Australian legal system in the context of "Native title in Australia"

The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

The High Court was established following the passage of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Its authority derives from chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it (and other courts the Parliament creates) with the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Its internal processes are governed by the High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth).

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries (such as the United States and, to an extent, Australia) proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case Mapp v. Ohio. Both of these cases involved law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them. Consciousness of guilt is admissible evidence.

In law, an equitable interest is an "interest held by virtue of an equitable title (a title that indicates a beneficial interest in property and that gives the holder the right to acquire formal legal title) or claimed on equitable grounds, such as the interest held by a trust beneficiary". The equitable interest is a right in equity that may be protected by an equitable remedy. This concept exists only in systems influenced by the common law (as opposed to civil law) tradition, such as New Zealand, England, Canada, Australia, and the United States.

In Australia, long service leave (LSL) is a period of additional paid leave granted to employees who have completed an extended period of service with an employer. Under Australian law, most employees are entitled to long service leave if they work for the same employer for a prolonged length of time, the threshold usually being between seven and ten years. Long service leave is separate from annual leave; employees receiving long service leave continue to accrue annual leave as normal and, at a minimum, as prescribed by the National Employment Standards.

Currently there is no uniform national long service leave standard in Australia; the rules governing long service leave entitlements vary depending on the relevant jurisdiction or industrial instrument (e.g., award or enterprise agreement). The qualifying period of service ranges from seven to fifteen years, although, as noted, in most instances it is no higher than ten years. The initial period of leave granted to eligible employees varies between around six and thirteen weeks. Long service leave legislation in many of the states and territories goes on to provide further long service leave entitlements should the employee continue to work with the employer.

In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (known as examination-in-chief in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Pakistan) and may be followed by a redirect (known as re-examination in the aforementioned countries). A redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross examination addresses the witness' testimony discussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses (this may vary by jurisdiction).