V Greek Orthodox Community Of Sa Inc

The case of Jonah v White (2012) 48 FAM LR 562 wishes to appeal the original decision of Murphy J, in which his Honour asserted that the appellant, (“Ms Jonah”) and the respondent (“Mr White”) had not been in a de-facto relationship in correspondence with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The appeal is bought before May, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. The case seeks to question and determine what constitutes a law-binding de-facto relationship.

Identify and investigate these contemporary issues relating to family law and evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses to these issues

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

The aim of Australia’s family law while responding the ever changing values of society, is to achieve justice in any activity it undertakes. The success of this is valued and determined by whether any significant action has been taken as a result, and what the effects of such actions are on improving the situations of all parties involved. The effectiveness of family law on changing values cannot be determined when regarded as a whole. However, when broken down into certain values, such as in the topic of best interest of the child during separation and the issue of surrogacy, it can be seen that Australia’s family laws are not effective in levelling with the community’s changing values.

Family law is the most complex aspect of the Australian legal system as it is constantly under review and reform pursuing to adopt society’s continual change in values and principles. The changing of laws in an attempt to be parallel with society is a strenuous process. Nevertheless, legislations are reflective of contemporary society’s values and ethics. Numerous legal issues arise in regards to family including, same sex relationships, domestic violence and divorce ideally on the best interest of the child, where family laws have been imposed to protect individuals and aim to achieve justice.

Intention to create legal relations can be defined as follows. ‘An agreement will only become a legally binding contract if the parties intend this to be so. This will be strongly presumed in the case of business agreements but presumed otherwise if the agreement is of a friendly, social or domestic nature.’ Source (HNC unit 5 Business law course book) In determining whether the parties intend their agreements to be legally binding the court is guided by two presumptions. Parties to a domestic or social agreement do not intend to be legally bond. Parties

The Supreme Court case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017), revolves around the issue as to whether religious institutions can participate in public state secular aid programs. Back in 2012, Trinity Lutheran Church applied for the Scrap Tire Grant Program in Missouri in order to repair a playground in its preschool/daycare center. Under this program, Missouri would receive rubber from recycled tires that would be used to cover the play areas. The application, however, was declined by the Missouri state government because of a constitutional provision that stated that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.” (American Bar)

Given the discordant state of the Australian authorities, the High Court took the opportunity in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, (‘Farah Constructions’) to clarify the Australian position on knowing assistance. Their Honours declared, in obiter, that Australian courts should continue to follow the decision in Consul Development v DPC, thereby continuing to see as necessary the requirement of a dishonest design on the part of the fiduciary, and subscribing to the proposition that where the third party’s knowledge falls within the first four categories of the Baden scale it will answer the requirement of knowledge under the second limb of Barnes v Addy.

Legislation and case law has been evolving throughout history surrounding testamentary promises. The attitudes of the courts have ebbed and flowed towards claims testing the validity of a will. New Zealand was the first country in the commonwealth jurisdiction to enact a family protection act, the Testators Family Maintenance Act 1900. Although legislation has changed considerably since the incorporation of the first act, the central concept has remained essentially unchanged. There are three main statutes in New Zealand governing family protection and testamentary promises, Property (relationships) Act 1976, Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 and the Family Protection Act 1955. This essay will explore these

This highlights the Australian legal systems effectiveness in protecting and recognising the changing nature of the family evident in de facto relationships. It could also be said that through the 2008 Family Law Act amendment the Australian Legal system is thinking of the future in ensuring that De Facto Relationships are being treated equally and are free from discrimination amongst society and the courts.

(L. Young, G. Monahan, A. Sifris, R. Carrol, Family law in Australia and Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) c

The processes and laws regulating property orders for divorcing couples are found in Part VIII of the FLA. In Australia the main requirement of property division is coming to an outcome that is just and equitable for both parties on a case-to-case basis (Mallet V Mallet (1984)). When deciding upon this, three considerations are

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

To fully understand the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] on the doctrine of consideration, its is important to examine the doctrine more closely. Traditionally, modern English law has largely abandoned the benefit/detriment analysis and prefers the definition provided by Sir Federick Pollock that “consideration may be defined as an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, being the price for which the promise of the others is

In Privy Council decision Attorney-General of Belize v Belize Telecom (Belize thereafter), Lord Hoffmann in delivering the leading judgment, assimilated the implication of term and contractual interpretation resulting in the well-known traditional tests: “business efficacy” and “officious bystander” merely as auxiliary role in discovering the the objective intention of the contract. Even though the Belize test has long been accepted by the English and the New Zealand courts, Singapore court seems to have reservations. A great deal of debate surrounds the issue as to the roles of the Belize test to be afforded to two