Search results

This study aims to investigate Australian civil tribunal decisions to ascertain compliance with decisional quality standards in Australian law, with a particular focus on strata and community title cases.

An orthodox doctrinal legal analysis and assessment of cases and tribunal policies was adopted. All Australian jurisdictions were surveyed, including federal, state and territory jurisdictions. The case law in each jurisdiction was screened to identify whether the principles applicable to decisional quality were engaged and then analysed as to the extent of that engagement.

Where a party presents a substantial, clearly particularised argument relying upon established facts, tribunals are obliged to address those facts and the arguments by way of an active intellectual process. However, appellate decisions disclose a degree of deference not often accorded to judicial officers, and there is a need for a more disciplined approach to ascertain whether any errors have been made by a tribunal lie on the critical path to the decision. As strata and community title disputes become more complex, the importance of decisional quality standards can only increase.

Up to date as of 1 March 2023.

The present position would appear to be that where a party presents a substantial, clearly particularised argument relying upon established facts, a tribunal must address its mind to those facts and the arguments by way of an active intellectual process. The requirement is limited to circumstances prescribed by a statute and factual and legal issues which are necessary to be determined in order for the tribunal to be satisfied as to circumstances prescribed by a statute. However, where the errors are not gross and plainly obvious, appeals from defective tribunal decisions are unlikely to succeed. There is a degree of deference not often accorded to judicial officers. That deference is unfortunate when tribunals are allocated jurisdiction over what quite often are significant property disputes.

The impact on community living of uncorrected poor quality tribunal decisions can be immense, depending on the degree of error. For example, water ingress into people’s homes might remain unremedied for many years, as, for example, occurred in the Marinko case.

The research and analysis is entirely original. A search of journals and textbooks did not identify any prior analysis, at least in the Australian context, relating to decisional quality standards of tribunals.

This paper introduces a methodology to identify, analyse and represent heritage site attributes, emphasizing their impact on value, authenticity, integrity and management, with a case study on Ghadames, Libya. Inscribed in 1986 and moved to the In-Danger List in 2016 due to conflict, this work seeks to update the site's attributes and values for improved management.

This methodology, focusing on Ghadames, leverages recent heritage management advancements to monitor conflict-induced changes, aiming to enhance decision-making through a detailed analysis of the site's natural and cultural attributes.

Our findings highlight the need for systematic and holistic assessments of heritage site attributes and values, crucial for managing sites of both local and global significance. This approach is a key to understanding their identity, guiding interpretation, management and preserving cultural significance.

Developed for Ghadames, the methodology requires adaptation for other sites, underscoring the importance of identifying core tangible and intangible attributes that define a site's uniqueness.

Our developed methodology offers a replicable framework that can be modified by local heritage professionals to map attributes and assess the direct and indirect impact of conflict on heritage sites.

The detailed assessment provides a foundation for crafting informed policies and effective management strategies. It specifically targets minimizing the adverse effects of conflict on heritage sites' attributes. This effort is instrumental in preparing the necessary documentation to support the delisting of these sites from the UNESCO World Heritage Site In-Danger List, promoting their preservation and recovery.

Consumer well-being in health-care settings is often undermined by information asymmetries, uncertainty and complex choices. Men are generally less motivated to adopt support tools designed to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) and increase involvement in health service delivery. This study aims to examine the effects of sports team metaphors in a male-centered decision aid on empowerment and preparedness within a sleep apnea treatment context, a common disease among men. Individual-level factors that influence the decision aid experience are also considered.

An online panel sample of 296 US men was randomly assigned to a generic or gender targeted decision aid. The scenario-based method was used to simulate the decision aid experience. A one-way MANOVA tested the effects of gender targeting on SDM-related outcomes. Structural equation modeling was then undertaken to analyze relationships between self-construal and these outcomes.

Participants who experienced the gender-targeted decision aid reported higher levels of empowerment and preparedness. The positive relationship between collective interdependence and empowerment was stronger among those who received the targeted decision aid. The positive relationship between empowerment and preparedness was also significantly stronger in the targeted group. Empowerment mediated the effect of self-construal on preparedness.

Little to no research has evaluated the effectiveness of sports team metaphors in improving SDM and facilitating health-care value cocreation. Results provide insight into how to enhance service design and delivery for men facing medical decisions.