The disunity of employment law and sentencing

This article discusses the lack of integration between criminal sanctions and employment deprivations (in the form of being dismissed from employment or disqualified from working in certain industries). Offenders who are employed in certain industries, especially the professions, often suffer a far greater net punishment upon being found guilty of a criminal offence than other offenders, thereby violating the principle of proportionality and the (related) principle of equality in the impact of sanctions. The reason that such a situation has developed is because criminal sanctions and employment deprivations have evolved from different streams of jurisprudence. This article argues that sentencers should impose a ‘net’ sanction for a criminal offence, thereby merging these streams of jurisprudence. This would require courts to be vested with the power to suspend or disqualify people from being employed in certain occupations. The legal analysis in this article focuses on case and statutory law in Australia, however, the same broad principles apply in all common law jurisdictions, including the UK. Hence, the reform proposals suggested in this article are relevant throughout the common law world.

Removal of directors of public companies takes centre stage in Australia : an exploration of the corporate law and governance issues

Increasing attention is being given to the legal and governance issues relating to the removal of directors in Australian public companies. This has been due mainly to the difficulties experienced by the board of National Australia Bank in attempting to remove one of its fellow directors, and the subsequent development of public companies entering into so-called 'prenuptial agreements' with new directors, requiring that the director 'resign' if the board pass a vote of no-confidence in the director. In this article, the author revisits the area of director removal in Australian public companies for two reasons. The first reason, which covers the majority of the article, is to engage in a detailed analysis of whether the pre-nuptial agreements which some public companies have indicated that they support using to remove directors, are in fact enforceable under Australia's Corporations Act The second reason is to outline a law reform proposal to enable public companies to remove directors without requiring the vote of shareholders at a general meeting. The proposal involves providing Australia' corporate  regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) with the power to grant relief from the statutory removal provisions to public companies, but in a way which balances the competing objectives of commercial efficiency and shareholder participation and, very importantly, encourages good corporate governance practices by companies in relation to the performance assessment  of directors.

It is in the interests of both shareholders and directors to agree on a set of ground rules for the effective supervision of companies that reconciles the rights of the owners to overall control with the much tougher demands on modern directors

Aborigines and the criminal law in South Australia : the first twenty five years

After considering relevant events and cases the conclusion is reached that South Australian Aborigines were not in any practical sense equal before the law at any time during the period 1836-1862, despite considerable efforts by individual government and court officials.

A comparative analysis of directors' duty of care, skill and diligence in South Africa and in Australia

The South African and Australian law regarding directors' duty of care, ski ll and diligence were influenced considerably by English precedent of the late 1800s and early 19005. Originally both jurisdictions adopted a conservative approach towards directors' duty of care, skill and diligence. This resulted in very low standards of care, skill and diligence expected of directors. In Australia, the standards of care and diligence expected of directors changed drastically with the case of Daniels v Anderson, where objective standards were used to determine a breach of directors' duty of care and diligence, and when objective standards of care and diligence were introduced in Australian corporations legislation. In this article it is submitted that if the opportunity arose for a South African court to consider whether a director is in breach of his or her common law duty of care, skill and diligence, the form of fault that will be required will be negligence as judged against the standards of a reasonable person. This means that in actual fact objective standards of care and diligence are expected of directors in South Africa. Although section 76(3) of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 does not introduce purely objective standards of care, skill and diligence, the section is defended in this article. It is pointed out that encouraging emerging entrepreneurs to become directors of South African companies provides justification for keeping subjective elements as part of the test to determine whether a director was in breach of his or her statutory duty of care, skill and diligence.

Remedying discrimination : the limits of the law and the need for a systemic approach

Very few discrimination complaints reach the courts each year. As with other civil litigation, the reasons for this include the cost of pursuing litigation and, particularly for complainants, the risk of losing or receiving less than the complainant could have negotiated prior.

Drawing on interviews with lawyers and non-legal advocates in Victoria and an analysis of successful cases in three jurisdictions, this article examines the remedy the court is likely to award in a successful discrimination complaint and considers the effect of this on the eradication of discrimination in society. A comprehensive examination of the remedies awarded in successful discrimination complaints in Victoria over a three year period shows that courts are most likely to order compensation at modest amounts and complainants are not regularly awarded their costs. A comparison with Queensland and the federal system reveals a similar experience. Even in those jurisdictions where wider remedies are available, courts rarely take the opportunity to make broad orders which could affect other similarly situated individuals or deter would-be respondents.

While it is necessary to remedy the complainant’s experience, it is also necessary to address broader, systemic discrimination and a compensation award cannot do this. Remedying discrimination with compensation is primarily a problem because it is reactive. Compensation does not address other instances of discrimination in society or achieve systemic change nor does it encourage compliance because the respondent is not required to take anticipatory action to prevent another complaint.

Based on the interpretive principles and extensive remedies provided in South Africa’s recent anti-discrimination and a study of remedies ordered by the South African Equality Courts and the Irish Equality Tribunal, the article proposes reforms to Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation to enable courts to make wider orders which target other instances of discrimination in addition to remedying the complainant’s experience.

Nature, extent and antecedents of risk management in accounting, law and biotechnology firms in Australia

This paper provides empirical evidence on the nature and the extent of risks faced by small and medium-sized biotechnology and professional service firms (accounting and law) in Australia, as well as on the style of their adopted risk management methods and approaches. The findings of the study indicate that the top three risks faced by these firms are related to reputation, recruiting and retaining skilled staff, and cost management. The study also finds that more than half of the respondent firms manage risk in an integrated manner. The results of this study provide useful insights into the nature, extent and driving forces of risk management practices in these firms.

Not for Designers: On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It

Design rights represent an interesting example of how the EU legislature has successfully regulated an otherwise heterogeneous field of law. Yet this type of protection is not for all. The tools created by EU intervention have been drafted paying much more attention to the industry sector rather than to designers themselves. In particular, modern, digitally based, individual or small-sized, 3D printing, open designers and their needs are largely neglected by such legislation. There is obviously nothing wrong in drafting legal tools around the needs of an industrial sector with an important role in the EU economy, on the contrary, this is a legitimate and good decision of industrial policy. However, good legislation should be fair, balanced, and (technologically) neutral in order to offer suitable solutions to all the players in the market, and all the citizens in the society, without discriminating the smallest or the newest: the cost would be to stifle innovation. The use of printing machinery to manufacture physical objects created digitally thanks to computer programs such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has been in place for quite a few years, and it is actually the standard in many industrial fields, from aeronautics to home furniture. The change in recent years that has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting factor is a combination between the opularization of such technologies (price, size, usability, quality) and the diffusion of a culture based on access to and reuse of knowledge. We will call this blend Open Design. It is probably still too early, however, to say whether 3D printing will be used in the future to refer to a major event in human history, or instead will be relegated to a lonely Wikipedia entry similarly to ³Betamax² (copyright scholars are familiar with it for other reasons). It is not too early, however, to develop a legal analysis that will hopefully contribute to clarifying the major issues found in current EU design law structure, why many modern open designers will probably find better protection in copyright, and whether they can successfully rely on open licenses to achieve their goals. With regard to the latter point, we will use Creative Commons (CC) licenses to test our hypothesis due to their unique characteristic to be modular, i.e. to have different license elements (clauses) that licensors can choose in order to adapt the license to their own needs.”