Cigarettes will kill you: The High Court of Australia and the plain packaging of tobacco products

Tobacco, says the World Health Organization (WHO), is “the only legal consumer product that kills when used exactly as intended by the manufacturer.” With a view to discouraging smoking and giving effect to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the Australian Parliament passed the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth), in November of that year. The legislation was supported by all the major political parties.

iiNet’s Hollywood ending : what does its court victory mean for copyright law?

In what is being billed as iiNet versus Hollywood, the Australian internet service provider has come out an apparent winner after the High Court dismissed a copyright infringement case brought by industry movie studios. The case was a final appeal by the industry in its attempts to crack down on internet users infringing copyright by using BitTorrent to download movies.

Beyond Bryan: Builders' liability and pure economic loss

In Bryan v Maloney, the High Court extended a builder’s duty of care to encompass a liability in negligence for the pure economic loss sustained by a subsequent purchaser of a residential dwelling as a result of latent defects in the building’s construction. Recently, in Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd, the Court refused to extend this liability to defects in commercial premises. The decision therefore provides an opportunity to re-examine the rationale and policy behind current jurisprudence governing builders’ liability for pure economic loss. In doing so, this article considers the principles relevant to the determination of a duty of care generally and whether the differences between purchasers of residential and commercial properties are as great as the case law suggests

Decolonising the concept of knowledge

Controlling the definition of what was essentially a subjugated culture, the colonisers reserve the power to distinguish authentic aspects of the living traditions of the colonised. If the colonised argue political demands by reference to their culture, the colonisers are quick to adjudicate what is genuine in such claims. (Fannon, 1967) Since colonial invasions, Australia’s Indigenous people have weathered rapid change. While the origins of Australia’s Indigenous peoples continues to be an archaeological interest for many, how Indigenous cultures have survived, transformed and retained a sense of ‘difference’ is fundamental to understanding the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures within this continent as both contemporaneous and historical. It is important that teachers, students and researchers within Indigenous studies remind themselves that much of the literature on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders can be ideologically traced back to the emergence of ‘knowledge’ about native peoples in the context of European imperialism and expansion from the fifteenth century. Care must therefore be taken in not conveying ‘scientific’ rational knowledge as perhaps the hidden agenda or notion of assumptions of European ‘superiority’ and non-European inferiority. The recognition by the High Court of Australia (1992) abandoned the legal myth of terra nullius which based the dispossession of Indigenous land on the basis of it being considered an empty land. It could also be argued that this decision recognised that distinct customs and traditions continue to exist within the social and cultural ‘knowledge’ of Indigenous peoples of Australia. General issues and concerns relating to research design, methodology and articulation within QUT are not just confined to this university and the research project presented as a case study but are important in dealing with how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and academics participate or are employed within the university. We feel that the design and methodology of research that either covertly or overtly focuses on Indigenous Australians can no longer presume that all research will naturally follow protocols that are culturally appropriate as this appropriateness is usually defined by the institution. By no means do we feel that research should be debilitated as a result of raising these issues, but that collaborative approaches within the ‘process’ of research will address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities as much as the intended outcomes of research itself.

Defamation : is that a fly in my soup?

In a recent case the High Court considered whether a restaurant review was defamatory.

The failure of Australian legislation on indirect discrimination to detect the systemic racism which prevents Aboriginal people from fully participating in the workforce

Government figures put the current indigenous unemployment rate at around 23%, 3 times the unemployment rate for other Australians. This thesis aims to assess whether Australian indirect discrimination legislation can provide a remedy for one of the causes of indigenous unemployment - the systemic discrimination which can result from the mere operation of established procedures of recruitment and hiring. The impact of those practices on indigenous people is examined in the context of an analysis of anti-discrimination legislation and cases from all Australian jurisdictions from the time of the passing of the Racial Discrimination Act by the Commonwealth in 1975 to the present. The thesis finds a number of reasons why the legislation fails to provide equality of opportunity for indigenous people seeking to enter the workforce. In nearly all jurisdictions it is obscurely drafted, used mainly by educated middle class white women, and provides remedies which tend to be compensatory damages rather than change to recruitment policy. White dominance of the legal process has produced legislative and judicial definitions of "race" and "Aboriginality" which focus on biology rather than cultural difference. In the commissions and tribunals complaints of racial discrimination are often rejected on the grounds of being "vexatious" or "frivolous", not reaching the required standard of proof, or not showing a causal connection between race and the conduct complained of. In all jurisdictions the cornerstone of liability is whether a particular employment term, condition or practice is reasonable. The thesis evaluates the approaches taken by appellate courts, including the High Court, and concludes that there is a trend towards an interpretation of reasonableness which favours employer arguments such as economic rationalism, the maintenance of good industrial relations, managerial prerogative to hire and fire, and the protection of majority rights. The thesis recommends that separate, clearly drafted legislation should be passed to address indigenous disadvantage and that indigenous people should be involved in all stages of the process.

Everyday life and the edges of existence : wrongs with no name or the wrong name?

Actions for wrongful life, as they have come unfortunately to be styled, encompass various types of claim. These include claims for alleged negligence after conception, those based on negligent advice or diagnosis prior to conception concerning possible effects of treatment given to the child's mother, contraception or sterilisation, or genetic disability. This distinguishes such claims from those for so called wrongful birth, which are claims by parents for the cost of raising either a healthy or a disabled child where the unplanned birth imposes costs on the parents as a result of clinical negligence. Two of the more controversial cases to have reached the High Court of Australia which are if interest to us here in the past decade are Cattanach v Melchior where the court, by a narrow majority (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Callinan JJ; Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon dissenting) acknowledged recovery for wrongful birth. In the second joined appeals of Harriton v Stephens and Waller v James; Waller v Hoolahan the court overwhelmingly precluded a ‘wrongful life’ claim (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ; Kirby J dissenting). Both cases raised issues around the sanctity and value of life and the nature of harm and the assessment of damages, and this brief note affords us the opportunity to consider the way in which the ‘life as legal loss’ arguments were treated by the various judges in both cases.

The constitutional power to make war: domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq

The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice

Faculty and employee ownership of inventions in Australia

A recent decision by the Australian High Court means that, unless faculty are bound by an assignment or intellectual property (IP) policy, they may own inventions resulting from their research. Thirty years after its introduction, the US Bayh-Dole Act, which vests ownership of employee inventions in the employer university or research organization, has become a model for commercialization around the world. In Australia, despite recommendations that a Bayh-Dole style regime be adopted, the recent decision in University of Western Australia (UWA) v Gray1 has moved the default legal position in a diametrically opposite direction. A key focus of the debate was whether faculty’s duty to carry out research also encompasses a duty to invent. Late last year, the Full Federal Court confirmed a lower court ruling that it does not, and this year the High Court refused leave to appeal (denied certiorari). Thus, Gray stands as Australia’s most faculty-friendly authority to date.

Recent developments : loss of chance in medical litigation : Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12.

Following the judgement of the High Court in Tabet v Gett [2010]HCA 12 handed down on 21 April 2010 it appears that in Australia there is now very limited scope for recovery in negligence for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome.

Vulnerability, insurance and policy: The learner driver's standard of care

In Cook v Cook the Australian High Court held that the standard of reasonable care owed by a learner driver to an instructor, conscious of the driver’s lack of experience, was lower than that owed to other passengers and road users. Recently, in Imbree v McNeilly, the High Court declined to follow this principle, concluding that the driver’s status or relationship with the claimant should no longer influence or alter the standard of care owed. The decision therefore provides an opportunity to re-examine the rationale and policy behind current jurisprudence governing the standard of care owed by learner drivers. In doing so, this article considers the principles relevant to determining the standard and Imbree’s implications for other areas of tort law and claimant v defendant relationships. It argues that Imbree was influenced by changing judicial perceptions concerning the vulnerability of driving instructors and the relevance of insurance to tortious liability.

Access to medicine and the dangers of patent linkage : lessons from Bayer Corp v. Union of India

In February 2010, the Delhi High Court delivered its decision in Bayer Corp v Union of India in which Bayer had appealed against an August 2009 decision of the same court. Both decisions prevented Bayer from introducing the concept of patent linkage into India’s drug regulatory regime. Bayer appealed to the Indian Supreme Court, the highest court in India, which agreed on 2 March 2010 to hear the appeal. Given that India is regarded as a global pharmaceutical manufacturer of generic medications, how its judiciary and government perceive their international obligations has a significant impact on the global access to medicines regime. In rejecting the application of patent linkage, the case provides an opportunity for India to further acknowledge its international human rights obligations.

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.

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.