---
title: Example Submissions
document_date:  1 May 2015
filing_date:    \hspace{2mm}May 2015
...

# These submissions

1.  These submissions are intended to demonstrate the use of Pandoc to compile legal
    documents and typeset them using \LaTeX \ or \XeTeX.

2.  This document was compiled using a template which reflects the style customarily
    used in Western Australia.

# Jurisdictional error

1.  In ***Kirk***,[^1] the High Court held that a State Supreme Court's jurisdiction
    to review administrative decisions for jurisdictional error was constitutionally entrenched.

    > Judicial determination of _Wednesbury_ unreasonableness in Australia has in
    > practice been rare.  Nothing in these reasons should be taken as
    > encouragement to greater frequency. This is a rare case [99].

[^1]: ***Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW)*** [2010] HCA 1 [99] (L L Cool J).

# Rescission

2.  The power to 'rescind' or 'avoid' a contract may be conferred by a
    statutory provision, the terms of the contract, or the general law. The law
    of contract got into a muddle for a long time because of the word
    ‘rescission’ and the confusion that arose in applying it to different kinds
    of termination.[^koom]  In some contexts, rescission refers to termination
    for breach or repudiation.[^heyman]

[^koom]: ***Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd***
(2007) 233 CLR 115, 118 (Gleeson CJ, in argument).

[^heyman]: ***Koompahtoo*** [50], [52] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Heydon & Crennan
JJ); Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] AC 356, 361–362 (Viscount Simon LC), 379–385
(Lord Wright).

3.  While a contract which has been terminated (or ‘discharged’) for breach may be
    described as having ‘come to an end,’ it is more accurate to say that the
    injured party is absolved from further performance of the contract,[^shevill] as the
    contract remains on foot for the purpose of enforcement.[^codelfa]

[^shevill]: ***Heyman***, 399 (Lord Porter); ***Shevill v Builders Licensing Board***
(1982) 149 CLR 620, 626 (Gibbs CJ).

[^codelfa]: ***Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW)*** (1982)
149 CLR 337, 364 (Mason J).

# Fundamental aspects of criminal justice

4.  The history of Australian law stretches back to England and antiquity. As
    the last surviving outpost of the trial by jury, the field of criminal law
    might be thought more antiquated than most. But in ***X7 v Australian Crime
    Commission***, Hayne and Bell JJ observed:

    > It is … necessary to exercise some care in identifying what lessons can
    > be drawn from the history of the development of criminal law and
    > procedure. Questions about criminal trial process may be illuminated by
    > reference to historical considerations. But there are some features of
    > criminal trial process which, although now considered to be fundamental,
    > are of relatively recent origin. So, for example, what now are axiomatic
    > principles about the burden and standard of proof in criminal trials were
    > not fully established until, in 1935, ***Woolmington v Director of Public
    > Prosecutions*** decided that “[t]hroughout the web of the English Criminal
    > Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the
    > prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt.” Any reference to the history
    > of the privilege against self-incrimination, or its place in English
    > criminal trial process, must also recognise that it was not until the
    > last years of the nineteenth century that an accused person became a
    > competent witness at his or her trial [100].

# Multi-level lists

5.  You can even use Markdown to create what are sometimes called:
      #.  multi-level lists; or
      #.  outline numbering,

    but as you can see, there are some bugs to be worked out!

---
signoff: Dated this 1^st^ day of May 2015
signature: "W E COYOTE\n\nCounsel"
...