The following Subtitles were updated in April 2015 and are now available on Westlaw AU:

Bankruptcy 3.11 “Recovery Action in Relation to Pre-bankruptcy Dispositions”

Updated by Steven Foale, Special Counsel, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

This Subtitle discusses the actions which may be brought by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover property or money disposed of prior to bankruptcy in favour of third parties. The commentary has been updated to include recent cases such as Australasian Annuities Pty Ltd (in liq) v Rowley Super Fund Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 9; Windoval Pty Ltd v Donnelly (2014) 12 ABC(NS) 260; [2014] FCAFC 127; Poumako (Bankrupt) v Poumako [No 3] [2013] FCA 22 and Combis (Trustee) v Spottiswood [No 2] (2013) 11 ABC(NS) 407; [2013] FCA 240. This commentary has also been updated to include reference to the recently updated Official Receiver’s Practice Statement ORPS 7, “Exercise of the Official Receiver’s Powers to Assist Trustees (2008)” (updated 2014) and to reflect the renaming of the Federal Magistrates Court to the Federal Circuit Court. This update contains a new section which discusses the relevant legislation in each State and Territory dealing with the alienation of property made with the intent to defraud creditors.

Bankruptcy 3.16 “Personal Insolvency Agreements”

Updated by Dr Ben McEniery, Barrister-at-Law, Roma Mitchell Chambers; Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology.

This Subtitle covers the various types of personal insolvency agreements which can be entered into under Pt X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). This update includes commentary on Williamson v Bond (2013) 214 FCR 541; [2013] FCA 828 which discussed the time limit being possibly extended between a creditor and a debtor pursuant to s 33(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Criminal Offences 10.5 “Interference with Property”

Updated by Dr Roger Brown RFD, Magistrate, Local Court of New South Wales

The case of Hammond v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 93 recently clarified the law surrounding “temporary” loss of function. The majority of the Court disapproved of Director of Public Prosecutions v Fraser [2008] NSWSC 244, concluding that the mere interference with the functionality of an object may constitute damage. Physical derangement is not necessary to prove. “Damage” is a question of fact and degree. This Subtitle update also expands on the law surrounding unauthorised access or modification to data held within a computer.

Criminal Sentencing 12.11 “Inter-jurisdictional Enforcement”

Updated by Professor Ned Aughterson, Professor of Law, Charles Darwin University

This Subtitle deals with the inter-jurisdictional enforcement of sentences and the transfer of prisoners between the Australian States and Territories. A difficulty arose in Re Cock; Ex Parte Diano [2014] WASC 63 in relation to recognition of minimum sentences due to the  provisions of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), which statutorily fixes the time at which a prisoner becomes eligible for parole. It was held that the effect of Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1983 (WA), s 25 was merely to provide that the minimum term imposed by the interstate court shall be deemed to have been fixed by a Western Australian court and that did not alter the fact that the minimum term in Western Australia is fixed by the legislation, not by a court. To rectify this anomaly, in 2014 the Sentencing Amendment Bill 2014 (WA) was introduced (not yet passed).

Torts 33.5 “Breach of Statutory Duty”

Updated by Edmund Lee, Barrister

This Subtitle discusses the cause of action and defences of the tort. It addresses the elements of breach of statutory duty as discussed in Dansar Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2014] NSWCA 364. Defences and exclusions of liability in relation to new work health and safety legislation are also included: see Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth).

Torts 33.11 “Concurrent Torts”

Updated by Karina Szwaja, Barrister, Victorian Bar

This Subtitle distinguishes the positions of “joint tortfeasors” as compared to “several tortfeasors” in relation to liability. Joint tortfeasors are responsible for the same tort, while several tortfeasors are responsible for the same damage. The method for assessing apportionment, as set out in earlier case law, was recently reiterated in the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

Transport Subtitle 34.2 Ch 16 “Aviation”
Updated by Dr Gary N Heilbronn, Consultant, Aviation Law and Research

This update discussed the issuing of Aviation Security Identification Cards (ASICs) after taking into account an applicant’s background. Flexibility was shown by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Maksimovic v Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development [2014] AATA 96 when the Secretary was ordered to grant an ASIC, subject  to several conditions, duration and airport limitations, to a person with several convictions and having been imprisoned for drug importation.

May 2015 currently scheduled updates (subject to change):

• 1 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders 1.3 “Land Law”
• 6 Communications 6.4 “Consumer Protection Legislation and the Media”
• 9 Criminal Law Principles 9.4 “Extradition” (new Subtitle)
• 13 Dispute Resolution 13.2 Ch 3 “Mediation and Conciliation”
• 18 Finance, Banking and Securities 18.2 “Types of Financial Institutions”
• 19 Government 19.3 “Executive”
• 33 Torts 33.1 “Tort and Contract”
• 33 Torts 33.2 “Negligence”
• 33 Torts 33.9 “Defences”
• 34 Transport 34.2 “Aviation” Ch 17