获取原住民所有权诉讼中创建的人类学证据和文件

A. Moss
{"title":"获取原住民所有权诉讼中创建的人类学证据和文件","authors":"A. Moss","doi":"10.38127/uqlj.v41i2.6081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Documents are critical in native title litigation. This article explores the different methods of, and common problems encountered when, accessing such documents. By examining recent decisions dealing with the ‘Hearne v Street obligation’, non-party access requests, and legal professional privilege, this paper explores how the Court has grappled with the translation of general principles of practice to the unique context of native title litigation. It observes the Court has refused to create special native title rules, but rather has pragmatically applied general principles to native title matters on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, close attention to these judicial developments is necessary, lest the interests of one’s clients, or of First Nations persons, be adversely affected by inappropriate document disclosure. ","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Access to Anthropological Evidence and Documents Created in Native Title Litigation\",\"authors\":\"A. Moss\",\"doi\":\"10.38127/uqlj.v41i2.6081\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Documents are critical in native title litigation. This article explores the different methods of, and common problems encountered when, accessing such documents. By examining recent decisions dealing with the ‘Hearne v Street obligation’, non-party access requests, and legal professional privilege, this paper explores how the Court has grappled with the translation of general principles of practice to the unique context of native title litigation. It observes the Court has refused to create special native title rules, but rather has pragmatically applied general principles to native title matters on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, close attention to these judicial developments is necessary, lest the interests of one’s clients, or of First Nations persons, be adversely affected by inappropriate document disclosure. \",\"PeriodicalId\":83293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v41i2.6081\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v41i2.6081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文件在原住民所有权诉讼中至关重要。本文探讨了访问此类文档的不同方法以及遇到的常见问题。通过审查最近关于“Hearne v Street义务”、非当事人访问请求和法律职业特权的裁决,本文探讨了法院如何努力将一般实践原则转化为原住民所有权诉讼的独特背景。它注意到,法院拒绝制定特殊的原住民所有权规则,而是在个案基础上务实地将一般原则应用于原住民所有权问题。因此,有必要密切关注这些司法发展,以免当事人或原住民的利益因文件披露不当而受到不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Access to Anthropological Evidence and Documents Created in Native Title Litigation
Documents are critical in native title litigation. This article explores the different methods of, and common problems encountered when, accessing such documents. By examining recent decisions dealing with the ‘Hearne v Street obligation’, non-party access requests, and legal professional privilege, this paper explores how the Court has grappled with the translation of general principles of practice to the unique context of native title litigation. It observes the Court has refused to create special native title rules, but rather has pragmatically applied general principles to native title matters on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, close attention to these judicial developments is necessary, lest the interests of one’s clients, or of First Nations persons, be adversely affected by inappropriate document disclosure. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robodebt and Novel Data Technologies in the Public Sector The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions Regulating Decisions that Lead to Loss of Life in Workplaces Lending on the Edge Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1