Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
AustLII was established in 1995. [1] [2] Founded as a joint program of the University of Technology Sydney and the University of New South Wales law schools, its initial funding was provided by the Australian Research Council. [3] Its public policy purpose is to improve access to justice through access to legal information. [4]
On 7 June 1999, Maguire made a complaint to the human rights and equal opportunity commission (HREOC), alleging that the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) had discriminated against him as a person disabled, in contravention of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 [1] in three aspects: the failure to provide braille copies of the information required to order Olympic ...
Law reports covering the decisions of Australian Courts are collections of decisions by particulars courts, subjects or jurisdictions. A widely used guide to case citation in Australia is the Australian Guide to Legal Citation , published jointly by the Melbourne University Law Review and the Melbourne Journal of International Law .
This template links to a variety of different case reports located on the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) website. You should look up the case you wish to cite on AustLII, then refer to the URL of the web page on which the case appears to fill in the information required by the template.
Commonwealth v. Introvigne Court High Court of Australia Decided 3 August 1982 Citation 201 Case history Prior actions Re Roldano Introvigne By His Next Friend and Father Tarcisio Introvigne v the Commonwealth of Australia; Bunning and Madden; Bunning and Madden (A Firm) Appealed from Federal Court of Australia Case opinions The duty of schools to care for their pupils is not able to be ...
Breskvar v Wall, [1] was an Australian court case, decided in the High Court on 13 December 1971. The case was an influential decision in property law, specifically the effect of obtaining title by registration under the Torrens title system, the application of the fraud exception to the principle of indefeasibility and whether Frazer v Walker [2] should be followed in Australia.
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd also known as 'Peko', is a decision of the High Court of Australia. [1]The case is notable for its holdings relating to Australian Administrative Law; primarily in regards to relevant and irrelevant considerations, and constructive knowledge.
The word crushing in this context connotes the destruction of any reasonable expectation of a useful life after release: Martino v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 78 [16]. An aggregate sentence may be inappropriately long under the first limb even if it cannot be described as crushing: Jarvis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 201, 216 ...