The Information Commissioner has fined Kent Police £80,000 for providing the data contained in a woman’s mobile phone to her ex partner’s solicitor.  The solicitor disclosed that information to his client, the woman’s ex partner.  That person happened to be a member of the Kent Police.

On the technical side the case highlights Read the rest of this entry »

The much reported launch of the Australian cyber security strategy by the Australian Prime Minister has data security at its core.  It was attended on a very exciting story of a cyber attack on the Bureau of Metereology last year which infected that agencies computers.  The reportage focused on Australia’s ability to counter attack aggressors but that is only one element of the strategy, and a minor one at that.  The key is protection of personal information, intellectual property, governmental information, national security related data and data that is key to the operation of a modern economy.

The problem from a practical point of view is that the focus on cyber security is an incomplete response if organisations and entities do not meet minimum cyber security standards.  The Privacy Act 1988 and the regulator should Read the rest of this entry »

Australia is yet to have mandatory data breach notification legislation. The Attorney General’s Department has published the submissions it Read the rest of this entry »

The OAIC has announced its program for the Privacy Awareness Week, 15 – 21 May 2016.  Privacy Weeks are part of the activities of most data regulators/privacy commissioners.  In New Zealand it is 9 – 14 May 2016.  Funnily enough the theme for both privacy weeks is “Privacy in your hands.”

The release Read the rest of this entry »

Slate magazine described 2015 as the year of the drone. It was probably being somewhat premature.  The limit to drone use and capability has not been reached.

The use of drones still raises issues and strong opposition with “humans on drones” violence as reported in Read the rest of this entry »

DLA Piper has released its annual Data Protection Laws of the World for 2016.  It is quite a good resource though necessarily general.

It is interesting to see that Australia is Read the rest of this entry »

The phone hacking scandal in the UK, with the News of the World being the biggest offender, has had a seismic effect on regulation, not to mention giving the law of privacy a kick a long. The scandal Read the rest of this entry »

It is hardly news to those who practice in the area that many Australian organisations generally place data security and privacy well down the priority list.  That is partly, and significantly, because Read the rest of this entry »

In Re Manlio (No 2) [2016] VSC 130 Justice MacDonald took quite serious action under powers under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (the “CPA”) with significant consequences for a counsel involved in the case. This decision relates to the conduct of the legal representatives, not the substantive case itself. That decision was handed down on 21 December 2015 in Re Manlio [2015] VSC 733.

It is a particularly informative decision as to Read the rest of this entry »

In Cohen & Ors v Amberley Corporation Australia Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 140 Derham AsJ considered an application for discovery in relation to the administration by a trustee of a discretionary trust. What started out as a consideration of the plaintiff’s application concluded with part of the statement of claim being struck out. It is a very useful decision in the practical side of pleading breach of trust, which can be quite complicated.

FACTS

The plaintiffs are the children of Harold Campbell-Pretty (‘Harold’) and Kerry Ainley Watkins (‘Kerry’). After 2 divorces he ultimately  married Krystyna Campbell-Pretty (‘Krystyna’) [3].  On 27 March 1975, the Campbell-Pretty Family Trust was established by a deed of settlement (‘Trust’ or ‘Trust Deed’). Under its terms Harold was specified as the Appointor and each of the plaintiffs were specified as Primary Beneficiaries [4].  

There were two variations to the Trust Deed:

• on 29 December 1987 the defendant was appointed Trustee in place of the previous Trustee. From about December 1986, Krystyna and Harold were the directors of the defendant. On 29 December 1987, Krystyna was appointed as an additional member of the class of General Beneficiaries under the Trust [5];
• on  8 July 2005, the defendant as Trustee of the Trust purported to exercise a power given by clause 20 of the Trust Deed declaring that the plaintiffs were ‘deleted’ as Primary Beneficiaries under the Trust. Harold, as Appointor, consented to the variation [6].

Harold died on 25 May 2014.  Krystyna was his executrix.  The plaintiffs received nothing.

Breach of trust claim

The plaintiffs pleaded Read the rest of this entry »