Two decades of wrong judgements
- Thread starter perjury
- Start date
Depends.
It happened in Victoria a few years ago and Parliament passed a new law making the change retrospective to cover up past mistakes.
Or it may be a new case emerges as a precedent that everyone then follows. Happens on a regular basis.
Or Parliament passes a new law saying from now on, this is the law.
It happened in Victoria a few years ago and Parliament passed a new law making the change retrospective to cover up past mistakes.
Or it may be a new case emerges as a precedent that everyone then follows. Happens on a regular basis.
Or Parliament passes a new law saying from now on, this is the law.
Rod, thank you again for your answer
Are you able to point me in the right direction for the Victorian case please?
I'm not sure it is possible to implement these solutions
Although there are several legal issues in my case that are problematic, there are four in principal:
1. There are specific rules of court in UCPR which were ignored, which, if followed, would have prevented case management in the first place
2. There is a statutory test applied to all instruments of the type involved in my matter as part of daily legal practice by almost all lawyers (except life-long transactionalists) which is organic to how two acts work, and have worked since beginning of English Common law. The test prevents litigation [statute-bar] unless the rules in [1.] are satisfied on discovery
3. The UK precedent involved has been an authority since the late 19th century, so the Australian Parliament cannot create a retrospective legislation because it lacks pre-1900 jurisdiction
[NOTE: the precedent in fact is no longer an authority (since 1973?) for the vast majority of the matters it is still cited in for its test!]
4. If I am correct, any [at least NSW] judgement that relied on expert witness testimony such as that in my case would be subject to perjury on the witness' part, but also incompetence by the legal practitioners who selected and instructed them
However I agree the resolution would be up to the legislature which I am initiating today
What happens to whistleblowers like me? I do not want to repeat the McBride (a lawyer) experience...but I have a strong sense of justice, never mind just outcome in my matter
Are you able to point me in the right direction for the Victorian case please?
I'm not sure it is possible to implement these solutions
Although there are several legal issues in my case that are problematic, there are four in principal:
1. There are specific rules of court in UCPR which were ignored, which, if followed, would have prevented case management in the first place
2. There is a statutory test applied to all instruments of the type involved in my matter as part of daily legal practice by almost all lawyers (except life-long transactionalists) which is organic to how two acts work, and have worked since beginning of English Common law. The test prevents litigation [statute-bar] unless the rules in [1.] are satisfied on discovery
3. The UK precedent involved has been an authority since the late 19th century, so the Australian Parliament cannot create a retrospective legislation because it lacks pre-1900 jurisdiction
[NOTE: the precedent in fact is no longer an authority (since 1973?) for the vast majority of the matters it is still cited in for its test!]
4. If I am correct, any [at least NSW] judgement that relied on expert witness testimony such as that in my case would be subject to perjury on the witness' part, but also incompetence by the legal practitioners who selected and instructed them
However I agree the resolution would be up to the legislature which I am initiating today
What happens to whistleblowers like me? I do not want to repeat the McBride (a lawyer) experience...but I have a strong sense of justice, never mind just outcome in my matter
and further...
The UCPR commenced under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 on 1 August 2005
I just red a decision made in September 2005, and it makes no mention of the (c) the provision of any essential particulars, [r 2.3]
These are found in Part 15 of the UCPR
r 15.1 (1) ... a pleading must give such particulars of any claim, defence or other matter pleaded by the party as are necessary to enable the opposite party to identify the case that the pleading requires him or her to meet.
The particularisation of necessary pleadings, or not, determines if case management proceeds to further parts of proceedings, eventually the trial.
If no case is identified, it is called "no case to answer"
The UCPR commenced under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 on 1 August 2005
I just red a decision made in September 2005, and it makes no mention of the (c) the provision of any essential particulars, [r 2.3]
These are found in Part 15 of the UCPR
r 15.1 (1) ... a pleading must give such particulars of any claim, defence or other matter pleaded by the party as are necessary to enable the opposite party to identify the case that the pleading requires him or her to meet.
The particularisation of necessary pleadings, or not, determines if case management proceeds to further parts of proceedings, eventually the trial.
If no case is identified, it is called "no case to answer"
Similar threads
