Sentences with phrase «australian court of law»

In addition to containing clauses, terms and conditions that will be honoured in an Australian court of law, business contracts also help safeguard the resources of the business from fraud.

Not exact matches

«Much more important is the magnitude of the penalties imposed and the recognition by the Court that Coles» conduct in its dealings with suppliers was unconscionable and in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.

The Australian Financial Review can reveal that, following a court hearing last Friday, the class action law firm will release to the ASX an annual notice of meeting and explanatory material, including an independent experts report by KPMG that finds the recapitalisation to be «fair and reasonable».

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd and Grocery Holdings Pty Ltd (together, Coles) alleging that Coles engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation to its Active Retail Collaboration (ARC) program, in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The idea of featuring the justice secretary in novels and plays came from Australian author Kathy Lette, who inserted a character called Chris Grayling into her book Courting Trouble, about a mother - daughter feminist law firm.

Putland could improve his argument, and thereby this answer could be improved, with reference to cases where the separation of powers was established in Australian law (Arbitration Court's case for example?)

On March 29th 2016, the ACCC announced that the Australian Federal Court had ruled in their favour in the lawsuit, stating that certain sections of Valve's «Steam subscriber agreement» and «Steam refund policy» we're in violation of Australian Consumer Law, and that by making their goods available to Australians, they were conducting business on Australian soil, and are thus bound by our laws.

Hopefully, now that it has been made clear in a court of law that Valve does indeed conduct business on Australian soil, they might finally give Australians a fairer storefront in a currency they don't have to convert.

«The validity of the additional grant of citizenship would be evaluated by an Australian court applying Australian law» But Australian law doesn't currently say anything about who has or doesn't have another country's nationality, or in which cases it would recognize or not recognize a person's foreign nationality.

The validity of the additional grant of citizenship would be evaluated by an Australian court applying Australian law.

For example, could Benford's law be used in Australian court, or would be thrown out, seeing as the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia?

(1998) 58 Cambridge L.J. 303, and former Justice Michael Kirby of the Australian High Court's ambitious essays, «Towards a Grand Theory of Interpretation: The Case of Statutes and Contracts» (2003) 24 Statute Law Review 95 and «Statutory Interpretation: The Meaning of Meaning», (2011) 35 Melbourne University Law Review 113.

Lord Neuberger on access to justice: The former president of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, warned that society will fragment without access to justice and that it is «very hard to defend the current legal aid system», in a speech to the Australian Bar Association reported by Legal Voice and the Law Society Gazette.

Shane Doyle, Australian Senior Counsel and company and commercial law specialist has become a member of Essex Court Chambers.

I worked with the authors (who were law postgrads) on AGLC for the 1st and 2nd editions, and the aim of it was to address the newly emerging e-resources — Australia being the first place to have neutral citations endorsed by its High Court in 1995, and because the Blue Book did not deal with Australian materials.

The High Court of Australia firmly rejected Chevron deference in 2000, and this has subsequently been interpreted as a repudiation of deference in any and all forms in Australian administrative law.

Despite Bastarache and LeBel JJ's description of the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors (and the courts approach to determining which category a given error fell into) as «formalistic» and «artificial» (at [43]-RRB-, the way this distinction has developed in Australian law in recent decades in fact shares much in common with the standard of review analysis described in Dunsmuir.

While the U.K. House of Lords thought it was necessary for U.K. society, the Australian High Court has so far declined to incorporate, into Australian common law, the material contribution to risk doctrine as an alternative method for proving causation in negligence.

In addition to relying on Hong Kong authority, importantly, Justice Ng also relied on the Australian authority of Trkulja v Google Inc. (No. 5)(hereinafter referred to as Trkulja), in which Justice David Beach of the Supreme Court of Victoria held that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury, if properly directed, could return a verdict for the plaintiff and hold Google to be liable for defamation for its search results under orthodox common law principles.

George has written and edited 28 books, including Australian Constitutional Law and Theory and The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia.

The contribution of Eddie Mabo in campaigning for Indigenous land rights and for his role in a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia which overturned the legal doctrine of terra nullius («nobody's land») which characterised Australian law with regard to land and title was also recognised.

The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was the government's legislative response to the High Court's decision in Mabo (No. 2) that held Australian law recognises a form of Indigenous title to the land given by the traditional laws and customs of the original inhabitants, Australia's Indigenous peoples.

However, the recognition and protection of those right and interests in Australian law occurred only recently, with the High Court's 1992 decision in Mabo (No. 2).128 There the Court found that the legal doctrine of terra nullius, or «land belonging to no one», that had applied from the British colonisation of Australia, was false.

Nevertheless, against the background of the history of previous non-recognition; the subsequent respect accorded to native title by this Court and by the Federal Parliament; and the incontestable importance of native title to the cultural and economic advancement of indigenous people in Australia, it is not unreasonable or legally unusual to expect that any deprivations and extinguishment of native title, so hard won, will not occur under legislation of any Australian legislature in the absence of provisions that are unambiguously clear and such as to demonstrate plainly that the law in question has been enacted by the lawmakers who have turned their particular attention to the type of deprivation and extinguishment that is propounded.

In recognition of the fact that the rules of evidence have not been sufficiently responsive to some of the inherent difficulties in proving in an Australian court ATSI [Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander] traditional laws and customs, the Commissions recommend that the uniform Evidence Acts be amended to include a provision dealing specifically with the admissibility of such evidence.

The Federal Court told the [Australian Law Reform] Commission that following consultations with participants at user group meetings it has set a goal of three years to dispose of all the native title cases currently before the Court.

It also includes a discussion of the recent High Court decision in Teoh and its implications for Australian human rights law and practice.

While the High Court's decision in the Mabo case rectified the failure of Australian society to legally recognise Indigenous culture and law, the issue which remains to be resolved is the meaning and value that contemporary Australian society will give to Indigenous culture.

The decision of the High Court of Australia in 1992 in Mabo v Queensland (No 2)[20] transformed the foundations of Australian law.

The High Court decision on native title (the Mabo decision [27]-RRB- recognised our connection to our lands and waters by creating a unique form of land tenure that attempts to intersect our traditional laws and customs and Australian common law and legislation.

In the Agency Budget Statements [12] the Federal Court's primary objectives are defined as «apply and uphold the rule of law, to deliver remedies and enforce rights and in so doing, contribute to the social and economic development and well - being of all Australians».

At times, the courts have recognised the extremely difficult situation that Indigenous Australians are placed in when trying to prove traditional laws and customs while still being subject to the Evidence Act, and have applied the Act in different ways to allow for oral evidence of tradition.

Another factor which has postponed the resolution of the debate as to whether the extinguishment of native title as it occurs under Australian law is discriminatory, is that there has been a high level of uncertainty around the two important components essential to its determination: first the interpretation that the High Court would give to the extinguishment provisions of the NTA and its relationship with extinguishment at common law; and second the meaning of discrimination as it applies to native title.

The first step in the recognition of Indigenous rights to land in Australian law was taken by the High Court in the Mabo (No 2) decision in 1992.

These differences have become more marked as the Australian courts have tended over recent years to take less cognizance of the decisions of other common law jurisdictions.

The somewhat ambivalent expressions of the Australian courts have tended to see international law as a source of Australian common law, rather than as part of it.

Photo / painting above: Eddie Koiki Mabo (c. 29 June 1936 — 23 January 1992) from the Torres Strait Islands known for his role in campaigning for Indigenous land rights and for his role in a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia which overturned the legal doctrine of terra nullius («land belonging to nobody») which characterised Australian law with regard to land and title

(c) subject to any order of a court for the time being in force, a person who has parental responsibility for a child because of the operation of this Act or another Australian law and is responsible for the day ‑ to ‑ day or long ‑ term care, welfare and development of the child should be regarded as having rights of custody in respect of the child; and

Dean of the University of Newcastle Law School and former Foundation Chair / Director, Australian Centre for Court and Justice System Innovation, Monash University.

Focus area: The Federal Circuit Court will focus on developing opportunities for members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community to enhance their educational and career prospects, through offering placements and work experience opportunities for law students / graduates and through establishing traineeships and work experience for other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples wishing to work within the courts system — or within the Australian Public Service more broadly.

6 Includes the Family Court of Australian and Family Law Courts sites and excludes Federal Circuit Court.

Our Vision for Reconciliation Committed to providing access to justice for all Australians Background The judiciary Facts and figures Family law General federal law The Federal Circuit Court of Australia's RAP journey Who is Reconciliation Australia and what is reconciliation?

(2) If an arrangement under subsection (1) is in force in relation to the performance by an officer of an Australian court of a function on behalf of the Court, the officer may perform that function despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the Commonwecourt of a function on behalf of the Court, the officer may perform that function despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the CommonweCourt, the officer may perform that function despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth.

The applicants sought the Federal Court to consider whether communal title in traditional ritual knowledge, as expressed through artwork, could be recognised and protected by the Australian legal system as an incidence of native title, and alternatively whether a fiduciary obligation could be found to be owed by the artist back to the community and whether the common law is capable of recognising some form of traditional community ownership of copyright in equity.

In collaboration with the Aboriginal community, South Australian Magistrate Christopher Vass developed the idea of the court which incorporates the Aboriginal traditional customary law approach to the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders within the framework of existing legislation.

In the Social Justice Commissioner's view, based on these principles and the interpretation of them in Australian courts, Aboriginal Customary Law could be recognised as a legitimate differentiation of treatment that does not offend the prohibition of racial discrimination in sections 9 or 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

[11] If you would like more detail on the case itself and a legal analysis of the decisions of the court, see Jowett, K. and Williams K., «Jango: Payment of Compensation for the Extinguishment of Native Title», Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title (May 2007), Volume 3 (Paper No. 8), Native Title Research Unit, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, and National Native Title Tribunal, «Compensation application over Yulara — Jango case», Issue 19, Native Title Hot Spots, available online at www.nntt.gov.au/newletter/hotspots/.

As a result, the NSW Government supports the recognition by Australian law of native title rights held in relation to land by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people as established in the landmark 1992 Mabo (No. 2) decision of the High Court of Australia.