Lehrmann decision today

Was this email forwarded to you?

Sign up for our free daily email newsletter at headnote.com.au

Daily wrap  

• Federal Court set to decide whether Bruce Lehrmann's appeal against defamation case findings can proceed - ABC News
   

  • Live stream available here from 9:30am AEDT - NSD701/2024 Bruce Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited ACN 052 515 250 & Anor - YouTube
     

• Tech billionaire’s fight with ex-lover abruptly settled [SMH paywall]

  The court battle that lifted the lid on WiseTech co-founder Richard White’s personal life has been discontinued.
   

• Parole board ‘reprisal’ alleged by whistleblower lawyer [The Australian paywall]

  A senior Queensland parole board lawyer has launched legal action claiming she was pushed out of her job after accusing a colleague of pressuring a judge into burying a contentious judgment.
   

Editor’s picks

• Justice Kyrou on the new Administrative Review Tribunal - ABC listen

  The Administrative Review Tribunal has just opened its doors for business.

  In his first media interview, ART President Justice Emilios Kyrou outlines some of his new powers. They include the ability to order the publication of low level, routine decisions, which may reveal systemic bureaucratic failures.

  The ART replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which failed to expose the disastrous Robodebt policy that saddled half a million Australians with false social-security debts. GuestsJustice Emilios Kyrou, President Administrative Review Tribunal, Terry Carney, Professor Emeritus University Sydney Law School
   

• Is it possible to have a fair jury trial anymore? Arlie Loughna -  

  Professor of Criminal Law, University of Sydney
   

• Inequities plague New South Wales motor accident injuries scheme - Law Society Journal
   

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qantas Airways Limited [2024] FCA 1219

  “Pursuant to s 224(1)(a)(ii) of the ACL, within 30 days of the date of this Order, Qantas pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a total pecuniary penalty in the sum of $100 million.”
   

• Anissa Pty Ltd v Parsons (on application of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Victoria) [1999] VSC 430 (8 November 1999)

  [22] “Finally I turn to whether, in the context I have defined, the words uttered by the defendant constitute contempt of court. The matter must be judged by contemporary Australian standards. It may be offensive, but it is not contempt of court, for a person to describe a judge as a wanker…”
   

• Federal Register of Legislation - Public website annual survey
   

• Rupert Murdoch’s Dow Jones and New York Post sue AI firm for ‘illegal copying’ | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian
   

Like our free newsletter? The best way to support us is to tell your colleagues about our newsletter!

We love feedback - [email protected]