On 17 January 2013 Mr Justice Briggs, sitting in the High Court Chancery Division, published his reasons in  RocknRoll v News Group Newspapers Ltd granting an interim injunction restraining News Group Newspaper from publishing photographs of Edward RocknRoll (the “claimant”).  See my post on the reportage here.

FACTS

In July 2010 the claimant attended a private fancy dress party to celebrate the 21st birthday of his then wife’s sister at her parent’s private estate [1].  Another guest at the party took photographs of the claimant (“the Photographs”), some of which showed him partly naked. The Photographs were posted on the photographer’s Facebook page where they could be viewed by his 1,500 “friends”, until subsequent changes to the Facebook settings resulted in them being made accessible to the general public (unbeknownst to the photographer).  Since the Photographs were taken the claimant divorced his first wife and married Kate Winslet, an actress [2].  The Photographs came to the attention of the defendant at the beginning of January 2013 [3] and it:

“..wishes to publish the Photographs, together with a description of their contents, in the Sun newspaper, and notified the claimant of its intention to do so, albeit not the source of the Photographs… it intended to pixillate the part of any published photographs which showed the lower half of the Claimant’s body.”

DECISION

At [5] his Honour set out the general principles applicable in considering an application for injunctive relief against misuse of private information in the Read the rest of this entry »

In Dangerous chat the Economist highlights a live and growing issue, defamation by the supposedly anonymous on the net.  In this case lawyers in the US Attorney’s office engaged in, at best, tasteless commentary on active federal cases and judges.  The article provides:

The Economist in Chips off the old block provides an excellent overview of surveillance technology being used to monitor minors.  The application of the devices are, as the article notes, ubiquitous.  The impact on privacy, irrespective of any benefit subscribed to the devices (which the article notes is not guaranteed or even likely) is obvious.

The article provides:

PAUL WALLICH usually walks his small son to the bus stop a stone’s throw from their Vermont home. But he can use a robot too: a football-sized drone, hovering several metres off the ground, follows a beacon stashed in the little boy’s school bag. A smartphone strapped to the device beams back video.

The former owner of a medical billing practice and fourt pathology groups have agreed to  a consent judgment and $140,000 payment to settle charges they improperly disposed of medical information. The defendantswere accused of dumping hard copy medical records at the Georgetown Transfer Station, a waste management facility open to the public.

The records allegedly contained the names, Social Security numbers and medical diagnoses of approximately 67,000 individuals.  The complaint against the medical practices alleged violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rule as well as the Massachusetts information security regulations that require reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect personal information.

The Attorney General’s press release is found here and relevantly provides:

Former owners of a Marblehead-based medical billing practice and four pathology groups have agreed to collectively pay $140,000, settling allegations that sensitive medical records and confidential billing information for tens of thousands of Massachusetts patients were improperly Read the rest of this entry »

In Re Australian Property Holdings Limited (in liq) (recs & mgrs apptd) (No 2) [2012] VSC 576  Robson J considered applications by the defendants to stay the proceedings, which was refused, and to file limited defences, which was granted.

FACTS

Australian Property Custodian Holdings (“APCH”) commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against seven of its former directors to recover $30 million that was paid out of its assets it held on trust as a fee to companies controlled by Mr Lewski [1].  ASIC  commenced action in the Federal Court against APCH and 5 of its directors who are also defendants in this proceeding alleging breaches of the Corporations Act (“the Act”).

APCH is the responsible entity of the Prime Retirement and Aged Care Property Trust, a managed investment scheme under the Act [5].  In 2006 the constitution of the Prime Trust was amended by the board of APCH to provide for a payment of a listing fee to APCH if units of the Prime Trust were listed on the ASX [7], which they were in August 2007[8] and APCH received $33m out of the assets of the trust. The Supreme Court proceedings were commenced by the liquidator on 5 March 2012 in the name of APCH [13] and a statement of claim was filed and served against all defendants for compensation under sections 1317H and HA or 1325 of the Act as well as a claim for equitable compensation[14]. ASIC commenced proceedings in the Federal Court on 21 August 2012 [15].

Both proceedings allege that APCH breached its statutory duties under the Act in amending the trust to the detriment of the unit holders [10] and both rely upon section 601FD [11].

DECISION

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

The Supreme Court has an inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice [19] (which is the overriding consideration [24]).  His Honour set out, at [21], the relevant principles regarding a stay found in McMahon v Gould as follows (absent citations):

(a) Prima facie a plaintiff is entitled to have his action Read the rest of this entry »

On Friday the Government published both the names of the Commissioners of the Royal Commission and the Letters Patent (containing the terms of reference). The homepage is found here.

The Commissioners are, together with their descriptions:

Private litigation under the Privacy Act is quite uncommon.  Part of that is no doubt due to the limited scope for a person to bring such an action under the Act.  It is essentially limited to section 98.   The other reason may be a lack of knowledge of the operation of the Act.  Many think of the Privacy Act as being essentially a means to regulate the retention and use of personal information.  And to a large extent tht is its function.  But not exclusively.

In a very interesting speech titled Privacy Litigation: Substantive lessons and tactical trends – Smallbone v New South Wales Bar Association, delivered to the 2nd National Information Law Conference in Canberra on 15 November 2012 Justice Griffiths considered the use of the Privacy Act by a barrister, Smallbone, to obtain procedural fairness in his application for silk..

The speech highlights the impact of the Privacy Act on the activities of private organsiations and how how it can be used as a vehicle of proecdural rights, in particlar the requirement to afford an individual procedural fairness, that would not otherwise be available to a member of such an organisation as well as a right to access and correct personal information.  In an era of big data and its collection by private organisations this is an important right.

The speech warrants detailed consideration by those interested in privayc issues generally but those who practice in the area of privacy law.  It provides (less numbering and citations):

Introduction

Hollywood has its Oscars; the AFL has its Brownlow Medal night; the NRL has its Dally M awards; and the NSW Bar has a day in October when Read the rest of this entry »

The Age and the Guardian report that Ned RocknRoll has obtained an interlocutory injunction in the High Court in the UK restraining the Sun newspaper from publishing embarrassing photographs of him at a fancy dress party.

The Guardian article provides:

 Kate Winslet‘s husband, Ned Rocknroll, has won his high court bid to prevent the Sun from publishing “embarrassing” pictures of him partly naked at a fancy dress party.

Lawyers for Rocknroll argued that his privacy would be grossly invaded if pictures Read the rest of this entry »

The Civil Procedure Amendment Act 2012 will come into effect on 1 May 2013.

The key amendments relate to orders the court may make on costs, the conduct of experts and expert reports and amendments to the certification process.  Those provisions as well as the explanatory memoranda are extracted below. The transitional provisions are not extracted below.

 The material amendments are:

Part 4.5 of Chapter 4 (Costs)

65A Order to legal practitioner as to length and costs of trial 

(1)     A court may Read the rest of this entry »