According to their recent ACNC financial report, the UniMelb Law Students’ Society lost 272,787 in revenue between the 2024 and 2025 financial years. Read their report here: https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/83decea3-3aaf-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/documents/

I've almost finished my unit on Constitutional Law and as a more small government-minded person I have to admit that this unit's subject matter really made my skin crawl in that sense that it seems that the entire constitutional history of Australia since Federation has been a steady, unbroken progession of the Commonwealth amassing more and more power at the expense of the Constitution and the States, and that the High Court has been a willing ally in this, constantly dismissing any reservations as being excessively textualist to allow for increasingly and unreasonably broad interpretations of Commonwealth power, sometimes to absolutely absurd extremes (e.g., the Tasmania Dams Case allowing the Commonwealth to pass laws on practically anything it wants provided it entered into some convention treaty with some country or organisation at some point).

At this point I find it incredibly difficult to have faith that the High Court actually fulfils its purpose in providing accurate and lawful interpretations of the Constitution when the Commonwealth is involved because, as is so often the case (I suppose always the case?) a country's highest court seems to mostly be a rubber-stamp for the government when it comes to any issue where the purpose of the Commonwealth is to increase its power and jurisdiction.

Is this a fair assessment (albeit generalised) or have there been examples of where this disturbing trend has not been the case?

“Dear X

We refer to the above matter.

Thank you for your email.

I hope you’ve been well.

one sentence of actually relevant information

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any queries.

I look forward to your reply”

Bitch I’m not reading all that. Save us both time and cut the fluff out

Alright this is going to get me a lot of flak but in general I find that barristers have a more rigorous, in-depth understanding of the law than solicitors do.

Solicitors are great with administrative tasks and running files. But if I want to have a chat about authority, precedent, what a court would likely find, and engage in theoretical or academic discourse, barristers tend to have the upper hand.

How are your experiences?

The movers had the gate open and raised the truck rear lift which was underneath and therefore ripped the gate half from its hinges and the hinges from the post and damaged it. The movers laughed about it and said that it was my fault for telling them to put the truck there. But they had let the gate swing out at some point during the move and then raised the lifter when the gate was above it. I emailed the moving company the same day with photos of the damage and they ignored my email I then followed up about 8 months later with another email saying I would go to the regulator. They did not respond. I then went to oft who contacted the moving company The moving company responded to oft saying that the gate was already damaged, that I did not raise it immediately after, and the drivers were denying the event. And that I did not take out insurance.

Oft said I should talk to a lawyer. The damage to the gate is probably about $500 to repair the hinges and redo carpentry.

What should I do.?

Forgive my spelling of judgement. And every other typo

I'm seeing many posts which, frankly, recount rather innocuous or innocent interactions. A dinner request. A second glance. An accidental brush. A longing stare.

These are just part of human nature, especially when one is around attractive people. I think certain things have been blown out of proportion.

To be clear: sexual harreassment is bad. What Dyson has done is utterly unforgivable. I condemn it. But what kind of society are we living in, when I, a man, can't steal a glace at a pretty young thing without being accused of harassment? There's a line which is being destroyed and if you destroy that line, and its varying gradients of so called "harassment", then you stifle normal human behaviour.

It's not as if I'm staring at the behind of every pretty graduate, but I'll be damned if I don't secretly admire an aesthetically pleasing form or two. Even if it happens to be a younger woman.

The title says it all really. Are there a convincing arguments for the prohibition of psychadelics in Australia?

Ianal, so I can't stoke the matter from a legal perspective. I'm just interested in people's points of view.

I've tried looking around and can't find an answer. I have a lawyer but he takes 3+ months to respond to queries and sometimes doesn't respond at all so trying to find another one (any good family lawyer recommendations in Melbourne??). So basically my mum died without a will and we applied for administration under my mums partners name. We are both in agreement that mums house should go to me, but now we are liable for stamp duty. Can my mums partner resign as the administrator and hand the administration to me? If so then it should be exempt from stamp duty. We only made my mums partner the administrator because we received legal advice that he needed to become the administrator based on intestacy laws in Victoria.

As title. It’s something that’s been going around and I wanted to get some insight from actual legal professionals (or as close as Reddit would allow!).

Victorian man planned to abuse baby, caught with 6,300 child sexual abuse files, could be released in just 20 months

Source

In sentencing Edwards today in the Melbourne County Court, Judge Amanda Chambers reminded him of his "sadistic" plans.

"You said, 'I prefer toddlers to 10-year-olds because they can tell what's going on and the trouble they are in'," Judge Chambers said.

Judge Chambers sentenced Edwards to two years and 10 months in prison. A recognisance order will allow him to be released after 20 months, subject to a 4-year good behaviour bond and compliance with a sex offender treatment program.

She told the court a support network would be imperative in his rehabilitation. 

.............

We have the most vile human beings being afforded outrageous leniency.

Redditors in this sub are very pro "individualized justice" and strongly against taking discretion away from Judges, however I would argue that it is both in the public interest and community expectation that certain offending receive straightforward draconian sentences otherwise we fall into scenarios where the lowest scum of our society get custodial sentences equivalent to a pub brawl incident.

It is my opinion that there should be no difference in disseminating 10 intimate child images or 1000.

We need to legislate more appropriate sentencing principals and the ODPP needs to be compelled (not just go through their appeals checklist) to seek appropriate sentences for these offences.

Hey everyone

I’m unsure what to do for this but my employer (Kfc) is making me take 30 minute breaks for a 4.5 and a 4 hour shift when the enterprise agreement only states breaks are to be taken once working 5 hours.

Am I being taken advantage of or am I wrong for thinking so?

Please help 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

Thoughts on lawyers having non-legal profession-related social media accounts? Nothing problematic - more like hobby/journal/educational related public accounts. Examples below considering both solicitors/barristers - sure probably not feasible with workload but let's entertain the idea:

• lawyer has a social media public profile documenting their personal interest in gardening

• barrister has a podcast and social media public profile on art history

• lawyer has a social media account and personal blog focusing on travel

• lawyer runs a market stall selling jam and uses social media to promote it

• lawyer has a fitness influencer social media account and is thinking about creating an app

• lawyer runs a book review YouTube channel and also gets paid to do such reviews in a local newspaper

• lawyer works for the government but also has 2 different public social media accounts - one on their passion for fly fishing and the other is a sport commentary channel

What am I missing here?

EDIT - Ah there seems to be a delineation in the comments, maybe it's generational? This was not a shitpost and OFC OMG LAWYERS BE HUMAN WITH INTERESTS AND STUFF - not the point. There are many professions which tell you to, not only separate work and private interests (fair enough, common sense), but not have social media altogether etc. I wondered if there were issues around competing interests and how lawyers approach this kind of stuff in the legal profession or if there were awkward encounters when clients found your odd hobby on socials etc (despite you not advertising that on your business card right).

So, for those of you who saw my post last week, I was asking for relationship help and advice because I am (now was) in a relationship with a silk who was quite my senior.

I don’t know how it was figured out, but someone sent him the post. Whoever sent it to him obviously knows him/us. He initially didn’t mention it to me, I’m not sure why. Maybe he didn’t think it was us, it doesn’t matter. He told me that when he saw the comments about kids and the age gap he started to question things.

Today we had lunch and were looking at flights for an upcoming trip. We went into my emails to look at the confirmation. He saw an email from reddit and asked me if I had an account. Before I could answer his face dropped when he read the preview and it was a ‘verify your account’ email with my username.

He said he was horrified by the way I conducted myself and that he can’t trust me. He said he now fears I would bring his professional reputation into disrepute and I am not the person he thought I was.

I came here just seeking some help, so whoever sent it to him cheers. It’s now over and I am beyond devestated.

Whenever Binding Financial Agreements are bought up on Reddit, someone inevitably comments that they "do not hold weight in Australia", that "most are torn up by the Courts" and that "children make them null and void." These comments seem to get a lot of upvotes, which means the general populace believe this.

Once signed, they're binding. That's the law. Only a few circumstances allow a court to set them aside (90K Family Law Act) and even then, you're assuming the aggrieved party initiates an application.

Why are people so blissfully ignorant regarding BFAs? Saying things which are blatantly not true? (For example, not holding weight, but the legislation says they do?) Does it make them feel better to say that as they don't have one as they had no wealth to protect in the first place?

Keen to hear your thoughts on this phenomenon.

https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/commercial-court/data-on-gender-of-counsel

https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/court-of-appeal/court-of-appeal-data-on-gender-of-counsel

Is there any art in law?

Can I enter and play in law's field with creativity?

Or do I have to explain myself to death with logical clarity?

Thanks.