July 27, 2020
Last Friday the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) announced that it has commenced proceedings against Google LLC alleging misleading and deceptive conduct in failing to inform consumers and obtain their informed consent from 2016 that it was combining their personal information in Google accounts with information gleaned from their activities in non Google sites which use Google technology. The ACCC also alleges that Google misled consumers about changes to its privacy policy.
The ACCC has not released the concise statement and the case has not appeared on the Federal Court website as yet. It is interesting, and something of a relief, that the ACCC is stepping up and taking on privacy related cases instead of the Australian Information Commissioner. Unfortunately the Commissioner has a lamentable track record in enforcing privacy breaches, particularly in the Federal Court.
The nature of the case as described by the ACCC seems to follow a tried and true approach used by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, attacking privacy and data breaches through breaches of contractual terms or misleading and deceptive conduct. It is also an approach that the Federal Court is more comfortable with. To date the Federal Court has produced judgments that betray a bewildering befuddlement regarding privacy principles; namely Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Federal Court, Privacy
|
Post a comment »
July 22, 2020
In HQ Insurance Pty Limited v Stonehatch Risk Solutions Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1010 the Federal Court per Thawley dismissed an application for preliminary discovery on the grounds that the applicant failed to establish that reasonable inquiries were made.
FACTS
The dramatis personae are:
- HQ, an Australian bloodstock and livestock insurance broker specialising in equine insurance. It holds an AFSL which authorises it to advise and deal in general insurance [17].
- Stonehatch, a United Kingdom (UK) based insurance broker specialising in bloodstock insurance. It does not hold an AFS [17]]
- Ausure (Upper Hunter) Pty Ltd trading as Ausure Insurance Solutions (NSW), an insurance broker which brokered equine thoroughbred insurance through Stonehatch as its wholesale broker in the UK where the equine risks were underwritten by various Lloyd’s syndicates [18].
On 25 September 2018, HQ completed its purchase of Ausure’s client book of insurance policies. HQ transferred the insurance files to their own wholesale broker, Integro Brokers Limited, in the UK, on 18 October 2018 [19].
Under the agreement between Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Australian decisions, Federal Court
|
Post a comment »
July 16, 2020
In Lewis (liquidator), in the matter of Concrete Supply Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] FCA 841 White considered the relevant principles in considering an application under section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001.
FACTS
Between August 2009 and November 2017, ABCL had supplied concrete to Concrete Supply [5].
In October 2017, ABCL discovered that it had been underpaid about $12 million by Concrete Supply. The underpayment was disguised by false entries made by one of its employees. ABCL sought payment of the shortfall from Concrete Supply. On 14 November 2017, the directors of Concrete Supply resolved that it was, or was likely to become, insolvent and appointed Messrs Cooper and Cantone at Worrells as administrators. On 19 December 2017, the creditors of Concrete Supply resolved that it enter into a Deed of Company Arrangement (” DOCA”) [5].
ABCL opposed the Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Federal Court, General, Insolvency
|
Post a comment »
July 1, 2020
The 1st July 2020 is the commencement of the Consumer Data Right. Under the legislation consumers an request their banks to share data for deposit and transaction accounts as well as credit and debit cards. As of today there are two accredited data recipients however a further 39 providers have started the process. Data from home, personal and investment loans and joint accounts will commence on 1 November.
The regulatory structure is interesting. There are two regulators who will be responsible for regulation, the ACCC and the OAIC. They come from two ends of the spectrum. The ACCC is a good regulator by Australian standards while the OAIC is a dreadful regulator by any standards. The ACCC is run by a thoughtful and insightful chairman, I can’t recall who runs the OAIC. The Compliance and Enforcement Policy is Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Privacy
|
Post a comment »