1. “The essential difference between a barrister’s work in court and that of a physician or engineer is that a barrister’s task is to persuade an umpire (the Court) to give a decision in his client’s favour in a dispute, perhaps of great complexity and difficulty. The adversary system is designed to ensure that there is presented to the mind of the Court, in the best possible light, everything that can properly be put for each of the competing views, so that the deciding mind of the Court is a fully informed mind. Under this system it is the duty of a barrister to put to the Court what he, from his learning experience and skill, conceives to be the case for his client and he discharges this duty by putting the case as persuasively as he can, consistently always with honesty and fairness. He must thus bring to bear, in addition to knowledge of the law, an ability to persuade another mind or minds, and his judgment as to the best way in all the circumstances of effecting this persuasion. No physician diagnosing or treating a patient and no engineer designing a bridge is concerned to persuade another mind to provide a fully informed decision of a dispute, or concerned to do anything like it.” per Full Court in Wraith & Ors v Giannarelli & Ors [1988] VicRp 69; [1988] VR 713; [1987] ANZ Conv R 239; [1987] Aust Torts Reports 80-099; [1987] V Conv R 54-212, 19 May 1987.

2. “The essence of the matter is that the Classification Committee at Pentridge has indicated that the applicant is about to be transferred from Pentridge to Ararat and that whilst in Ararat it is likely that he will be housed in a dormitory cell, the dimensions of which would be such as to make it unlikely that he could accommodate in the cell the whole of the legal materials which he seems to have collected in prison. The applicant, therefore, says that he will be unable to prepare adequately for his trial in the County Court, and for some other litigation in which he has engaged legal advisers, and which will take place, he says, in the High Court of Australia.” per Young CJ in re Clarkson [1987] VicSC 190, Full Court, 22 May 1987.

3. “If the matter had to be considered in the normal course and the respondent had been sentenced along with his fellow co-offenders who were sentenced in 1985, I should have thought that an appropriate sentence to be imposed upon him, having regard to his prior criminal history and the nature of the offence and the part that he played in its commission, would have been in the region of eight years, and as my former brother Starke said, or might have said, the stakes were high and the penalty should correspond.” per Murphy J in DPP v Louden [1987] VicSC 154, Full Court, 6 May 1987.

4. “…it must be emphasized that murder is a very frequent occurrence in the community and it is becoming increasingly so. If a serious view of it is not taken, life will become, in this community, unacceptedly cheap.” per Marks J in re Anas [1987] VicSC 153, Vic Sup Ct, 5 May 1987.

5. “We would not wish to conclude these reasons without expressing our indebtedness to counsel for their very able arguments in this case. We should also add, with respect, that although we are differing from Marks J on the narrow point isolated for our consideration, which is only one of the questions dealt with by His Honour, we have derived much assistance from His Honour’s painstaking judgment. If we have not dealt with all of the arguments advanced by counsel and referred to in His Honour’s judgment it is because there must be an end not only of litigation but also of judgments.” per Full Court in Wraith & Ors v Giannarelli & Ors [1988] VicRp 69; [1988] VR 713; [1987] ANZ Conv R 239; [1987] Aust Torts Reports 80-099; [1987] V Conv R 54-212, 19 May 1987.

6. “It is difficult for this Court now to ascertain precisely what the evidence was in fact, because not only was there no transcript taken of the evidence but the learned Judge’s notes of the evidence in this case are extremely condensed and cryptic on a number of critical matters.” per Fullagar J in Travel Management Pty Ltd v Grancrisp Pty Ltd [1987] VicSC 168, Full Court, 12 May 1987.

7. “The respondent indicated that if he did not take her mother with him, that he could not have access. Debate ensued as to whether or not insulting language was used by the applicant reflecting upon the respondent’s mother in some way, referring to her, as I believe, as ‘an old bag’, or words of that nature, which are commonly used by young people when referring to any female, and, for all I know, to any male, over the age of 50 years. Although perhaps it is insulting to the person to whom it refers, it does not appear to me to reflect anything but the accustomed disrespect, or lack of respect, which youth has for age.” per Murphy J in Galea v Rapson [1987] VicSC 292, Vic Sup Ct, 17 July 1987.

8. “On or about the 20th day of May 1987 a collision occurred along Cardinal Road, Glenroy in the State of Victoria between a motor vehicle owned by the Complainant and a golf ball struck and/or driven by the Defendant. The said collision was caused solely by the negligence of the Defendant in the striking and/or driving of the said golf ball while he was engaged in striking a golf ball in that part of the Northern Golf Course in Glenroy hereinafter referred to as the said Golf Course adjacent to Cardinal Road, Glenroy in the said State. Particulars of the Defendant’s negligence are hereinafter set out.” Particulars of Demand in the case of Kuek v Luff.

9. “To say of a tenant ‘you have behaved unacceptable of a tenant and that you have made it very difficult to have peace and quiet to other tenants therefore we ask you that it is against Residential Tenancy to create Disturbance and Noise to Neighbours’ is not to specify a breach of any particular provision of the Act, nor does it give sufficient particularity of the facts which give rise to the complaint. It is difficult not to be critical of the English used, for a notice which is to be the starting point of a procedure of such importance to the recipient as the termination of a residential tenancy must enable the recipient to know just what it is that he must remedy, if it can be remedied. Is it the beating of drums, or the playing of wireless, or arguing with one’s wife, throwing parties, or is it any one or more of a number of matters? It is not possible to know. The letter continues, ‘Therefore we are sendin you a notice to ask you to stop immediately this practice’, but what ‘this practice’ is remains unspecified and a mystery. The last reference to using the premises in such a manner as not to cause nuisance to others’ is equally vague and uninformative.” per Murphy J in Atkins v Taip [1987] V Conv R 54-216, Vic Sup Ct, 24 July 1987.

10. “A compact disc is an object about 5″ in diameter which when placed in the appropriate machine reproduces sounds, in most cases, music. A quality of reproduction is achieved which is far higher than is heard from records and tape recordings. Disctronics was the first Australian manufacturer of compact discs. Production in the Moorabbin factory commenced in February 1987. It is planned to produce about 15 million discs per annum, about 70% of which will be exported. Since evidence was given that the wholesale price of a disc was about $4, the potential for export earnings is immense.” per Southwell J in Disctronics Limited v Comptroller General of Customs, unrep, Vic Sup Ct, 22 September, 1987.

11. “One’s knowledge of human behaviour, and the restraint on expenditure likely to be exercised when the patient has to pay out of her own funds, causes us to think that the amount which might theoretically be justified, and the amount which is likely to be expended, will be very different.” per Murray and Southwell JJ in Thresher & Anor v Johnston [1987] VicSC 266, Vic Sup Ct (FC) 26 June 1987.

12. “I believe the application on behalf of the plaintiff for costs is a bold one. I am not at all persuaded that really, on balance, the plaintiff carried the day. On the contrary, my view is that, using racing parlance, ‘by a short half-head’ this statement of claim was saved. I think, in the circumstances, I won’t make any order for costs.” Per JHPhillips J, in Scheerer v Garvey and Ors [1987] VicSC 436, Vic Sup Ct, 9 October 1987.

13. “Drugs of addiction wantonly produced, distributed and used continue to present to a modern civilised society an increasing burden both monstrous and intolerable. It is a monstrous burden in the sense that it is unnatural and evil. Moreover it begets further evil, as anyone who cares to sit as an observer in this Court for a week will surely find. It is an intolerable burden because the modern civilised society simply cannot sustain its crushing weight and yet remain civilised: one by one the civilising props must give way. Year by year we see decent standards warped. They do not suddenly fail, but noticeably they are upheld by progressively fewer members of the society as soft options fostered by addictive drugs became acceptable. Connunity life then tends to be supported less and less upon robust, natural attitudes and more and more upon artificial, compromised, drug-engendered values.” per Tadgell J, in R v Moran and Byrnes [1987] VicSC 449, Vic Ct of Criminal Appeal, 15 October 1987.

14. “This case is not akin to, and must be distinguished at its outset from, Hinch v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria, recently decided by the High Court on 15 October. That case concerned a commentator common in the print and electronic media, who had strutted and preened in frenetic attempts to attract the public’s attention. The slightest wavering of the limelight was sufficient to entice and provoke a further outrageous attempt to gain publicity. That was a contempt contumaciously committed, to be distinguished from the facts as alleged by the Crown before me.” Per Nathan J, in R v Tennison and Anor [1987] VicSC 505, Vic Sup Ct, 12 November 1987.

15. “The use of bombs and explosives is the trademark of the terrorist, whose acts of lawlessness have engendered a special revulsion that is due not only to the fact that death is so often the intention of the perpetrator, but also because the recklessness with which the offence is, by its very nature, invested is so likely to lead to the loss of innocent lives and, less importantly, to the destruction of the property of innocent third persons. It is an offence that is callous in its conception, wanton in its perpetration and, if the intent is given to, ruthlessly destructive in its aftermath. It is a crime that is relatively novel in this country, as I have already indicated, and yet it is plain that there is a community recognition that it is regarded with a particular repugnance because its commission represents a profound assault upon a stable society and the law and order that is necessary for that society’s survival. Those responsible for such reprehensible conduct must expect to suffer condign punishment.” Per Crockett J, in R v Sakr [1987] VicSC 498, Vic Sup Ct (FC), 10 November 1987.