6BBR PPTCLAW5001-1-1

1、CLAW5001LegalEnvironmentofBusiness,ThresholdLegalConcepts:analysinglegislationandcaselawPattyKamvounias,2,OverviewofTodaysLecture,SourcesoflawparliamentscourtsThresholdlegalconceptsI:StatutelawandstatutoryinterpretationCaselawandprecedentLegalreasoningandanalysisNextweekThresholdlegalconceptsII:lega

2、lliabilitycivilorcriminal?primaryoraccessory?individualorcorporate?,2,Sourcesoflaw:parliament,theParliamentoftheUnitedKingdom,4,NewSouthWales:parliamentandgovernment,5,NSWParliamentBuildingMacquarieStreetSydney,NSWPremierBarryOFarrell,CommonwealthofAustralia:parliamentandgovernment,6,ParliamentofAus

3、traliaBuildingCanberra,PrimeMinisterJuliaGillard,Sourcesoflaw:stateandfederalparliament,7,Sourcesoflaw:thecourts,Englishcourts,9,TheRoyalCourtsofJustice-London,NSWcourts,10,OriginalSupremeCourtBuildingCornerKingStreetandElizabethStreetSydney,LawCourtsBuildingQueensSquare(PhillipStreetSydney)Includes

4、theSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales,NSWcourts,Jurisdictionoriginalorappellatecivilorcriminal,11,.au/nswconstitution/html/5th/bgr/overview.html,TheHighCourtofAustraliaandotherfederalcourts,HighCourtofAustraliaBuildingCanberra,FamilyCourtofAustraliaBuildingGoulburnStreetSydney,Aust

5、raliancourthierarchy,13,OtherfederalcourtscreatedbytheCommonwealthParliament:-FederalCourt(1February1977)FamilyCourt(1January1976)FederalMagistratesCourt(23December1999),Sourcesoflaw:statefederalandothercourts,14,Sourcesoflaw:parliamentandthecourts,15,Sourcesoflaw:other,16,Sourcesoflaw:wheredoyousta

6、rt?,17,Readingandinterpretinglegislation,19,.au/senate/pubs/briefs/brief08.htm,Howislegislationmade?ThelegislativeprocessFromaBill(proposal/draftlegislation)toanAct(law),Sourcesoflaw:findingstatutelaw,20,Sourcesoflaw:citingstatutelaw,21,readingstatutelaw,Basicrulesonhowtoreadlegisla

7、tionWhendoesanewlawtakeeffect(commence)?Wherearekeywordsandphrasesdefined?WhyistheActsInterpretationAct1901(Cwth)important?,22,Readingstatutelaw,CompetitionandConsumerAct2010(Cwth)wascalledtheTradePracticesAct1974(Cwth)untilrenamedasfrom1January2011availableonlineat.au/au/legis/

8、cth/consol_act/caca2010265/Whatistheaimofthislegislation?Section2:TheobjectofthisActistoenhancethewelfareofAustraliansthroughthepromotionofcompetitionandfairtradingandprovisionforconsumerprotection.,23,Statutelaw-structure,CompetitionandConsumerAct2010(Cwth),24,25,CompetitionandConsumerAct2010(Cwth)

9、,s44ZZRA:Acorporationmustnotmake,orgiveeffectto,acontract,arrangementorunderstandingthatcontainsacartelprovision.,Elements:Acorporationmakeorgiveeffecttoacontractarrangementorunderstandingcartelprovision,26,Elements:Apersonintradeorcommerceengageinconductmisleadingordeceptiveorlikelytomisleadordecei

10、ve,s18.Apersonmustnot,intradeorcommerce,engageinconductthatismisleadingordeceptiveorislikelytomisleadordeceive.,CompetitionandConsumerAct2010(Cwth),theneedforinterpretation,ThedutyofthecourtsistoascertainandgiveeffecttothewillofParliamentasexpressedinitsenactment.IntheperformanceofthisdutytheJudgesd

11、onotactascomputersintowhicharefedthestatutesandtherulesfortheconstructionofstatutesandfromwhomissueforththemathematicallycorrectanswerTheyarenotlegislators,butfinishers,refinersandpolishersoflegislationwhichcomestotheminastaterequiringvaryingdegreesoffurtherprocessing.DonaldsonJ,CorocraftLtdvPanAmer

12、icanAirwaysInc.19683WLR714at732,Whatdothejudgesthink?,28,29,statutoryinterpretation,ACTSINTERPRETATIONACT1901-SECTION15AARegardtobehadtopurposeorobjectofAct(1)IntheinterpretationofaprovisionofanAct,aconstructionthatwouldpromotethepurposeorobjectunderlyingtheAct(whetherthatpurposeorobjectisexpresslys

13、tatedintheActornot)shallbepreferredtoaconstructionthatwouldnotpromotethatpurposeorobject.,statutoryinterpretation,Interpretationoflegislationbythecourtstraditionalapproach-literalruleGivewordstheirordinaryandnaturalmeaninginterpretationtoavoidabsurditygoldenruleGivewordstheirliteralmeaningbutnotifth

14、isresultsinanabsurdityorinconsistencywiththerestoftheActpurposiveapproachGivewordsameaninginlightofthepurposeorintentionoftheParliamentuseofintrinsicandextrinsicmaterials,30,31,statutoryinterpretation,ACTSINTERPRETATIONACT1901-SECTION15ABUseofextrinsicmaterialintheinterpretationofanAct(1)intheinterp

15、retationofaprovisionofanAct,ifanymaterialnotformingpartoftheActiscapableofassistingintheascertainmentofthemeaningoftheprovision,considerationmaybegiventothatmaterial:(a)toconfirmthatthemeaningoftheprovisionistheordinarymeaningconveyedbythetextoftheprovisiontakingintoaccountitscontextintheActandthepu

16、rposeorobjectunderlyingtheAct;or(b)todeterminethemeaningoftheprovisionwhen:(i)theprovisionisambiguousorobscure;or(ii)theordinarymeaningconveyedbythetextoftheprovisiontakingintoaccountitscontextintheActandthepurposeorobjectunderlyingtheActleadstoaresultthatismanifestlyabsurdorisunreasonable.,syntacti

17、calpresumptions:contextualreadingoflegislation,Sentencesarenotmerecollectionsofwordstobetakenoutofthesentence,definedseparatelybyreferencetothedictionaryordecidedcases,andthenputbackagainintothesentencewiththemeaningwhichonehasassignedtothemasseparatewords,soastogivethesentenceorphraseameaningwhicha

18、sasentenceorphraseitcannotbearwithoutdistortionoftheEnglishlanguageStampJinBournevNorwichCrematoriumLtd19671WLR691at696,syntacticalpresumptions:contextualreadingoflegislation,Nosciturasociis:Themeaningofawordorphraseistobederivedfromitscontext.CaseexampleRvAnnHarris(1836)7Ccourtwillassesscredibility

19、etcDistinctionbetweenmattersoffactandmattersoflaw,50,whatistherelevantlaw?,51,precedent,52,arulestatedandusedinapastcasemaybeusedinothersimilarcasestodayorinthefuture,analogy,reasoningbyanalogylookforsimilaritiesanddifferencesinthefactsconsiderrelevanceandimportanceuseasbasisfornot/applyingoldruleto

20、newcase(methodofdistinguishingearliercase/priorauthority),53,thedoctrineofprecedent,Whatistherationaleforthedoctrineofprecedent?AccordingtoBransonandFinkelsteinJJinTelstraCorporationvTreloar(2000)102FCR595itisabout:CertaintyEqualityEfficiencyAppearanceofjustice,54,thedoctrineofprecedent,Generalrules

21、:EachcourtisboundtofollowdecisionsofcourtshigherinitsownhierarchyAdecisionofacourtinadifferenthierarchyorlowerinthesamehierarchymaybepersuasivebutwillnotbebindingAcourtwillnotconsideritselfboundbyitsownpastdecisionsOnlytheratiodecidendiofapastcaseisbindingObiterdictaarenotbindingbutmaybepersuasivePr

22、ecedentsdonotlosetheirforcebylapseoftime,55,Australiancourthierarchy,56,Lawreports,57,whatisbinding?,OnlytheratiodecidendiorreasonfordecidingisbindingJudgeswilltakecarewhenstatingarulethatformsareasonfortheirdecisionsbutidentifyingtheratiowillnotalwaysbeeasyTheremaybemorethanonereasongivenforthedeci

23、sionItmightbepossibletostatetheratioatahigherorlowerlevelofgeneralityIfstatedmoregenerallyitwillincludeawiderrangeofcasesIfstatedlessgenerallyitwillbelimitedtotheparticularfactsofthecaseItmightbedifficulttodistinguishtheratiofromtheobiterdictainthecase(observationsnotnecessarytosupportthedecision;co

24、mmentsonhypotheticalsituations),58,whatistherelevantlaw?,Ifasuperiorcourtinthesamehierarchyhaspreviouslymadeadecisiononanidenticalquestionoflaw,doctrineofprecedentrequiresthejudgetofollowthatdecisionandapplythelawasitwasstatedthereWherenostrictlybindingprecedentexists,theremaystillbeaprecedentinanot

25、herjurisdictionthatthejudgemaydecidetoapplybecauseitishighlypersuasiveWhatcanthecourtdoifitdoesnotwanttofollowtheruleintheearlierdecision(evenifitisbindingorhighlypersuasive)?Waystoavoidprecedents:DistinguishtheprecedentonitsfactsNoneedtofollowobiterdicta(onlyratio)Changedsocialconditions,59,roleofj

26、udiciary,Inanyfieldoflaw,however,theremayarisetherarelandmarkcaseinwhichacourt,usuallyafinalappellatecourt,concludesthatthecircumstancesaresuchastoentitleandobligeittoreassessthecontentofsomeruleorsetofrulesinthecontextofcurrentsocialconditions,standardsanddemandsandtochangeorreversethedirectionofth

27、edevelopmentofthelaw.Thereassessmentofthecontentoftheparticularruleorrulesoflawinsuchacaseis,nonetheless,anunavoidableconcomitantoftheproperperformanceofthejudicialfunctionifthelawisnottolosecontactwiththesocialneedswhichjustifyitsexistenceandwhichitexiststoserve.DeaneJ,JaenschvCoffey(1984)155CLR549

28、at599-600,thenatureofcaselaw,Therule/soflawcomingfromcasesarenotinfixedverbalform(contrastrulessetoutinstatutes)legalprinciples/rulesmaybeexpresslystatedormayjustbeimpliedinthejudgesdecisionthejudgemaystatetherulemorethanonceusingadifferentformofwordseachtimetheremaybemorethanonejudgeinvolvedinthede

29、cisionandeachmaygiveadifferentstatementoftheruleCaselawrulesaremoreflexiblethanrulesinstatutes(butalsomaybelesscertain),61,howiscaselawchanged?,ByanappellatecourtreversingthedecisiononappealByalatercourt(usuallyahigherlevelcourt)overrulingthedecisionBylegislationpassedbyParliamentNoteAllcourtdecisionscanbeoverturnedbylegislationEXCEPTdecisionsonconstitutionalmattersAlthoughParliamentmaypasslegislationtochangeacommonlawruleorlegalprinciple,parliamentcannotoverrideacourtdecisionbychan