Bond Law Review
[17 followers] Follow
Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1033-4505
Published by Bond University [11 journals]
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Criminal Law and Transnational Crime:
Authors: Melissa Curley et al.
PubDate: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:45:45 PST
- Towards the Rule of Law: Judicial Lawmaking in China
Authors: Vai Io Lo
PubDate: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:45:42 PST
- Putting the ‘Protection’ in ‘Temporary Protection
Authors: Mohammud Jaamae Hafeez-Baig
PubDate: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:45:39 PST
- Imprisonment for Hard Core Cartel Participation: A Sanction with
Authors: Pascal Wirz
Abstract: To deter hard core cartel activity, the sanctions imposed on cartelists must produce sufficient disutility to outweigh what the cartelists expect to gain from cartel participation. Traditionally, monetary sanctions against undertakings have been the primary countermeasure against cartel violations. However, considering the limitations of financial penalties, increasing attention has been given to the use of non-monetary measures against corporations as well as individuals. This article contends that custodial sentences are the ideal sanction for countering cartels. The article argues that the threat of imprisonment is the most effective tool in combating anti-competitive practices. It is furthermore acknowledged that certain conditions must be fulfilled within an anti-cartel law enforcement regime in order for the sanction of incarceration to work effectively.
PubDate: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:45:35 PST
- A Call for a Safe Model of Family Mediation
Authors: Rachael Field
Abstract: The Australian family law system has struggled for many years to provide processes and procedures that are less adversarial, and which ensure access to justice and fair outcomes for those needing to negotiate arrangements for their post-separation family lives. These challenges are exacerbated, and dealt with least well, in contexts where there is a history of domestic violence (‘DV’). Since 2011 and the launch of the Family Violence Bill by the then Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland, the Federal Government has often expressed its commitment to addressing family violence and ensuring post separation agreements are safe. However, a key and proven initiative, the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution model — a model that has the potential to offer a safe(r) family mediation environment in DV contexts — has not been made accessible to the Australian public. This comment argues that the Australian government has a social and ethical responsibility to introduce this model to the family law system.
PubDate: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 17:59:43 PDT
- Post Re Greenpeace Supreme Court Reflections: Charity Law in the 21st
Century in Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Authors: Juliet Chevalier-Watts
Abstract: The focus of this article is on the political purpose doctrine and public benefit within New Zealand charity law, in the light of the much awaited New Zealand Supreme Court decision in Re Greenpeace. This article asserts that the majority decision in Re Greenpeace was merely a reflection of the court’s ability to recognise the applicability of charity law in contemporary circumstances, in a way that responds to societal needs. The article considers the notion of public benefit as it relates to charity law, both prior to, and after Re Greenpeace, and contends that courts may find the public benefit where it is appropriate to do so, and in circumstances where the social framework favours that way of thinking.
PubDate: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:10:20 PDT
- Restitution on a Partial Failure of Basis
Authors: Thomas Camp
Abstract: For a claimant to receive restitution for the unjust factor of a failure of basis, the traditional rule requires the failure to be total. However, recent case law has questioned whether this requirement is still necessary. This article examines the current law to show that adherence to the total failure rule has been abrogated by several exceptions. After a careful analysis of the reasons for the rule, and the reasons for allowing recovery on a partial failure, it is argued that a better approach would be to allow recovery on a partial failure of basis where counter-restitution can be made of any received benefit and where restitution would not upset the contractual allocation of risk.
PubDate: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:10:17 PDT
- Evaluating a Lost Opportunity to Sue
Authors: Sirko Harder
Abstract: Where a defendant’s wrong deprived the plaintiff of an opportunity to bring an action and obtain a judgment against a third party, the court deciding on the defendant’s liability will determine how the action against the third party would have been decided rather than forming a view on whether the plaintiff ought to have succeeded. The plaintiff’s loss will be assessed by reference to the degree of probability that the hypothetical action would have succeeded. Two figures must thus be determined: the likely amount that the plaintiff would have been awarded had an action against the third party been successfully brought, and the probability that such an action would have been successful. This article explores the principles governing the determination of those two figures. In addition, this article investigates how benefits obtained by the plaintiff as a result of the third party’s wrong impact upon the defendant’s liability.
PubDate: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:10:13 PDT
- Reflections on Deanship
Authors: John Farrar
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to reflect on the experience of being Dean of three Law Faculties, Associate Dean of two and Acting Vice-Chancellor of one university, to express some opinion as to the characteristics that make a ‘good’ dean, and to caution others against repeating my mistakes. In doing so, the first thing that I will say is that each university has its own characteristics and that university governance has changed considerably in the last 30–40 years.
PubDate: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:56:54 PDT
- Pitfalls in Proving Price-Fixing: Are Price-Signalling Laws the
Authors: Francina Cantatore et al.
Abstract: Establishing a breach of the price-fixing prohibitions in Part IV Division 1 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010(Cth) (‘CCA’) depends on the apparently simple requirement that a ‘contract, arrangement or understanding’ to fix prices can be shown to exist between competitor corporations. However, proof of any such agreement has been problematic for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘ACCC’) in actions for alleged price-fixing within a range of industries. This article considers the judicial interpretation of the terms ‘contract, arrangement or understanding’ and the type of evidence needed to prove that a price-fixing agreement exists. It also examines the scope and effect of the price-signalling provisions under Part IV Division 1A of the CCA and, in the light of international competition law jurisprudence, contemplates how these provisions may affect the ACCC’s ability to prove price-fixing claims. Possible future directions in this area of the law, resulting from the recommendations of the recent Harper Review, are explored as well.
PubDate: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:56:47 PDT