One of the great eighties films was the Lost Boys. The cool guys were in it – Jason Patric and Keiffer Sutherland and the coolest young sprats – Corey Haim and Corey Feldman. It was a seriously clever mix of humour, high jinx and a bit of darkness. And a ripper sound track. It made Vampires way cooler than the Twilight nonsense.
Corey Haim ate up the scenery like it was fairy floss. Most of his other works passed me by. Unfortunately post adolescence was not a Ron Howard experience but the more typical drift into obscurity and drugs. Corey Feldman hasn’t prospered either. It is tragic that Haims dies at 38. It is almost as bad that his death will be a revisiting of the usual morality tale.
In Bernstein v Georgakakis & Anor Beach J analysed an application for removal of a caveat placed in August 2005 over property owned by a sole proprietor but arising out of an agreement between her husband and someone he was in business with. It is a useful judgment in both restating principles but in dealing with equitable interests in this (unusual) fact situation.
His Honour sets out the principles at [5] & [6] regarding the principles applicable in removing caveats under section 90(3) of the TLA, namely:
it is broadly analogous to determination of interlocutoryinjunctions – the power is discretionary;
the caveator has the onus of establishing there is a serious question to be tried that he has an interest in the land; and
the balance of convenience favours maintenance of the caveat until trial;
The evidence
The agreement, reproduced at [7], in this case is exhibit A as an example of what to avoid when seeking to make a claim for an equitable right over property. The agreement seemed to relate to an agreement between the Plaintiff/sole proprietor’s husband and a putative business partner regarding purchase of shares in a pet food business. His Honour forensically analysed the many deficiencies in the agreement, at [17] – [26]. The first observation made was that it consisted of 5 recitals and no operative clauses. The problems included the agreement:
requiring the husband to pay $3 million for 15% share in a company that had not been established at the time of the agreement;
referring to the parties a creditor and debtor respectively. Hardly consistent with an investment;
in one part limiting the interest to $3 million, at another recital registering the interest for not less than $3million.
Unusually in such applications the deponents were cross examined and his Honour found that that sole proprietor never knew of this agreement. In examining the enforceability of the agreement Read the rest of this entry »
Robyn Chambers is a class act. He has built a firm of one principal, him,into a international player. Tonight I had the privilege of celebrating his 25th anniversary at the hallowed grounds of the Atheneum Club. No shortage of old money and new money. Hell, just money! It was quite the experience. The speakers were distinguished and famous,including the well tanned silver bodgie himself, Bob Hawke. For a octogenarian he is doing well .
An intereting piece in Times Online about a pending settlement in favour of Kate Middleton, bride presumptive of Prince William, for breach of her privacy. The settlement sum, presumably not a confidental agreement, is 10,000 pounds plus costs as well as withdrawal of the photographs and a public apology. Interestingly the photographs in question were not even published in England. That shouldn’t go to liability but I think would be relevant on the question of Read the rest of this entry »
The Guardian has run a two part article on the Ten Rules for Writing Fiction. I am not usually a sucker for numbered lists, you know the ones, 7 habits of highly effective psycopaths, 6 ways of getting to the same point but sounding pretentious about it etc.. Basically the article is well known authors giving their rules. Some take it seriously some less so, eg the first fourt rules Margaret Atwood comes up with are:
1 Take a pencil to write with on aeroplanes. Pens leak. But if the pencil breaks, you can’t sharpen it on the plane, because you can’t take knives with you. Therefore: take two pencils.
2 If both pencils break, you can do a rough sharpening job with a nail file of the metal or glass type.
In yesterday’s Australian there is a report that software writers are yet to see full technical specifications for the planned healthcare identifier regime due to start on July 1 provided enabling legislation introduced by Health Minister Nicola Roxon last week . According to the report the Medical Software Industry Association have yet to see the system developed by the National E -Health Transition Authority. That is a worry. The benefits of putting medical records on an electronic system are obvious. The privacy concerns are equally obvious. Whether it achieves the former and deals with the latter depends on its practical implementation. Just taking about it is not enough. A classic example was a recent episode on the ABC radio program Australia Talks. Lots of talking by the main proponents, includng Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, but it was all just that.
The Age reports Paul Keating calling for reforms to Privacy Laws in Angry Keating demands changes to privacy laws. The offending incident is covered in the usual breathless style of the Daily Telegraph in Katherine Keating threat to kill photographer. Obviously the facts are buried under the high dudgeon of Keating patre and the indignant reportage of the scribblers of the society section of the Tele. Both are far from recorders of truth and shedders of light. What appears to be in common agreement is that some one took a photograph of Katherine Keating at a private indoor event. She didn’t appreciate it. If the organisers of the event invited the reporters in in today’s legal environment I am not sure Katherine would have much legal redress. Hence Heating the elders demand for a change to the Privacy Laws. But here is the rub, what changes does he seek? An absolute protection against photographs of the rich and silly. Even the English legal development isn’t pushing in that direction (though the Murray case will give some guide on that front).
All of this Keating outrage would be more easily believed if he had thought to look at reforming the law while he was in government, hell while he WAS the government. It is not like Read the rest of this entry »
Yesterday the Federal Government released its “first stage reponse” to the ALRC report on Privacy. Senator Ludwig, Special Minister of State, in his speech Privacy – the way ahead, said the Government would essentially rewrite the Privacy Act. Three cheers for that. In particular the reforms will go to:
having a Single Set of Privacy Principles.
Enhance the Privacy Commissioners Powers and functions. And about time. The role and actiivity Privacy Commissioner has been a disappointment. But only part of that is due to the lack of powers. Culturally there needs to be a more assertive role taken. Unfortunately even in the revised form the lack of sanctioning power or ability to bring a civil claim (ala ACCC) will limit its effectiveness.
implementation of a three tiered scheme for privacy codes.
expanding the credit reporting. This will be very signficant. In the Senators words:
In order to allow credit providers to undertake a more robust assessment of an individual’s credit risk, the Government will make changes which allow five positive datasets to be included on an individual’s credit report.One of these will be repayment history, but the Government recognises that this information must be used responsibly, so it won’t be made available until the Government’s new responsible lending obligations are in place under the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009
Changes to health records privacy to allow for transfer of health records or access if the premises where they are located closes.
Protections for cross border data flows with enforceable rights by the individual;
What the Government has shied away from is whether it will agree to a statutory right of privacy. We will have to wait until next year.
