The Cyprus law reports.

v. 7- Cases decided by the Supreme court of Cyprus on appeal from the District and Magisterial courts and by the Assize courts.

Rules of court, 1905-1916 : made under the China orders in Council, 1904-1915, the foreign jurisdiction (admiralty) order in Council, 1910, and the China (companies) order in Council, 1915 /

At head of title: British jurisdiction in China.

The law of American admiralty : its jurisdiction and practice : with forms and directions /

Includes index.

A treatise on the practice of courts of admiralty in civil causes of maritime jurisdiction; with an appendix containing rules in the admiralty courts of the United States, and a full collection of practical forms.

Mode of access: Internet.

Reports of cases decided in the Circuit courts of the United States for the Fourth circuit; most of them since Chief Justice Waite came upon the bench; and of selected cases in admiralty and bankruptcy, decided in the District courts of that circuit. With an appendix to the second volume, containing the rules in admiralty and bankruptcy;, of the District court for the Eastern district of Virginia, and the rules of the Circuit court for that district, etc., etc. [1792-1883]

"Appendix: [Inquiry into the subject of the territorial limits and jurisdiction of the Circuit and District courts of the United States in states divided into districts, by Edward McCrady]":v.3, p.[665]-690.

Manual of federal appellate procedure; a concise and practical treatise, annotated, on all proceedings necessary to take and perfect appeals, writs of error, petitions for review in bankruptcy, petitions to review orders of Federal trade commission, Interstate commerce commission, Federal reserve boards, decisions of District court in awards of arbitration, and federal tax appeal cases and appeals in admiralty cases ...

"Appendix (p.203-292) Rules of the United States Circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. Revised rules for the Supreme Court of the United States, under act of February 13, 1925, as amended June 7, 1926. Requirements respecting petitions for writs of certiorari under the act of February 13, 1925. Jurisdictional act of February 13, 1925, as amended April 3, 1926. Sections 24 and 25 of the Bankruptcy act, as amended May 28, 1926, effective August 28, 1926."

The inherent equitable jurisdiction and the plenary power of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to order the winding up of companies

Not all companies in Australia are amenable to a winding up order pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Supreme Court of New South Wales has previously dealt with such winding up applications by apparently focusing on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to firstly consider the winding up application. This article proposes an original alternative paradigm: the plenary power provided to the court by s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) can be utilised to initially attract the jurisdiction of the court and subsequently the inherent jurisdiction specifically utilising the equitable “just and equitable” ground is available to the court to consider and make such a winding up order if appropriate. Variation of such a paradigm may also be available to the court when considering the inherent jurisdiction in relation to corporation matters more generally.

Termination fees in a ‘bright line’ jurisdiction

We seek to statistically inform the debate regarding the Australian Takeovers Panel’s ‘bright line’ policy towards break fees. Based on 313 takeovers from 2002 to 2006, 85 involving break fees, we find post-bid competition to be unrelated to break fee usage and inversely related to bid success. We also find that break fee usage has a detrimental effect on shareholder wealth as measured by both the final bid premium and abnormal returns. Therefore, although break fees appear to be neither anticompetitive nor coercive within the Australian context, they do appear to have had a deleterious effect on shareholder wealth.

District Court of Queensland Act 1968 s 68 : jurisdiction in pre-proceedings applications under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

In Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 301 Searles DCJ struck out a pre-proceedings application under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)on the basis that the material before the Court was not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of the District Court.The decision serves more broadly as a reminder that the District Court is an inferior court of defined and limited jurisdiction and that any proceedings brought in it must be demonstrably within the jurisdiction conferred on that court by legislation.

“Best interests” and withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from an adult who lacks capacity in the parens patriae jurisdiction

Disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment are increasingly coming before Australian Supreme Courts. Such cases are generally heard in the parens patriae jurisdiction where the test applied is what is in the patient’s “best interests”. However, the application of the “best interests” test, and its meaning, remains unclear in this context. To shed light on this emerging body of jurisprudence, this article analyses the Australian superior court decisions that consider an adult’s best interests in the context of decisions about life-sustaining treatment. We identify a number of themes from the current body of cases and consider how these themes may guide future decision-making. After then considering the law in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach for assessing best interests that could be adopted by Australian Supreme Courts. We argue that the suggested approach will lead to a more structured and systematic decision-making process that better promotes the best interests of the patient.