1. Can the Jones vs Toben case be in the same class as the other cases cited. Were all based essentially, or even partially on the same Laws. Did the 18c appky at all to all other cases mentioned !!

2. The article seems to accept the notion of “reform”, as in the very last phrase : ” We should reform them (the laws, 18c spec. )…” albeit with provisions /conditioned by general judicial condiderations.

So here we have a corolary of , in principle, acceptance of reform while the body of the article seems to be in defence of the merits of 18c and 18d.
Admitedly 18d has a larger scope found contiguous in many other Acts and Laws anyway.
Can we also assume that alleged abuses of the 18c , particularly the Eatock v Bolt, prompted the considerations for an alteration of 18c ? In this/that case , considering the vast difference in essence between that case with the Jones v Toben, the provosions of the 18c, as proposed ( yet) by George Brandins, could still allow the Jones v Toben to proceed unhindered ??!!
I am aware also that there could be other instances, not in the same class as Jones’ which could be deemed unwanted by the same class of potential plaintiff.