Livestream in Lehrmann defamation matter today

Was this email forwarded to you?

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

Daily wrap  

• Bruce Lehrmann, Network 10, Lisa Wilkinson: fight continues over legal costs accrued in defamation suit | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site
   

  • a live stream of tomorrow’s hearing will be available here from 10:15am AEST.
     

• Australian Federal Police officers drop defamation action against former ACT top prosecutor Shane Drumgold - ABC News
   

• Canberra lawyer fined after taking pants off during drinking game, dancing shirtless in front of colleagues

   

  • COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY v LP 182022 Benjamin Aulich Occupational Discipline 2024 ACAT 43
     

• Trial date set for Linda Reynolds’ defamation case against Brittany Higgins | Defamation law (Australia) | The Guardian
   

  • Defamation law changes Australia: How your postcode could affect your success [SMH paywall]
     

• Julian Assange's lawyer says WikiLeaks founder 'cannot, and should not, be silenced' - ABC News
   

  • Video - Assange case sends signal about US prosecution of foreign nationals - Donald Rothwell - ABC News
     

• Federal Court finds Pepsi not liable to royalty withholding tax | Geelong Advertiser
   

  • PepsiCo, Inc v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCAFC 86
     

Editor’s picks  

• Can Julian Assange stand for the Australian Parliament? - Anne Twomey - YouTube
   

• Does Australia need a Federal Law on Truth in Political Advertising? - Melbourne Law School - YouTube
   

• Should foreign judges sit on Hong Kong's highest court? Anti-discrimination laws in religious schools - ABC listen
   

• The Victorian Bar has approved the purchase by Barristers’ Chambers Limited of 200 Queen Street Melbourne.
   

• Download - Finality and Certainty in the Integrated National System of Chapter III Courts - Emily Hammond - Sydney Law Review
  Australian authority holds that there is a critical distinction between superior and inferior courts when it comes to the legal force of judicial orders affected by jurisdictional error. It is said that such orders, when made by a superior court, have legal force unless and until set aside but that, when made by an inferior court, they lack legal force from the outset. This distinction — recently consigned to pre-1846 history by the United Kingdom Supreme Court — does not align with the contemporary reality of the integrated system of courts established under ch III of the Australian Constitution. The appeals in Commonwealth v Stradford, Judge Vasta v Stradford and Queensland v Stradford present an opportunity for the High Court of Australia to set a new approach that reflects the constitutional context for ch III court operation. Specifically, the appeals may be upheld on the

  basis that any purported order made by a ch III court acting as a repository of judicial power has legal force unless and until set aside.
   

• Download - Responsible Government as an Underenforced Norm of the Australian Constitution: Some Interpretive Consequences - Dan Meagher and Benjamin Saunders - Sydney Law Review
   

We welcome your feedback, which you can send to [email protected]