ON 19 OCTOBER 1989, the Guildford Four were released from prison after their conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/19/newsid_2490000/2490039.stm
1300 00 2088
G v H [1994] HCA 48 | 19 October 1994
G v H [1994] HCA 48; (1994) 181 CLR 387; (1994) 124 ALR 353 (19 October 1994).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/181clr387.html
A child’s paternity had been inferred by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia by reason of matters including the father’s refusal to undergo a paternity test.
On appeal to the High Court, it was argued that the adverse inference was not just in the light of the evidentiary rule set out in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (that for issues of importance and gravity arising in a civil case, serious consideration be given as to whether the necessary degree of reasonable satisfaction or persuasion that the alleged facts are more likely than not to exist).
The High Court held that whilst paternity is a serious matter, it was just to draw the adverse inference against the putative father because the paternity test was capable of conclusively determining the child’s paternity and that the child’s right to maintenance and support should not depend on establishing paternity in accordance with the Briginshaw test.
“ Not every case involves issues of importance and gravity in the Briginshaw v Briginshaw sense. The need to proceed with caution is clear if, for example, there is an allegation of fraud or an allegation of criminal or moral wrongdoing, as in Briginshaw v Briginshaw where the allegation was adultery by a married woman, an allegation involving serious legal consequences when that case was decided … Paternity is a serious matter, both for father and for child. However, it is not clear that the question of paternity should be approached on the basis that it involves a grave or serious allegation in the Briginshaw v Briginshaw sense when what is at issue is the maintenance of a child and the evidence establishes that the person concerned is more likely than anyone else to be the father. After all, paternity can be determined easily and, for practical purposes, conclusively. And now that that is so, it is difficult to see why, if a person who could be the father declines to participate in procedures which will provide proof one way or the other, the child’s rights to maintenance and support should nonetheless depend on the biological fact of paternity being established on the basis that, so far as the putative father is concerned, the biological fact involves an allegation in much the same category as an allegation of moral or criminal wrongdoing. …”
1300 00 2088
1300 00 2088
Practitioner’s Guide to Criminal Law
The NSW Young Lawyers’ Practitioner’s Guide to Criminal Law is an invaluable resource for users of the criminal justice system in NSW. Visit http://www.crimlawguide.com.au/
1300 00 2088
Criminal Law Survival Kit
John Stratton SC’s Criminal Law Survival Kit is a useful online resource for lawyers and the public involved with the criminal justice system. Visit http://www.criminallawsurvivalkit.com.au/
1300 00 2088
Judge Helen Wilson SC appointed to NSW Supreme Court
New South Wales Attorney General today announced that District Court Judge Helen Wilson SC has been appointed to the Supreme Court of NSW.
1300 00 2088
David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47 | 17 October 1934
ON 17 OCTOBER 1934, the High Court of Australia delivered David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47; (1934) 52 CLR 110 (17 October 1934).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1934/47.html
Per Rich J at 118-9:
“..whenever the description of the goods enters into the transaction so that the buyer must be taken to rely upon it to a substantial degree as well as upon the identity of the goods, it is a sale by description. Therefore, if the description is a matter that influenced the buyer and had a material bearing on the decision to buy, even if it was not the only matter that influenced the buyer, then the sale is one by description.”
Goods which only have one specific use are not of merchantable quality if they are not fit for their purpose.
1300 00 2088
Legal Services Council appointments
The following appointments have been made to the newly formed Legal Services Council:
- Michael Black (Chair), former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia.
- Steven Stevens, former president of the Law Institute of Victoria.
- Bret Walker SC, former president of the Law Council of Australia and the NSW Bar Association.
- Fiona Bennett, chair of the Victorian Legal Services Board.
- Kim Boettcher, lawyer.
The Legal Services Council will be responsible for the regulation of the legal profession in New South Wales and Victoria under the recently enacted Legal Profession Uniform Law.
Further appointments to the council are expected today.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41
The High Court of Australia today delivered Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41 (16 October 2014).
The High Court held that the dismissal of an employee by BHP Coal Pty Ltd was not contrary to s346(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) because the dismissal related to the worker’s conduct rather than his participation in industrial activity.
1300 00 2088
Kondis v State Transport Authority (formerly Victorian Railways Board) [1984] HCA 61 | 16 October 1984
ON 16 OCTOBER 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Kondis v State Transport Authority (formerly Victorian Railways Board) [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672 (16 October 1984).
The High Court ruled that a special duty of care by an employer to an employee to provide a safe system of work is non-delegable.
The Victorian State Transit Authority engaged an independent contractor to dismantle a crane in a railway yard. Kondis injured his back when a metal pin fell from the crane. Kondis sued the State Transit Authority. The High Court held that the State Transit Authority, as employer, was liable for the harm caused by the independent contractor because their failure to adopt a safe system of work was a breach of the employer’s non-delegable duty of care.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40
The High Court of Australia today delivered Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40 (15 October 2014).
The High Court held that an intellectually impaired plaintiff was entitled to damages for the cost of managing the fund management component of her damages settlement compromise but not for the cost of managing the fund’s future predicted income.
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 