Joint ventures and the Competition and Consumer Act

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the way in which joint venture agreements can fall within the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the circumstances in which authorisation may be available for joint venture collaborations.

Long terminal repeats act as androgen-responsive enhancers for the PSA-Kallikrein locus

The androgen receptor (AR) signaling pathway is a common therapeutic target for prostate cancer, because it is critical for the survival of both hormone-responsive and castrate-resistant tumor cells. Most of the detailed understanding that we have of AR transcriptional activation has been gained by studying classical target genes. For more than two decades, Kallikrein 3 (KLK3) (prostate-specific antigen) has been used as a prototypical AR target gene, because it is highly androgen responsive in prostate cancer cells. Three regions upstream of the KLK3 gene, including the distal enhancer, are known to contain consensus androgen-responsive elements required for AR-mediated transcriptional activation. Here, we show that KLK3 is one of a specific cluster of androgen-regulated genes at the centromeric end of the kallikrein locus with enhancers that evolved from the long terminal repeat (LTR) (LTR40a) of an endogenous retrovirus. Ligand-dependent recruitment of the AR to individual LTR-derived enhancers results in concurrent up-regulation of endogenous KLK2, KLK3, and KLKP1 expression in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. At the molecular level, a kallikrein-specific duplication within the LTR is required for maximal androgen responsiveness. Therefore, KLK3 represents a subset of target genes regulated by repetitive elements but is not typical of the whole spectrum of androgen-responsive transcripts. These data provide a novel and more detailed understanding of AR transcriptional activation and emphasize the importance of repetitive elements as functional regulatory units

Dr. Seuss and the "Great Balancing Act" : Exploring the Ethical Places You’ll Go Within Australian Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology

Stories by children’s writer Dr. Seuss have often been utilised as non-traditional narrative reflections regarding the issues of ethics and morality (Greenwood, 2000). Such case studies are viewed as effective teaching and learning tools due to the associated analytical and decision-making frameworks that are represented within the texts, and focus upon the exploration of universally general virtues and approaches to ethics (Hankes, 2012). Whilst Dr. Seuss did not create a story directly related to the sport, exercise or performance domains, many of his narratives possess psychological implications that are applicable in any situation that requires ethical consideration of the thinking and choices people make. The following exploration of the ‘ethical places you’ll go’ draws upon references to his work as a guide to navigating this interesting and sometimes challenging landscape for sport, exercise, and performance psychologists (SEPP).

The magic of numbers and the amazing disappearing act : the politics of counting youth homelessness

No-one wants to see young people who are no longer able to stay at home with their parents living in situations that are neither stable nor safe. Most Australians also appreciate that youth homelessness is typically a result of factors beyond the control of young people like poverty, lack of affordable housing, parental divorce or separation, family conflict and violence, sexual abuse, or mental health problems.1 Since the Burdekin Report of 1989 first put the issue on the national agenda, youth homelessness has been a point of some political sensitivity as the numbers of young homeless stayed stubbornly high through the 1990s and into the 2000s.

Submission to the Queensland Department of Communities Review of the Juvenile Justices Act 1992 Issues Paper 2007

This submission addresses the Queensland Government’s Department of Communities Issues Paper regarding the Review of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (August 2007). The Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Law has a Criminal Justice Program within the Law and Justice Research Centre. The members of this Program wish to participate in the debate on these issues which are critically important to the Queensland community at large but especially to our young people.

Debts “incurred” by receivers, administrators and liquidators : the case for a harmonised construction of ss 419, 443A and 556(1)(a) of the Corporations Act

This article analyses the inconsistent approaches taken by courts when interpreting provisions of the Corporations Act which address debts or expenses “incurred” by receivers, administrators and liquidators. The article contends for a consistent construction of these provisions which will enable the legislation to operate (as was intended) for the benefit of persons who supply goods, services or labour to companies in external administration. The article explains how and why debts can be “incurred” by insolvency practitioners continuing on pre-existing contracts. Specifically, the article contends for a construction of ss 419 and 443A of the Corporations Act which renders receivers and administrators personally liable for certain entitlements of employees (eg, wages and superannuation contributions) which become due and payable by reason of the decision of a receiver or administrator to continue a pre-existing contract rather than terminate it.

Practice and Procedure : Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 131 and 237(1)

In Jacobs v Woolworths Limited [2010] QSC 24 Jones J was required to determine whether a worker who had lodged an application for compensation for an injury outside the time prescribed under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) was precluded from seeking common law damages for that injury. This determination depended upon the proper construction of s 131 of the Act, and what was to be understood by the words “worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for the injury” for the purpose of s 237(1)(d).

Legal Profession Act 2007 : entitlement to itemised bill – meaning of “client” – meaning of “third party payer”

In Legal Services Commissioner and Wright [2010] QSC 168 and Amos v Ian K Fry & Company, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the scope of some of the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), including the definition of “third party payer” in s 301 of the Act.

Arbitration proceeding – determination of “market price” – subpoena under Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 s 17

AGL Wholesale Gas Ltd v Origin Energy Ltd [2008] QCA 366 involved an appeal against the setting aside of paragraphs of a subpoena issued under s 17 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Qld). The Court was satisfied that even if the documents were of “apparent relevance” to the subject matter of the proceedings, it would nevertheless be oppressive to require their production.

Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) : costs agreement between law practice and client - whether binding on non-associated third party payer

The decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Boyce v McIntyre [2008] NSWSC 1218 involved determination of a number of issues relating to an assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW). The issue of broad significance was whether a non-associated third party payer must pay the fixed fee that was agreed between the law practice and the client. The court found that the client agreement did not form the basis of assessing costs for the non-associated third party payer.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s 27(1) – duty of respondent to give information and documents

In Hare v Mount Isa City Council [2009] QDC 39 McGill DCJ examined the scope of s 27(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and its interpretation by the Court of Appeal in Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276. The judge expressed a number of concerns about the Act and the Regulation made under it, that are worthy of consideration by the Legislature.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 – whether refusal to stay execution of costs is an order “as to costs only”

In Virgtel Ltd v Zabusky [2009] QCA 92 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the scope of an order “as to costs only” within the meaning of s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) (‘the Act”). The Court also declined to accept submissions from one of the parties after oral hearing, and made some useful comments which serve as a reminder to practitioners of their obligations in that regard.

Setting aside default judgment - whether judgment regularly or irregularly entered - service under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s109X(1) - requirements for affadavit of service

In Hill v Robertson Suspension Systems Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 165 McGill DCJ considered the procedural requirements for the service of originating process on a company, and for proving that service for the purpose of obtaining default judgment.The judge’s views adopt a strict and technical construction of the requirements for an affidavit of service under r 120(1)(b). Though clearly obiter, they may well affect the approach taken on applications to enter or set aside default judgments in the lower courts. Pending further judicial consideration of the issue, it is suggested the prudent course is to ensure that the deponent of an affidavit for service effected under s 109X(1)(a) of the Act deposes not only to the location of the registered office of the company but also, at a minimum, provides the source of that information.

UCPR 229 - defamation proceedings – damages to be assessed – application to interrogate as to defendant’s motive - implications of Defamation ACT 2005 - application to interrogate before action - when in the interests of justice

In Hogan v Ellery [2009] QDC 154 McGill DCJ considered two applications for leave to deliver interrogatories under r 229 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The judgment provides useful analysis of the circumstances in which a plaintiff may obtain leave to deliver interrogatories to a defendant in defamation proceedings, and also to a non-party before action.