When a marriage breaks down if the parties are unable to agree as to how their assets are to be divided their disputes may currently be heard in two different court hierarchies applying two disparate sets of legal principles. Inevitably this position leads to forum shopping and to the proliferation of legal proceedings which are not directed at resolving the substantive issue between the parties. It produces uncertainty, duplication, expense and delay. Although the problems associated with dual jurisdiction in matrimonial property disputes arise both before and after divorce, neither the Family Court nor the Supreme Courts have yet, it seems, formulated policies which ought to be pursued. Nor have they been consistent in their choice or application of the legal mechanisms that they enlist to break the deadlock. It is suggested here that both the federal and state courts should aspire to the centralisation of matrimonial property disputes, so far as is constitutionally feasible, within the Family Court. With that objective in mind the various legal devices currently invoked to resolve disputes about jurisdiction are critically reviewed. Some techniques are suggested to overcome problems which recur in the case law and a general approach is proposed which, it is hoped, will achieve consistency in the aims and in the legal principles adhered to by the courts in the future.

When, in 1902, a murder was committed in the Cocos Islands and a resident native of the Islands was brought to trial at Singapore, the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements ruled unexpectedly that it had no jurisdiction.

That decision threw doubt upon the validity of Letters Patent of 1886 which were to remain the constitutional foundation of British rule in the Cocos until the transfer of sovereignty to Australia in 1957. The doubt necessarily extended to matters of long-term practical importance, including the special position in the Cocos held by the Clunies-Ross family until 1978.

This article considers the validity of those Letters Patent—question peremptorily closed off by British authorities in the aftermath of the 1902 affair. Fundamental doctrines of colonial law in relation to territorial acquisition, and their application to British annexation of the Cocos Islands, are examined. The continuing relevance of those doctrines—eg to the recent line of land rights cases in Australia—is incidentally pointed out.

The Letters Patent are also tested against the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta and in terms of evolving judicial acceptance of severance. For that purpose, illustration of legal principle is drawn from Australian cases as from English law.

The common law relating to the tort of passing off is the traditional means by which conduct threatening business reputation may be halted. During the past five years, the Federal Court of Australia has been called upon on many occasions to apply s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) to prevent such conduct. As yet, there has been no clear judicial statement as to the interrelationship and overlap between the two causes of action.

This Article discusses the scope of the two causes of action in the context of an allegation of actual or threatened erosion of goodwill. The types of cases in which such allegation is usually made is then examined and suggestions given as to which cause of action should be relied on.