Current Law Journal Content
Washington & Lee Law School
  Current Law Journal Content
                  an index to legal periodicals
 


  Australian Law Journal   (Australia)
  Volume 84, Number 9, September 2010
  homepage                   other issues
 

  • CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Mr Justice P W Young AO
  • International philanthropy
        p.591                                                                                      +cite    
  • The King can do no wrong
        p.591                                                                                      +cite    
  • Criminal law: Suspended sentences
        p.591                                                                                      +cite    
  • Juries
        p.592                                                                                      +cite    
  • The life of the law
        p.593                                                                                      +cite    
  • Ex tempore judgments
        p.594                                                                                      +cite    
  • Corrupt educators
        p.594                                                                                      +cite    
  • Norm & Narelle (No 5)
        p.595                                                                                      +cite    

  • CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editor: Peter Butt
  • Termination of lease for breach of essential term: Did Homer nod?
        p.596                                                                                      +cite    
  • No caveatable interest in proceeds of sale of land
        p.597                                                                                      +cite    
  • But caveatable interest in signed caveat form
        p.597                                                                                      +cite    
  • No estoppel in face of statute
        p.598                                                                                      +cite    
  • Prescriptive easements
        p.598                                                                                      +cite    
  • Indefeasibility neutralises right to rectification
        p.599                                                                                      +cite    
  • Miscellaneous us cases on easements
        p.600                                                                                      +cite    

  • OVERSEAS LAW – Editor: Ross Buckley
  • Arbitration awards in “manifest disregard of the law”
        p.602                                                                                      +cite    

  • PEOPLE IN LAW – Editor: Geoff Lindsay SC
  • Queen’s Birthday Honours
        p.605                                                                                      +cite    
  • Chief Justice Michael Black (Cth)
        p.605                                                                                      +cite    
  • Patrick Anthony Keane (Cth)
        p.607                                                                                      +cite    
  • Justice Michael Ball (NSW)
        p.609                                                                                      +cite    
  • Associate Justice Philip Hallen (NSW)
        p.609                                                                                      +cite    
  • Michael John Slattery (NSW)
        p.610                                                                                      +cite    

  • RECENT CASES – Editor: Mr Justice P W Young AO
  • Proprietary estoppel: Remedy – Fulfilment of expectation or compensation for detriment
        p.611                                                                                      +cite    
  • Piracy: Whether cargo in a ship taken by pirates is a constructive total loss
        p.611                                                                                      +cite    
  • Corporations: Statutory demand against guarantor company
        p.612                                                                                      +cite    
  • Is skill relevant when considering dangerous driving?
        p.612                                                                                      +cite    
  • Precedent: Authority of English Court of Appeal decisions
        p.612                                                                                      +cite    
  • Without prejudice negotiations: Whether admissible to construe agreement whereby proceedings settled
        p.613                                                                                      +cite    
  • Specific performance of solicitors’ undertaking
        p.613                                                                                      +cite    

  • ARTICLES
  • THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS AND AUSTRALIAN COURTS
        Hon J J Spigelman, AC
        p.615                                                                                      +cite        
        Nearly two years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the effects of the global financial crisis are increasingly discernible in Australian courts. In this speech, Chief Justice Spigelman surveys the range of legal proceedings that have accompanied recent corporate collapses. The litigation discussed is characterised by its complexity, which is partly a consequence of the highly leveraged and interlocked nature of failed companies and investment schemes, and by the significance of cross-border issues. With respect to the latter, the crisis has highlighted the need for cross border judicial co-operation.
  • THE JUSTIFICATION OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE WHEN THE CLIENT IS THE STATE
        Liam Brown
        p.624                                                                                      +cite        
        Legal professional privilege allows a person to keep confidential communications made with their lawyer. According to instrumental rationales it has been principally justified as an integral part of the administration of justice. Under this rationale, the public interest in having clients represented by lawyers outweighs the public interest in full disclosure of information. Legal professional privilege is also seen as a fundamental right itself or a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other rights. This article examines legal professional privilege according to its traditional rationales in light of contemporary democratic theories and greater rights, and government commitment to, public access to government-held information. This article concludes that legal professional privilege is generally difficult to rationalise when the client is the state. Rather than a “blanket” exception for legal advice, it would be better if governments substantiated the need for secrecy on a case-by-case basis according to the doctrine of public interest immunity.
  • WHERE TO FROM INGOT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS V MACQUARIE EQUITY CAPITAL MARKETS?
        Lesa Richards
        p.645                                                                                      +cite        
        The Court of Appeal in Ingot Capital Investments v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets (2008) 73 NSWLR 653 recognised that due diligence certification is capable of being misleading and deceptive conduct in terms of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1041H(1), and that such conduct may indirectly cause the plaintiff investor’s loss where the plaintiff is a “passive victim of misleading conduct” (at [617]). No further investment decision by the plaintiff affects their loss because either loss flows regardless or any investment decision is effectively removed from the investor or reversed by the effect of the misleading conduct on a third party. In both cases, there is no break in the chain of causation and the investor can be regarded as a passive victim. The misleading conduct comprised in the due diligence certification must be so material that “by its very nature” (at [12]), it causes loss or would result in no prospectus being issued or one so different that no investor including the plaintiff would invest (at [26], [80], [591]) It is the view of the author that the approach of the Court of Appeal throws up the potential for other sign-off processes to be subject to court scrutiny in misleading conduct claims in light of how banks structure and market transactions, both in direct and indirect causation cases.

  • BOOK REVIEWS – Editor: Angelina Gomez
  • The Judicial House of Lords 1876 – 2009, by Louis Blom-Cooper, Brice Dickson and Gavin Drewry
        p.655                                                                                      +cite    
  • Principles of Equity and Trusts, by Samantha Hepburn
        p.657                                                                                      +cite    
  • Justice in Tribunals, by J R S Forbes
        p.658                                                                                      +cite