News
Animal lawyer sees growth of a movement
19/06/10 15:52
A leading US animal lawyer says Australia is experiencing "phenomenal growth" around the animal law movement, and is starting to show leadership on worldwide animal law initiatives.
Joyce Tischler, who has be practising animal law for 30 years on behalf of the Animal Defence Legal Fund in the US, made the comments after being secured by Animal welfare organisation Voiceless to lead a national annual law lecture series in August.
She told Lawyers Weekly that her experiences in the US decades ago taught her that the legal system can be used to enhance the welfare of animals. And she sees similar opportunities for dedicated animal lawyers in Australia.
"It took a while to realise that we were starting a movement," she said. "One of the most gratifying aspects of our work has been to meet, or learn about, all of the passionate and committed lawyers across other countries.
Voiceless maintains that much progress has been made over the last couple of years since former president of the Australian Law Reform Commission Professor David Weisbrot labelled animal law the next great social justice movement. The annual Voiceless lecture series has increasingly grown in popularity, dedicated animal lawyers have emerged, and the first animal law textbook was published in 2009.
Tischler credits Voiceless, which boasts prominent animal lawyer Katrina Sharman as working in-house, for much of the success of the animal law movement in Australia.
Joyce Tischler, who has be practising animal law for 30 years on behalf of the Animal Defence Legal Fund in the US, made the comments after being secured by Animal welfare organisation Voiceless to lead a national annual law lecture series in August.
She told Lawyers Weekly that her experiences in the US decades ago taught her that the legal system can be used to enhance the welfare of animals. And she sees similar opportunities for dedicated animal lawyers in Australia.
"It took a while to realise that we were starting a movement," she said. "One of the most gratifying aspects of our work has been to meet, or learn about, all of the passionate and committed lawyers across other countries.
Voiceless maintains that much progress has been made over the last couple of years since former president of the Australian Law Reform Commission Professor David Weisbrot labelled animal law the next great social justice movement. The annual Voiceless lecture series has increasingly grown in popularity, dedicated animal lawyers have emerged, and the first animal law textbook was published in 2009.
Tischler credits Voiceless, which boasts prominent animal lawyer Katrina Sharman as working in-house, for much of the success of the animal law movement in Australia.
Law vital for cancer prevention
19/06/10 15:51
Law has an increasingly important role to play in the prevention of cancer and other non-communicable (transferrable) diseases, say leading academics.
At a recent two-day conference convened by the University of Sydney Law School and L'Union International Contre le Cancer (International Union Against Cancer) academics came together to discuss how the law can improve the health of the general population.
"The overwhelming majority of people die from non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and a significant proportion of all these diseases are preventable," the University of Sydney's professor Roger Magnusson told Lawyers Weekly.
"If we want to improve the health, the absolute lifespan and the healthy lifespan of Australians, we need to pay attention to these diseases."
According to Magnusson, the conference was a "dry run" for an upcoming plenary session of the World Cancer Congress in which ideas relating to the role of regulation in improving health will be discussed.
"Law and regulation can prevent the preventable components of cancer by addressing risk factors that are common in the population," said Magnusson.
"The preventable risk factors are of course tobacco use, obesity, alcohol misuse, inadequate exercise and ... some environmental exposures."
But Magnusson acknowledges that this concept is really only just beginning to take hold in the international community.
"There wouldn't be a family in Australia that hasn't been touched by cancer, but yet when we talk about law and cancer everyone raises their eyebrows and says, 'What the hell are you talking about?'" he said.
"Prevention is always better than cure, but the vast majority of money in the health system goes towards treating the sick rather than preventing populations from getting sick, and that's a problem."
Magnusson believes that tighter regulation, especially in relation to taxes and advertising, can play a significant role in discouraging risky behaviour that could lead to disease.
"It's not necessary to prohibit behaviour or coerce people in order to improve health and encourage healthier patterns of behaviour in the population," he said.
"No-one is suggesting that you prohibit smoking or people having a beer or choosing whatever food they want to eat. But overall, the population is drinking too much and eating the wrong food and not getting any exercise. Their own self-control is just not doing it at the population level."
Magnusson cites the example of tobacco to demonstrate that regulation can be effective in combating disease-causing behaviour.
"We need a basket of measures [to address these issues], just as we do with tobacco. Just as some of those measures appeared unrealistic 20 years ago, they also appear unrealistic now. But norms change and the tobacco experience shows that regulation works and that regulation is actually needed," he said.
"It may be that we think commercial freedom is more important than rates of disease, and maybe taxpayers are happy to pay more and more for the rising costs of chronic disease, but if we want to reduce those rates we need to consider some new measures."
At a recent two-day conference convened by the University of Sydney Law School and L'Union International Contre le Cancer (International Union Against Cancer) academics came together to discuss how the law can improve the health of the general population.
"The overwhelming majority of people die from non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and a significant proportion of all these diseases are preventable," the University of Sydney's professor Roger Magnusson told Lawyers Weekly.
"If we want to improve the health, the absolute lifespan and the healthy lifespan of Australians, we need to pay attention to these diseases."
According to Magnusson, the conference was a "dry run" for an upcoming plenary session of the World Cancer Congress in which ideas relating to the role of regulation in improving health will be discussed.
"Law and regulation can prevent the preventable components of cancer by addressing risk factors that are common in the population," said Magnusson.
"The preventable risk factors are of course tobacco use, obesity, alcohol misuse, inadequate exercise and ... some environmental exposures."
But Magnusson acknowledges that this concept is really only just beginning to take hold in the international community.
"There wouldn't be a family in Australia that hasn't been touched by cancer, but yet when we talk about law and cancer everyone raises their eyebrows and says, 'What the hell are you talking about?'" he said.
"Prevention is always better than cure, but the vast majority of money in the health system goes towards treating the sick rather than preventing populations from getting sick, and that's a problem."
Magnusson believes that tighter regulation, especially in relation to taxes and advertising, can play a significant role in discouraging risky behaviour that could lead to disease.
"It's not necessary to prohibit behaviour or coerce people in order to improve health and encourage healthier patterns of behaviour in the population," he said.
"No-one is suggesting that you prohibit smoking or people having a beer or choosing whatever food they want to eat. But overall, the population is drinking too much and eating the wrong food and not getting any exercise. Their own self-control is just not doing it at the population level."
Magnusson cites the example of tobacco to demonstrate that regulation can be effective in combating disease-causing behaviour.
"We need a basket of measures [to address these issues], just as we do with tobacco. Just as some of those measures appeared unrealistic 20 years ago, they also appear unrealistic now. But norms change and the tobacco experience shows that regulation works and that regulation is actually needed," he said.
"It may be that we think commercial freedom is more important than rates of disease, and maybe taxpayers are happy to pay more and more for the rising costs of chronic disease, but if we want to reduce those rates we need to consider some new measures."
Clutz partnership loses first round in defamation action
19/06/10 15:47
A former Clayton Utz lawyer has been granted leave to file an amended statement of claim in defamation proceedings against the firm.
Bridgette Styles, a graduate solicitor with Clayton Utz between August 2007 and December 2008, filed a statement of claim in September 2009 for defamation arising from two alleged publications. Her claim names 217 defendants, with all but one of those being current or former partners of the firm.
The original claim from Styles alleges that in September 2008, Luis Izzo, a solicitor with the firm, went to Joe Catanzariti, the head of the workplace relations, employment and safety practice group, with allegations that Styles was "conspiring" against a group of lawyers with regard to a sexual harassment complaint.
It is further alleged by Styles that the next day Izzo sent an email to a human resources manager - at the request of Catanzariti - that contained 16 defamatory imputations against her.
Styles claims that as the email sent by Izzo was at the direction of Catanzariti, the partnership as a whole is responsible for any defamatory consequences.
The NSW Supreme Court heard that in her proposed amended statement of claim, Styles claims this email was then circulated to many members of the firm and the "general population" of legal practitioners of Sydney.
In one particular instance, Styles alleges the "sense and substance of the email" was republished through discussions by partners at a public bar "in the vicinity of the offices of the partnership". Styles also said the "sense and substance" of the email was republished by herself in circumstances where she was under a social and moral duty to do so in order to truthfully answer queries as to why she was not at work.
Styles claims Clayton Utz are liable for the republications.
Clayton Utz objected to the proposed amended statement of claim, arguing it was defective in a way that seriously prejudices them.
This argument was rejected by Justice Carolyn Simpson and she granted Styles leave to file an amended statement of claim.
Justice Simpson dismissed the contention by Clayton Utz that the republications were in fact an original publication, and also found the argument by the firm about the definition of "republication" or original publication" in instances where Styles relayed the contents of the email herself was "not a matter to be determined on a pleading argument, but will be determined in the light of evidence in her trial".
Clayton Utz declined to comment when contacted by Lawyers Weekly, and Rebecca Styles was unavailable for comment. Styles is now a solicitor with Johnson Winter & Slattery.
This allegation of personal misconduct that Clayton Utz is dealing with comes following a NSW Administrative Appeals Tribunal which granted leave to a former employee, Michael Mitchell, to pursue claims against former colleagues for disability discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation.
In April this year, the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled that Mitchell could not add the names of other current and former lawyers of Clayton Utz to the complaint, including Grant Fuzi, who left the firm to become the managing partner of Allen & Overy's Australian offices in February.
Bridgette Styles, a graduate solicitor with Clayton Utz between August 2007 and December 2008, filed a statement of claim in September 2009 for defamation arising from two alleged publications. Her claim names 217 defendants, with all but one of those being current or former partners of the firm.
The original claim from Styles alleges that in September 2008, Luis Izzo, a solicitor with the firm, went to Joe Catanzariti, the head of the workplace relations, employment and safety practice group, with allegations that Styles was "conspiring" against a group of lawyers with regard to a sexual harassment complaint.
It is further alleged by Styles that the next day Izzo sent an email to a human resources manager - at the request of Catanzariti - that contained 16 defamatory imputations against her.
Styles claims that as the email sent by Izzo was at the direction of Catanzariti, the partnership as a whole is responsible for any defamatory consequences.
The NSW Supreme Court heard that in her proposed amended statement of claim, Styles claims this email was then circulated to many members of the firm and the "general population" of legal practitioners of Sydney.
In one particular instance, Styles alleges the "sense and substance of the email" was republished through discussions by partners at a public bar "in the vicinity of the offices of the partnership". Styles also said the "sense and substance" of the email was republished by herself in circumstances where she was under a social and moral duty to do so in order to truthfully answer queries as to why she was not at work.
Styles claims Clayton Utz are liable for the republications.
Clayton Utz objected to the proposed amended statement of claim, arguing it was defective in a way that seriously prejudices them.
This argument was rejected by Justice Carolyn Simpson and she granted Styles leave to file an amended statement of claim.
Justice Simpson dismissed the contention by Clayton Utz that the republications were in fact an original publication, and also found the argument by the firm about the definition of "republication" or original publication" in instances where Styles relayed the contents of the email herself was "not a matter to be determined on a pleading argument, but will be determined in the light of evidence in her trial".
Clayton Utz declined to comment when contacted by Lawyers Weekly, and Rebecca Styles was unavailable for comment. Styles is now a solicitor with Johnson Winter & Slattery.
This allegation of personal misconduct that Clayton Utz is dealing with comes following a NSW Administrative Appeals Tribunal which granted leave to a former employee, Michael Mitchell, to pursue claims against former colleagues for disability discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation.
In April this year, the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled that Mitchell could not add the names of other current and former lawyers of Clayton Utz to the complaint, including Grant Fuzi, who left the firm to become the managing partner of Allen & Overy's Australian offices in February.
