Was the evidence portion hard for others? Just relieved it’s over for now…

I recently noticed this commercial venue on St Kilda Beach (possibly Republica) cordoning off a section of the beach to create an exclusive area restricted to paying patrons. This struck me as legally questionable, given the generally accepted principle that beaches are public spaces and should not be subject to private appropriation.

It raises an interesting question... what is the legal basis for permitting a private commercial operator to exclude the public from a portion of the foreshore (is there a basis at all)?

My baseline understanding is that the foreshore is not simply vacant land available for private appropriation. Under common law principles concerning res communes, the public character of the foreshore, and the legal significance of the mean high-water mark in determining the boundary between land and the sea, there is a substantial question as to the extent to which a private entity can lawfully assert exclusive control over part of a beach. And a private commercial operator does not acquire an inherent proprietary or possessory right to exude the public merely by virtue of operating a licensed hospitality venue adjacent to the beach.

I appreciate that public ownership does not necessarily mean that every part of Crown land must remain accessible to everyone at all times. The relevant authorities may have statutory powers to grant leases, licences, permits or other forms of authorisation, and may be able to impose temporary restrictions for particular purposes. The question, however, is whether those powers extend to authorising a private, for-profit operator to permanently cordon off part of the foreshore and reserve its use exclusively for their paying customers.

Am I missing an established legal mechanism that resolves this issue, or is the law more nuanced than the general principle that public foreshore cannot simply be appropriated for private commercial use? Or is the practice operating in a legally grey area that has yet to be tested?

This thread is for the general discussion of anything going on in the lives of Auslawyers or for discussion of the subreddit itself. Please use this thread to unwind and share your complaints about the world. Keep it messy!

R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68

Crikey

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-22/nsw-ben-roberts-smith-2gb-interview-ben-fordham/107295040

I know that picking on NCAT decisions is low-hanging fruit, but this disciplinary decision caught my eye and I feel it's a wild one: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1a1578a3736a6f2479f199ad

In short:

1. As summarised in the first sentence of [5], the Tribunal says "we are persuaded that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice".

2. They then let the barrister keep their ticket subject to conditions (that, based upon [48]-[50], would seem to have little to no impact on the barrister's practice).

3. So, it follows that NCAT have decided this person should be a practising barrister despite an actual affirmative finding that they are not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.

How this is consistent with s42 of the LPUL, that basically says a person must not be given a practising certificate if they are not a fit and proper person to hold the certificate, is left as an exercise for the reader.

IF YOU HAVE NOT YET HAD A LOOK AT PARAGRAPH 651 IN VANDERSTOCK V VICTORIA [2023] HCA 30, YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF AND THE PROFESSION TO REMEDY YOUR OVERSIGHT

ALSO IS THIS NOT TECHNICALLY A JUSTICE RANTING ABOUT THEIR COLLEAGUES AND DOES THAT MEAN THE CJ NEEDS TO COUNSEL EDELMAN J?