“A party is not in general free to disclose discovery evidence of what they view as criminal conduct to the police or other strangers to the litigation without a court order.”
The strength of the obligation can clearly be understood with all 9 Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada concurring.]]>
The other party, my X husband, has filed an appeal related to the property orders and my former lawyers have now commenced recovery proceedings in the District Court of NSW.
The Cost Agreement included a charge over a property that was part of the family law matter which resulted in a caveat over the property, claiming an interest in equity. The measures employed by the lawyers has ensured countless refusals for finance for the purpose of engaging legal representatives for either of the ongoing court matters.
‘Unsophisticated Clients Beware!’
These lawyers are ruthless, they pounced when they realised that I was undergoing major stress and anxiety due to an incident that led to an ADVO issued to my X husband by NSW police for the protection of myself and three daughters, four gun charges and an intimidation charge.
My faith in this profession has taken a devastating blow.]]>
In Rizeq v Western Australia, the Courts held by Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJ that:
The overall result is that laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth and laws made by the Parliaments of the States form “a single though composite body of law”.
Arguably they would be picked up through the application of s79, as given in “An introduction to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court” by Allsop CJ (available on the website of the Federal Court), where he has written that State statute referring to the State Courts by name may be read as encompassing a federal court:
When a State statute is expressed to apply to courts generally, it will pick up a federal court: GPAO 196 CLR at 575 ; and Solomons 211 CLR at . Also, even when the State statute refers to State courts by name, it may be read as encompassing a federal court: John Robertson 129 CLR 65; GPAO 196 CLR at 575 ; Austral Pacific 203 CLR at 143 ; Edensor 204 CLR at 588-89, 591, 593-4 -, , -; and Macleod v ASIC 211 CLR 287 at .
This is not some fictitious piece of statutory construction of a State statute. It is not changing the substance of the law picked up. The State law has been “federalised” by s 79 and must be made to operate for courts exercising federal jurisdiction and so as not to undermine s 77(ii). In Edensor 204 CLR 559, McHugh J emphasised the way s 79, for a federal purpose and as a federal law, picked up the substance of the State law insofar as it can be applied. At  and  his Honour said the following:
 The fact that a State statute either expressly or as a matter of construction provides only for State courts to enforce its provisions does not mean that it cannot be “picked up” and applied by s 79 of the Judiciary Act in the exercise of federal jurisdiction. The hypothesis to which Mason J referred in John Robertson , which must apply to substantive as well as procedural laws, will ensure its applicability in federal jurisdiction unless the statute is not applicable for some reason other than that State courts were intended by the State as the instruments for enforcing it. …
 [C] ourts exercising federal jurisdiction should operate on the hypothesis that s 79 will apply the substance of any relevant State law in so far as it can be applied. The efficacy of federal jurisdiction would be seriously impaired if State statutes were held to be inapplicable in federal jurisdiction by reason of their literal terms or verbal distinctions and without reference to their substance.
I mean if the Criminal Procedure Act gets picked up by a court when exercising it’s federal jurisdiction all the way up to the federal courts, then it makes sense that the Civil Procedure Act would also get picked up by the Federal Courts – even though the courts are specifically named in that Act.]]>