Australian legal principles

Principles

• rule in Jones v Dunkel: What the Jones v Dunkel inference is, when it is available, what it cannot do, and how it applies in civil and criminal cases in Australia, with the leading authorities.
• Briginshaw principle: The Briginshaw principle explained: how the seriousness of an allegation affects proof on the balance of probabilities in Australian civil cases, s 140 Evidence Act, and the leading cases.
• House v The King: appealing a discretionary decision: House v The King explained: when an appeal court will interfere with a sentence or other discretionary decision, the specific and inferred error limbs, and how it differs from the correctness standard.
• Uniform evidence law in Australia: Which Australian jurisdictions use the uniform Evidence Acts, how the Acts are structured, and the key sections on relevance, hearsay, opinion, tendency, discretions and privilege.
• rule in Browne v Dunn: The rule in Browne v Dunn explained for Australian practice: when you must put your case to a witness in cross-examination, the consequences of breach, and how it applies in criminal trials.
• Expert opinion evidence: Makita v Sprowles and s 79: Makita v Sprowles explained: what an expert report must show to be admissible and useful under s 79 of the Evidence Act, and how the High Court refined it in Dasreef v Hawchar.
• Wyong Shire Council v Shirt: the calculus of negligence: Wyong Shire Council v Shirt explained: foreseeability of risk, Mason J’s calculus of negligence for breach of duty, and how s 5B of the Civil Liability Act changed the test.
• Duty of care in novel cases: Sullivan v Moody: The salient features approach to duty of care in Australia: Sullivan v Moody, coherence with statutory duties, the Caltex v Stavar list, and why there is no single test.
• Kable principle: The Kable doctrine (or Kable principle) explained: why State Parliaments cannot give State courts functions incompatible with their role in the federal judicial system, and the leading cases from Kable to Kirk and Wainohu.
• Wednesbury and legal unreasonableness: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li: Wednesbury unreasonableness and legal unreasonableness in Australian administrative law: the High Court’s decision in Minister v Li, the "evident and intelligible justification" test, and how appeals review it.
• Ratio decidendi and obiter dicta: Ratio decidendi and obiter dicta explained for Australian law: what binds and what does not, how to find the ratio of a case with several judgments, and seriously considered dicta of the High Court.