in addressing systemic discrimination and promoting substantive equality.Consequently, the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (EO Act 2010) introduces unique mechanisms for addressing discrimination which are worth examining in detail. This note considers the amended definitions of discrimination and focuses on the modifications of the dispute resolution process, new measures to promote substantive equality, and changes to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission’s (VEOHRC) functions.Changes to the exception and exemption provisions were examined in an earlier note.

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.