Skip to content

BarNet JADE

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

128 results found

  1. [2006] WASAT 91 RV and PL brings up [2008] WASAT 91Shire of York

    [2006] WASAT 91 RV and PL brings up [2008] WASAT 91Shire of York - could you amend it please?

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    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)
  2. Remove dual-factor login

    The new requirement to not only login, but also to obtain a code through your email, is slow and buggy.

    I keep being told I have received a verification code, but have not. I have checked my spam folder. I have clicked 'resend'. This happens repeatedly.

    What used to be a quick and enjoyable user experience has become a slow and painful one.

    Here's hoping Jade removes this unnecessary dual-factor login by default.

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    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)
  3. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    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)
  4. 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)
    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)
  5. 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)
    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)
  6. 0 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    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)
  7. Incorrect link

    The link to Khoshaba in Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6 is incorrect

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    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)
  8. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
1 2 3 4 5 7 Next →
  • Don't see your idea?

Feedback and Knowledge Base