The yoking of unconscionability and unjust enrichment in Australia

Given problems with, and judicial criticism of, unjust enrichment as a principle, it is necessary and appropriate that unjust enrichment be subsumed by the expanding doctrine of unconscionability - could create a unifying concept which can be applied to achieve justice in a variety of different contexts - triggers for equitable intervention to reverse or adjust transfers of resources on the basis of unconscionability - where there is neither real consent or real consideration - where either variable is absent and it is unclear whether the other is satisfied - approach would inject principle into unconscionability and explain and justify the need for reversing or adjusting the transfer of property or other resources in some circumstances.

The vacuousness of rights in the euthanasia debate

It has been claimed that the arguments for and against euthanasia have not changed in the last 120 years. Throughout this period, two rights claims have been thought to be central to the debate. The right to autonomy is invoked by many euthanasists as the main argument in support of euthanasia. This is often countered by the claim that euthanasia violates the right to life. This article argues that the relevance of these rights claims to the euthanasia debate has been overstated. More generally, it is argued that the bluntness of the rights claims in the context of the euthanasia debate is illustrative of the fact that the concept of rights is an unsuitable device for resolving moral disputes which involve conflicting rights.

Why wrongful birth actions are right

A wrongful birth action is a claim in negligence brought by parents of a child against a doctor who has "wrongfully" caused their child to be born. These claims can be divided into two categories: those where a doctor performs a failed sterilisation procedure that leads to a healthy child being born; and those where a doctor fails to provide sufficient information to allow parents to choose to abort a handicapped child. The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 77 ALJR 1312 falls into the former category. The decision to allow the parents to receive damages for the costs of raising and maintaining their child has generated much public debate. Despite the endorsement of this "wrongful birth" action, there are indications that the legislature will overturn the decision. This article examines whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognising wrongful birth actions.

The moral status of wrongful life claims

A wrongful life action is a claim brought by a disabled child who asserts that but for a physician's negligence he or she would not have been born, thereby being spared the suffering of life. The action is inherently controversial because the alternative to an impaired life is non-existence. Lord Griffiths has described such claims as 'utterly offensive; there should be rejoicing that the hospital's mistake bestowed the gift of life upon the child'.' This paper cuts through the rhetoric that the debate has generated and analyses whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognizing wrongful life actions.

The shifting meaning of persecution in the Australian refugee law: How much must one suffer to be deserving of asylum?

Legislative changes to the meaning of persecution in Australia in the context of refugee law - courts' approach to what constitutes persecution in conflict with Parliament's understanding - level of harm that a person must endure in order to be eligible for refugee status - narrow definition of persecution should be adopted such that only those asylum seekers whose subsistence is imperilled should qualify as refugees.

Exploration of the idea of the horse in graphics and sculpture

The exploration of the idea of the horse is a very complex and open quest. Primarily it entails some conception of what the idea of the horse is. In choosing to title the project as such, I was attempting to indicate that what was of major interest to me was the representation of those qualities of the horse which are abstract and intangible as well as the physical qualities of the horse. Because of this interest, much of my work is concerned with movement, gesture, and the effects of structure, or lack thereof, on movement and gesture.

Criminal legislation Victoria 2003

Fully annotated Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria) and Summary Offences Act 1966 (Victoria). Extracted from two-volume looseleaf service 'Bourke's Criminal Law Victoria'. Cross-referenced to cases, other acts and regulations and other publications dealing with the topics under discussion. Reflects the law as amended to 1 January 2003. Includes table of cases and index. Nash is a practicing QC and former academic at Monash University. Bagaric is a barrister and solicitor.

Criminal laws in Australia : cases and materials

This book is the most user-friendly of all the criminal law books currently available in Australia. This is the only book that deals comprehensively with the criminal law in all Australian states and territories. Unlike the other criminal law books available to Australian law lecturers, it is both a casebook and textbook.

Criminal laws in Australia, cases and materials

Criminal Laws in Australia: Cases and Materials" deals comprehensively with the criminal law in all Australian states and territories and is both a casebook and textbook.

Opting out of shareholder governance rights: a new perspective on contractual freedom in Australian corporate law

One of the classic debates in corporate law relates to whether the rules of corporate law are ar should be 'mandatory', in that companies must comply, or 'enabling' - meaning a set of default rules which companies have the choice of adopting or 'opting out' of through alternative contractual arrangements. The so-called 'mandatory/enabling' debate has been especially prominent in the United States fro numerous reasons, yet has also received some attention in Australia. That said, the extent to which companies can 'opt out' of corporate law has rarely been considered as a practical issue in Australia - particularly whether Australian companies can 'opt out' of provisions under the Corporations Act ("the Act"). However, just recently, two high-profile events in Australia have made 'opting out' of corporate law a relevant issue, especially the question of whether companies are free to 'opt out' of provisions of the Corporations Act  which provide express governance rights to shareholders. These events were Boral's constitutional amendment in 2003 to restrict the ability of shreholders to propose amendments to the company's constitution, and the contemplation and introduction of so-called 'pre-nuptial' agreements- designed to by-pass the right of shreholders to vote on removing directors in public companies. In the light of these two recent events, in this article the authors revisit the mandatory/enabling debate. However, rather than going over old ground as to whether a mandatory or enabling approach to corporate regulation is desirable, the authors approach the issue from a fresh perspective: that Australian Securitiesand Investments Commission's ("ASIC") existing relief powers under the Act should be extended to provide a means for companies to opt out of provisions containing shareholder governance rights.