Nolan v Nolan [2003] VSC 121; (2003) 10 VR 626 - where it was held that the essential elements required to establish a valid gift were set out as being the intention to make a gift (usually expressed by words), the intention on the part...

quantum meruit : Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In contract law, it means "reasonable value of services". British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co. Ltd [1984]...

an addition or supplement that explains, modifies, or revokes a will or part of one.

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 - provided that the implied freedom is a limitation on legislative power, that prevents the State and Commonwealth Parliaments from enacting legislation that imposes an...

Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 - where the Court noted that the plaintiff must establish a special interest in the subject matter of the proceeding over and above other members of the public in order...

Palmer v Western Australia [2021] HCA 5 - held that an exercise of power that complies with the statutory constraints will always be in compliance with the freedom.

Public Health and Wellbeing Act (the ‘PHW Act’) ss 200(1)(b) and (d) - provides that the emergency powers exercisable by the CHO include the power to ‘restrict the movement of any person or group of persons within the emergency area’ and...

Public Health and Wellbeing Act (the ‘PHW Act’) - empowers authorised officers, appointed by the Chief Health Officer (‘CHO’), to exercise ‘emergency powers’ when a ‘state of emergency’ has been declared by the Minister for Health (‘the...

Veen v The Queen [No 2] [1988] HCA 14; 1988 164 CLR 465 - the Court held that 'community protection through incapacitation of an offender can only operate within the confines of the principle of proportionality’.

The 'Briginshaw principle' (as it is known) means the tribunal must be satisfied of the relevant matters on the balance of probabilities, to a comfortable degree, based on clear, cogent and strict evidence. ... 5(b)), 'the more serious...

A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)

a Court's authoritative approval.