<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Faris QC - The Uniform Evidence Acts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence</link>
	<description>A searchable Digest of more than 2,750 cases with links to full text at Austlii</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:43:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 242 (16 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4879</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4879#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:43:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 142]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4879</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/242.html CONTRACTS – employment contract – implied term of mutual trust and confidence and/or good faith discussed – incorporation of employer’s policies and procedures discussed – whether employment of employee via a subsidiary company was a sham DEFAMATION – qualified &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4879">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/242.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/242.html</a></p>
<p>CONTRACTS – employment contract – implied term of mutual trust and confidence and/or good faith discussed – incorporation of employer’s policies and procedures discussed – whether employment of employee via a subsidiary company was a sham</p>
<p>DEFAMATION – qualified privilege – reply to attack</p>
<p>HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – allegations of sexual harassment – jurisdiction of the Federal Court – some alleged conduct occurred in New Zealand – whether Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) has extraterritorial effect – vicarious liability – workplace participant</p>
<p>TORTS – injurious falsehood – whether damage to trade or business of an employee </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4879</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>G A v The Queen; M M v The Queen; P J v The Queen [2012] VSCA 44 (15 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4877</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4877#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 138]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2012/44.html CRIMINAL LAW – Applications for leave to appeal from interlocutory decision pursuant to s 295 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 – Whether trial judge erred in exercising his discretion under s 138 of the Evidence Act 2008 – Whether motor &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4877">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2012/44.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2012/44.html</a></p>
<p>CRIMINAL LAW – Applications for leave to appeal from interlocutory decision pursuant to s 295 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 – Whether trial judge erred in exercising his discretion under s 138 of the  Evidence Act 2008  – Whether motor vehicle seized illegally – Whether order for search of motor vehicle beyond power and in contravention of Australian law – Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, ss 81 and 82 – Whether error in finding that failure by police officer properly to swear affidavit in support of the search warrant was not a deliberate or reckless act – Whether error in finding that alteration of Result of Search document by police officer was of little consequence – Whether error in admitting evidence – Effect of Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (Affidavits) Act 2012 – Applications for leave dismissed. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4877</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R v Vulovic (No. 3) [2012] NSWSC 211 (15 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4875</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4875#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:40:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 165]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/211.html CRIMINAL LAW &#8211; murder trial &#8211; application for warnings under s.165 Evidence Act 1995 &#8211; three persons in house: the Accused, the deceased and the principal Crown witness &#8211; deceased stabbed &#8211; defence case that principal Crown witness must &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4875">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/211.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/211.html</a></p>
<p>CRIMINAL LAW &#8211; murder trial &#8211; application for warnings under s.165 Evidence Act 1995 &#8211; three persons in house: the Accused, the deceased and the principal Crown witness &#8211; deceased stabbed &#8211; defence case that principal Crown witness must have been the killer &#8211; s.165(1)(d) unreliability direction sought &#8211; further s.165 unreliability direction sought based upon intoxication of principal Crown witness &#8211; whether matters which might adversely affect reliability of evidence of Crown witness would readily be understood and appreciated by jury &#8211; whether jury might be misled in making assessment or evaluation of evidence without s.165 warning &#8211; s.165 warnings declined</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4875</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Grant &amp; Anor v Preece [2012] VSC 55 (15 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4873</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4873#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 054]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4873</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/55.html RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ― Section 84(1) Property Law Act 1958 – Application to modify single dwelling covenant ― Applicable legal principles ― Construction of “obsolescence” and “substantial injury” ― Estoppel by reason of conduct of previous registered proprietor of the &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4873">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/55.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/55.html</a></p>
<p>RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ― Section 84(1) Property Law Act 1958 – Application to modify single dwelling covenant ― Applicable legal principles ― Construction of “obsolescence” and “substantial injury” ― Estoppel by reason of conduct of previous registered proprietor of the defendant’s land.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4873</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MyEnvironment Inc v VicForests [2012] VSC 91 (14 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4870</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4870#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 053]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s. 054]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/91.html ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Proposed logging at three coupes near Toolangi – Application for permanent injunction restraining logging – Whether proposed coupes contain Leadbeater’s Possum zone 1A habitat – Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Action Statement – Central Highlands Forest &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4870">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/91.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/91.html</a></p>
<p>ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Proposed logging at three coupes near Toolangi – Application for permanent injunction restraining logging – Whether proposed coupes contain Leadbeater’s Possum zone 1A habitat – Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Action Statement – Central Highlands Forest Management Plan – Construction of relevant management prescription – Hollow-bearing tree means mature or senescing tree containing hollows – No evidence that proposed coupes contain sufficient density of hollow-bearing trees to constitute zone 1A – Obligation to comply with precautionary principle – No threat of serious or irreversible damage – Proposed adaptive management measures not proportionate to threat – Application dismissed – Sections 3, 4, and 22 Forests Act 1958; ss 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 31 Conservation Forests and Lands Act 1987; ss 1, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, and 45 Sustainable Forests (Timber) 2004; ss 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19, and 20 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 &#8211; Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 335 &#8211; Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133; (2006) 67 NSWLR 256.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4870</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coote v Dr Kelly [2012] NSWSC 219 (14 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4868</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4868#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 079]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4868</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/219.html TORTS &#8211; negligence &#8211; medical negligence &#8211; whether general practitioner made a wrong diagnosis &#8211; a lesion on the foot diagnosed as a plantar wart &#8211; whether there was a misdiagnosis of the lesion &#8211; whether it was an &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4868">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/219.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2012/219.html</a></p>
<p>TORTS &#8211; negligence &#8211; medical negligence &#8211; whether general practitioner made a wrong diagnosis &#8211; a lesion on the foot diagnosed as a plantar wart &#8211; whether there was a misdiagnosis of the lesion &#8211; whether it was an acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) &#8211; whether there was failure to consider ALM as a differential diagnosis &#8211; whether there was failure to refer the plaintiff for specialist investigation &#8211; whether there was a failure to perform a punch biopsy of the lesion &#8211; plaintiff suffered a plantar wart and also had an ALM &#8211; duty of care owed &#8211; negligence established &#8211; whether there would have been a different outcome if ALM had been earlier treated &#8211; causation not established &#8211; section 50 of the Civil Liability Act &#8211; judgment for defendant &#8211; costs</p>
<p>EVIDENCE &#8211; admissibility and relevance &#8211; opinion evidence &#8211; medical evidence &#8211; objections to expert evidence</p>
<p>EVIDENCE &#8211; witnesses &#8211; credit &#8211; credibility of evidence &#8211; reliability of evidence</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4868</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Goddard Elliott (a firm) v Fritsch [2012] VSC 87 (14 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4864</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4864#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 059]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s. 062]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s. 063]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s. 064]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s. 067]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s. 135]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/87.html PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY – solicitors – property proceeding in Family Court of Australia – settled at door of court on terms overly generous to wife – action by husband for damages for lost opportunity – valuation, taxation and other evidence &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4864">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/87.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/87.html</a></p>
<p>PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY – solicitors – property proceeding in Family Court of Australia – settled at door of court on terms overly generous to wife – action by husband for damages for lost opportunity – valuation, taxation and other evidence not prepared in time for hearing – instructions taken and acted on from client lacking mental capacity – whether solicitors should have known – whether breach of duty of care – whether breach of fiduciary duty – whether coercion – pre-hearing representations – whether in trade or commerce – whether misleading and deceptive conduct – advocates’ immunity – whether applicable – assessment of damages for lost opportunity – notional trial in Family Court – whether evidence of subsequent facts admissible – apportionment of damages between concurrent wrongdoers – rule in Jones v Dunkel – husband’s senior counsel not called by solicitor – whether senior counsel in camp of solicitor – affidavit of husband’s deceased father – whether admissible hearsay evidence &#8211; Fair Trading Act 1985 (Vic), s 9(1) – Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), pt IVAA –  Evidence Act  2005 (Vic), s 135. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4864</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SZJDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 27 (13 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4862</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4862#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 140]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4862</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2012/27.html MIGRATION – application for review required by s 347(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to be made in the approved form – two approved forms, one for persons in immigration detention and one for persons not in immigration &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4862">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2012/27.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2012/27.html</a></p>
<p>MIGRATION – application for review required by s 347(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to be made in the approved form – two approved forms, one for persons in immigration detention and one for persons not in immigration detention – whether application valid if wrong approved form used – whether nomination of person made in wrong approved form as applicant’s authorised recipient of documents under s 379G authorised Migration Review Tribunal to give that person invitation to applicant to appear at hearing under s 360A(2)(a) – whether earlier nomination of authorised recipient on wrong approved form superseded by later inconsistent nomination on correct approved from – whether Tribunal committed jurisdictional error </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4862</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R v Mokbel (Change of Pleas) [2012] VSC 86 (13 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4860</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4860#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dictionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s. 138]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4860</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/86.html CRIMINAL LAW – Application to change pleas of guilty – Evidence illegally obtained as search warrant affidavits not sworn – Principles applicable on applications to change plea – Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence – Application refused.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/86.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/86.html</a></p>
<p>CRIMINAL LAW – Application to change pleas of guilty – Evidence illegally obtained as search warrant affidavits not sworn – Principles applicable on applications to change plea – Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence – Application refused. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4860</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Konza  [2012] FCA 196 (9 March 2012)</title>
		<link>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4858</link>
		<comments>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4858#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin0</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[s. 076]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s. 079]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/196.html TAXATION – notices to furnish information issued by Deputy Commissioner pursuant to s 264(1)(a) of Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – notices directed to Australian bank – information sought in notices provided to bank from subsidiary in Vanuatu &#8230; <a href="http://farisqc.com/evidence/?p=4858">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/196.html">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/196.html</a></p>
<p>TAXATION – notices to furnish information issued by Deputy Commissioner pursuant to s 264(1)(a) of Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – notices directed to Australian bank – information sought in notices provided to bank from subsidiary in Vanuatu – information stored electronically in Australia – whether notices invalid – whether notices require bank to breach common law and statutory confidentiality obligations under Vanuatu law – whether s 264 authorises Commissioner to issue notices that infringe foreign sovereignty – whether notices were issued for a proper purpose – whether notices are uncertain – whether bank “not capable of complying” with notices within meaning of s 8C(1B) of Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) – application dismissed </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://farisqc.com/evidence/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4858</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

