Legislative impact on the mortgagee’s exercise of power of sale : the need for rationalisation

Throughout Australia, regulation of the power of sale is highly inconsistent. In response to the uncertain nature of the mortgagee’s duty at common law, many legislatures have intervened. As a result, there has been a proliferation of statutory formula conferring varying degrees of protection on mortgagors. The differences in approach indicate a lack of consensus as to the best method of regulation. This article exposes the extent of the inconsistency and provides a comparative assessment of the various provisions with reference to the policy concerns that underpin legislative intervention. The article identifies a number of deficiencies associated with existing provisions and concludes that mortgagees and mortgagors alike would benefit from improved clarity and consistency. To that end, the article proposes a model provision that seeks to address the deficiencies identified.

Adults who lack capacity : substitute decision-making

• Mechanisms to facilitate consent to healthcare for adults who lack capacity are necessary to ensure that these adults can lawfully receive appropriate medical treatment when needed. • In Australia, the common law plays only a limited role in this context, through its recognition of advance directives and through the parens patriae jurisdiction of superior courts. • Substitute decision-making for adults who lack capacity is facilitated primarily by guardianship and other related legislation. This legislation, which has been enacted in all Australian States and Territories, permits a range of decision-makers to make different types of healthcare decisions. • Substitute decision-makers can be appointed by the adult or by a guardianship or other tribunal. Where there is no appointed decision-maker, legislation generally empowers those close to the adult to make the relevant decision. Most Australian jurisdictions have also provided for statutory advance directives. • For the most serious of decisions, such as non-therapeutic sterilisations, consent can only be provided by a tribunal. Other decisions can generally be made by a range of substitute decision-makers. Some treatment, such as very minor treatment or that which is needed in an emergency, can be provided without consent. • Guardianship legislation generally establishes a set of principles and/or other criteria to guide healthcare decisions. Mechanisms have also been established to resolve disputes as to who is the appropriate decision-maker and how a decision should be made.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment

• At common law, a competent adult can refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, either contemporaneously or through an advance directive which will operate at a later time when the adult’s capacity is lost. • Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions also provides for a competent adult to complete an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment. • At common law, a court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction can consent to, or authorise, the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment from an adult or child who lacks capacity if that is in the best interests of the person. A court may also declare that the withholding or withdrawal of treatment is lawful. • Guardianship legislation in all jurisdictions allows a substitute decision-maker, in an appropriate case, to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for an adult who lacks capacity. • In terms of children, a parent may refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for his or her child if it is in the child’s best interests. • While a refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment by a competent child may be valid, this decision can be overturned by a court. • At common law and generally under guardianship statutes, demand for futile treatment need not be complied with by doctors.

Double effect and palliative care excuses

• The doctrine of double effect is an exception to the general rule that taking active steps that end life is unlawful. • The essence of the doctrine at common law is intention. • Hastening a patient’s death through palliative care will be lawful provided the primary intention is to relieve pain, and not cause death, even if that death is foreseen. • Some States have enacted legislative excuses that deal with the provision of palliative care. • These statutory excuses tend to be stricter than the common law as they impose other requirements in addition to having an appropriate intent, such as adherence to some level of recognised medical practice.

Children and consent to medical treatment

This chapter provides a comprehensive and up-to-date treatment of legislative provisions and common law principles regarding children and the law of consent to medical treatment. When can children provide their own consent? Can parents consent on behalf of their children, and if so, under what circumstances and why? Is court authority ever required, and if so, when, and why? What new contexts are providing fresh challenges to legal principles, parents, medical practitioners, and most importantly, children?

Scrutinising the other : incapacity, suspicion and manipulation in a death investigation

In common law countries like England, Australia, the USA and Canada, certain deaths come to be investigated through the coronial system. These include sudden, unnatural or suspicious deaths as well as those which appear to be the result of naturally occurring disease but the precise cause is unknown. When a reportable death occurs in Australia, a number of professional groups become involved in its investigation – police, coroners, pathologists and counsellors. While research has demonstrated the importance of training and education for staff in the context of criminal investigations – with its over-representation of vulnerable and marginalised populations – this is less likely to occur in the context of death investigations, despite such investigations also involving the over-representation of vulnerable populations. This paper, part of larger funded research on the decision-making of coronial professionals in the context of cultural and religious difference, explores the ways in which cultural and religious minority groups – in this case Islam, Judaism and Indigeneity – become differently positioned during the death investigation based upon how they are perceived as ‘other’. Our research raises three issues. First, positioning as ‘the other’ is dependent on the professional training of the staff member, with police and pathologists far more likely than coroners to be suspicious or ignorant of difference. Second, specific historical and contemporary events effect the Othering of religious and cultural difference. Third, the grieving practices associated with religious and cultural difference can be collectively Othered through their perceived opposition to modernity.

When coroners care too much: Therapeutic jurisprudence and suicide findings

In common law countries such as England and Australia, violent and otherwise unnatural deaths are investigated by coroners who make findings as to the “manner of death”. This includes determining whether the deceased person intentionally caused their own death. Previous research (Tait and Carpenter 2013a, 2013b, 2014) has suggested that coroners are reluctant to reach such determinations, citing the stigma of suicide and a need for sensitivity to grieving and traumatized families. Based on interviews with both English and Australian coroners, this paper explores whether an ‘ethic of care’ evident in English and Australian coronial suicide determinations, can be understood as an application of the ‘practices and techniques’ of therapeutic jurisprudence. Based on the ways in which coroners position the law as a potential therapeutic agent, we investigate how they understand their role and position as legal actors, and the effects of their decision making in the context of suspected suicides.

Bank guarantees and the reasonable expectations of beneficiaries

A bank guarantee has traditionally been viewed as a cash equivalent. This view is supported by the operation of the autonomy principle. However, the autonomy principle is subject to certain recognised exceptions both at common law and under statute. One of these exceptions is commonly referred to as the negative stipulation or underlying contract exception. In recent times the operation of this particular exception has given rise to a wealth of case law. This article examines whether this recent case law appropriately recognises the reasonable expectations of the beneficiary of a bank guarantee that a bank guarantee should function not only as a security but as a risk allocation device.

The doctrine of necessity and the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment: Is there any justification?

In Australia, the legal basis for the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment is ad hoc and unclear. There is no comprehensive legal framework that authorises and regulates the detention of, for example, older people with dementia in locked wards or in residential aged care, people with disability in residential services or people with acquired brain injury in hospital and rehabilitation services. This paper focuses on whether the common law doctrine of necessity (or its statutory equivalents) should have a role in permitting the detention and restraint of people with disabilities. Traditionally, the defence of necessity has been recognised as an excuse, where the defendant, faced by a situation of imminent peril, is excused from the criminal or civil liability because of the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. In the United Kingdom, however, in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) and R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L, the House of Lords broadened the defence so that it operated as a justification for treatment, detention and restraint outside of the emergency context. This paper outlines the distinction between necessity as an excuse and as a defence, and identifies a number of concerns with the latter formulation: problems of democracy, integrity, obedience, objectivity and safeguards. Australian courts are urged to reject the United Kingdom approach and retain an excuse-based defence, as the risks of permitting the essentially utilitarian model of necessity as a justification are too great.

Legal duties following the discharge of mental health patients

In the recent decision of Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna; Hunter and New England Local Health District v Simon, the High Court of Australia held that a hospital and its medical staff owed no common law duty of care to third parties claiming for mental harm, against the background of statutory powers to detain mentally ill patients. This conclusion was based in part on the statutory framework and in part on the inconsistency which would arise if such a duty was imposed. If such a duty was imposed in these circumstances, the consequence may be that doctors would generally detain rather than discharge mentally ill persons to avoid the foreseeable risk of harm to others. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the policy of the mental health legislation , which favours personal liberty and discharge rather than detention unless no other care of a less restrictive kind is appropriate and reasonably available.

A growing good faith in contracts

The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Bhasin v Hrynew represents a significant step forward in harmonising the multiple strands of debate surrounding the existence of a good faith provision in common law contracting. Although a general principle of good faith (derived from Roman Law) is recognized by most civil law systems and a growing number of common law countries have embraced statutory provisions towards this end, Bhasin v Hrynew is argued to be a critical advance in catalysing uniform acceptance of good faith as a fundamental principle essential to support an increasingly integrated global commercial environment.

"Valehtelu ei auta, mutta kaikkea ei kannata kertoa." : Kertomatta jättäminen parisuhteen vuorovaikutuskontekstissa

Topic avoidance in romantic relationships has not been researched before in Finnish speech communication research, and this study was expected to increase the understanding of a phenomenon that acquires relatively dramatic attributes in everyday conversation. The aim of this study was to describe topic avoidance based on what was told in the interviews, and to describe the beliefs concerning functional or dysfunctional relational communication that can be interpreted from the interviewees' speech when they talk about topic avoidance. The theoretical reference frame of this study consists of the Communication Privacy Management Theory, relational dialectics, and earlier, mostly American research on topic avoidance. Ten Finnish people aged 22-31, who all had previous experience on one or more marital or common-law relationships were interviewed for this study. Additional material for the study was gathered from the interviewees by using the role playing method to describe interactional events where something essential is left unsaid in the context of romantic relationship. The following values were attributed to functional communication in romantic relationships: openness, equality, honesty, trust and positivity. The dialectical nature of the phenomenon being researched is evident in the way that along with openness, the interviewees talked about excessive openness that should occasionally be avoided in the context of relational communication by leaving things unsaid. Topic avoidance was seen both as a conscious strategic communication for managing privacy, and as an uncontrollable force of nature that at its worst destroys the relationship. When topic avoidance is seen as strategic communication, the choice concerning what is left unsaid is made by weighing the following dimensions asgainst each other: risks/ benefits (for self, relationship), protects/ does not protect (self, partner, relationship), burdens/ does not burden (self, partner, relationship), honesty/ dishonesty, responsibility lies with self/ responsibility does not lie with self. Topic avoidance was acceptable if it was used in order to preserve the relationship, as opposed to gaining power in the relationship or causing insecurity for the partner. The acceptability of topic avoidance varied according to whether it differed from lying or not. When the interviewees talk about topic avoidance, their speech can be interpreted to mean that in spite of uncontrollability, communicative choices can be made in relational communication and that skills concerning communication in romantic relationships can be learned.

Decision-making in a death investigation: Emotions, families and the coroner

The role of the coroner in common law countries such as Australia, England, Canada and New Zealand is to preside over death investigations where there is uncertainty as to the manner of death, a need to identify the deceased, a death of unknown cause, or a violent or unnatural death. The vast majority of these deaths are not suspicious and thus require coroners to engage with grieving families who have been thrust into a legal process through the misfortune of a loved one's sudden or unexpected death. In this research, 10 experienced coroners discussed how they negotiated the grief and trauma evident in a death investigation. In doing so, they articulated two distinct ways in which legal officers engaged with emotions, which are also evident in the literature. The first engages the script of judicial dispassion, articulating a hierarchical relationship between reason and emotion, while the second introduces an ethic of care via the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, and thus offers a challenge to the role of emotion in the personae of the professional judicial officer. By using Hochschild's work on the sociology of emotions, this article discusses the various ways in which coroners manage the emotion of a death investigation through emotion work. While emotional distance may be an understandable response by coroners to the grief and trauma experienced by families and directed at cleaner coronial decision-making, the article concludes that coroners may be better served by offering emotions such as sympathy, consideration and compassion directly to the family in those situations where families are struggling to accept, or are resistant to, coroners' decisions.

Accountability for good faith in commercial dealing: The Carter v Boehm legacy 250 years on

In common law jurisdictions such as England, Australia, Canada and New Zealand good faith in contracting has long been recognised in specific areas of the law such as insurance law and franchising, and more recently the implied duties of good faith and mutual trust and convenience in employment contracts have generated a considerable volume of case law. Outside of these areas of law that may be characterised as being strongly‘relational’ in character,the courts in common law jurisdictions have been reluctant to embrace a more universal application of good faith in contracting and performance. However increasingly there are cases which support the proposition that there is a common law duty of good faith of general application to all commercial contracts. Most important in this context is the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v Hrynew.1 However, this matter is by no means resolved in all common law jurisdictions. This article looks at the recent case law and literature and at various legislative incursions including statutes, codes of conduct and regulations impacting good faith in commercial dealings.

La costumbre en el Derecho Canónico Indiano

Resumen: El artículo estudia la vigencia de la costumbre en el mundo canónico indiano. Luego de presentar su evolución y desarrollo en el derecho universal analiza la doctrina sobre la materia a partir de autores indianos. Se expone la vigencia del derecho consuetudinario en diversos ámbitos de la vida eclesiástica americana concluyendo en afirmar el amplio imperio de este derecho en la Iglesia de Indias y, señalando que entorno al siglo XVIII se comienza a percibir cierta desconfianza hacia esta fuente del derecho canónico con normas que tienden a otorgar mayor contralor al legislador.