Suchergebnisse

This paper analyses the issue of whether directors may use reliance on professional advice as a defence to a claim for breach of duty to exercise care, skill and diligence under common law or companies legislation in England and Australia. While England and Australia share the same common law tradition and have similar statutory provisions on the standard of care of directors, an English court generally regards a director as acting reasonably when he seeks advice from a qualified and independent professional adviser in a specialist matter within his expertise. In the absence of any conflict of interest, reliance is only unreasonable if the circumstances are so plain and obvious that no prudent person will rely on the advice. In contrast, recent Australian cases, particularly ASIC v Healey, ASIC v MacDonald and ASIC v Fortescue, restrict the circumstances in which directors can rely on professional advisers, even in specialist matters. This paper argues that the difference in approach between the two jurisdictions can be explained on two grounds. First, the Australian cases can be distinguished from the English cases because the former are special situations dealing with matters involving non-delegable duties of care imposed by legislation. Second, the potential outcomes of the breach of the duty of care differ in England and Australia, and this difference has a much deeper, substantive influence on the content of the standard of care. Contrary to academic suggestion, it is suggested that the Australian developments may not always be appropriate in determining the scope of the defence of reliance on professional advice in England.

List of authors -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- 1. The reason for this book -- 2. Clinics and Australian law schools approaching 2020 -- 3. Australian clinical legal education: Models and definitions -- 4. Course design for clinical teaching -- 5. Teaching social justice in clinics -- 6. The importance of effective supervision -- 7. Reflective practice: The essence of clinical legal education -- 8. Clinical assessment of students' work -- 9. Resourcing live client clinics -- 10. Australian best practices--a comparison with the United Kingdom and the United States -- 11. Conclusion.

1. Rights and powers during public health emergencies / Belinda Bennett and Ian Freckelton -- 2. Pandemics will happen : how have we minimised and managed COVID-19? / Mary-Lousie McLaws -- 3. COVID-19 in historical context : Australian legal and regulatory responses to past influenza pandemics / Gabrielle Wolf -- 4. Federal and state powers to deal with pandemics : cooperation, conflict and confusion / Anne Twomey -- 5. Public health emergencies in Australia / Peta Stephenson, Ian Freckelton and Belinda Bennett -- 6. Government inquiries, investigations and reports during the COVID-19 pandemic / Ian Freckelton -- 7. Obtaining COVID-19 vaccines : how the government sold the parachutes / Justin Malbon -- 8. Human rights in a pandemic / George Williams and Sophie Rigney -- 9. Facemasks for public use during the COVID-19 pandemic : an examination of responses in Australia and England / Fiona McDonald and Claire J Horwell -- 10. The Australian COVIDSafe app and privacy : lessons for the future of privacy regulation / Norman Witzleb and Moira Paterson -- 11. Economic hardship payments in health emergencies / Terry Carney -- 12. Work health and safety : regulating for safe and sustainable work practices in a post-pandemic world / Joellen Riley Munton -- 13. Contract in the time of COVID-19 / Katy Barnett and Matthew Harding -- 14. Post-separation parenting during COVID-19 / Donna Cooper -- 15. The administration of justice during public health emergencies / Nigel Stobbs and Ian Freckelton -- 16. Patient rights and practitioner responsibilities during a pandemic / Marie Bismark, Ron Paterson and Owen Bradfield -- 17. Gender and COVID-19 : an Australian perspective / Belinda Bennett and Claire E Brolan -- 18. First Nations health during COVID-19 pandemic : reversing the gap / Fiona Stanley, Marcia Langton, Sandra Eades and James Ward -- 19. The COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of legislative requirements on residential aged care / Melinda Martin-Khan and Elizabeth Beattie -- 20. Health research and COVID-19 / Margaret Otlowski and Ian Freckelton -- 21. End of life decision-making, advance care planning and estate planning during a pandemic / Kelly Purser, Lindy Willmott, Ben White, Eliana Close and Tina Cockburn.

Developments in Australian law over the last 40 years have allowed transgender persons a greater level of autonomy when it comes to establishing their legal gender. The shift in some jurisdictions from employing a strict biologically-based test for determining gender identity to adopting a multifactorial approach based on a broad range of relevant factors has enabled a greater number of individuals to gain legal recognition of their preferred gender. This article traces the development of a gender identification test at common law. It explores Australian federal and state legislative schemes and draws attention to the inconsistencies between jurisdictions. It also highlights the impact that these statutory variations may have upon transgender individuals. Parts I, II and III discuss the current approach to regulating gender identity at common law and via legislation. Part IV discusses the impact of these laws on transgender people and highlights the need for all Australian jurisdictions to adopt a uniform approach to gender identification.