Privacy v IP Litigation : preliminary third party discovery on the Internet

The enforcement of Intellectual Property rights poses one of the greatest current threats to the privacy of individuals online. Recent trends have shown that the balance between privacy and intellectual property enforcement has been shifted in favour of intellectual property owners. This article discusses the ways in which the scope of preliminary discovery and Anton Piller orders have been overly expanded in actions where large amounts of electronic information is available, especially against online intermediaries (service providers and content hosts). The victim in these cases is usually the end user whose privacy has been infringed without a right of reply and sometimes without notice. This article proposes some ways in which the delicate balance can be restored, and considers some safeguards for user privacy. These safeguards include restructuring the threshold tests for discovery, limiting the scope of information disclosed, distinguishing identity discovery from information discovery, and distinguishing information preservation from preliminary discovery.

Copyright future copyright freedom

If copyright law does not liberate us from restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge, if it does not encourage expressive freedom, what is its purpose? This volume offers the thinking and suggestions of some of the finest minds grappling with the future of copyright regulation. The Copyright Future Copyright Freedom conference held in 2009 at Old Parliament House Canberra brought together Lawrence Lessig, Julie Cohen, Leslie Zines, Adrian Sterling, Sam Ricketson, Graham Greenleaf, Anne Fitzgerald, Susy Frankel, John Gilchrist, Michael Kirby and others to share the rich fruits of their experience and analysis. Zines, Sterling and Gilchrist outline their roles in the genesis and early growth of Australian copyright legislation, enriching the knowledge of anyone asking urgent questions about the future of information regulation.

Getting more than the judgment debtor can give?

Prior to the decision of the High Court in Black v Garnock (2007) 230 CLR 438 it was an established principle in Queensland that a judgment creditor acting under an enforcement warrant could take no interest beyond what the judgment debtor could give. However, the decision of the High Court called this principle into question. This article examines the current position in the context of s 120 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) , Queensland Titles Office practice and standard contractual provisions. This examination is further informed by the recent decision of Martin J in Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Doneley [2010] QSC 91.

A changing landscape : The mortgagee's power of sale in Queensland

In Australia, the extent of a mortgagee’s duty when exercising power of sale has long been the subject of conjecture. With the advent of the global financial crisis in the latter part of 2008, there has been some concern to ensure that the interests of mortgagors are adequately protected. In Queensland, concern of this type resulted in the enactment of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld). This amending legislation operates to both extend and strengthen the operation of s 85 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) which regulates the mortgagee’s power of sale in Queensland. This article examines the impact of this amending legislation which was hastily introduced and passed by the Queensland Parliament without consultation and which introduces a level of prescription in relation to a sale under a prescribed mortgage which is without precedent elsewhere in Australia.

Queensland requirements (old and new) for the appointment of a real estate agent

In Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd 1 the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in relation to the correct interpretation of s76 (1)(c) Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971 (Qld). In paraphrase, s76(1)(c) provides that a real estate agent shall not be entitled to sue for or recover any commission unless “the engagement or appointment to act as …..real estate agent ….. in respect of such transaction is in writing signed by the person to be charged with such…..commission…..or the person’s agent or representative” (“the statutory requirement”).

A matter of approval

A contract for the sale of a mixed farming property fronting the Murrumbidgee River provided the basis for a dispute that recently found its way to the High Court. The decision is Park v Brothers [2005] HCA 73. Although largely concerned with appellate court practice and procedure, the decision will also be of interest to those practising in property law and general contract law.

'Attaching' warning statements by facsimile transmission

Section 366(1) of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMD’) provides that a relevant contract must have attached, as its first or top sheet, a statement in the approved form being a warning statement. Failure to comply with this statutory requirement entitles a purchaser to terminate the contract. The meaning to be attributed to the statutory reference to ‘attached’ will clearly be problematic where documentation is sent by way of facsimile transmission. This was the issue that arose for consideration by Newton DCJ in MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QDC 10.