https://hdl.handle.net/2123/10496 2026-06-08T08:23:57Z https://hdl.handle.net/2123/12157 Assignment of Bare Rights to Litigate: Assessing the Modern Doctrinal Position Cheng, Andrew It is well settled that an assignment of a bare right to litigate (or bare right of action) is prima facie invalid unless the assignee could establish a ‘genuine commercial interest’ in taking the transfer. Although the ‘genuine commercial interest’ test has frequently been applied in Australian cases, little ink has been spilled on elucidating its precise meaning. This paper begins with a critical examination of the mischief behind judicial opposition to assignments of bare rights of action, then proceeds to investigate the meaning of ‘genuine commercial interest’ with particular attention to two contentious aspects, viz.: the need for the assignee to possess a preexisting interest arising separately from the assignment, and the relevance of profit making by the assignee. This paper argues that judicial inquiry should not focus on the nature of the assignee’s interest but rather on the effect of the assignment with reference to the mischief that maintenance and champerty were intended to redress; accordingly, an assignment should not be struck down merely because the assignee lacks a pre-existing interest or makes a profit from the assignment. 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/2123/12161 Reforming the Regulation of Financial Market Manipulation McIntyre, Graeme Fraudsters periodically attempt to enrich themselves by employing a raft of tricks and schemes to exploit investors and financial markets. Market manipulation (‘manipulation’) is one such class of illegitimate conduct. It perverts the market price formation process and undermines public confidence in financial market integrity. An effective prohibition on manipulation is thus required to protect investors from fraud and promote market integrity, thereby fostering investment and economic growth. Chapter 1 of this thesis defines manipulation and argues that the current anti-manipulation regime, ss 1041A–1041C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), requires substantive reform. This regime is predicated on a conceptually unsound understanding of manipulation. It fails to articulate the nature and role of manipulative intention and is based on an unclear distinction between civil penalties and criminal offences. As such, the scope of liability is sometimes too broad and at other times too narrow. Additionally, the provisions are internally defective, as they suffer from ambiguous language. They are also overly complex and have inconsistent physical and fault requirements. The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) exacerbates these problems. Chapter 2 advances a two-pronged proposal for substantive law reform. Principally, two criminal prohibitions on manipulation should replace the current regime. These will prohibit a person from executing a transaction, or doing, or omitting to do, an act, when motivated by the dominant purpose of manipulating the market for, or price of, a financial product. The provisions clearly articulate the requisite manipulative intention and have an appropriate scope of liability. They are also easier to enforce than the current regime, as two deeming provisions facilitate proof of manipulative intention. 4 The proposed regime is complemented by a Serious Financial Market Crimes Act 2014 (Cth). This contains prohibitions on manipulation and other conduct that undermines financial market integrity, reinforcing the serious criminal nature of manipulation and enhancing the credibility of ASIC’s enforcement actions. It may also motivate Parliament to articulate its policy objectives in greater detail. Together, these proposals would effectively deter manipulation and promote financial market integrity. 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/2123/12159 An Awkward Situation: The Courts' Approach to a Judical Officer Suing for Defamation Sahore, Aarushi The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in O’Shane v Harbour Radio exposes various issues involved in a judicial officer’s suit for defamation, including the challenges faced by defendants in raising the defence of truth. While the majority found that Magistrate O’Shane was not barred from bringing a defamation claim against Alan Jones, the minority held it should be disallowed because of public policy reasons. This paper proposes that the policy reasons in favour of barring judicial defamation suits can potentially be invoked to establish a novel concept of ‘judicial reputation’, borrowing from existing jurisprudence in relation to ‘governmental reputation’. Applied here, a plaintiff should not have capacity to sue in defamation in order to protect their judicial reputation, because this type of reputation is incompatible with democratic principles of freedom of speech. Having regard to the unique position judicial officers are in, in that they effectively embody the court, and the public nature of the defendant’s wrong in publishing words criticising them, it can be said that a personal suit to protect judicial reputation is incongruous with defamation law. 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/2123/11510 Towards Intelligent Self-Defence: Bringing Peacetime Espionage in From the Cold and Under the Rubric of the Right of Self-Defence Mack, Ian 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/2123/10517 EQUITABLE ACCOUNTING BETWEEN CO-OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY: HAVE WE LOST SIGHT OF THE CO-OWNERSHIP RELATIONSHIP? Zhang, Leona 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/2123/10509 MILKING THE MARRIAGE POWER: CAN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT LEGISLATE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? Cheesman, Elodie 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/2123/10508 THE WORKPLACE GENDER EQUALITY ACT 2012 (CTH): RETHINKING THE REGULATORY APPROACH Manfre, Louisa 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z https://hdl.handle.net/2123/10507 Climate Change Law in Southeast Asia: Risk, Regulation and Regional Innovation Whitehead, Isabelle 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z