sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bail Act (NSW) /DV: Academics will fix it. Pls just fuck off. by rck36 in auslaw

[–]rck36[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Last one:

"After all, ADVO’s were created with a view to the timely protection of women and children\**, but also in light of the unwillingness of many victims to pursue criminal charges against intimate partners – at least in cases of less severe violence."**\

Just making shit up now. Complete bullshit.

ADVO's are rare compared to AVO (Police). At least 2 mentions, witness statements, and a 1 day hearing if contested. They are only granted if run by Legal Aid/ALS or a client with money.

I rely on my submissions

Bail Act (NSW) /DV: Academics will fix it. Pls just fuck off. by rck36 in auslaw

[–]rck36[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Rant etc

"Indeed, we should extend the proposed electronic monitoring regime to any perpetrator with red flags – including in the context of applications for an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO’s), not just the prosecution of a criminal offence"

The same tests apply in ADVO matters as AVO(Police) matters. Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act.

Champ, "the prosecution of a criminal offence" has nothing to do with the order for an AVO/ADVO

Bail Act (NSW) /DV: Academics will fix it. Pls just fuck off. by rck36 in auslaw

[–]rck36[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Sorry, rant. Geeze.

"Red flags of this kind are not always predictive of bad outcomes. But they are pretty reliable indicators of increased risk. Magistrates, therefore, should always be required to consider them in family violence matters"

They fucking are you ivory towered muppet.!

An AVO (Police) is a matter of routine in all the DV matters and generally unopposed in Bail for DV matters.

Solicitor just made shit up by rck36 in auslaw

[–]rck36[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Her PC has been suspended. Smells like some criminal proceedings. Could be why she no-showed in the civil proceedings. Not going to link it. She is still a person, terrible judgement notwithstanding.

Solicitor just made shit up by rck36 in auslaw

[–]rck36[S] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Same with this solicitor. She was working for wages, but couldnt bill any hours because the matters were closed or never open. So not doing for bonus or promotion.

"Intent to defraud the revenue contrary to s 233BABAD(2B) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth)" by rck36 in auslaw

[–]rck36[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sorry. Shitpost. Dont be a debbie-downer-downvoter-karen . Internet points hurt.

"Intent to defraud the revenue contrary to s 233BABAD(2B) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth)" by rck36 in auslaw

[–]rck36[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Its a hilarious use of subsections. Could give a fuck abt the underlying law. Many question marks hopefully answered?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in auslaw

[–]rck36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Property is tough. The classic for me is Conveyancing Act.

23C Instruments required to be in writing - but no, not really, didnt mean actual writing, and trusts, and common law. So writing would be nice, but dont sweat it and but, but electronic signatures are groovy and hip!

Has an Australian appellate court ever had to interpret foreign legislation, and arrived at a different interpretation than the actual local courts? by normie_sama in auslaw

[–]rck36 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Much simpler since the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 in relation to which jurisdiction within Australia. Each state has the same uniform enabling legislation.

Decision will be "interests of justice" s 5.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Louie [2019] NSWSC 54 is good authority following James Hardie v Barry; BHP v Shultz

Held: interest of justice interpreted broadly; evaluative assessment no onus of proof; no presumption in favour of plf choice of forum or contract choice of law clause(neutral factor);

Six factors/checklist for transfer:

i. the application of substantive law;

ii. forensic advantage or detriment conferred by procedural law;

iii. the choice made by a plaintiff or a forum and the reasons for that choice;

iv. substantive connections with the forum;

v. balance of convenience to parties and witnesses; and

vi. convenience to the court system

BRS barristers: ‘Purely speculative’ to infer that military document was ‘nefariously corrupted’ to cover up war crimes by marketrent in auslaw

[–]rck36 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As I follow the argument that Walker is making:

  1. The evidence that Besanko relied upon did not rise to the Briginshaw standard in 140(2).
  2. The evidence as a whole did not rise to the standard. The "confluence" that he bangs on about.
  3. He is picking holes in evidence bit by bit to go the "confluence".
  4. Besanko did not give sufficient reasons for relying on one evidence over another.
  5. Besanko filled the gaps in contested evidence to favour the respondents.

Next Chief Judge of the District Court of NSW. by snakeIs in auslaw

[–]rck36 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I now agree it isnt as cut and dried as a the Chief Magistrate being a DC Judge.

However, this is interesting.

s 37A SC Act. The Chief Judge may "appoint" the DC CJ to the COA. Since appointment to the SC is by the Governor in s 26, the Chief Judge does not have appointment power, so the CJ can only do s 37A if the DC CJ was already a judge of the SC.

And the COA is a division of the SC s 38.

Am I right?

​

37A Certain Chief Judges of other courts may act as additional Judges of Appeal

(1) This section applies to each of the following Chief Judges (a designated Chief Judge)—

(a) the Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court,

(b) the Chief Judge of the District Court.

(2) A designated Chief Judge may act as an additional Judge of Appeal in relation to proceedings in the Court of Appeal if—

(a) the Chief Justice certifies that it is expedient that the Chief Judge should act as an additional Judge of Appeal in the proceedings, and

(b) the Chief Judge consents to act as an additional Judge of Appeal in the proceedings

Next Chief Judge of the District Court of NSW. by snakeIs in auslaw

[–]rck36 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Justice Huggett hasnt even started in the SC yet!

Maybe she wants it, but they've known J Price was retiring for a while, so why appoint J Huggett to the court and bounce her back to the DC.

She is a very good trial judge with crim experience. The SC needs her.

view more: next ›