Skip to content

BarNet JADE

Welcome to BarNet’s JADE suggestion system. Any ideas are good ones. We want to hear from you!

I suggest you ...

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

  • When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.
  • You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.
  • To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".
(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

47 results found

  1. fix mistake in relation to commencement date

    Hi,
    I have been looking at the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic) and I believe some of the commencement information of certain sections may be incorrect.

    For example it says that s184 commenced on the 1st of January 2012, however I believe it commenced on the 1st of July, 2012.

    Hope this is helpful. Thanks!

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Content  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

  2. allow more case names to come up in the visualisations

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Content  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

  3. add Holt v Protective Commissioner (1993) 31 NSWLR 227 to Jade. It is an important decision in the protective jurisdiction.

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Content  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

  4. Consider better integration of user-generated content.

    I assume that the team at Jade is familiar with CaseText (https://casetext.com/), a free US legal research site. CaseText's integration of user-generated content is quite seamless and user-friendly--perhaps in ways that Jade is not. Might be worth considering.

    7 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Content  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    started  ·  AdminM Green (Director, BarNet) responded

    Hi Alexander, we do integrate user-generated content. We are working to improve the integration in our next UI improvement round happening early in Q3, 2015.

  5. separate the workers compensation cases out from the Employment, labour and industial topic, which should be reserved for employment law.

    3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    started  ·  0 comments  ·  Content  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

  6. Fix R v Ellis references in DPP v McInnes

    DPP v Mcinnes [2017] VSCA 374

    Every citation of R v Ellis redirects to R v Brazel, where it should (of course) refer to R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603. Please fix. Thanks in anticipation.

    0 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Content  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

  7. The link to Golan v AOTC in paragraph 83 of R v Roberts & Urbanec [2004] VSCA 1; 9 VR 295 takes one to the wrong case.

    The link to Golan v AOTC in paragraph 83 of R v Roberts & Urbanec [2004] VSCA 1; 9 VR 295 takes one to the wrong case.

    0 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Content  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
1 3 Next →
  • Don't see your idea?

BarNet JADE

Categories