As we have previously postedthe federal Attorney General has released draft legislation consolidating five separate Federal anti-discrimination laws into a single Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill. However the Attorney-General has had defend the federal government's draft law reforms, insisting that the Government has “no intention of seeking to prevent people from speaking about religious, political or other “topical” issues”.
The High Court has handed down its decision in the case of Tahiri v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship  HCA 61, finding that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship did not err in refusing a combined application for a Subclass 202 Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) visa by the plaintiff's mother and her four dependent children.
A recent analysis shows growth of the Big 4 accounting firms is outstripping that of their legal counterparts, the Big 6 in Australia. And as the chart of the changes in revenue of Big 4 and Big 6 shows the ‘accountants’ are enjoying the fruits of steadily diversifying their range of services, client industries and geographic footprints in a way that delivers them good upside and largely shields them from the vicissitudes of the economic cycle.
In Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4)  FCA 1411 (12 December 2012) Rares J has thrown out the Ashby sexual harassment claims in an emphatic judgement which among other things says:
“I am satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. The originating application was used by Mr Ashby for the predominant purpose of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr Slipper. It contained the scandalous and irrelevant 2003 allegations and assertion about intended reporting of the Cabcharge allegations to the police. To allow these proceedings to remain in the Court would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people and would be manifestly unfair to Mr Slipper.”
The High Court has delivered judgment in Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing To Contract No Ih00aaqs V John Cross; Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing To Contract No Ih00aaqs V Mark George Thelander; Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing To Contract No Ih00aaqs V Jill Maria Thelander  HCA 56 (12 December 2012) four appeals dealing with the construction of provisions of the NSW statutes that limit the costs that a court may order one party to pay another if the amount recovered on a claim for personal injury damages does not exceed a specified amount. The High Court has held that claims for personal injury damages based on intentional acts are claims for “personal injury damages” within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) s 198D.