Posts
-
In ACCC v eHarmony Inc, the Federal Court of Australia held that eHarmony Inc violated the Australian Consumer Law by misleading consumers about subscription pricing, renewal terms, and cancellation policies.
-
The High Court’s ruling in Aid/Watch Inc v Commissioner of Taxation addresses the status of political purposes within Australian charitable trusts. It concluded that political advocacy can be charitable if it fosters public debate, provided it is connected to a…
-
In McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501, the High Court reaffirmed that voluntariness is the fundamental requirement for the admissibility of confessional evidence. The Court also confirmed that trial judges may exclude a confession where the circumstances in…
-
In Watt v Rama [1972] VR 353, the Supreme Court of Victoria considered whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff who was ‘en ventre sa mère’ (in the mother’s womb) at the time of the negligent…
-
In Pickering v The Queen [2017] HCA 17, the primary issue on appeal to the High Court was whether the trial judge erred by failing to leave s 31(1) defence to the jury, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
-
In Armitage v Parole Board Queensland (2023) 17 QR 297, the Court of Appeal reviewed the Parole Board’s decision to issue a ‘no cooperation declaration’ for a ‘no body-no parole prisoner’, where the victim’s remains were likely destroyed by fire…
-
In the matter of R v Lovell; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 136, the Court of Appeal considered whether a disfigurement subsequently medically repaired is capable of amounting to ‘serious disfigurement’ under the definition of grievous bodily harm.