Search

The purpose of this article is to provide some guidance to practitioners and the judiciary in both Australia and New Zealand on the vital question: when is a sale in the 'ordinary course of business' for the purposes of the Personal Property Securities Acts of Australia and New Zealand? It is not uncommon for the courts to say that in any given case this is a question of fact. But, while not denying the importance of the particular factual circumstances in issue, the author seeks to demonstrate that the analysis will be facilitated by adopting a structured approach that initially recognises the primacy of security interests and that follows sound legal principles developed by the North American courts. Differences between the Australian and New Zealand legislative provisions are analysed to determine whether they lead to different outcomes on either side of the Tasman. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to understand the doctrine of equitable subrogation as it functions within the context of mortgage refinancings in the U.S., outlining the basic mechanics of mortgages, mortgage recordation, and foreclosures as well as title searches and priority. It describes the development of equitable subrogation in order to identify the historical purpose and scope of equitable subrogation. It recommends a comprehensive reading of major New York cases to determine factors implicitly considered by New York courts in deciding when to use equitable subrogation.

This article considers judicial responses to the use of ‘bright line’ rules in social security law. It analyses, within the framework of judicial deference, the receptiveness of the judiciary to an argument by the executive that a rule is justified as being administratively convenient to operate. The article questions the proposition that the judiciary is at its most deferential when complex issues of socio-economic policy or resource allocation are raised in the context of social security law. A contrast is drawn between cases involving an issue of statutory interpretation and those applying a proportionality test. The article tests the presumption that a difference in approach should be discernable in these two situations. It concludes by criticising the courts for failing to articulate clearly the values at stake and by arguing for the need for greater transparency and a broader public debate concerning the use of bright line rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses some new legal cases of the United States. In a suit to enforce a lien given by a State statute, for repairs to a vessel, held, that the transaction is maritime in its nature and the State courts have not jurisdiction. The Constitution of the United States, article 3, section 2, declares that " the judicial power shall extend to all cases in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." An act of Congress provides that the district courts of the United States shall have-exclusive jurisdiction of such causes. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has since held that although the State legislatures may regulate the rights of material-men furnishing necessaries to vessels, so long as Congress does not interpose to regulate the subject, yet State law cannot take the contract out of the exclusive domain of admiralty jurisdiction.