BarNet JADE
Welcome to BarNet’s JADE suggestion system. Any ideas are good ones. We want to hear from you!
124 results found
-
Fix bug as below
"SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship" goes to "Sandy on behalf of the Yugara People v State of Queensland (No 2)" in some cases.
1 vote -
Table of contents failure
The table of contents is a real time saver.
Here is an example of where it fails, though:
https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#article=67936PFENNIG v THE QUEEN (1995) 182 CLR 461.
Nothing gets listed in the TOC.
1 vote -
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 -
allow alerts to exclude topics. I would like to receive all civil cases but not criminal cases. I can't find a way to do that.
allow alerts to exclude topics. I would like to receive all civil cases but not criminal cases. I can't find a way to do that.
1 voteHi Alison, this is a great suggestion and we are working on it. Thanks!
-
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 -
1 vote
Hi Nicole,
That’s a great idea. We’re looking into ways to get older NSW decisions on JADE.
-
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 -
1 vote
-
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 -
1 vote
-
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 -
delete account
how do I delete my account?
1 vote -
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 -
1 vote
-
The link to Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd (1992) 39 FCR 348 in IceTV v Nine Network (at least in footnote 41) goes to the wrong case
Same thing happens when you click on Interlego in the search bar results - something to do with the media neutral citations issue?
1 vote -
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 -
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 -
1 vote
-
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 -
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
- Don't see your idea?