|
Windridge Farm Pty Ltd v Grassi |
The defendants entered the plaintiff's land, containing a piggery, with the intention of taking photographs and film footage to establish that the plaintiff failed to meet certain standards. The defendants' argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief because of 'unclean hands' was dismissed by the court. The court also found that the defensive argument based on 'implied freedom of political communication' did not have application in the circumstances.
|
|
Whaling in the Antarctic |
|
|
Voiceless Animal Law Toolkit |
Overview of the state of Animal Law in Australia.
|
|
VIVA! International Voice for Animals, et al v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc., et al |
In this California case, plaintiffs sued defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that defendants import the kangaroo leather in violation of section Penal Code section 653o—and thus are committing an unlawful business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Section 653o bans the import of products made from certain animals, including kangaroos into California. Defendants import and sell in California markets athletic shoes made from kangaroo leather. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that section 653o is preempted by federal law under the doctrine of conflict preemption. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The appellate court also agreed, finding that the statute as applied to defendants in this case conflicts with federal law and with substantial federal objectives of persuading Australian federal and state governments to impose kangaroo population management programs, in exchange for allowing the importation of kangaroo products. The accompanying regulations set forth a comprehensive national policy for the protection of endangered species such as the three kangaroo species involved in this case. Application of section 653o would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of Congress if applied to the defendants. |
|
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW): A Summary |
This paper is intended to serve as a summary of the main provisions in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA), which is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in New South Wales, Austrailia. Attempts have been made to offer critical analysis, and suggestions for reform, where possible. This paper is not intended to be an exhaustive summary of the POCTAA. Rather, it is a work in progress.
|
|
Overview of Whaling |
In 2010, Australia sued Japan at the International Court of Justice in an effort to force Japan to end its whaling program in the Antarctic. Though commercial whaling was banned in the 1980s, Japan claimed that its program was for scientific purposes and therefore legal. The ICJ sided with Australia, but its ruling left open the possibility that Japan could resume whaling in the future. |
|
Overview of Laws Governing Kangaroo Culling in Australia |
This article provides an overview of the laws governing kangaroo culling in Australia. There are two codes that apply on a National level, one for killing kangaroos for commercial purposes, and the other for non-commercial purposes. This overview provides an introduction to the topic and outlines the main shortcomings of the legislation.
|
|
Overview of Australian Live Export Laws |
This article discusses live export laws in Australia. There has been much debate in Australia as to whether the live export industry should be banned and the legislation has recently been reformed. This article discusses the effectiveness of the reform and the general weaknesses of the legislation.
|
|
Opening The Laboratory Door: National and International Legal Responsibilities for the Use of Animals in Scientific Research--An |
Despite the increased availability of alternatives to the animal test model, laws and policies continue to be used as shields to justify the scientific use of animals in jurisdictions across the world. This article examines the legislative framework for animal research in Australia with a specific focus on the state of New South Wales. It also examines emerging international principles for the use of animals in scientific research.
|
|
Mark, Stoner, Setter and Pearson v Henshaw |
The four appellants, members of Animal Liberation, entered premises containing battery hens without permission. This was done allegedly on concern as to the treatment of those battery hens and the appellants claimed this constituted a reasonable excuse. After a second appeal, the convictions were upheld and it was found that the appellants did not have a reasonable excuse for trespass.
|
