The ALRC released its issues paper Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era today.The closing date for submissions is 11 November 2013.  I am sure there is no symbolism in it being Armistice Day or, as known in France, the Day of Dupes (or the anniversary of Ned Kelly’s execution).  It is found here.

The media release (found here) provides:

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) today released the Issues Paper, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era(ALRC Issues Paper 43, 2013), to begin the consultation process for Read the rest of this entry »

In November 2012 a consultant psychiatrist lost a bag while riding home.  Disappointing and frustrating no doubt but in and of itself normally nothing dramatic there.  Except if the bag contained sensitive personal data.  A consultant psychiatrist working for the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board did just that.  And for these troubles it has been the subject to an undertaking from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The press release provides:

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued Cardiff and Vale University Health Board with an undertaking following a breach of the Data Protection Act. 

The breach occurred Read the rest of this entry »

Itnews reports in Vic Govt moves onto privacy, security phase of ICT plan that the Victorian Government is Read the rest of this entry »

On 27 September 2013 the Privacy Commissioner issued Guidelines for recognising external dispute resolution schemes under section 35A of the Privacy Act 1988.  It is part of the Privacy Commissioner’s roll out of guidelines, codes and policies in anticipation of the amendments to the Privacy Act coming into effect on 12 March 2014. It is very commendable and entirely appropriate.  The real test is the approach the Privacy Commissioner takes once he is armed Read the rest of this entry »

Last Friday the Privacy Commissioner issued guidelines under Part IIIB of the Privacy Act.  The document is Guidelines for developing codes.

It provides, absent introduction and annotations:

Key terms

The following terms used in these Guidelines are defined in s 6(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act):

Agency; APP code developer; APP entity; credit provider; credit reporting body; credit reporting complaint; CR code developer; entity; personal information

The following terms used in these Guidelines are also defined in the Privacy Act (other than in s 6(1)):

APP code has the meaning given in s 26C of the Privacy Act

Australian Privacy Principles is defined Read the rest of this entry »

The Privacy Commissioner issued a press release and guide for mobile app developers.

The press release provides:

With 6 in 10 Australians choosing not to use a smartphone app because of concerns about the way personal information would be used ^[1], the Guide will assist mobile app developers to embed better privacy practices into their products, and to comply with Australian privacy law.

The Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, said the growing app industry presented both Read the rest of this entry »

Gordon J in Chan v Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] FCA 928 and then in Chan v Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2013] FCA 959 made orders regarding the enforcement of a contract and then approval for the Liquidator to enter into that contract.  The facts are common to both hearings

Chan v Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] FCA 928

FACTS

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].

Four C Realty carries on business as an estate agent, conducting Read the rest of this entry »

In  First Equilibrium Pty Limited v Bluestone Property Services Pty Limited (in liq) [2013] FCAFC 108) the Full Federal Court considered an appeal against a winding up order, made by Jacobson J  in Bluestone Property Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v First Equilibrium Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 876, under sections 459A and 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“the Act”) . The court considered in detail the principles associated with winding up on the grounds of insolvency, including the concept of “commercial realities”, and the argument that there was a genuine offsetting claim (which was included as an asset in the financial returns of the appellant on the question of solvency).

FACTS

 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.

He Read the rest of this entry »

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 »