The Applicant, (“Chan”) applied under sections 471B, 477(2B) and 477(6) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (the Act) for a series of orders including a declaration that, on 13 August 2013, she and the First Respondent (“Four C Realty”) entered into a binding and enforceable contract for her to purchase its business assets of Four C Realty. The Respondents submitted that no binding contract existed on 13 August 2013 and, alternatively, if a binding contract did exist, then Chan was required to provide security for what has been described as “the indemnity” [2].
Equilibrium has a sole director and shareholder, Mr Justin Brown (“Brown”). Bluestone has a sole director and a shareholder, Mr Lance Hodgkinson (“Hodgkinson”) [4]. Brown & Hodgkinson were property developers involved in a number of substantial property developments [4] – [5]. In late 2005 Brown wanted to sell out of a development [6] and at a meeting convened to discuss this with Hodgkinson he wrote on a single sheet of paper what arrangements would effect this outcome. Both then signed the document. Brown claimed the document was an enforceable agreement. Some of the payments contemplated by the document (totalling $600,000) Read the rest of this entry »
The Australian Governemnt CTO John Sheriden is reported in Public servants should be impartial online: Sheridan to have made it clear that breaches of the guidelines on use of social media may result in severe consequences.
The article provides:
No implied freedom of speech for social media.
Australian Government CTO John Sheridan says guidelines governing how public servants behave online are clear and reasonable – and employees should not be surprised if they face severe consequences for breaching them.
A standard brief for very junior barristers starting out has been to make application to set aside a judgment obtained in default of defence or appearance. The gold standard case setting out the principles was, and to a large extent is, Kostakenellis v Allen. Now the Court of Appeal in Lubura v Nezirevic [2013] VSCA 215 has considered the first element of the test for setting aside judgments, whether the applicant has a defence on the merits. While it is a unanimous decision each of Warren CJ, Osborn JA and Robson AJA each had separate reasons.
FACTS
The facts are most comprehensively set out in Robson AJA’s reasons.
Early in the morning of Sunday 8 July 2007 the respondent and other friends attended at the Red Star bar in Pultney Street, Dandenong [30]. A fight broke out between two groups, one of which contained the respondent and the other containing the appeallent, both in the bar and outside on the street subsequently. The respondent was surrounded and assaulted by at least two males with bottles, receiving injuries including bruising and laceration to his ear and head, as well as a ruptured globe to his right eye. He lost sight in his right eye as a consequence of the assault. Other members of the group were also assaulted [31]. The appellant was initially charged with four counts: intentionally causing serious injury, and (as an alternative) recklessly causing serious injury, common assault, and affray. On 25 November 2011, a fresh presentment was filed, with two charges to which the appellant pleaded guilty; assault of a person unknown to the Director of Public Prosecutions and affray [33].
On or about 30 August 2010 the Appellant received the writ in the civil proceeding brought by the respondent. The appellant says Read the rest of this entry »
The US Office for Civil Rights and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology have together developed model Notices of Privacy Practices. It is geared to the US law but the layout and the terminology is quite effective and user friendly. The homepage is found here.
The basic text provides:
Your Information. Your Rights. Our Responsibilities.
This notice describes how medical information about you may be used and disclosed and how you can get access to this information. Please review it carefully.
The European Court of Human Rights handed down its chamber judgment on 19 September 2013 regarding a complaint by Princess Caroline von Hannover under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found there was no breach of Article 8.
The decision is only available in French. The press release is found here.
The photographs the subject of the dispute, taken in 2002, showed the Princess and her husband on holiday of her holiday home off the coast of Kenya. The Court essentially reiterated the criteria for balancing privacy and freedom of expression found in Von Hannover (No 2) involving consideration of:
The subject of the report and its contribution to a debate of general interest
The amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) take effect on 12 March 2014. The Privacy Commissioner will then have significant powers to conduct own motion investigations and institute civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court. The Guidelines being developed by the Privacy Commisioner’s office will no doubt be persuasive. Guidelines are not binding rules (but with a few notable exceptions, see section 16B. That has been made clear with the amendments (see section 6(3). The Privacy Commissioner will develop guidelines which will establish the criteria on which a decision to pursue a civil penalty will be made. But it will be the Federal Court which will be considering the meaning of words, the scope and operation of privacy policies and codes and the operation of the APPs. The jurisprudence in Australia in the privacy law area is quite sparse. Not surprising given the relative ineffectiveness of the legislation. That may change with the new powers available to the Privacy Commissioner. It will be prudent to consider how other jurisdictions have approached privacy issues and have developed their jurisprudence. Obviously they may be of use and even persuasive but definitely not binding.
In that vein it is relevant to have regard to the case notes recently published by the New Zealand Privacy Commissioners. They are found here.
The court of appeal, per Hansen and Tate JJA, considered the operation of default notices, service and the doctrine of fair notice in Wilde & Anor v Morgan & Ors [2013] VSCA 250. It was an appeal from a decision of AsJ Derhham in Re: Art Pacific Pty Ltd; Wilde v Morgan & Ors [2013] VSC 330 (27 June 2013).
FACTS
The applicants sought orders, set out at [1], that:
(1) the appointment of the first and second respondents as agents for the third respondent by Deed of Appointment of Agents for Mortgagee in Possession dated 23 October 2012 (the Deed) under a mortgage of land between the second applicant and the third respondent was invalid;
(2) further or alternatively, the first and second respondents entry into possession or assumption of control of the land of the second applicant pursuant to the Deed was invalid.
As the ALRC (further) inquiry proceeds on at a relatively relaxed pace on whether there should or should not be a statutory right to privacy and if so what form it should take the UK jurisprudence has developed to the point where there are established principles governing the grant of injunction on privacy related matters. The grant of super injunctions caused considerable controversy and disquiet in the media. More importantly there was concern about their efficacy and enforcement. The process has been amended signficiantly and the Court has been more restrained in its use. The use of privacy injunctions are now more effective and less controversial.
Notable featurs of the report are that there were
six proceedings in which the High Court in London considered an application for a new interim injunction prohibiting Read the rest of this entry »
The 2-12/13 annual report of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner was been tabled in Parliament on 19 September 2013 . It is found here. It provides for interesting reading, if that takes and holds your attention (as it does for me).
Some of the interesting statistics are that during 2012-13:
? the total number of complaints handled remains consistent with previous years;
? by a significant margin, Victorian government departments have been the subject of the highest number of privacy breach investigations over the past five reporting periods;
? the amount of complaints referred to VCAT for determination remains consistent with previous years;