Proceedings and debates in the House of Representatives of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, during the four days previous to the election of a speaker, in Jan., 1843.

Mode of access: Internet.

A manual for the use of the General Court /

Mode of access: Internet.

Records and files of the Quarterly courts of Essex county, Massachusetts.

Records and files of quarterly courts of Essex County, Massachusetts.

Annual Reports of the Railroad Corporations in the State of Massachusetts

Mode of access: Internet.

Supersession of the senior-most judges in Bangladesh in appointing the chief justice and the other judges of the appellate division of the supreme court : a convenient means to a politicized bench

The Constitution of Bangladesh has provided the President with the unfettered power to appoint the Chief Justice of Bangladesh. However, the President is required by the Constitution to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Chief Justice, in appointing the puisne judges of the Supreme Court - the apex court of the nation. This Article finds that in the absence of any specific constitutional provisions specifying that the senior-most judge of the Appellate Division - the higher Division of the Supreme Court - should be appointed as the Chief Justice, a convention to this effect was developed for ensuring that extraneous considerations did not play a part in the pivotal appointment of the Chief Justice. In the same vein, a convention of appointing the senior-most judges of the High Court Division, which is the lower Division of the Supreme Court, as the judges of the Appellate Division was developed. But both these conventions have been transgressed at regular intervals by succeeding generations of executives, particularly by the current one, for politicizing the superior judiciary of the nation, thereby undermining its credibility in the eyes of the litigants as an impartial arbitrator of disputes. Accordingly, this article concludes that in order to exclude the possibility of appointments on extraneous considerations, the principles of appointing the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Appellate Division on the basis of seniority should be inserted in the Constitution by means of an amendment.

The 2008 declaration of independence by the Hong Kong Court and anomalies in the Hong Kong Company Law

Discusses two aspects of Hong Kong law: 1) the judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in A Solicitor v The Law Society of Hong Kong on whether Hong Kong courts were bound, post-1997, by pre-1997 House of Lords or Privy Council decisions, by pre-1997 decisions of their own, or by post-1997 overseas decisions from any jurisdiction; and 2) the need for clarification in the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance of whether a company can have a single legal representative, the ultra vires rule and the duties of company directors

Locking away the mysteries of fair basis : Lockwood v Doric in the High Court

This article updates a previous article on the Lockwood v Doric fair basing case in the Full Court of the Federal Court which was recently appealed to the High Court. The High Court's decision provides a new and welcome level of clarity in this difficult area of patent law. With this new clarity we can finally lock away some of the mysteries that have plagued the area for some time. Already, indications are that Lockwood's guidelines are being usefully applied in the Patent Office and Federal Court.

Civil applications in the Magistrates Court are often set down for hearing by a judicial registrar, but there is now some uncertainty on the limitation of this practice

The decision of the District Court of Queensland in Mark Treherne & Associates -v- Murray David Hopkins [2010] QDC 36 will have particular relevance for early career lawyers. This decision raises questions about the limits of the jurisdiction of judicial registrars in the Magistrates Court.

In defence of Victoria's Children's Court : its value and role in the child protection system

Australian child protection systems have been subject to sustained and significant criticism for many decades. As a central part of that system Children’s Courts have been implicated: three recent inquiries into the child protection system in Victoria all criticised the Family Division of the Children’s Court.1 In the resulting debate two diametrically opposed points of view surfaced about the Children’s Court and the role that legal procedures and professionals should play in child protection matters. On one side bodies like the Children’s Court of Victoria, Victoria Legal Aid (‘VLA’), the Law Institute of Victoria (‘LIV’), and the Federation of Community Legal Centres (‘FCLC’) argued that the Children’s Court plays a vital role in child protection and should continue to play that role.2 On the other side a coalition of human service and child protection agencies called for major change including the removal of the Children’s Court from the child protection system. Victoria’s Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) has been critical of the Court3 as have community sector organisations like Anglicare, Berry Street, MacKillop Family Services and the Salvation Army — all agencies the DHS funds to deliver child protection services.4 Victoria’s Child Safety Commissioner has also called for major reform, publicly labelling the Court a ‘lawyers’ playground’ and recommending abolishing the Court’s involvement in child protection completely.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 – whether refusal to stay execution of costs is an order “as to costs only”

In Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2009] QCA 92 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the scope of an order “as to costs only” within the meaning of s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) (‘the Act”). The Court also declined to accept submissions from one of the parties after oral hearing, and made some useful comments which serve as a reminder to practitioners of their obligations in that regard.

Court finds solicitor in breach of fiduciary duty owed to client but loss not caused by the breach

A solicitor owes fiduciary obligations to his or her client including the obligations of loyalty and disclosure. The Court of Appeal in Mantonella Pty Ltd v Thompson (2009) 255 ALR 367; [2009] QCA 80; BC200902311 recently considered when the fiduciary duty owed by a solicitor to a client is breached and the consequent liability of the solicitor...

The margin of appreciation, domestic irregularity and domestic court rulings in ECHR environmental jurisprudence: Global legal pluralism in action

Global legal pluralism is concerned, inter alia, with the growing multiplicity of normative legal orders and the ways in which these different orders intersect and are accommodated with one another. The different means used for accommodation will have a critical bearing on how individuals fare within them. This article examines the recent environmental jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to explore some of the means of reaching an accommodation between national legal orders and the European Convention. Certain types of accommodation – such as the margin of appreciation given to states by the Court – are well known. In essence, such mechanisms of legal pluralism raise a presumptive barrier which generally works for the state and against the individual rights-bearer. However, the principal focus of the current article is on a less well-known, recent set of pluralistic devices employed by the Court, which typically operate presumptively in the other direction, in favour of the individual. First, the Court looks to instances of breaches of domestic environmental law (albeit not in isolation); and second, it places an emphasis on whether domestic courts have ruled against the relevant activity. Where domestic standards have been breached or national courts have ruled against the state, then, presumptive weight is typically shifted towards the individual.

The high court on vicarious liability

Vicarious liability (respondeat superior) is a venerable common law doctrine which holds an employer liable for the torts of employees, regardless of the fault of the employer. An employer's liability for the torts of its employees can represent a significant financial obligation and can affect both hiring and operational decisions of businesses. Vicarious liability is a prominent theme in the background of much litigation and is often the reason for litigating the issue of whether or not a worker is an employee. Vicarious liability may also arise through other relationships, such as partnership and agency. Two recent decisions by the High Court of Australia have drawn attention to the issue of vicarious liability. These decisions illuminate the High Court's view of vicarious liability's two main streams: negligence (Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd) n2 and intentional tort (NSW v Lepore). [*2] n3

Professional issues related to allegations and assessment of child sexual abuse in the context of family court litigation

This article focuses on the challenge of dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse in the context of the Family Court of Australia. Of all cases that come before the Court, those involving such allegations are relatively uncommon. they tend to be the most difficult cases, however, and are more likely to require a trial and the involvement of qualified practitioners. The review establishes that parental separation is a special circumstance in which sexual abuse may be more likely to occur, and many allegations of sexual abuse are found to be true. There is evidence, however, that a proportion of allegations made by people other than the child concerned may be false. Whether these false allegations are well intentioned and genuinely believed, or maliciously motivated has been a contentious issue. Issues considered include the mishandling of cases, the failure by professionals to consider equally plausible alternative hypotheses than the sexual abuse of a child, confirmation bias, and the profound repercussions of allegations for all members of the family. It is concluded that all allegations of child sexual abuse must be evaluated in a thorough and sensitive manner to separate the few false allegations from the many that are true.