Search

This paper considers how three jurisdictions, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, have sought to reconcile freedom of religion with equality rights, particularly in the commercial context, and particularly in relation to sexual orientation. The recent decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court form the backdrop for that discussion. It is argued that the former made piecemeal, and misleading, use of American case law, and a fuller consideration of that jurisdiction's position was warranted, and would have led to a different view of the recent American decision. It argues that the United Kingdom Supreme Court was in error in viewing a message on a cake ordered from a baker as an example of the baker's expression, leading it to an incorrect conclusion at odds with statutory mandates in the commercial sphere around refusals of service. Both high court decisions risk undermining progress on the equality front. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the legal protection of the journalist–source relationship from both sides and the underlying interests involved. The paper begins by analysing why the relationship deserves protection. The position of journalists at common law is analysed with a discussion of the application of the principle established in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise to journalists. The development of immunity from contempt in s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is examined to illustrate the ideological clash between the judiciary and journalists. The impact of the Human Rights Act and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are analysed to assess whether this will lead to a change in attitudes in the UK. Finally, the potential threat to journalists posed by compelled evidentiary disclosure in criminal cases is reviewed, with a particular look at ‘special procedure' material. The US section begins with an analysis of the law at federal level, the decisions of the Supreme Court, including the leading decision of Branzburg v Hayes, as well as the role the legislature has played. The paper then analyses protections provided at state level, with a case study of the California shield law and a review of Californian jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the extent to which the common law recognized public interest considerations when confronted with utility insolvencies in the UK, Australia, and the US in the period 1825 to 1970. Jurisprudence in all three jurisdictions concerning insolvent utilities arose in the nineteenth century out of the difficulties arising from the financial distress of railway companies. It is argued that public interest considerations were mobilized to justify various degrees of restriction on the usual rights of creditors in all jurisdictions. While evidence was found of the use of public interest theory in all jurisdictions, there was little development of it in the UK and Australia compared with the US. This may have been because of the early introduction of statutory schemes of arrangement in both countries and because of the nationalization of the industries for the better part of the twentieth century. In the US, on the other hand, public interest theory in the context of insolvent railways and other utilities was much more developed. In particular, it provided part of the rationale for the judicial development of the equity receivership into a comprehensive corporate reorganization mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically examines the law of forum non conveniens, in particular the use of the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test in Australia, compared with the ‘more appropriate forum’ test applied in jurisdictions such as the UK and the US. It traces the development of the law in the UK in relation to forum non conveniens, including the English acceptance of the doctrine, and how it has been applied in various cases. Some criticism of the ‘more appropriate forum’ test is noted, and it is not recommended that the courts adopt the ‘laundry list’ approach evident in some US decisions, where up to 25 different factors are considered in assessing a forum non conveniens application. It considers the Australian ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test, and concludes that the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test should no longer be followed in that it is unnecessarily parochial and is not consistent with other goals of the rules of private international law including comity. Links between Australia and the subject matter may well be tenuous. Confusion attends the application of the test in Australia at present, the court has rejected the English approach but claims to apply some of the factors mentioned in the English approach in the Australian test, and there is an undesirable schism between statutory rules applicable in domestic cases and the approach when the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens is used. The law regarding forum non conveniens should be harmonious with choice of law rules, and interest analysis can assist in formulating the desired approach to forum non conveniens applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]