Out-law.com has noted that Facebook has changed its privacy settings.

It provides:

In today’s Age, Melbourne Water apologises for spying on pipeline protest farmer, there is a very interesting article about Melbourne Water breaching a protester’s privacy.  It states:

A year-long legal battle ended yesterday when the water authority agreed to publish an apology to 63-year-old Yea farmer Jan Beer, a lead campaigner against the north-south pipeline. The apology will be published on its website and in two regional Victorian newspapers next month.

The apology says in part: ”Melbourne Water acknowledges that the collection of her personal information has caused Mrs Beer to feel that she was being continually monitored Read the rest of this entry »

The High Court undertook a detailed consideration of trusts in Byrnes v Kendle.  While the court unanimously upheld the appeal there are 3 separate recisions for decision; French CJ, Gummow and Haynes and Heydon and Crennan.

Facts

The facts are best summarised at paragraphs [1] – [5] of French CJ’s decision.  Martin Byrnes and his mother Joan Byrnes (“Mrs Brynes”) alleged breach of trust by her estranged husband Clifford Kendle (“Kendle”) regarding the collection of ranks from an occupant of a property owned by him in which she had a half share. Legal title to the property was held by Kendle. In 1997 he signed an acknowledgement of trust declaring that he held a half interest in the property as tenant in common upon trust for Mrs Byrnes.  Kendle let the property to his son from 2002 – 2007. The weekly rental was $125. Kendle collected a total of $250 during this period and took no steps to collect any arrears.

The primary judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim as to the breach of trust. He found that Kendle was not a trustee because he lacked intention to create a trust, relying upon the High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Stamp Duty v Jolliffe. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia found that Kendle was not subject to the duty that would normally be imposed on the trustee to rent the trust property.

Decision

Construction of trust

Each reason for decision took issue with Jolliffe. French CJ Read the rest of this entry »

The coverage continues in both the major publications but also some of the more boutique outlets.  In the Media section of the Australian, there is Do not repeat the mistakes of overseas laws, warns Nick Xenophon

INDEPENDENT senator Nick Xenophon has called for any inquiry into privacy and the media to examine the operation of laws overseas that in some cases have prevented the exposure of misconduct by rich and powerful figures.

The South Australian said French laws had prevented disclosures about misconduct by senior figures and it was important that privacy laws were not used as a shield behind which the rich and powerful could hide.

Senator Xenophon’s comments come as the government has promised a new discussion paper on privacy laws and the Greens demanded a wide-ranging inquiry into the media.

It follows Rupert Murdoch’s closure of his British tabloid the News of the World last month due to the phone hacking scandal.

Julia Gillard responded by saying Australians would have “hard questions” to ask News Corporation’s local subsidiary, News Limited, which publishes The Australian. She did not elaborate.

The new discussion paper follows a 2008 recommendation by the Australian Law Reform Commission for a legal right to privacy.

But opposition justice spokesman George Brandis said the ALRC report recommended the exemption from the Privacy Act for journalists should not only remain but be extended.

“Nowhere in the discussion of journalistic practices did the ALRC cite instances of abuse which warranted greater restrictions on press freedom in the name of privacy,” he said. “On the contrary, by recommending the broadening of the exemptions of journalists from the operation of the Privacy Act, it implicitly concluded the opposite.”

Senator Brandis also criticised the government’s formal response to the report in 2009, which failed to address any of the ALRC’s four recommendations relating to journalism.

Australian Press Council figures show breaches of privacy made up less than 6 per cent of the complaints received in the past year. Of the 520 complaints it received, less than 30 concerned breach of privacy. Most were dismissed or mediated between the parties.

Since 1993, more than 800 complaints alleging a privacy breach have been made, but the council upheld only 45 for a whole or partial breach of an individual’s privacy by a member.

The privacy debate has unleashed a row over whether political parties should remain exempt from privacy laws, enabling them to collect information about voters that they keep on party databases.

Senator Xenophon said voters should have an “opt-out clause” under which they could refuse to allow information to be collected by political parties.

In the Australian ,Tort will impose runaway costs on society, Chris Merritt has another go at a privacy tort. It should be noted that there is no discussion paper yet, no exposure draft of any bill.

BRAND new torts do not come along every day. And when they do, their creators are guaranteed a place in the legal history books.

Perhaps true.  But so what.  There are some enforceable causes of action which arise Read the rest of this entry »

The Civil Dispute Resolution Act is now in effect.  The press release provides:

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said changes to Australia’s legal system which commence today will result in more people resolving disputes before going to court, saving money, time and stress.

Mr McClelland said the reforms commencing today as part of the Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 will fundamentally change the way people resolve issues in the federal courts.

“Australia’s legal system is changing Read the rest of this entry »

In the Age Michael Pearce, the immediate past president of Liberty Victoria, has an opinion piece Legislate the right to privacy saying:

When new technologies threaten our personal space and invade our privacy, we need the right to sue.

THE Federal Government should be applauded for giving serious consideration to the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission three years ago that Parliament legislate for a right to sue for damages for serious invasion of privacy.

Media companies have sprung to oppose the recommendations. But their arguments are unconvincing.

The reasons why Parliament should legislate are more fundamental than the need to respond to the passing wrongdoing of a rogue media company, even if it does control about two-thirds of metropolitan newspaper circulation in this country.

It is not particularly helpful to label News Limited a “rogue company”.  That is as distracting as the irrelevant nitpicking that some of the opponents have been engaging in.  So what if a media company controls two thirds of newspaper circulation.  Monopolies and cartels have been a continuous problem in media ownership as well as many other aspects of the Australian economy.  It is not the issue.

Parliament should act because technological change is eroding privacy to such a degree and so rapidly that, without some legal protection, very little privacy will be left to us before long.

Good point Read the rest of this entry »