Suchergebnisse

The conscription referendums of the First World War remain amongst the most divisive events in Australian political history. They sparked a number of libel actions, the most prominent of which was (in effect) between the leaders of the 'pro-' and 'anti-' conscription campaigns in the second referendum in December 1917: WM Hughes and TJ Ryan. The action, which resulted ultimately in an award of contemptuous damages to Ryan, reflected the limits of libel law, particularly in a jury trial, to deal satisfactorily with highly politicised issues such as conscription. Using archival and newspaper sources, this article argues that Ryan's faith in the legal and constitutional issues at the heart of his claim were misplaced given the doctrinal and forensic limits of the defamation action. Moreover, the conflict over the extent of federal power which lay at the heart of the political dispute gave the law of political libel in practice a field of operation with a distinctively Australian context.

In 1986, the last vestiges of Australia's imperial common law past was eradicated by the passage through the Commonwealth, State and Westminster Parliaments of the Australia Acts.1 Eminent judges noted the sense of liberation that this legislation provided.2 On its face, however, this sense of throwing off the imperial yoke is difficult to understand. Whatever the formal limitations that were removed by the Australia Acts, Australian courts had, since the end of the Second World War, been increasingly free to mould the common law to meet distinctly Australian conditions.3 In this sense, there is more continuity with the past than those who see 1986 as a liberation acknowledge.

Where products develop ever more rapidly, the law may face difficulties in responding accordingly to new security threats which may arise. In the field of product liability, an extraordinary need for legal development has thus been perceived, with legislators and judges feeling compelled to find new solutions and to look across borders for these. In the detailed reports in this book, the World Tort Law Society proves that it is in an ideal position to examine the most significant concepts. The report on North America studies the special regime for product liability from its origin in the case law of the US; the European report is centred around the EU Product Liability Directive with its merits and faults; and the influence of these two systems as well as new answers are shown in the reports on Asia, Russia and four key jurisdictions in the rest of the world. Similar questions are discussed worldwide: How can a strict liability regime for products be justified, and can it be justified in all cases? How does the special regime relate to general rules of tort law? Should services be subject to a similar regime? The Members of the Society seek to provoke thought for solutions to these pervasive problems. In this spirit, the volume's comparative conclusions invite discussion, and the book includes four responses to that call from eminent tort lawyers from different legal backgrounds.