Good Faith in Australia Law Essay

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

In the dissenting judgment made by Callinan J in the landmark New South Wales v Commonwealth (“Workchoices’ Case”), a strong criticism was mounted against constitutional interpretation methods employed in the judicial forum. Explicitly, this conjecture was focused at Isaacs J’s judgement in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ Case”), where a textualism approach to constitutional interpretation was adopted. Callinan J expressed the Engineers’ Case as “less than satisfactory”, using “detached language” to discredit its literal methodology of interpreting the constitution.

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.

I agree with the Good-Faith Exception because when you review the case of U.S. v. Leon. The officers were issued a search warrant by a neutral and detached judge but it was later revealed to be lacking in probable cause. It is the magistrate's or judge's responsibility to ascertain whether the warrant is supported by sufficient information to support probable cause. The officers should not be subjucted to Fourth Amenendment violations. This is a good law for it protects officer's from frivolous lawsuits.

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

It is the cornerstone of our judicial system. The main questions that are raised are what is fair and what is impartial? Impartial in the terms of the law is a principle of justice which states decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than the prejudice of the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. The Courts presume that jurors can put individuals biases aside render a fair and impartial verdict based on facts alone, however since the creation of the American judicial system jurors has made either conscious or unconscious decision which impacted the outcome of a trail. (Justin J. Gunnell J.D.,

However, many such as the Law Society and the Manchester Law Society have spoken up for the lawyers saying that the 100% success fee should maintain. Many lawyers also seem to object to this move[10]. This goes on the grounds that it is important that there are incentives for lawyers to do work. After all, if they lose the case, they are not paid, and these lawyers are really gambling out there. Based on my opinion, what this amendment does will cause severe repercussions. This will not stop the problem of cherry-picking. Rather, it will result in more cherry-picking because there is a tendency to do almost no-risk work. Also, this would mean that many people would lose the option to enter into a Conditional Fee Arrangement as supplier base would probably decrease due to less sure-win cases. Next, to look at the problem of dragging cases to increase profits, this might actually persist and get worse in order to earn more. Hence I would feel that this is an effort, despite its good intentions, that would be difficult to bear fruit.

One troublesome but important aspect of the good faith performance obligation is its application to contracts, which provide that one party to the contract may, in its "sole discretion," take certain actions pursuant to the contract. In such cases, the actions of the party who can exercise its discretion may affect all parties to the contract, and dependent parties must rely on the "good faith" of the party given the right to exercise its discretion. Often, the discretion exercised by the party in control will adversely affect the dependent party. However, it does not necessarily follow that

“The rules of precedent reflect the practice of the courts and have to be applied bearing in mind that their objective is to assist in the administration of justice. They are of considerable importance because of their role in achieving the appropriate degree of certainty as to the law. This is an important requirement of any system of justice. The principles should not however, be regarded as so rigid that they cannot develop in order to meet contemporary needs.”

“After all, the court is interpreting the contract which the parties have made and in that exercise the court takes into account what reasonable persons in that situation would have intended to convey by the words chosen. But is it right to carry that exercise to the point of placing on the words of the contract a meaning which the parties have united in rejecting? It is possible that evidence of mutual intention, if amounting to concurrence, is receivable so as to negative an inference sought to be drawn from surrounding circumstances.”

Indeed, the concerns surrounding legal fees are not unfounded. Those seeking legal advice tend to be in a submissive position and yet it appears that legal professionals take advantage of this vulnerability by charging excessive fees, for what may be – unbeknownst to the layman—a basic case. This has led critics to question whether the legal profession has done everything in its power to address the subject of legal costs—particularly contingency fees— and the issues which they raise, namely that of conflict of interests and the promotion of access to justice.

voiding laws of human biases, or rather morality, there can exists fair and equal practices of the law as ‘is’.

Two different cases can be made. One is based on justice and the nature of a

There is no such thing as justice - in or out of court.        Clarence Darrow i