Parramatta City Council v Pestell [1972] HCA 59; (1972) 128 CLR 305 (24 November 1972).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/128clr305.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Tag Archives: PERSONAL INJURY
King v Jones [1972] HCA 44
ON 1 SEPTEMBER 1972, the High Court of Australia delivered King v Jones [1972] HCA 44; (1972) 128 CLR 221 (1 September 1972).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1972/44.html
The High Court ruled that the applicants, who were over 18 and entitled to vote in South Australia, were not entitled go on the Commonwealth electoral roll and vote in the Federal election as they had not yet reached the age of 21. Following this decision, the Commonwealth Parliament legislated to lower the voting age to 18 years.
1300 00 2088
Brutus v Cozens [1972] UKHL 6
ON 19 JULY 1972, the House of Lords delivered Brutus v Cozens UKHL 6 (19 July 1972).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1972/6.html
The accused interrupted a game of tennis during the 1971 Wimbledon tournament. He entered the court, blew a whistle and distributed leaflets protesting against South African apartheid. Several others carrying banners and placards also entered the court. The accused was forcibly removed. The incident lasted two or three minutes.
The accused was charged with using insulting behaviour where a breach of the peace was likely to occur. At first instance, the Magistrate dismissed the charge, finding that the behaviour was not insulting. On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the conduct could be insulting as a matter of law and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate. The accused then appealed to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords allowed the appeal, holding that the determination of what is insulting is a question of fact and that the Magistrate was not required to find that the accused’s conduct was insulting as a question of law. Accordingly, the Divisional Court’s decision was set aside in favour of the Magistrate’s decision dismissing the charge.
1300 00 2088
Accident Compensation Act 1972 (NZ)
ON 1 APRIL 1974, the Accident Compensation Act 1972 (NZ) abolished the common law right to sue for compensatory damages for personal injuries in New Zealand. The Act introduced a no-fault universal insurance scheme providing limited financial compensation for treatment, rehabilitation and loss of earnings.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Staska v General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd [1972] UKPCHCA 1
ON 28 MARCH 1972 the Privy Council delivered Staska v General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd [1972] UKPCHCA 1; (1972) 123 CLR 673 (28 March 1972), an appeal of a South Australian workers compensation case. Since then, much has changed with respect to Privy Council appeals, workers compensation and the manufacture of Holden cars in Australia.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1972/1972_4.html
1300 00 2088
Equal Rights Amendment passed but never adopted
ON THIS DAY in 1972, US Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. The amendment was never adopted as it was not ratified by enough states.
Commonwealth v Sterling Nicholas Duty Free Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 19
Commonwealth v Sterling Nicholas Duty Free Pty Ltd [1972] HCA 19; (1972) 126 CLR 297 (29 February 1972).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1972/19.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
United Arab Emirates
ON 2 DECEMBER 1971, the United Arab Emirates were formed following the expiration of the British Treaty on 1 December.
http://uaecabinet.ae/en/UAEGovernment/Pages/UAE-Constitution.aspx
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poteoa1997455
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Green v R [1971] HCA 55
ON 16 NOVEMBER 1971, the High Court of Australia delivered Green v R [1971] HCA 55; (1971) 126 CLR 28 (16 November 1971).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/126clr28.html
1300 00 2088
R v Wald
ON 28 OCTOBER 1971, Judge Levine of the NSW District Court delivered R v Wald.
It was ruled that an abortion performed by a medical practitioner is lawful in New South Wales if there is “any economic, social or medical ground or reason” for the practitioner to hold an honest and reasonable belief that a termination at any stage of the pregnancy was required to avoid “serious danger to the pregnant woman’s life or to her physical or mental health”.
Per Levine DCJ at 29:
“In my view it would be for the jury to decide whether there existed in the case of each woman any economic, social or medical ground or reason which in their view could constitute reasonable grounds upon which an accused could honestly and reasonably believe there would result a serious danger to her physical or mental health. It may be that an honest belief be held that the woman’s mental health was in serious danger at the very time she was interviewed by a doctor, or that her mental health, although not then in serious danger, could reasonably be expected to be seriously endangered at some time during the currency of pregnancy, if uninterrupted. In either case such a conscientious belief on reasonable grounds would have to be negatived before an offence under s 83 of the Act could be proved.”
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 
