Was this email forwarded to you?
Sign up for our free daily email newsletter at headnote.com.au
Daily wrap
A high-profile Sydney barrister has backed a District Court judge who came under fire from the judicial watchdog over a decision in a rape case.
Editor’s picks
Elsewhere, voting closes today in Victorian Bar Council elections, and Justice Ian Jackman continues on his anti-direct speech crusade.
“This video attempts to answer a question apparently asked in the NSW Legal Studies exam for the Higher School Certificate. I have been told that the question was: ‘In relation to human rights, discuss the extent to which the Australian Constitution reflects changing values and ethical standards’. (I haven't seen the exam paper, so for present purposes I'm assuming that this was the formulation of one of the questions.)”
[1] “This judgment initially involved an appeal from a costs order made by Bellew J on 7 February 2023. There has been a sad history of litigation between the parties. This judgment is confined to the issue of the costs of this appeal.”
[3] “The plaintiff is Christopher John Bevan (Mr. Bevan). He is a practicing barrister. The first defendant is John David Bingham (Mr. Bingham). He is a practicing solicitor…”
[34] “Mr Bevan’s argument that “where a contract that is intended to comply with a statutory regime for that class of contracts fails to comply with that statutory regime, there is no contract at all in existence for the purposes of common law contractual principles”, ought to be rejected…”
Like our free newsletter? The best way to support us is to tell your colleagues about our newsletter!
We love feedback - [email protected]