FEBRUARY 2021

greg-dickason
GREG DICKASON
Managing Director, LexisNexis Pacific

Happy new year and welcome to the first edition of KeyNews for 2021.

Last year was both a challenging and transformative year for LexisNexis®, as it was for many of our clients and partners.

In the year we managed to cloud enable much more of our content through both Lexis Red® and Lexis Advance®. We also delivered better tools to visualise and gain insights into legal research and assist with collaborating on complex matters. These tools were being built using techniques from Natural Language Understanding, a field that is rapidly evolving and which our engineering team has focussed on mastering. As a result, we delivered novel approaches to surfacing relevant content, such as similar cases based on similar legal and factual issues, with no citation linkage, and significant search improvements utilising deep machine learning.

Powered by these new tools, and with better visualisation of results, our search received the highest relevancy scores and customer positive rankings ever.

With the product and content changes, we also looked at what we needed to do differently to deliver to our clients, partners and people.

The first step was to recognise that although we work in a complex industry, our most important function is to help simplify the mass of content and information available to surface the best insight at the most appropriate time and place. This simplicity extends to simplicity of customer service, simplicity of communication, and simplicity of doing business with. Our ‘Why’, or purpose, is to ‘Power just outcomes one decision at a time.’ Having a vision of simplicity of service helps us to deliver on our purpose.

In 2021 we welcome back Bill Sisson as the new Executive General Manager, Commercial. Bill runs all the core sales and marketing teams and has been brought on to enhance our focus on delivering to our clients. Bill has a long association with LexisNexis, having delivered commercial solutions in the US, China and Australia since the 1990s. Bill was most recently at Gartner where he was the head of Sales for CEB. It is great to have Bill ‘come home’.

In 2021 expect to see more of a focus on simplicity and client enablement while we accelerate the delivery of complex legal insights and the investment in our content. I am excited about what we can do with you this year and the possibilities we have all unlocked through the necessity in 2020.

Keep safe.

Greg Dickason


Capital Monitor™

Do-it yourself, content curation now extended to all Intranet Users

When the concept for a new website started to take shape in 2019, Capital Monitor already knew that increased autonomy for content curation among Intranet Users was on top of Knowledge Managers’ wish list.

The legacy platform, in use since 2010, had foreseen the requirement for self-serve capabilities amid subscribers and built it in for all subscription types, except for Intranet Users.

Originally designed to enable account administrators, typically knowledge managers and librarians, to manage and circulate content within an organisation, Capital Monitor Intranets allowed nominated Intranet Administrators to customise, display and push content out to recipients (individuals or groups) via topics, alerts and newsletters according to parameters they set up at the start. Intranet Users could view the list of topics, alerts, newsletters and the most recent content they carried online, but remained short of the ability to interact with what they saw, such as self-subscribe / unsubscribe, or edit pre-set parameters without physically having to contact nominated Administrators. The only autonomy available to this subscriber category was the ability to search and browse the extensive Capital Monitor digital collection, now amounting to over 3 million text-searchable and fully indexed PDF documents.

As Intranets swelled with users over the years, so did the workload of their nominated Intranet Administrators. A solution was needed to eliminate unnecessary barriers to self-service by end-users, allowing them to customise some content on the go themselves, while easing Administrators’ job of running large-scale Intranets without taking away their privileges.

Once the Capital Monitor new user interface went live in May 2020, the team set out to make this happen. Months of planning, countless straight-back-to-the-drawing-board moments, iteration and development have culminated with the completion of this significant enhancement in the second half of 2020. The feature, now available to all Intranet Users, was rolled out to subscribers in late January this year. Intranet Users can now do this themselves:

Features unavailable to Intranet Users that remain firmly within the Intranet Administrators’ privileges include the ability to delete, or edit Customised Alerts that were created by others, or the ability to delete, create or edit pre-set CapMon topics. The premium Instant Email Alerts published by Capital Monitor alerts managers for Commonwealth content also remains exclusive to Intranet Administrators only.


Lexis Advance & Capital Monitor

Capital Monitor Press Release content on Lexis Advance – coming soon!

Soon a subset of Capital Monitor content will be made available on the Lexis Advance platform for the first time. With the launch of the vast new “Capital Monitor Media Collection – Press Releases” source, researchers are able to search and access press releases issued by government departments, regulators (including ASIC, ACCC and APRA), industry bodies and corporations on the same platform alongside the legislation, case law and expert commentary for which Lexis Advance is known.

This initiative was in response to customer feedback that Capital Monitor is highly sought after and heavily used by knowledge managers but can be overlooked by lawyers because it’s a separate platform. By making some of the Capital Monitor content available on Lexis Advance, subscribers get the best of both worlds:

  1. knowledge teams can continue to use the specialised features on the Capital Monitor platform for deep research tasks;
  2. business development teams help the firm stay ahead of the conversation with clients and the wider industry via fast and powerful same-day alerts set up on the Capital Monitor portal;
  3. lawyers are afforded the convenience of being able to find an even more comprehensive set of content on the Lexis Advance platform, supported by a roadmap of search enhancements and innovative data visualisations designed for lawyers; and
  4. the organisation or firm maximises the number of users benefitting from its existing subscription.

Who will have it?

Starting in late February, customers who currently subscribe to both Capital Monitor’s Media Package and Lexis Advance will be able to see documents from the new “Capital Monitor Media Collection – Press Releases” source on Lexis Advance, on the AU Secondary Materials results tab. To discuss adding the Media Package to your account, please contact your Relationship Manager.

How can I use it and where can I find it?

Frequently asked questions

  1. What happens to my existing Capital Monitor subscription?
    Answer: Your existing Capital Monitor subscription will not change. This content will be available on both Capital Monitor and Lexis Advance. Access to your Capital Monitor platform will continue to be via your Capital Monitor credentials.
  2. Are there plans to include other content sets on Lexis Advance? Will the 2 platforms merge in the future?
    Answer: We may explore adding other Capital Monitor content sets to Lexis Advance in future, but we don’t have any immediate plans to merge the platforms.
  3. Once the content is available on the Lexis Advance platform will it be removed from the Capital Monitor platform?
    Answer: No, Lexis Advance and Capital Monitor will reproduce the same press release content (from 12 months prior to launch) to allow researchers to continue to use whichever platform they prefer for the task at hand. Note that Capital Monitor publishes press release content on the same day it is issued, within 30 minutes of receipt for the Federal jurisdiction. Lexis Advance users will see the content 24 hours later.

If you have any questions or feedback, or would like to know more about the roadmap for Capital Monitor or Lexis Advance, please contact your Relationship Manager.


Lexis Advance

New Paragraphs Citing Tab in CaseBase®

Following the successful release of the Paragraph Filter in June 2020, the Paragraphs Citing Tab builds on users’ ability to track paragraph citations in CaseBase. This new feature will be available to customers from the 1st of February 2021.

The Paragraph Filter presents an easy-to-use heatmap displaying citation trends and allowing for rapid and intuitive interaction with the data. This makes it easier to assess the structure of the judgment and focus on the passages that have had the most influence on subsequent decisions.

After selecting a paragraph from the Paragraph Filter, the cases list in CaseBase narrows to show only cases that cite that paragraph. The Paragraphs Citing Tab appears adjacent to the cases list once a paragraph is selected. In this tab, users will be able to read the text of the cited and citing paragraphs without navigating to a new page.

Having this centralized view makes CaseBase an even more effective tool for analysing citations, providing deeper insight into which decisions are relevant to a user’s research. It helps them quickly identify cases that would likely be influential to their arguments by providing a window into the nuances of the case.

With the release of the Paragraphs Citing Tab, CaseBase enables users to:

This powerful combination of features in CaseBase gives users an unparalleled ability to accurately streamline their research without having to open and read multiple decisions. It allows them to spend more time on relevant cases with the highest impact to their research.

Click here for a list of webinars designed to keep you up to date on our products.


LexisNexis Books

Q&A with authors of recently released books

Q&A with Craig Hobbs

What were the circumstances which led to the writing of this book?

A: In March 2020 Tasmania was placed in lockdown due to the pandemic. Normally, in semi-retirement from 2017 and full retirement from mid-2019, I was spending a significant time away from my principal residence in Hobart and travelling interstate and overseas. I was away from Hobart for around 6 months in consolidated terms per annum. The pandemic brought this to an end. I therefore had time available to focus on writing the book.

From a legal perspective the primary motivation was that I had acted as counsel in proceedings in Tasmania for three infants following the death of their mother due to medical negligence. The proceedings settled in late 2015. Had the case not settled, it was intended to seek to persuade the Supreme Court, as a preliminary point to be determined by the Full Court, not to follow the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Grosso v Deaton.1 Several years later in mid-2019, after fully retiring, I again revisited the arguments I had intended to raise challenging this decision. I prepared an article outlining those arguments which was published in the Torts Law Journal in late 2019.2 I was intent on making those arguments available to the wider profession in the hope that another counsel would take up the challenge. However, I was concerned the readership of the Torts Law Journal would not be sufficiently wide so as to ensure this occurred. I therefore decided to write the book as a means of ensuring that ultimately the argument would be pursued. I think that will now be the inevitable result. I am hopeful this occurs in my lifetime. The book comprehensively deals with this issue in Chapter 5 at 5.44 – 5.62.

The book is clearly not limited to the contention raised with regard to Grosso v Deaton?

A: Correct, the book necessarily addresses far more than this particular issue. Interestingly, although the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (UK), the model legislation, followed by most of the common law jurisdictions throughout the world, was enacted almost 175 years ago, yet there had been remarkably little in the way of commentary, particularly so, given the contentious issues that have arisen from time to time. As Professor Joachim Dietrich observes in his review commentary, my book addresses this gap. Having specialised in fatality litigation for over 30 years and in personal injuries litigation generally for the entirety of my career extending over 43 years, I felt that I had something useful to make available to the wider profession. The assessment of damages in fatality claims is in all cases a very complex exercise. I perceived that there was a very real need for a commentary dealing with the practical aspects and application of the theory in a practical setting. Given the commentaries on the book I think I have succeeded in that task.

There are 8 very helpful precedents in the appendices of your book – do you have a drafting tip for practitioners?

A: Always use your precedents as a baseline or guide only. They must always be carefully tailored to the facts of the particular case. For example, the provision of an accurate and informative statement of claim and particulars of claim to your opponent are in my view the most important steps in the adversarial process in wrongful death proceedings. These documents will set the stage for a positive outcome in settlement negotiation and at trial. Additionally, properly prepared, the documents are an obvious strategic ploy in demonstrating that you are fully in control and on top of your brief. Counsel should always prepare or at least settle both documents.

From this point on?

A: Probably a second edition at some stage to accommodate developments in the law. I have also thought about perhaps writing a similar work addressing the practicalities of personal injuries litigation. However, personal injuries litigation is generally far less complex, settled and without the contentious issues that plague fatality litigation, where I saw a very real need for a textbook providing a comprehensive commentary that would be invaluable to all practitioners, regardless of experience, including the judiciary. As personal injuries litigation is less complex and generally not contentious, experienced practitioners would gain little from my own knowledge and experience. However, there are still many traps and pitfalls and junior practitioners new to the field may benefit from the practical guidance a comprehensive book would provide. However, this is still very much a thought only at this stage.

__________
1 [2012] NSWCA 101; (2012) 61 MVR 349.
2 Infants and Wrongful Death Claims - A Critique of the Decision in Gross v Deaton [2012] NSWCA 101 and the Need for Judicial Reform (2019) 25 TLJ 283.

About the Author

Craig Hobbs LLB (University of Tasmania) (1976) formerly a Barrister practising at the Tasmanian Bar, now retired (2019). He was admitted to the Supreme Court of Tasmania in 1978 and the High Court of Australia in 1982. Although retired, he retains an associate membership with the Law Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Bar and maintains a keen interest in the development of the law in the area the subject of his book.

For more information about Wrongful Death Claims: A Practical Guide, visit our eStore or contact your Relationship Manager.


Q & A with Susan Marie Hill

Before her first day in a small suburban law practice, specialist lawyer Susan Marie Hill hadn’t ever set foot inside a solicitor’s office. Although almost 35 years passed, Susan never forgot that sinking feeling of ‘not knowing what to do’.

Now as a lawyer and a qualified coach, Susan realised that, with the right tools, no other law graduate would ever again have to go through that same protracted, painful – but avoidable – learning curve that she experienced herself. Her solution? To develop a fresh take on a problem almost as old as the law itself. Intrigued, we got in touch with Susan to find out more about A New Lawyer’s Guide to Getting it Right the First Time.

Why is the first year of a legal career so confronting?

A: For high-achieving students, transitioning into the daily demands of a law practice can be an unpleasant reality-check for many. It can sometimes feel like you’re out of your depth in unfamiliar surroundings, where you’re instantly expected to function as a real lawyer without having any clear understanding about what that actually involves.

How does that play out?

A: For new lawyers, problems can quickly compound because, no matter which way you turn, you can be confronted with obstacles that seem insurmountable. If you’re uncertain about what you’re supposed to be doing (or maybe even have no idea at all), that’s when mistakes can happen. You can begin to believe that you can’t effectively carry out your work, which only makes you feel worse.

Isn’t this unavoidable when you’re inexperienced?

A: Not necessarily. I’m convinced that the biggest challenge preventing new lawyers from achieving optimum performance isn’t that you ‘can’t’ do what’s expected of you, but the fact that you don’t know what you don’t know. If there’s no one to show you how, or maybe you’re not even aware that you’re doing things the wrong way, then you’ll have to learn everything for yourself - the slow and hard way.

What made you think this could be changed?

A: It was a classic ‘aha’ moment. I realised that, like any other activity, the day-to-day tasks of a junior lawyer are processes which, with enough know-how, can be broken down into series of simple steps. This new approach meant that any new lawyer faced with a task they hadn’t encountered before would have the tools and processes they needed to be able to get it right the first time.

Is this approach easy and effective?

A: I would like new lawyers to feel as though they always have their own personal coach and mentor looking over their shoulder - someone to guide them and answer their questions, no matter how basic they may seem. So, I identified the most common challenges they would be confronted with during their first year in practice, pointing out the hidden traps to lookout for and avoid. Then, also explaining what you need to do and showing you how to do it, I’ve used straightforward, step-by-step processes (plus lots of practical examples) that are easy for you to follow.

What differentiates this over other practical legal training?

A: That’s a great question. It’s not intended to replace ‘black letter law’ style practical skills – how to draft a will, act on a conveyance, prepare court documents and so on. The focus is to supplement traditional training by zooming in to a deeper layer of core competencies that you could call ‘lawyer’s logic’. These need to be mastered but are often overlooked. In the early days, new lawyers are often unaware of the gap in their skillset until suddenly they start to struggle when their work becomes more complex.

Could this be the book that senior practitioners who supervise new lawyers are looking for?

A: Absolutely. Plenty of senior lawyers would love to be more involved in coaching and mentoring, but they’re usually so swamped with their own caseloads, that’s almost impossible to do. They just don’t have the resources to spend endless hours answering long lists of questions and joining the dots one by one. So, to save them lots of time and energy, the work has been done for them!

About the Author

Susan Marie Hill LLB, LLM has been a litigation lawyer for more than 30 years, with her primary practice being in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales where she is one of a limited number of Accredited Specialists. Having worked with hundreds of clients and cases over the years, Susan has garnered respect from both her peers and professionals within her field. She is regularly called upon to provide her professional advice on complex legal cases. Inspired by her long-held interest in the influence of individual mindset on personal choices, actions and achievements, Susan also holds a Diploma in Life Coaching.

For more information about A New Lawyer’s Guide to Getting it Right the First Time, visit our eStore or contact your Relationship Manager.


LexisNexis Practical Guidance

What’s new

Practical Guidance Dispute Resolution – Coming Soon

This new Practical Guidance module will cover informal and formal mechanisms of dispute resolution, including aspects of ADR and litigation practice across Australian federal, state and territory courts and tribunals. The content will address the fundamentals and procedural steps of the dispute process, structured by jurisdiction and court. Intended for lawyers in firms dealing with disputes as well as barristers conducting matters across different levels of court, the Dispute Resolution module in Australia will be a practical companion to our existing civil procedure analytical works.

Available for subscription on Lexis Advance from the end of March, the Dispute Resolution module will include coverage of the Federal, NSW, QLD and VIC jurisdictions with further plans for jurisdictional expansion of other states and territories in the coming months.

Practice Area Round-ups

Practice Area Round-ups are a current awareness newsletter to provide subscribers with the practice area news highlights they need, delivered fortnightly directly to their inbox. Covering latest developments in practice and in their subscription as well as key calendar dates.

Now available for these practice areas: Banking & Finance; Business; Competition; Consumer; Corporations; Cybersecurity, Data Protection & Privacy; Employment; Insolvency & Restructuring; Intellectual Property; Mergers & Acquisitions; Property.

Platform enhancements – locked breadcrumb trail

To improve our users’ awareness of where in the Practical Guidance topic tree they are, the breadcrumb trail that appears in the platform header at document level now remains locked in position, for navigational ease.

New PG Signing Tool

An easy-to-use step by step tool for lawyers to create the execution blocks they need to ensure a valid contract, this new tool launched in Practical Guidance Corporations in December 2020. With over 100 different signing blocks to choose from, and more being added in the coming months, lawyers can be sure to access the correct execution block for their transaction.

New jurisdiction added to Practical Guidance Criminal: Western Australia

The coverage of Practical Guidance Criminal has been expanded to Western Australia, adding to the three existing jurisdictions: New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Over 70 new guidance notes and checklists have been added to the module covering all aspects of criminal procedure in Western Australia from arrest through to sentencing and appeals.

Practice area highlights


Lexis Red

Recent Updates – Lexis Red 3.15 released on 22nd Jan 2021

Lexis Red is a digital platform through which you can access your preferred legal content. Through the app you can browse, search, share, and annotate faster than before. Lexis Red is available on iPad, Android tablets, Windows 10 and Macintosh desktops and laptops.

In our recent release (Lexis Red 3.15), the team has focused on introducing a new feature “Filter publication type”. The feature enables users to quickly browse by publication type (such as - loose-leaf, books or Encyclopedias) and save valuable time.

Image: “Filter publication type” feature – iPad version.

Update on Single sign-on (SSO) for Lexis Red. The development of SSO support for Lexis Red has been completed and testing is in progress with selected customers.

If you would like to get more information on Lexis Red or test the Single sign-on (SSO) feature, please contact your Relationship Manager.


Practice Area Updates

What's new

Insurance

Analysis of business interruption insurance test case: HDI Global Specialty SE v Wonkana No 3 Pty Ltd

FEDERAL

In November 2020, the NSW Court of Appeal handed down their decision for the business interruption insurance test case, which had been brought by the Insurance Council of Australia and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. The decision has serious implications for the insurance industry as it indicates that insurers may be unable to rely on exclusion clauses that made reference to repealed legislation. The standard form contracts of several insurers had not been updated since the legislation was repealed and continued to make reference to excluding liability for diseases declared to be quarantinable diseases under the repealed legislation. As a consequence, insureds that incurred losses due to the coronavirus pandemic stand to have recourse against insurers. The Insurance Council of Australia have announced that they will apply to the High Court for special leave to appeal the decision. A case note was published online in December 2020 in the Australian Insurance Law Bulletin, written by Iain Freeman and Lorraine Madden, which follows consideration of business interruption insurance in the context of the coronavirus pandemic in the newsletter's coronavirus special edition (ILB 36.1 in May 2020).


Property

Various decisions handed down by courts and tribunals dealing with leasing disputes under the umbrella of the current COVID-19 related legislation as it applies to landlords and tenants

All state jurisdictions

Each State jurisdiction has made legislation to deal with issues arising from tenants' inability to pay rent while impacted by COVID-19. There have been a number of decisions in the courts and tribunals that deal with various aspects of these instruments. These include: MIR Holdings Pty Ltd v Marina Square Retail Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 286; BC202011034 in relation to non-payment of rent in NSW; Koh v Thomas (Residential Tenancies) [2020] VCAT 591 in relation to a notice of termination in Victoria; Sneakerboy Retail Pty Ltd t/as Sneakerboy v Georges Properties Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 996; BC202007182 in relation to relief against forfeiture in NSW; and Happy Lounge Pty Ltd v Choi & Lee Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 184; BC202040686 in relation to frustration of a contract of sale due to COVID-19 restrictions in Queensland. These and other matters are covered in the Australian Tenancy Law & Practice Bulletins that accompany all 2020 services of this publication. They provide expert commentary on these decisions and assist customers in advising clients on how to navigate their landlord/tenant relationships in the framework of COVID-19 legislation.


Employment

The recent case of PIA Mortgage Services v King 2020 handed down in early 2020 by the Full Federal Court.

FEDERAL

Section 340 and 34(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 combine to protect employees from adverse action being taken against them by employers because the employee has made a complaint or inquiry to the employer in relation to the employee's employment. The case and which complains are worthy of protection are examined in Emma Goodwin's (Minter Ellison) recent article published in the Employment Law Bulletin.


Defamation

21 significant decisions handed down between July and October 2020 by state and federal courts dealing with defamation

All state and Federal jurisdictions

In Australian Defamation Law & Practice Bulletin No 78, Gibson J has summarised and analysed 21 recent defamation cases, including editorial notes referring to post-trial issues such as interest, costs and enforcement issues (including contempt of court, costs orders against a third party and an application by a journalist for access to a court file after judgment was handed down.)


ASX

Proposed ASX Listing Rules changes

All jurisdictions

Subject to ASX receiving ASIC regulatory approval, ASX Listing Rules amendments are expected in February 2021 to take effect on 20 March 2021. The proposed Listing Rules changes are primarily within the Appendices to facilitate the introduction and operation of the next round of new and updated ONLINE forms. In addition, a number amendments to Rules 2.8, 3.10, 3.21, 3.22, 12.13, and 19.12 covering notification of security issues and corporate action timetables are propsed to commence at the same time.

PLEASE NOTE: LN has the licence to print on behalf of the ASX, so binders will be updated


HCFCP

The recent case of Davaria in the Full Federal Court.

FEDERAL

This case raised the issue of Common Fund Orders and and the court's power to make such an order in class action proceedings. The comments in this case were significant as they suggest the court will have the option to consider CFO applications made at the time of settlement or judgment and that some courts will be prepared to make such orders depending on the circumstances of the case. Commentary around this case and the future implications for class actions is being incorporated into Practice and Procedure High Court and Federal Court of Australia.


Corporations

Commencement of the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Act 2020

FEDERAL

The purpose of the amending Act is to to implement insolvency reforms to support small business. The Government estimates that the reforms will cover around 76 per cent of businesses subject to insolvencies—98 per cent of which have less than 20 employees. The three key elements of the reforms are:

Annotations to the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Act 2020 are published online in Austin and Black's Annotations to the Corporations Act.


Succession

The recent case of Moore v Aubusson [2020] NSWSC 1466

NSW

Moore v Aubusson is a recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal, where estoppel for breach of promise overruled a will. In this case, the deceased did not fulfil her promise to leave in her will two properties to the plaintiffs who had relied to their detriment on the testamentary promise. While the Court found that the understanding between the deceased and the plaintiffs did not reach the level of a contract, there was a promise by the deceased to the plaintiffs in respect of her two properties. This case demonstrates a situation in which estoppel for breach of promise can override a will, particularly if the alleged promisor is deceased and the claimants do not have standing under traditional family maintenance claims. Case notes on this case have been published by Rod Jones from Piper Alderman, Blair Campbell from HHG Legal Group and Lynn Pham from Andersons Solicitors.
In the upcoming service update for Mason and Handler Succession Law and Practice NSW, which will be published in February 2021, commentary on this case will be provided in the Succession Act 2006 and Will Drafting guidecards.


Alternate Dispute Resolution

Illawarra Community Housing Trust Ltd v MP Park Lane Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 751 (1, 17 June 2020); BC202005418 and Lahey Constructions Pty Ltd v Dept of Education [2020] NSWSC 1158; BC202008231 (23 July, 28 August 2020).

NSW

Two articles providing insights into the court's recent decisions relating to expert determination clauses. In Illawarra Housing Community, the court held the parties to their dispute resolution process that they had agreed upon within the contract. This article titled “Supreme Court of New South Wales confirms the correct approach to the construction of expert determination provisions” was published in December 2020. In Lahey Constructions the importance of drafting dispute resolution clauses was a key point, along with many others (explored within the article) from the case. The claim was dismissed on the question of whether the contractual threshold had been exceeded (the court determined it had not been exceeded). This article titled “Another threshold question: Supreme Court confirms importance of precise tiered dispute resolution clauses” was published in November 2020. These articles are found in the Australian Alternative Dispute Resolution Law Bulletin which touches on several aspects of alternate dispute resolution.


Building and Construction

Decision on meaning of 'day' in relation to the calculation of paid personal / carer's leave under the Fair Work Act 2009: Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union

All jurisdictions

Mondelez is a recent decision of the High Court, overturning the decision of the full Federal Court regarding the interpretation of what constitutes a 'day' in relation to the calculation of paid personal/carer’s leave under the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The High Court confirmed what has been (until the Federal Court's decision) the widespread understanding of the operation of the personal/carer's leave entitlement in the Fair Work Act. The previous Full Federal Court decision had substantial cost implications for employers of workers who completed longer shifts, particularly in the building and construction industry. Building Contracts Australia has been updated with expert commentary on this case.


Evidence

Taxiprop Pty Ltd v Neutron Holdings Inc [2020] FCA 1565

FEDERAL

Nathan Moshinsky QC has incorporated this case into a recent update of the Evidence title in Halsbury's® Laws of Australia. Taxiprop looks at the function of the tribunal of fact. This case supports that provided there is a recognised body of science which deals with the relevant matter, a suitably qualified expert may be called to give opinion evidence about it to assist the tribunal of fact.


Criminal

Rod Howie QC and Justice Johnson discussed a minimum of 24 recent cases from the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in their most recent update to annotations.

NSW

In the January hardcopy service of Criminal Practice and Procedure NSW, customers will receive updates to the annotations to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, Evidence Act 1995, Crimes Act 1900, Criminal Appeal Act 1912, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, Firearms Act 1996, Crimes Act 1914, plus more – these annotations discuss a minimum of 24 cases handed down by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in 2020. Online customers received this content by December 2020.


Environment

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Royal Commission.

All jurisdictions

Special double edition of the Australian Environment Review (AER) on the EPBC Royal Commission: AER 35(5&6). This special edition has EPBC-themed papers designed as a timely accompaniment to the release of Graeme Samuel's final report on 30 October 2020. The EPBC Act is the government’s centrepiece of national environmental law, so this 10-yearly review is always a landmark one. The AER editorial panel foresaw the significance of this special edition for environmental lawyers, policymakers and scientists. It is definitely one of the first (if not the first) serious analyses of the Royal Commission, and is now published on Lexis Advance. AER 35(5&6) has papers from experts on: ecological restoration; EPBC case law and legislation; the government's biodiversity commitments and its use of offsets; and, importantly, the areas of overlap with the Bushfire Royal Commission. The special edition retains ongoing importance and relevance as the government considers the Review recommendations in early 2021.



Contact Us Form














Webinars & Training
Subscribe
Rule of Law
Books
Practice Intelligence
PG toolkit
COVID-19
Follow LexisNexis
LexisNexis LinkedIn LexisNexis Twitter LexisNexis Facebook LexisNexis YouTube

LexisNexis, Lexis Advance, Lexis Draft, CaseBase, LawNow, Lexis Red and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks and Capital Monitor is a trademark of RELX Inc.
©2021 Reed International Books. Australia Pty Ltd trading as LexisNexis. All rights reserved.