IntenseDebate - StephenWarne

10 years ago @ Abbotsford Blog - Memories of Abbotsford... · 1 reply · +1 points

allow

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - $25,000 fine for chequ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Interesting observation. Still, that doesn\'t turn it into a breach of fiduciary duty does it? Or would you say all breaches of trust are a breach of a fiduciary duty?

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - Legal Services Commiss... · 0 replies · +1 points

Can anyone help Rosina, or suggest a solicitor in Brisbane (or Rockhampton) with expertise in relation to lawyer-client costs disputes who might assist her?

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - The preconditions to a... · 0 replies · +1 points

Can anyone help Mohammad?

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - On Vanuatu · 0 replies · +1 points

Accommodation can be very cheap if you stay in Ni-Vanuatu owned bungalows, and the food provided by them is cheap too. Throughout the South Pacific there are cheap local places to stay. They just don\'t have the advertising clout to tell you about them. Transport is expensive, as are resorts, and upmarket restaurants. No more expensive than Australia mind. As a general rule, travel in the South Pacific is either more expensive or worse value than travel in South East Asia. There are fewer tourists and more islands, and it costs money to get between islands, and to get things to islands.

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - Certification of plead... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes, thanks for that. That section says:

\'(3) For the purposes of this section, a determination by a legal practitioner—
(a) as to whether any allegation or denial of fact has a proper basis, on the factual and legal material available, must be based on a reasonable belief as to the truth or untruth of the allegation or denial; or
(b) as to the proper basis of any non-admission is that the legal practitioner does not know, and therefore cannot say, whether a fact alleged or denial is true or untrue.\'

But I cannot understand what sub-para (b) means: \'a determination by a legal practitioner as to the proper basis of any non-admission is that the legal practitioner does not know...\'. It does not make sense to me. If it means that the only proper basis for non-admission is ignorance, it is a radical change indeed, since at the present time, many defendants do not admit everything except the most formal matters. That is, they \'put the plaintiff to its proof\'.

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - Certification of plead... · 0 replies · +1 points

Really?

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - The cab rank principle · 0 replies · +1 points

You may be right. I had your characteristics, save for being a university graduate when I began my law degree. I did not know the difference between a barrister and solicitor (many if not most laypeople do not) and I could not work out why the first name of all judges began with J (I have met other people who thought Kirby J was Jim or Jeremiah Kirby).

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - What happens if you ro... · 0 replies · +1 points

How would you like it to read? May I suggest \'What happens if you make the beast with two backs with your matrimonial client\'s spouse?\' Otherwise, I like the expression \'horizontal folk dancing\'.

13 years ago @ The Australian Profess... - Private prosecution of... · 1 reply · 0 points

Dear AB. You seem to be right. The balance of the comments seem to have disappeared. I did not delete them, and I am unaware of any glitches. I can only assume that the forces who stand to benefit from the ignorance of the people as to the illegitimacy of the establishment have executed a swift and surgical cyber attack.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with StephenWarne

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

StephenWarne