Contents

[close]

CLWR 38 (2009) 197

Whither the Common Law Derivative Action?
Ji Lian Yap

The common law derivative action was developed as a result of decades of case law in common law jurisdictions. Hong Kong and Singapore continue to retain the common law derivative action within their respective legal frameworks, despite both having enacted statutory derivative actions. This paper considers the situations in which the common law derivative action continues to have practical application in each of these jurisdictions. It then considers whether the common law derivative action should be abolished in these jurisdictions, and if so, what consequential changes should be made to the statutory derivative action framework concurrent with this proposed abolition.

[close]

[close]

CLWR 38 (2009) 207

Forum Non Conveniens in Australia: A Comparative Analysis
Anthony Gray

This paper critically examines the law of forum non conveniens, in particular the use of the 'clearly inappropriate forum' test in Australia, compared with the 'more appropriate forum' test applied in jurisdictions such as the UK and the US. It traces the development of the law in the UK in relation to forum non conveniens, including the English acceptance of the doctrine, and how it has been applied in various cases. Some criticism of the 'more appropriate forum' test is noted, and it is not recommended that the courts adopt the 'laundry list' approach evident in some US decisions, where up to 25 different factors are considered in assessing a forum non conveniens application. It considers the Australian 'clearly inappropriate forum' test, and concludes that the 'clearly inappropriate forum' test should no longer be followed in that it is unnecessarily parochial and is not consistent with other goals of the rules of private international law including comity. Links between Australia and the subject matter may well be tenuous. Confusion attends the application of the test in Australia at present, the court has rejected the English approach but claims to apply some of the factors mentioned in the English approach in the Australian test, and there is an undesirable schism between statutory rules applicable in domestic cases and the approach when the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens is used. The law regarding forum non conveniens should be harmonious with choice of law rules, and interest analysis can assist in formulating the desired approach to forum non conveniens applications.

[close]

[close]

CLWR 38 (2009) 245

Necessity is the Mother of Invention: The Adoption of Third-Party Litigation Funding and the Closed Class in Australian Class Actions
Michael Legg and Louisa Travers

Australian class actions have recently undergone a revolution in relation to the financing of litigation and group definition. Australia has historically banned contingency fees and adopted an opt-out class action. However, the law now allows for third-party litigation funding where non-lawyers may finance class actions in return for a share of the recovery and for the class action to be defined as a closed class that only includes those group members who have entered into a litigation funding agreement. These developments have important ramifications for class action practice. Litigation funding filled the financing gap in Australian class actions and consequently facilitated access to justice. However, the need for a contractual relationship to allow for the quasi-contingency fee to be recovered led to the employment of a closed class. The closed class dissuaded 'free-riding' but also undermined the Australian class action objectives of access to justice and efficient resolution of disputes.

[close]

[close]

CLWR 38 (2009) 268

The Journalist¿Source Relationship in Context: A Comparative Review of US and English Law
Stuart Wallace

This paper analyses the legal protection of the journalist¿ source relationship from both sides and the underlying interests involved. The paper begins by analysing why the relationship deserves protection. The position of journalists at common law is analysed with a discussion of the application of the principle established in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise to journalists. The development of immunity from contempt in s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is examined to illustrate the ideological clash between the judiciary and journalists. The impact of the Human Rights Act and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are analysed to assess whether this will lead to a change in attitudes in the UK. Finally, the potential threat to journalists posed by compelled evidentiary disclosure in criminal cases is reviewed, with a particular look at 'special procedure' material. The US section begins with an analysis of the law at federal level, the decisions of the Supreme Court, including the leading decision of Branzburg v Hayes, as well as the role the legislature has played. The paper then analyses protections provided at state level, with a case study of the California shield law and a review of Californian jurisprudence.

[close]

[close]

Links to other issues

Volume 30 (2001) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 31 (2002) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 32 (2003) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 33 (2004) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 34 (2005) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 35 (2006) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 36 (2007) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 37 (2008) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 38 (2009) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 39 (2010) :   1   2   3

[close]