Moderately amusing miscellany

Graeme Orr,"Verbosity and richness: current trends in the craft of the High Court"(1998) 6 TLJ 291.

The title is a clue on how to read the article. It's worth a look.The footnotes are particularly delicious.

E.g. 'This has even spawned a journal dedicated unashamedly to the ambition its authors have in being cited by the High Court. Bond University's High Court Review publishes only commentaries on pending High Court cases, with the promise that copies of the commentaries are sent to both the parties and the court prior to the hearing. The attempt to achieve de facto amicus status, is necessarily ephemeral, and so exists publicly only in Internet format: http://Bond.edu.au/Bond/Schools/Law/publications/HCR/. I have not, however, been able to find any instances where the High Court has "taken up the offer" and cited this review.'

And: The way all the federal courts handled the extraordinary media interest in the waterfront dispute of 1998 reflected the conundrum of the modern judge in the information age: live electronic coverage of oral judgments can make for dramatic news coverage, and offer a chance for the judiciary to explain its role to a wide audience. However, the alluring pitfalls of such attention and fame, while well known, are difficult for all but the most meek to resist, let alone for judges, who being accomplished and successful people, are not all possessed of either humility or a repressed ego.

Yes, a good way to reduce my BP after the horrible UI of Westlaw.

Better yet, it led me to this gem from Kirby J in Johnson v American Home Assurance Company:
"The ninety-first Psalm reflects the common human fear of injury to the foot. The Psalmist promises rescue from various misfortunes. The angels, we are assured, will take charge over the righteous[1]:

"They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone."

Unfortunately, angels did not intervene to protect the appellant's foot. But he had an insurance policy. This case concerns his attempt to obtain earthly rescue from the insurer. The question is whether the courts below misconstrued the policy. It provided coverage, in certain circumstances, for "permanent total loss of use ... of [a foot]". The insurer says that if, as a practical matter, use of the foot for mobility could be restored by the use of an insert in the shoe of the insured (an "orthotic"), the injury would necessarily fall outside the cover. The insured contends that the sole "loss of use" to be judged is that of the foot, as a foot. In issue is which construction of the policy is correct. Upon the resolution of that question depends the insured's entitlement to pursue his claim."