-- ChrisKenward - 24 May 2018

Test text ...

(h) The defendant’s costs submissions also failed to declare the Google CSE matter. The defendant did not enquire into the veracity of Mr Nikolic’s 29 December 2019 affidavit, or the accuracy of its own affidavits, prior to the making of the costs order. The defendant failed to cooperate with, or permit communication from, Mr Nikolic, breaching the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)

(i) ‘On or about 6 July 2021, the first plaintiff received an apology letter from the prothonotary on behalf of this Court after complaining about the incident described in paragraph 22 above, and allowing to file an appeal.’[52]

(j) The plaintiffs filed this appeal as a result of Nationwide News breaching the Settlement Agreement. The breach consisted of republishing the amended article including the image of the Catholic archbishop to all persons in results from searches of the plaintiffs’ names on the Google website and by not removing the Images[53] from being online.[54]

(k) For the purposes of applying the recent case of Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, Nationwide News ‘is an originator of the Google Website by registering and providing keywords to the Google CSE in order to publish or republish ... [the amended article] to all persons ... searching for the [plaintiffs’ names]’. As a result, if it is true that ‘the defendant registered by providing keywords to Google CSE ...’, then ‘the defendant may not be entitled to an immunity [under pt 4 div 2] of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) , or else (if it is false) ‘the defendant is entitled to sue Google LLC’.

Residential Tenancies Act 1997

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic)

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 s 246

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 s 210

Māori diacritics test (the a in Māori )

Non ASCII test “the Code” (should be double "smart" quotes)

s 26(2) of the Sentencing Act 1995 (NT)

Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) s 26

Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) s 26(2)

For the purposes of this test Person B must not have a similar employment type as Person A – Cullen v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation [2004] NZAR 481; [2004] NZHC 262. An example of this would include not comparing a doctor’s likelihood of contracting an illness or infection against the likelihood of a nurse contracting that same condition.

s32(1) Sentencing Act 1991 – Whether s16(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 applies

Sentencing Act 1991 s32(1) – Whether s16(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 applies

Whether s16(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 applies - s32(1) Sentencing Act 1991

s32(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 – Whether s16(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 applies

[2020] HCA 1

[2020] AICmr 27

[2020] AICmr 40

In 2005 the Commonwealth Government promulgated the Disability Standards for Education under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) . The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) operates concurrently with Commonwealth discrimination law including the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Not only does it do so by operation of law, but this interaction is expressly referred to and relied upon in the way in which section 40 of the Equal Opportunity Act is drafted. Section 40(4), for example, expressly provides:

This sort of legal sophistry was eventually replaced by a much more workable statutory enactment, s125 of the Crimes Act 1900.

The primary pieces of legislation regarding Aboriginal rights to land are the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALRA), and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA).

Traditional rights of access, hunting and fishing (for non-commercial purposes) are recognised in relation to pastoral leases under the Pastoral Land Act (NT), and in relation to the sea and rivers under the Fisheries Act (NT)

The ALRA resulted from Australia's first native title case, the 1971 Gove Land Rights Case, which challenged a bauxite mine and refinery in north-east Arnhem Land (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd [1972-73] ALR 65; (1971) 17 FLR 141). In that case, the NT Supreme Court rejected a claim for native title on the basis that it had never formed part of Australian common law but otherwise made findings including that the Yolngu clans laws and customs were recognisable as a system of law, being a 'subtle and elaborate system' which constituted 'a government of laws, and not of men'.

The 1992 Mabo decision (Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1) which overruled Milirrpum and held that the common law recognises native title.

(s 356 of the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) or (section 356 of the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT)

the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic)

the Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas)

the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA)

the Land Title Act (NT)

the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)

the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA)

s128(3) Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA)

( s128(3) Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) )

( s138(2) Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) )

The police can make an arrest if they reasonably suspect that an offence has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed ( s128(3) Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) ).

Legal Aid ACT

For more information, see:

• section 2A and 33(1AA) and 33(1AB) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth); and
• sections 4 and 12, and Appendix B, of the Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth).

Residential Tenancies Act

Residential Tenancies Act 1987

Residential Tenancies Act (WA)

Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)

Residential Tenancies Act WA

Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic)

From [2018] VSC 720:

[4] Pursuant to the proceeding suppression order made by Dixon J on 15 May 2018 under s 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013, the identity of this witness has been anonymised in the published version of these reasons to protect the safety of the witness.

[5] Ibid, 155.

[6] Transcript of Proceedings, R v Lindholm (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CR 2017 0107, Beale J, 8 August 2019) 94 (evidence of Ross Teazis).

[7] Transcript of Proceedings, R v Lindholm (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CR 2017 0107, Beale J, 13 August 2019) 245 (evidence of Matilda Burke).

[8] Ibid, 246.

[9] Ibid.

[10] You showed the text message to Nathan Morris when he returned to Tambo Avenue about 7am on 3 May 2005 to resume working with George. See Transcript of Proceedings, R v Lindholm (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CR 2017 0107, Beale J, 9 August 2019) 273 (evidence of Nathan Morris). On 4 May 2005, when asked to show the text message to police, you said you must have accidentally deleted it.

[11] In your formal statements to police and in your record of interview, you floated the possibility that George may have been killed by criminal elements with whom he used to associate.

[12] R v Lindholm, Trabert & Ryan [2015] VSC 739.

[13] As I am required to do by Sentencing Act 1991, Part 3, Division 1C I disregard those parts of Deborah’s victim impact statement which relate solely to the impact of the murder of George Templeton upon others in the family, as opposed to her

The elements of this offence are:

• Bailment of property to the defendant (as defined)
• Taking or conversion of the property bailed, or any property into which it has been converted to his or her own use or another’s
• With fraudulent intent

Note that the defendant is convicted of larceny.

Bailment

Slattery v R (1905) 2 CLR 546

Slattery v R

Slattery v R (1905) 2 CLR 546

Slattery v R [1905] HCA 66

Slattery v R [1905] HCA 66

[[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1905/66.html][ Slattery v R [1905] HCA 66 ]]

In that case Slattery had been employed to collect the rents of a number of houses. He was then to put the money into his own bank account and after deducting legitimate expenses for the maintenance of those properties, pay the balance every three months into the landlord’s own bank account. The money was never paid to the landlord. The High Court held that bailment constituted the following: