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.

137 results found

  1. allow manual addition of cases to Topics

    I have been doing a number of High Risk Offender matters in the Supreme Court in recent weeks. I've just noticed that the Jade Topic for this area doesn't seem to include key decisions (for example Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57; Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374). I would be happy to manually add a few of these decisions to the topic, but don't know if this is possible.

    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…)
    planned  ·  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. Tool so that users can see if they have viewed Jade content

    My suggestion is that you establish a way in which users can tell whether they have read a case (for instance, by changing the colour of the heading). This tool is currently operative on Caselaw.

    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  ·  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. Include the Full Court judgment referred to below in your database.

    Endeavour Energy v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2016] FCAFC 82; (2016) 244 FCR 178 is mentioned in your citations, but appears not to be in your database.

    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  ·  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. Allow searches of cases by topic i.e. litigation regarding Part IVA

    12 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  ·  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

  5. add the attached case to your database. I acted for the successful defendant! :-)

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCC/2008/1621.html

    from Michael Martin

    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

  6. recover Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW missing from Jade and no citations

    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  ·  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. Bug

    The Gulf Pacific link goes to the incorrect decision. See below.

    Caple v Wilson [2016] VSC 704

    210.The decision of Wilcox J in Krizaic indicates that a company can be liable even where it is not a party to the joint venture agreement, but its director is a party.

    211.The obverse principle can be seen in Gulf Pacific Pty Ltd v Londish,[91] where it was held that the director can be liable in equity where the joint venture agreement only binds his or her company.

    [91] [1992] FCA 502 (‘Gulf Pacific’).

    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

  8. Create a new alert category for class actions / representative proceedings

    I'd like to set up alerts for class actions/representative proceedings.

    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  ·  Search  ·  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

  9. will want to add a reference in the prior citations to https://jade.io/article/508476 for PKT Technologies Pty Ltd (formerly known as Fairli

    Please add a reference in the prior citations to https://jade.io/article/508476 for PKT Technologies Pty Ltd (formerly known as Fairlight.Au Pty Ltd) v Peter Vogel Instruments Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1587.

    Also, why do you categorise patent and trade mark cases as "Copy"?

    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  ·  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

  10. User-highlighting

    Allow for user-highlighting of cases within the Jade interface, so that the cases can be exported and/or printed already highlighted.

    5 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  ·  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

  11. delete account

    how do I delete my account?

    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  ·  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

  12. Chrome Android - unable to tag highlighted segments unless using mouse

    I regularly read cases on my Android phone. Selecting text does not bring up the tagging dialog, presumably because it requires a mouse hover action. Are you able to trigger the tagging dialog from normal text selection in chrome for Android? Cheers, Michael

    4 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  ·  Responsiveness  ·  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

  13. provide a detailed search history

    Provide a detailed 'search history' so that when I am creating a research note (i.e. a note detailing which terms I have searched) I can simply look back on this history and compile my note.

    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…)
    1 comment  ·  Search  ·  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

  14. Include Fiduciary Obligations and Powers of Attorney as a topic heading for alerts

    I'd like to refine my alerts to better catch judgments concerning financial elder abuse. Adding the above topics to the alerts might help.

    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  ·  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

  15. there's a link which is to the wrong case - Ridis as cited in McElwaine is incorrect - link takes you to a decision called Parker

    2 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  ·  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

  16. look at the citation for Blue Sky (HCA) - it has its wires crossed with the ANZ Savings Bank case (1998) 194 CLR 328

    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  ·  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

  17. 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.

    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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

    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

  20. 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 2 3 5 7
  • Don't see your idea?

BarNet JADE

Categories