Daily wrap
Privacy law in Australia: Australians can now claim $478,000 in damages under new laws [SMH paywall]
See article by David Helvadjian titled “Privacy matters… finally” starting from page 46
Indigenous ‘cultural safety’ law shift [The Australian paywall]
NSW judges should consider allowing cases involving Aboriginal Australians to be heard in a closed court or before a female judicial officer in order to enhance ‘cultural safety’, new provisions say.
The ACT Greens have announced a bill that would introduce legislation aimed at holding institutions accountable for the actions of their employees.
It follows a High Court ruling last year that found the church could not be held accountable for the actions of a priest accused of sexual assault.
Editor’s picks
This week Tamsin Phillipa Paige and Douglas Guilfoyle discuss the IDF's interdiction of the Madleen aid vessel bound for Gaza, the law of blockade in naval warfare, and its contested relationship with the crime of starvation.
FCA livestream tomorrow - NSD1025/2022 AUSTRAC v THE STAR PTY LIMITED - YouTube
CATCHWORDS - NEGLIGENCE – Professional liability – Negligence claim regarding adequacy of advice given by lawyer to client in historical institutional sexual abuse claim against unincorporated religious order for abuse suffered by plaintiff at Catholic school managed by order – Plaintiff advised to settle general damages and not make ‘formal’ economic loss claim in circumstances where scant evidence of plaintiff’s work history due to failure to file tax returns – Defendant law firm believed Ellis defence would be taken and unincorporated association would not name appropriate defendant – Defendant law firm’s belief as to obstacles facing plaintiff in making common law claim negligently held – Law firm gave erroneous advice – Breach of duty of care established – Causation established.
Claims circulating on social media falsely assert that any law conflicting with common law is illegal, and that a magistrate's order amounts to slavery.
Tomorrow's case is listed for courtroom 2, indicating that it will be a 5-judge bench.
All of last year's June sittings were 5-judge matters, and I think there are no constitutional matters this June, so maybe this a regular annual thing?
— #Jeremy Gans (#@jeremy_gans)
6:03 AM • Jun 10, 2025
Like our free newsletter? The best way to support us is to tell your colleagues about our newsletter!
We love feedback - [email protected]