Skip to content

BarNet JADE

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

47 results found

  1. Link to authorised reports

    When setting out the citations for a case in the right hand side panel, hyperlink the citations to the relevant reports. So, e.g., in the sidebar for Pipikos v Trayans [2018] HCA 39; 265 CLR 522; 92 ALJR 880, "265 CLR 522" would link directly to the report on WestlawAU, and "92 ALJR 880" would do likewise for the report on LexisNexis.

    I much prefer using Jade for all research purposes, but of course still need to get the authorised reports. If Jade could link through to the relevant report providers (at least for the key Australian reports like the…

    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  ·  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)
  2. Case name - Banksia Trial

    Hi, See link https://jade.io/article/313370
    When I try to get the citation for the case of Bolitho v Banksia Securities Ltd & Ors, Why does the citation link show 'Ifka v Shahin Enterprises Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 8' ?
    (I think the correct citation for Ifka V Shahin is VSCA 8 (not VSC 8)
    Could you please confirm?
    thanks!

    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  ·  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)
  3. fix bug

    The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) is not displaying properly. Can you check 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…)
    1 comment  ·  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)
  4. Fix a problem with Vice-Chancellor Macquarie University v FM

    Most of the links to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) should be to Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)

    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  ·  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. Availability of Corporations Act volumes 2-7

    Only volume 1 of the Corporations Act is available - there does not seem to be any way to view volumes 2-7, other than through the small preview windows available for individual sections.

    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  ·  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. 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  ·  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)
  7. 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  ·  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)
  8. 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)
    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)
  9. 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)
    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)
  10. fix typo on https://jade.io/j/?a=go_pro

    Typo/formatting issue on https://jade.io/j/?a=go_pro.

    Appears to be a formatting issue with the text under the heading "Upgrade to JADE Professional", after the full stop.

    "Purpose-built by Australian Lawyers, JADE Professional’s suite of legal research tools ensures you’re better prepared for whatever comes your way.’s suite of legal research tools ensures you’re better prepared for whatever comes your way."

    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  ·  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)
  11. 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)
    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)
  12. 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  ·  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)
  13. Fix citation

    BHP v Steuler; Protec v Steuler [2014] VSCA 338; 100 ACSR 524

    check this citation. I'm not sure it is reported in 100 ACSR

    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  ·  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)
  14. Fix citation error

    In The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition tribunal [2012] HCA 36 there are several incorrect citations at paragraph 14. Douglass v R is [2012] HCA 34, not 36.

    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  ·  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)
  15. Bug - this case not loading. Malouf v Constantinou [2017] NSWSC 923

    Not loading.

    Malouf v Constantinou [2017] NSWSC 923 (13 July 2017) (Parker J)

    July 13th at 12:12 PM via Jade Equity

    Catchwords: Contracts – retainer between solicitor and client – guarantee – construction – multiple contractual documents – main object of contract – deferral of costs – termination of retainer – acceleration of deferred costs – charges of property – consent to lodgement of caveat – issue of tax invoices – interest – repugnancy ...

    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  ·  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)
  16. Missing decision in Purvis precedent visualisation

    I was checking out the precedent visualisation for Purvis v The State of NSW [2003] HCA 62, and noticed the most recent decision from the Qld Court of Appeal in Woodforth v State of Queensland [2017] QCA 100 does not appear therein (https://jade.io/article/531142).

    The Woodforth decision is important in that it is the first court of appeal that rejects the application of the Purvis decision when applied to a discrimination provision that differs from that in the DDA. This case will have ripple effects in other Australian discrimination jurisdictions.

    It would be good if the visualisation tool includes it.

    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  ·  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)
  17. 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)
    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)
  18. 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  ·  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)
  19. add WA Warden decisions to database

    Dear Jade
    I'm a professional subscriber from WA. The WA (mining) Warden decisions have recently been added to austlii (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WAWM/) but only in pdf format.
    It seems the Warden cases aren't in Jade databases (particularly the citation workings). If austlii or the WA agencies, had these available online in text, would that enable Jade to include in your databases?
    Thanks for your great service.
    Best

    1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    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)
  20. 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)
    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)
  • Don't see your idea?

Feedback and Knowledge Base