Molecular evolutionary dynamics of Ross River virus and implications for vaccine efficacy

Ross River virus (RRV) is a mosquito-borne member of the genus Alphavirus that causes epidemic polyarthritis in humans, costing the Australian health system at least US$10 million annually. Recent progress in RRV vaccine development requires accurate assessment of RRV genetic diversity and evolution, particularly as they may affect the utility of future vaccination. In this study, we provide novel RRV genome sequences and investigate the evolutionary dynamics of RRV from time-structured E2 gene datasets. Our analysis indicates that, although RRV evolves at a similar rate to other alphaviruses (mean evolutionary rate of approx. 8x10(-4) nucleotide substitutions per site year(-1)), the relative genetic diversity of RRV has been continuously low through time, possibly as a result of purifying selection imposed by replication in a wide range of natural host and vector species. Together, these findings suggest that vaccination against RRV is unlikely to result in the rapid antigenic evolution that could compromise the future efficacy of current RRV vaccines.

Mental harm, rescuers and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

At common law, a duty of care may be owed to a claimant who suffers nervous shock or pure mental harm due to witnessing, or hearing about, physical injury caused to another due to a defendant’s negligence. “Pure mental harm” is the ‘impairment of a person’s mental condition’ that is not suffered as a consequence of any other kind of personal injury to them. However, as many accidents have the potential to create a wide circle of mental suffering to bystanders, family members or others not physically injured themselves, it has traditionally been ‘thought impolitic that everybody so affected should be able to recover damages from the tortfeasor.’ ‘To allow such extended recovery would stretch liability too far.’ Nevertheless, whilst adopting a restrictive approach to liability, the common law courts have recognised that a defendant might owe a duty in relation to the pure mental harm suffered by one who foreseeably attends an accident scene to rescue another from a situation created by the defendant’s negligence.

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.

Standardisation and patent ambush : potential liability under Australian competition law

This article examines the problem of patent ambush in standard setting, where patent owners are sometimes able to capture industry standards in order to secure monopoly power and windfall profits. Because standardisation generally introduces high switching costs, patent ambush can impose significant costs on downstream manufacturers and consumers and drastically reduce the efficiency gains of standardisation.This article considers how Australian competition law is likely to apply to patent ambush both in the development of a standard (through misrepresenting the existence of an essential patent) and after a standard is implemented (through refusing to license an essential patented technology either at all or on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms). This article suggests that non-disclosure of patent interests is unlikely to restrained by Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (TPA), and refusals to license are only likely to be restrained if the refusal involves leveraging or exclusive dealing. By contrast, Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs) which seek to limit this behaviour through private ordering may face considerable scrutiny under the new cartel provisions of the TPA. This article concludes that SSOs may be best advised to implement administrative measures to prevent patent hold-up, such as reviewing which patents are essential for the implementation of a standard, asking patent holders to make their licence conditions public to promote transparency, and establishing forums where patent licensees can complain about licence terms that they consider to be unreasonable or discriminatory. Additionally, the ACCC may play a role in authorising SSO policies that could otherwise breach the new cartel provisions, but which have the practical effect of promoting competition in the standards setting environment.

Duty of care for mental harm suffered by rescuers

In Wicks v State Rail Authority NSW; Sheehan v State Rail Authority NSW [2010] HCA 22 (16 June 2010) the duty of care owed to rescuers, who were police officers, at a train derailment, was considered in conjunction with the interpretation of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002.

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

On 17 March 2010, the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) was assented to.

Insurance and the law of negligence : an influential or irrelevant persuader?

This article examines, from both within and outside the context of compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance, the different academic and judicial perspectives regarding the relevance of insurance to the imposition of negligence liability via the formulation of legal principle. In particular, the utility of insurance in setting the standard of care held owing by a learner driver to an instructor in Imbree v McNeilly is analysed and the implications of this High Court decision, in light of current jurisprudential argument and for other principles of negligence liability, namely claimant vulnerability, are considered. It concludes that ultimately one’s stance as to the relevance, or otherwise, of insurance to the development of the common law of negligence will be predominately influenced by normative views of torts’ function as an instrument of corrective or distributive justice.

Country of Origin and Internet Publication : Applying the Berne Convention in the Digital Age

Historically, determining the country of origin of a published work presented few challenges, because works were generally published physically – whether in print or otherwise – in a distinct location or few locations. However, publishing opportunities presented by new technologies mean that we now live in a world of simultaneous publication – works that are first published online are published simultaneously to every country in world in which there is Internet connectivity. While this is certainly advantageous for the dissemination and impact of information and creative works, it creates potential complications under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne Convention”), an international intellectual property agreement to which most countries in the world now subscribe. Under the Berne Convention’s national treatment provisions, rights accorded to foreign copyright works may not be subject to any formality, such as registration requirements (although member countries are free to impose formalities in relation to domestic copyright works). In Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. however, the Florida Southern District Court of the United States ruled that first publication of a work on the Internet via an Australian website constituted “simultaneous publication all over the world,” and therefore rendered the work a “United States work” under the definition in section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act, subjecting the work to registration formality under section 411. This ruling is in sharp contrast with an earlier decision delivered by the Delaware District Court in Håkan Moberg v. 33T LLC, et al. which arrived at an opposite conclusion. The conflicting rulings of the U.S. courts reveal the problems posed by new forms of publishing online and demonstrate a compelling need for further harmonization between the Berne Convention, domestic laws and the practical realities of digital publishing. In this article, we argue that even if a work first published online can be considered to be simultaneously published all over the world it does not follow that any country can assert itself as the “country of origin” of the work for the purpose of imposing domestic copyright formalities. More specifically, we argue that the meaning of “United States work” under the U.S. Copyright Act should be interpreted in line with the presumption against extraterritorial application of domestic law to limit its application to only those works with a real and substantial connection to the United States. There are gaps in the Berne Convention’s articulation of “country of origin” which provide scope for judicial interpretation, at a national level, of the most pragmatic way forward in reconciling the goals of the Berne Convention with the practical requirements of domestic law. We believe that the uncertainties arising under the Berne Convention created by new forms of online publishing can be resolved at a national level by the sensible application of principles of statutory interpretation by the courts. While at the international level we may need a clearer consensus on what amounts to “simultaneous publication” in the digital age, state practice may mean that we do not yet need to explore textual changes to the Berne Convention.

Legal liability for carbon capture and storage in Australia : where should the losses fall?

This article presents a critical analysis of the current and proposed CCS legal frameworks across a number of jurisdictions in Australia in order to examine the legal treatment of the risks of carbon leakage from CCS operations. It does so through an analysis of the statutory obligations and liability rules established under the offshore Commonwealth and Victorian regimes, and onshore Queensland and Victorian legislative frameworks. Exposure draft legislation for CCS laws in Western Australia is also examined. In considering where the losses will fall in the event of leakage, the potential tortious and statutory liabilities of private operators and the State are addressed alongside the operation of statutory protections from liability. The current legal treatment of CCS under the new Australian Carbon Pricing Mechanism is also critiqued.

Judicial and legislative considerations in the taxation of compensation receipts : an international comparison

In 1995, the Federal Commissioner of Taxation released Taxation Ruling TR 95/35 in an attempt to comprehensively address the appropriate capital gains tax treatment of a receipt of compensation, awarded either by the courts or via a settlement. The ruling was in response to the numerous, somewhat contradictory, court decisions of the early 1990s. Despite the release of TR 95/35, there still appears to be a lack of consensus as to the appropriate treatment of such awards. It has been suggested that the only way a taxpayer can, with any certainty, determine their liability is to obtain a private binding ruling, a far from satisfactory situation. In an attempt to clarify what the capital gains tax consequences of a compensation receipt should be, this article examines the Australian position and explores the comparative jurisprudence of the United Kingdom and Canada to ascertain whether the Australian attitude is consistent with these international jurisdictions. This article concludes that while the jurisdictions, through differing approaches, achieve a similar result, there is still a need to address the uncertainties that remain.

Adoption of innovative products on Australian road infrastructure projects

Product innovation is an important contributor to the performance of infrastructure projects in the construction industry. Maximizing the potential for innovative product adoption is a challenging task due to the complexities of the construction innovation system. A qualitative methodology involving interviews with major construction project stakeholders is employed to address the research question: ‘What are the main obstacles to the adoption of innovative products in the road industry?’ The characteristics of six key product innovation obstacles in Australian road projects are described. The six key obstacles are: project goal misalignment, client pressures, weak contractual relations, lack of product trialling, inflexible product specifications and product liability concerns. A snapshot of the dynamics underlying these obstacles is provided. There are few such assessments in the literature, despite the imperative to improve construction innovation rates globally in order to deliver road infrastructure projects of increasing size and complexity. Key obstacles are interpreted through an open innovation construct, providing direction for policy to enhance the uptake of innovation across the construction product supply network. Early evidence suggests the usefulness of an open innovation construct that integrates three conceptual lenses: network governance, absorptive capacity and knowledge intermediation, in order to interpret product adoption obstacles in the context of Australian road infrastructure projects. The paper also provides practical advice and direction for government and industry organizations that wish to promote the flow of innovative product knowledge across the construction supply network.