Hemming in "Halsbury's Laws of Australia"

USQ Senior Lecturer Andrew Hemming has recently published three entries in the comprehensive legal encyclopedia Halsbury's Laws of Australia.  The entries are:

* Criminal Law GC V Chapters 6 and 7, GC VI, and GC VII;

* Criminal Law GC VIII. Update of Criminal Law GC VIII;

* Contract GC I, II, and V (with Michael Daniel).

Gray on "The Enterprise Risk Theory of Vicarious Liability"

Professor Anthony Gray of the USQ School of Law and Justice has recently published an article titled The Enterprise Risk Theory of Vicarious Liability in Volume 46 (Part 3) of the Australian Business Law Review.  Here is the abstract:


"While the law of vicarious liability has existed for centuries, a satisfactory rationale or explanation for it has proven to be elusive. United States courts began asserting a theory of “enterprise risk” based on economic principles, seeking to allocate the costs associated with doing business to the enterprise. On this basis, the fact that an employee or other worker commits a wrong, and causes a third party injury or loss, is a “cost of doing business” which should properly be allocated to the business activity. This doctrine has apparently been accepted in Canada and the United Kingdom, including seeing child abuse committed within an educational institution as effectively a cost of doing business. While the Australian courts at one point seemed to accept such reasoning, more recently they have turned away from it. This article argues the Australian courts were right to do so, and should continue to not accept such a basis of vicarious liability."

Patrick on Individual Spirituality and Freedom of Religion

Dr. Jeremy Patrick, a Lecturer at the USQ School of Law and Justice, has written a piece for The Conversation titled "Religious freedoms should include spiritual beliefs too".  Patrick discussed the topic in subsequent interviews with Radio Adelaide and ABC RN Drive.

Gray on "Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform"

Professor Anthony Gray of the USQ School of Law and Justice published a new book last month in Hart Publishing's "Studies in Private Law" series.  The book is titled Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform.  Here is the publisher's summary:

"The scope of vicarious liability has significantly expanded since its original conception. Today employers are being found liable for actions of employees that they did not authorise, and never would have authorised if asked. They are being held liable for an employee's criminal activity. In the related strict liability field of non-delegable duties, they are being held liable for wrongdoing of independent contractors.

Notions of strict liability have grown increasingly isolated in the law of tort, given the exponential growth in the tort of negligence. They require intellectual justification. Such a justification has proven to be elusive and largely unsatisfactory in relation to vicarious liability and to concepts of non-delegable duty. The law of three jurisdictions studied has now apparently embraced the 'enterprise risk' theory to rationalise the imposition of vicarious liability. This book subjects this theory to strong critique by arguing that it has many weaknesses, which the courts should acknowledge. It suggests that a rationalisation of the liability of an employer for the actions of an employee lies in more traditional legal doctrine which would serve to narrow the circumstances in which an employer is legally liable for a wrong committed by an employee."

Colloquium: "Minority Religions: Legal, Cultural, and Historical Perspectives"

The USQ School of Law and Justice's Law and Religion Research Group is hosting a colloquium next week on the topic Minority Religions: Legal, Cultural, and Historical Perspectives.  Details below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The organisation and beliefs of numerically smaller religious groups provide fascinating insights into the lives of individuals and communities that are often overlooked when the topic of faith arises.

Like many other countries, Australia is host to a plethora of minority religious groups, and the presence of these faiths in Western nations is increasing in society as the demographic dominance of Christianity continues to shrink in recent decades.

If the future of religion in Australia is pluralism and fragmentation as some studies suggest, understanding the legal, cultural, and historical ramifications of this trend will be a key part of understanding society as a whole. 

This scholarly colloquium will discuss these fascinating issues, and members of the community are invited to attend.

Presenters:

                                                                                                                                         

·         Dr. Jayne Persian, ‘A National Nuisance:’ Banning Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia During the Second World War

·         Dr. Jeremy Patrick, ‘A la carte’ Spirituality and the Future of Freedom of Religion

·         Dr. Rami Olwan, The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Islam

·         Mr. Matthew Harridan, Uncivilised Religion in Modern Australia

·         Dr. Vanitha Sundra-Karean, Freedom of Religion and Minority Interests in Malaysia—Constitutional Challenges for a Reformed State

Date:

Friday 26 October 2018

Time:

9:00am – 12:15 (Morning tea will be served)

Location:

Q501 Toowoomba Campus

RSVP:

Friday 19 October 2018 Email: law@usq.edu.au

Gray on "Punitive Damages: Time for Re-examination"

Professor Anthony Gray of the USQ School of Law and Justice has just published an article titled Punitive Damages: Time for Re-examination in Volume 26 of the Tort Law Review.  Here's the abstract:

"While punitive damages have been known to the common law for a long time, their position as a remedy within the non-criminal law has always been precarious, given their clearly criminal overtones. While at one time they might have been justified, at a time when criminal law was undeveloped and when the state was seeking to encourage individuals to use the courts as a means of resolving disputes rather than resorting to self-help, arguably developments in our legal system and society more broadly have rendered them an anachronism. Not surprisingly, the English courts sought to wind them back, though they did not feel they could abandon them altogether. Today, they retain an awkward place in the civil law, straddling the civil-criminal divide which our legal system traditionally supports. It is highly doubtful they provide any deterrent effect, given the likelihood that a defendant would be insured against such a loss. When punitive damages are imposed as part of vicarious liability, their justification further weakens. Alternative solutions to the problems said to be addressed by punitive damages are readily available. The author argues it would be more intellectual coherent for punitive damages to exit the civil realm altogether."