A leisurely arrival at the Newnham College June event #mayball #cambridge #camuni #cambridgeuniversity #university #college #ball #party #gardens #architecture #brick #cloudy #fun http://ift.tt/1rs4pxh
Main stage at the Newnham June event 2016 #cambridge #mayball #party #june #night #stage #concert #ball #camuni #university #cambridgeuniversity #colourful #fun #dancing http://ift.tt/1UQtooi
Silhouetted makers of macaroni and cheese, Newnham College #macncheese #food #silhouette #shadows #night #ball #cambridge #camuni #unilife #university #cambridgeuniversity #mayweek #party #england #tent #garden http://ift.tt/238taMP
Lord Grabiner advances this argument with some force. He says that any other view is heresy and that he is incontrovertibly correct. Indeed he goes as far as to say that he is prepared to go to the stake on this point. One cannot but be impressed by this level of selfless dedication to his client’s cause. I am not sure whether he expects the rest of the Abbott legal team to join him on the pyre, but, a single raised eyebrow from Mr Thorley suggests that he, at least, is not going to volunteer. I hope Lord Grabiner can be persuaded to think again, otherwise it would be the end of what has the signs of being a promising career. In spite of Lord Grabiner’s threat of self immolation, or perhaps encouraged by it, Mr Vos relies on numerous authorities and references in Snell and Spry to show that Lord Grabiner’s view of the law is wrong. He also argues that, even if he were right, there are here so many documents which “cross the line” and support CAT’s case, that it succeeds anyway.
“At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them.
As currently drafted, the Complaint has a blank space — one that requires Braham to do more than write his name. And, upon consideration of the Court’s explanation … Braham may discover that mere pleading Band-Aids will not fix the bullet holes in his case.
At least for the moment, Defendants have shaken off this lawsuit.”
After Kipling, presumably:
“After a ‘great’ constitutional case, the tumult and the shouting dies. The captains and the kings depart. Or at least the captains do; the Queen in Parliament remains forever. Solicitors-General go. New Solicitors-General come. This world is transitory. But some things never change. The flame of the Commonwealth’s hatred for that beneficial constitutional guarantee, s 51(xxxi), may flicker, but it will not die. That is why it is eternally important to ensure that that flame does not start a destructive blaze.”
JT International SA v Commonwealth  HCA 43 (5 October 2012) (Heydon J)
“This great renversement des alliances created a new and unexpected hurdle for the defendants. So the Court was as on a darkling plain, swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night – although the parties were more surprised than ignorant.”
Williams v Commonwealth  HCA 23 (20 June 2012)
“MR GLEESON: Your Honour, that hypothesis would remove some of the critical planks that I am relying upon, but not all of them. It would remove some of the critical planks because we would no longer have punishment per se, we would no longer have the public order injunction. We would be closer to the area of private law rights.
HEYDON J: What if the individuals who were damaged did not bother about the Commission and just brought their own action? They are still relying on a public order statute.
MR GLEESON: Yes. That again has removed a further plank from our argument and is closer to the area of —
HEYDON J: I just want to see how much we jettison before we start swimming.” - P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission  HCATrans 101 (8 May 2012)
A wayward Chevy struck a tree
Whose owner sued defendants three.
He sued car’s owner, driver, too,
And insurer for what was due
For his oak tree that now may bear
A lasting need for tender care.
The Oakland County Circuit Court,
John N O’Brian, J, set forth
The judgment that defendants sought,
And quickly an appeal was brought.
Court of Appeals, J H Gillis, J,
Gave thought and then had this to say:
1) There is no liability,
Since No-Fault grants immunity,
2) No jurisdiction can be found
Where process service is unsound;
And thus the judgment, as it’s termed
Is due to be, and is