400/500 Law Electives (1 Viewer)

[maka]

Sometimes, a tendency to overfocus on the black letter law is just as bad as over doing the philosophy.

People who previously did Corporate Law (Business Orgs) had Frank Carrigan and some other bloke. Supposedly, people liked the course because Frank offered a viewpoint that was different to that of the other bloke. Essentially socialist view of corporate law vs a pro business outlook. People dont like it so much anymore because its sole focus is black letter law and rote learning.

They need to provide more subjects in a variety of different areas.

 

[melsc]

I think we need to focus more on skills, you can learn the law once you have those skills and you will need to because the law changes, but continually only doing essays and problem questions means your skills are limited. I dont want it to be black letter either but in some courses like Const we have yet to do a single problem question, I doubt i could answer a moot question with the knowledge learnt in the course.

The electives need to be expanded, I agree, they are focused in a few areas.

 

[maka]

UOW has a structure where you do skills throughout the various years which practically ends up being the equivalent of the PLT.

MQ need a PLT.

 

[melsc]

Same as UWS, skills are compulsary in most units (i.e. mooting and other forms of assessment) so you get practice and then you can take skills subjects which knock part of ur PLT out of the way.

If it wasnt for the reputation of UWS and the lack of mooting and other oportunties that followed I would have stayed there. That said I would have gone to UOW if it was closer.

I think Mac risks losing its rep

 

[maka]

Maybe the academic review will solve the problems?

 

[melsc]

I hope so, I made such suggestions (as I was approached by MULS to do so) to MULS but I don't know what the result was, I think David Spencer was one of the people trying to achieve change and it sounded good but I dont know how far it will go. Personally I think 3 essays for a subject is overkill.

 

[maka]

Do you know what sort of things they wanted to change"?

 

[melsc]

I am just looking for the file on my computer. I am already thinking about runnin but this time I think I might try and get a ticket together, although I think I will be selective about who I get i.e. people actually interested in changing stuff rather than those who only want to have something on their CV

Let me know if any of you guys are interest as elections are usually in sem 2.

 

[maka]

Welcome back maxwell.

I have to say that I am quite happy with the role that MULS is playing within the law school. It is very good to see that MULS is looking at crucial issues.

Keep up the good work!

ps: Tabris, how did you find the Labour Law exam?

 

[Tabris]

Welcome back maxwell.

I have to say that I am quite happy with the role that MULS is playing within the law school. It is very good to see that MULS is looking at crucial issues.

Keep up the good work!

ps: Tabris, how did you find the Labour Law exam?

q1) basically ask u to analyse the common law - nature of contract as control, asymmetric obligations between employee and employer, asymmetric nature about the grounds of termination as well as the remedies available, finally restraint of trade and duty of fidelity after contract has ended. Everything is asymmetric - unfair and a real hard bargain.

q) Origins adn ratioanle of constitutional framework - a neutrel framework where unions through their collective strength can flex their muscle in a neutrel state tribunal, every bit of interpretation - disputes, interstate req, common rule, ambit, award making powers, primacy all show that the courts tried to give efficacy of the itnention of even neutrel dispute resolution. Does it really benefit unions?> articles convey in practice, no not really, also cant argue it as benefiting employees over employers but also counter-balance to the employer orientated bias of corporations power which now is used.

Kept my eye on the watch for this one, time mgmt was abit hard, but manged to spend about 1:30 on each, finished a few minutes before pens down...It was ok but Frank was right in saying the question jumps out....hopefully my analysis is more convincing....

 

[maka]

I didnt find it hard. They were so open ended that it allowed a lot of free rein in deciding how to attack the question.

Q2 was a bit harder. People were divided on whether to mention the BCA and WorkChoices and Forward with Fairness. I did but others didnt.

Anyway I thought it was very fair. Time management was quite hard though. You could have spent 3 hrs on 1 question really.

PS: melsc, Lise Barry is the lecturer for Dispute... I saw it when I checked the texts list on My Student Portal

 

[Tabris]

I didnt find it hard. They were so open ended that it allowed a lot of free rein in deciding how to attack the question.

Q2 was a bit harder. People were divided on whether to mention the BCA and WorkChoices and Forward with Fairness. I did but others didnt.

Anyway I thought it was very fair. Time management was quite hard though. You could have spent 3 hrs on 1 question really.

The question aked us, (imo) weeks 8-9, the rationale of the framework and the cases which corresponds with rougly the same amount of the content the work from week 3-4 + half of week 5. To say it includes the framework+cases and BCA, would extend the 2nd question to 4 weeks!! which is impossible to answer without going way to concise, no explanation and not much/overlooking analysis.


I just find it difficult in terms of time to fit it in, i couldnt see how mentioning BCA and workchoices would help the evaluation of:

"the criticism that high court interpretation of s 51(xxxv) benefits unions to the detriment of employers"

Whats BCA got to do with s51(xxxv)? or workchoices? At best i could merely write aabout 4 sentences saying that whatever (or illusory) benefit s51(xxxv) provides, it isnt a benefit but a counterbalance to the employer bias.

 

[maka]

I mentioned Week 8 and 9 as the majority of my answer. I like you argued that it wanted a neutral conciliation/arbitration model.

It wasnt a major point with weeks 8 and 9 the focus.

Effectively, Higgins J in Whybrow stated that you can make a common rule by using IR power with corp. power. Thats the High Court interpretation. Then Keating, Howard and Rudd have used this interpretation in the High Court to make enterprise bargaining, WorkChoices and Forward with Fairness by using Higgins' rationale in Whybrow.

Then you can go on to argue whether these packages of legislation via the High Court interpretation have actually been used at the detriment of unions and the benefit of business.

The point in the evaluation is the High Court interpretation cant be too detrimental to business if it provides business friendly legislation. This gave rise to some issues of the BCA, such as there want for a single bargaining unit in each workplace

As the questions were so open ended, both approaches are correct if you explain why.

I am sure you did very well.

 

[Tabris]

Then you can go on to argue whether these packages of legislation via the High Court interpretation have actually been used at the detriment of unions and the benefit of business.

The point in the evaluation is the High Court interpretation cant be too detrimental to business if it provides business friendly legislation. This gave rise to some issues of the BCA.

I am sure you did very well.

Werent those BCA legislation done and interpreted under s 51(xx) corproations power? I could have sworn Frank said something about the irony of Higgins J saying that s51(xx) could augment s51(xxxv) but the end result was opposite, use s 51(xx) to break the power.....

This course as Frank said, a guarenteed C....he sure will expand it out, they exam question jumped out at you, not like that proeprty module 1 crap...

 

[maka]

Werent those BCA legislation done and interpreted under s 51(xx) corproations power? I could have sworn Frank said something about the irony of Higgins J saying that s51(xx) could augment s51(xxxv) but the end result was opposite, use s 51(xx) to break the power.....

Thats correct to a degree. It requires both powers, effectively based on Higgins in Whybrow. Without the IR powers, you struggle to have IR law. You just supplemented the power with the IR power. I think Frank said that Higgins intended it to be a neutral system but now it has given rise to business using the interpretation to suit their interests. Either way, using Whybrow as the High Court interpretation gave rise to the WorkChoices style legislation. Its hard to be critical to its interpretation if you are an employer.

You are right in saying that the questions had a wide scope. Many people will argue different things with the depth and variety of material and interpretations. I hope I am in C-D range.

 

[maka]

Tabris, for LAW317, we need to buy a $75 Equity Tutorial Series text. Cameron Stewart is the lecturer/covenor.

 

[maka]

Hey,

I just wanted some advice.

At the moment, I am a little ahead of schedule. So that means in my last semester I would need to do only 2 subjects, if I keep with the planned progression/schedule. I was wondering if people in that situation would do (A) summer school (b) 4 subjects in 1 sem or (c) just come back for the final semester.

 

[melsc]

I'm currently in the same situation as you, I was thinking of doing summer school but I was thinking I might come back for the final semester and do some volunteer work at the DPP because I was to secure one of their PLT positions.

 

[MaryJane]

I'm currently only doing 2 subjects! And I'm extremely excited about that. I'm planning on working full-time too. The good thing about coming back for the 2 units is that it gives you time to work full-time, but you're not technically a graduate for another 6 months, so you can keep shopping around for grad positions.

Wow, so Lise is doing ADR? At least she wont change it much, if at all. She's awesome, really knows her stuff. Shame about David though; they were a great teaching couple.

 

[maka]

MJ....

I see that Cameron Stewart is in charge of Equity this semester and has previously taken Health Law.

What are your opinions of him?

Also by the way would you have a copy of the Advanaced Torts study guide and if possible could you upload it.... just want to have a look at the topics etc. Thanks