Was this email forwarded to you?
Sign up for our free daily email newsletter at headnote.com.au
Daily wrap
The judgment at first instance - Patrick v Attorney-General (Cth) [2024] FCA 268
Class action floated for Jewish students, staff at USyd [The Australian paywall]
The potential lawsuit, seeking plaintiffs to join on, alleges the university breached s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act among others.
“Levitt Robinson, instructing Adam Butt of Counsel, will be filing a representative action in the Federal Court, seeking damages against the University of Sydney, and Others, for breaches of the Racial Discrimination Act (‘RDA’) 1975, including racial vilification (sections 9 and 18C and other breaches of the RDA), breach of duty of care owed to academics and students, breaches of contract between academics and students, and Occupational Health and Safety breaches.”
Labor’s plan ‘risks judicial autonomy’ [The Australian paywall]
Arthur Moses SC says Labor’s plans to slash the retirement funds of judges will endanger the administration of justice, as he calls on the government to delay access to the judicial pension by five years to save money instead.
No fine for crypto firm’s breach of licensing law [The Australian paywall]
A crypto start-up won’t have to pay penalties for breaching the law, after a Federal Court judge said the company had actually acted honestly.
“A District Court Judge has delivered a scathing assessment of police conduct while taking the rare step of granting an application for a permanent stay of proceedings.”
“Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) registrar Michael Hawkins has defended his organisation from allegations it is out of touch with community expectations.”
Editor’s picks
“This appeal was listed for hearing today before a Court comprised of five Judges. On reviewing the written submissions of the parties and of the applicants for intervention last week, it became apparent that the scope of the issues potentially in play had expanded considerably from those which had been identified at the time of the grant of special leave to appeal, making the appeal more appropriate to be heard before all seven Justices.”
TORT – defamation – contretemps occurring when plaintiff and defendant were both using a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians – both parties complain to the police - defendant’s Facebook post describing the incident widely shared on other Facebook pages - identification, defamatory meaning and publication – whether the defendant is liable for publications on Facebook pages other than his own where his original post is “shared” on other Facebook pages – defences of justification, honest opinion and offer to make amends - damages
We welcome your feedback, which you can send to [email protected]