Australia’s Legal System is quite complicated and difficult to explain and the fact that Australia operates a federal system of government does not help matters, but for better explanation and understanding, one has to look to the legal profession and the judiciary that make up Australia’s legal system as a whole hence. Laws passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth apply to the whole of Australia. The organized system of law and government now in force in Australia is historically dependent for its legal validity on a series of British statutes, notably including the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.
I support the ruling of the court on this case. I believe the act of stealing company trade
The Australian constitution is a national legal document, enacted by the British government on the 1st of January 1901 as a part of Australia’s federation, it can be very difficult to change yet it requires constant renewal to keep up to date with today's society. As the Australian states and territories have the ability to create their own laws, the Constitution is employed to regulate them. Any state or territory law that is viewed to be in direct defiance of the constitution can be repealed and then is reviewed and examined via the High Court of Australia. If the High Court rules that the state's law is unconstitutional it will then be voided. Due to the fact, the constitution overlooks all the laws carried out by the Australian states and
In “The High Court of Australia - reflections on judges and judgments”, Mason argues that the Justices had favoured and implemented an approach that ultimately would result in the States becoming finally dependant on the Commonwealth, which statutes were put in place in order to ensure the significance of the Commonwealth law is not overshadowed by the inconsistency of the State law (2013, p.g. 16). As a result, this allowed Australia to implement changes to the way it performs; whereby, communities were separated by States and the economy remained as a mutual national component. Additionally, The High Court was also responsible for the development of an Australian common law, such as private international
This will be the judgment against interference of the cases which are before the court. The information leaked to the public by the media could be a vital information that would endanger jury or may not limit the fair judgment.
Business law is very broad concept of law which covers all the legal issues that include many commercial and domestic cases which make up most of the civil cases and there are only few criminal cases where there has been serious breach of law. With the help of reference to relevant case law, this essay will argue that Bob Wheelie suffered economic loss due to fraudulent
The matter of the Alec Kruger and other plaintiffs against the Commonwealth of Australia was heard in the High Court of Australia by Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ. This case was brought to the attention of the High Court of Australia by one of many plaintiffs named Rosie McCl...
Australia, Singapore, and India all have corporate governance regulatory systems that are based on corporation legislation that presents for mandatory minimum standards dealing with matters such as directors' duties, members' remedies, and shareholder rights at meetings, and default rules for company foundations. These obligatory rules may be compulsory by civil actions brought by injured parties and criminal proceedings brought by the respective regulators. These minimum obligatory requirements cannot successfully deal with issues relating to matters such as board role, structure, and make up. These purposeful matters are dealt with by codes of globally documented corporate governance best practice sanctioned by a variety of stock exchanges and directed at listed companies. This comprises an appearance of self-regulation because it is not compulsory for companies to follow the best practice principles. The universal approach is to necessitate listed companies to reveal in their annual reports the corporate governance practices they have agreed to throughout the relevant year. The listing rules set out comprehensive endorsed practices, and companies are required to state the degree to which they have taken on these practices. Those companies that go away from the suggested practices are required to make clear why they have done so (Kimber & Lipton, 2005).
A corporation is a form of business that is common in most countries. It is chartered by the state and is given legal rights as an entity that is separate from its owners. Characteristics of corporate are that the business has no liability to its owners. There is the issuance of shares of easily transferable stock, and it exists as a going concern. A business becomes a corporation through incorporation. After the business undergoes the incorporation, it is given legal standing that is different from their own. This legal standing protects the owner from being personally liable in an event that the business is sued. Incorporation also gives companies more flexible ways of managing their own structures (Melo & Garrido‐Morgado, 2012).
In the case of Foss v Harbottle (1843) contains of two members from the company named Victoria Park Co and they brought up an action against the five director from the company and also the shareholders by pointing out several action that they took to defraud the company such as selling land at a higher price. According to the case, instead of the claimant, it is the board of director’s responsibility to held a general meeting to make claim in this instance. Jenkins LJ from the case of
For years the Courts, both nationally and internationally, have grappled with the concept of piercing the corporate veil. The doctrine creates much tension as it entails disregarding a principle factor of a company, namely its separate legal personality. Over the years there have been various interpretations of when to apply the doctrine at a common law level. However, s20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (‘Companies Act’) appeared to have codified this common law approach, albeit with further instances of uncertainty as to its application and interpretation.
The “exclusionary rule” was recognized by the High Court as being the rule which rejects any liability for negligence causing merely pure economic loss . However, the exclusionary rule established a number of exceptions in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd . The exceptions developed, were found to have been arbitrary, imperfect and consequently described by McHugh J as having, “no single principle underlying them”. In cases of pure economic loss it was acknowledged that the test of reasonable foreseeability of loss was not adequate . The test of foreseeability and proximity was submitted by Lord Bridge in the decision made in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman . The cases of Hawkins v Clayton and Hill v Van Erp will