Adelaide Research & Scholarship
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/45540
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Bartie, S. | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2007 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Insurance Law Journal, 2007; 18(1):98-102 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1030-2379 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/45540 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | In Chamberlains v Lai, the NZ Supreme Court held that advocates' immunity no longer constituted a part of NZ common law - contrasts with the High Court of Australia's decision in D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid, where immunity was retained | - |
| dc.description.statementofresponsibility | Susan Bartie | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.publisher | LexisNexis Butterworths | - |
| dc.title | Antipodeans differ over advocates' immunity. | - |
| dc.type | Journal article | - |
| pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
| Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 6 Law publications | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.