The Case Of Accc V Zanok Technologies Pty Ltd

In today's Australia the price of handling a substantial litigation matter is unobtainable for the average Australian, justice does indeed go to the highest bidder and “Unless you are a millionaire or a pauper, the cost of going to court to protect your rights is beyond you.” George Brandis, shadow attorney-general. To say that justice is earned and reserved for the population of Australia is a myth and it is true that legal aid community centres are grossly underfunded and explicitly for those in dire need of legal aid and do not represent the common Australian, there is no universal legal safety-net unlike the education and health systems.

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.

This analysis has taken place in regards to the civil case of Moor v Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd [2014]. This case involves Moor the plaintiff accusing Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd the defendant of breaching their duty of care and simply failing to exercise the standard of care required by law. This case involves a civil wrongdoing. A civil wrong doing is generally a breach of a person 's rights. This generally associates with tort. This case involves a specific component of tort, negligence which exercises the legal right for a plaintiff to seek compensation for the damages caused by another party who were seen as legally liable. The case analysed within this report sees a Mr Christopher Moor sue Liverpool Catholic Club

Despite the fact that the criminal law is essentially a moral enterprise, the legally-trained actors in the criminal justice system rarely explicitly examine exactly what moral principles the system is enforcing. One reason for the absence of moral analysis is that most lawyers are not trained in moral philosophy. Generally, legal education has never seriously attempted to incorporate moral principles into instruction.”

The rising number of overturned cases and exonerations, be that as it may, and developing mindfulness that people succumb to such tyranny acts that happy each day in American courts, raises significant questions about the exactness and decency of the criminal equity framework. This comprehension is upheld by significant research. This surge in mindfulness and maturing research has inspired a developing number of honesty ventures, which work to excuse wrongly indicted detainees, to likewise propose equity approach changes intended to diminish the quantity of wrongful feelings or to lighten their belongings. Wrongful conviction has turned into an unmistakable issue, the extent of the issue, its causes, and change recommendations.

* The extent to which the law balances the rights of victims, offenders and society

Courts of equity were the Chancery courts and existed historically as an entirely separate department from the Supreme Court, imitating the historical arrangement in place in England. A primary reason for the development of the Chancery courts was to provide a means of redress where the common law provided an inadequate remedy or no remedy at all. In equity, generally the court’s power is to direct someone to act or to forbear from acting, which circumstances clearly cannot be redressed by the award of money damages.

Our universal human rights which extend to every living person on this planet, are not achieved through the legislator, nor the executive but within the judicial arm of government. It is within trials that individuals can attain a sense of justice, fairness and certainty in an impartial outcome to a case. The jury system breathes confidence into the concept of justice, where the power is decentralised from elitist powerful judges and put into the hands of ordinary members of the community. Individuals are not prepared to accept a decision made by so-called experts, by a board of judges, or by a dictator. They are prepared to accept and outcome which stems from the wider

Public policy prevents restitution in favor of a person who, whether or not by agreement with or at the request of another, has committed a seriously wrongful act. It is a matter for judicial discretion to determine whether an act is so seriously wrongful as to bar restitution under the particular circumstances. Normally consciously criminal conduct

34 Issue 2, p533; Yale University, School of Law Language: English, Database: Academic

This series of books culminated in Moral Judgment: Does the Abuse Excuse Threaten our Legal System in 1997. Concerned about forces in our society threatening to undermine our moral sense, Wilson demonstrates in this book how our judicial system has compromised its obligation to discriminate between right and wrong. Citing highly publicized verdicts, he makes a case for re-examining the ethical drift of contemporary jurisprudence. Today's headlines, he claims, are proof that our judicial system relentlessly subjects itself to forces that limit its capacity to resolve even the gravest moral issues: judging guilt or innocence in the most grievous capital crimes. In a sense, Wilson sends a strongly worded message to criminal justice administrators:

Another issue is that despite the coverage relating to unconscionable conduct, it is difficult for consumers to be aware of the scope of the concept, and its legalistic nature tends to alienate the vulnerable consumers that are in need of protection.

Introduced on 1 January 2011, Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is a single, Australia-wide law that governs and protects fair trading practices. ACL is a sub-section of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and is administered and enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Queensland Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

Equality before the law is a utopian ideal that we should continue to strive for. Otherwise, ‘inconsistency in punishment … is calculated to lead to an erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice’. At present, equality before the law has not been achieved. For example, in Leeth v Commonwealth, Mason CJ, Dawson and McHugh JJ stated that the Constitution, the very foundation of Australian law, did not contain an implied right to substantive legal equality . Thus, they ruled that the The Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 (Cth), which provided for a non-parole period that differed depending on which State jurisdiction the prisoner was convicted in, was perfectly

The following part in the improvement of Therapeutic Jurisprudence will give analysts, policymakers, and those included in the equity framework with a brilliant stage to consider the way we see the law, lawful elements, and the equity framework later