Talk:Commonwealth v Verwayen

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Commonwealth v Verwayen is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Verdict and significance[edit]

Is there any information on what the actual court verdict was, other than the application of estoppel? Or is that irrelevant? Rosguill (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The High Court decision was about estoppel & waiver - the Commonwealth had a strong case about time limits & whether it owed a duty of care to members of the armed forces. The Commonwealth had decided, for mostly political reasons, not to run either of these defences. The issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth could change its defence part way through & the High Court said no. There is no subsequent decision on damages, which strongly suggests the parties agreed on the Commonwealth paying damages. That said the article doesn't do a great job of explaining that, so I will try & find some time to improve it. Find bruce (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]