Today I delivered a paper on Privacy and health records.

The topics I covered were:

Patient privacy and confidential record management Read the rest of this entry »

For those interested in gauging the approach of the Privacy Commissioner to his use of soon to be newly acquired enforcement powers his Read the rest of this entry »

The Federal Court Rules 2011 have been amended to support the first stage of the implementation in the Federal Court of an electronic court file.

The amendments will make relatively minor changes to such things as the use of stamps and seals; preparation and lodging of documents; redacting, amending and removing documents; and producing documents for inspection or in compliance with a subpoena.

According to the notification from the Fedeal Court the the Amendment Rules will:

1. amend subrules 2.01(2) and (3) and paragraph 39.35(1)(b) and Schedule 1 to clarify that either the seal of the Court (for convenient processing electronically) or the stamp of a District Registry (for convenient processing in paper) can be used;

2. insert new rules Read the rest of this entry »

The Itnews report on a speech by the Privacy Commissioner is Read the rest of this entry »

This practice note deals with cross-border insolvency co-operation with foreign courts. It is found here.

The amendment is the inserttion of paragraph 6 Read the rest of this entry »

The Federal Court has issued a new Practice Note APP 2, dealing with the Court’s requirements for Appeal Books and preparation for hearing. It is found here.

The amendments include Read the rest of this entry »

The Court of Appeal in Wolfe v Permanent Custodians [2013] VSCA 331  considered issues of duty to co operate in the context of a contractual relationship and unconscionability by a creditor in recovery proceedings against a defaulting mortgagor.

FACTS

Permanent Custodians Ltd (“Permanent”) holds a first mortgage over a property in Pascoe Vale which secured a loan to Mr Wolfe and his former partner [1]. In 2008 there was default on the loan. In August 2009 Permanent obtained default judgment against Wolfe, a default judgment for the loan and for possession of the Property against his former partner and issued a warrant of possession. Eviction by the Sheriff was scheduled for the week commencing 4 December 2009 [4]. Wolfe  entered into an arrangement, on terms set out in a letter from Permanent’s solicitors on 1 December 2009 (the “1 December 2009 arrangement”)[5].

Those terms were, at [6],relevantly:

• Wolfe was to pay arrears Read the rest of this entry »

As false dichotomy goes erstwhile Prime Minister Read the rest of this entry »

The Information Commissioner of the UK has issued a media release (found here) about a conviction of two private investigators who tricked organisations to obtain personal information, usually in connection with debt recovery actions.

The Press Release provides:

Two men who ran a company that tricked organisations into revealing personal details about customers have today been found guilty of conspiring to breach the Data Protection Act.

Barry Spencer, 41, and Adrian Stanton, 40, ran ICU Investigations Ltd in Feltham, Middlesex. The pair were convicted at Isleworth Crown Court of conspiring to unlawfully obtain personal data. Five employees of the company had previously pleaded guilty to the same offence: Robert Sparling (38), Joel Jones (43), Michael Sparling (41), Neil Sturton (43) and Lee Humphreys (41). The company ICU Investigations Ltd was also found guilty as a separate defendant. A sentencing hearing has now been listed for the 24 January 2014.

ICU Investigations Ltd worked on behalf of clients Read the rest of this entry »

In Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited [2013] HCA 46 the High Court, in a unanimous decision, considered a dispute that arose in the discovery process, namely whether the inadvertent disclosure of documents for which privilege should have been claimed gave rise to a waiver.  The court however went much further and set its stamp on how it regarded such disputes should be handled.

FACTS

The appellants were represented by Norton Rose Australia (Norton Rose).  The respondents were represented by Marque Lawyers (Marque). On 22 July 2011 parties to litigation Read the rest of this entry »