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.

Capability for infrastructure asset capacity management

Infrastructure capacity management is the process of ensuring optimal provision of infrastructure assets to support business operations. Effectiveness in this process will enable infrastructure asset owners and its stakeholders to receive full value on their investment. Management research has shown that an organisation can only achieve business value when it has the right capabilities. This paradigm can also be applied to infrastructure capacity management. With competing needs for limited organisation resources, the challenge for infrastructure organisations is to identify and invest their limited resources to develop the right capabilities in the management of their infrastructure capacity. Using a multiple case study approach, the challenges faced in the management of infrastructure asset capacity and the approaches that can be adopted to overcome these challenges were explored. Conceptualising the approaches adopted by the case participants, the findings suggest that infrastructure organisations must strengthen their stakeholder connectivity capability in order to effectively manage the capacity of their infrastructure assets.

Resident-funded retirement village valuations : complications with the application of the DCF

Retirement village assets are different from traditional residential assets due to their operation in accordance with statutory legislation. Designed for independent living, retirement villages provide either detached or semi-detached residential dwellings with car parking and small private yards with community facilities providing a shared congregational area for village activities and socialising. In essence, the village operator provides the land and buildings to the residents who pay an amount on entry for the right of occupation. On departure from the units an agreed proportion of either the original purchase price or the sale price is paid to the outgoing resident. As ongoing levies are typically offset by ongoing operational expenses the market value of the operator's interest in the retirement village is therefore predominantly based upon the estimated future income from deferred management fees and capital gain upon roll-over receivable by the operator in accordance with the respective residency agreements. Given the lumpiness of these payments, there is general acceptance that the most appropriate approach to valuation is through discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. There is however inconsistency between valuers across Australia in how they undertake their DCF analysis, leading to differences in reported values and subsequent confusion among users of valuation services. To give guidance to valuers and enhance confidence from users of valuation services this paper investigates the five major elements of DCF methodology, namely cash flows, escalation factors, holding period, terminal value and discount rate.

Implications of the National Rental Affordability Scheme on the valuation of residential property

The provision of shelter is a basic need and in Australia there has been a history of home ownership. However recent economic growth and rising construction costs, particularly over the past decade, has placed home ownership out of reach for some. In response to increased affordability pressures, the Australian Federal Government established the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) in 2008. The aim of establishing the NRAS initiative is to stimulate the supply of new affordable rental dwellings, targeting 50,000 new properties by June 2012, through the provision of a National Rental Incentive for each “approved” dwelling. To be approved the dwelling must be newly constructed and subsequently rented to eligible low and moderate income households at rentals no greater than 80 percent of market rates. There is a further requirement that the accommodation be provided as part of the scheme for no less than 10 years. The requirement to provide new residential accommodation at below market rentals for no less than 10 years has an impact on value and as such the valuation methodologies employed. To give guidance to valuers this paper investigates the scheme, the impact on value and expectations for the future.

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act : strike three

The Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 (“the Act”) which was passed on 18 April 2002 contains a number of significant amendments relevant to the operation of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. The main changes relevant to property transactions are: (i) Changes to the process for appointment of a real estate agent and consolidation of the appointment forms; (ii) Additions to the disclosure obligation of agents and property developers; (iii) Simplification of the process for commencing the cooling off period; (iv) Alteration of the common law position concerning when the parties are bound by a contract; (v) Removal of the requirement for a seller’s signature on the warning statement to be witnessed; (vi) Retrospective amendment of s 170 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997; (vii) Inclusion of a new power to allow inspectors to enter the place of business of a licensee or a marketeer without consent and without a warrant; and (viii) Inclusion of a new power for inspectors to require documents to be produced by marketeers. The majority of the amendments are effective from the date of assent, 24 April 2002, however, some of the amendments do not commence until a date fixed by proclamation. No proclamation has been made at the time of writing (2 May 2002). Where the amendments have not commenced this will be noted in the article. Before providing clients with advice, practitioners should carefully check proclamation details.

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act : take two

The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 commenced on 1 July 2001. Significant changes have now been made to the Act by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Act 2001 (“the amending Act”). The amending Act contains two distinct parts. First, ss 11-19 of the amending Act provide for increased disclosure obligations on real estate agents, property developers and lawyers together with an extension of the 5 business day cooling-off period imposed by the original Act to all residential property (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction). These provisions commenced on 29 October 2001. The remaining provisions of the amending Act provide for increased jurisdiction and powers to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) enabling the Tribunal to deal with claims against marketeers. These provisions commenced on the date of assent, 21 September 2001.

Causing economic harm to property developers : damages for starting an incurably bad appeal?

A recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal involved an unusual statement of claim made on behalf of the developer of a proposed resort in Port Douglas. The decision is The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2005] QCA 475. The issue The defendant had objected to a development application of the plaintiff developer and lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court against the council decision granting a development permit. The main issue in the Planning and Environment Court was whether the site coverage of the proposed resort was excessive. In a separate action (the subject matter of the present appeal), the plaintiff developer claimed damages for ‘negligence’ alleging that the defendant had breached a duty of care not to appeal without properly or reasonably assessing whether the development qualified for a permit given that the resort qualified for the maximum allowable site coverage. It was alleged that the appeal lodged by the defendant in the Planning and Environment Court had no reasonable prospects of success and that any reasonable person properly advised would know, or ought reasonably to have known, that to be so. The defendant had been “put on notice” that the plaintiff would incur loss of $10,000 for every day there was a delay in starting construction of the resort. The claim made by the developer required the court to consider those circumstances where a person may lawfully and deliberately cause economic harm to another. Was a duty of care owed by the defendant for negligent conduct of litigation that caused economic loss to the plaintiff?

Compensation for compulsory acquisition of a licensed car parking space

The Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) (‘the Act’) deals with the acquisition of land by the State for public purposes and provides for compensation. The issue that arose for determination in Sorrento Medical Service Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Dept of Main Roads [2007] QCA 73 was whether the appellant was entitled to claim compensation under the Act in respect of land resumed by the Main Roads Department over which the appellant had an exclusive contractual licence for car parking spaces for use in association with a medical centre leased by the appellant. At first instance, it was held by the Land Court that the appellant was not entitled to compensation for the resumption of the car parking spaces. The basis for this decision by the Land Court was that a right to compensation only exists where resumption has taken some proprietary interest of the claimant in the land. Following an appeal to the Land Appeal Court being dismissed, the appellant instituted the present appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Chesterman J).

Attach the correct warning statement

Practitioners will be aware that s 366 (1) of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 provides that a relevant contract must have attached, as its first or top sheet, a warning statement in the approved form. A failure to attach a warning statement in the prescribed manner triggers a right of termination in the buyer. The factual circumstances in Devine Ltd v Timbs [2004] QSC 24 are indicative of the problems that may arise in the construction of this statutory provision. The application concerned put and call option agreements entered into concerning 4 lots. The agreements, in identical terms, were signed before the applicant seller had completed a proposed residential apartment building. In each case the option agreement provided that the agreement was not binding on the seller until and unless the purchaser returned to the seller, amongst other things, two copies of the warning statement under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Ac 2000 signed by the purchaser and two copies of the contract document signed by the purchaser. The seller was required to hold the contract documentation in escrow and was forbidden to sign it until and unless either option was exercised.

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act (Qld) : disclosure, cooling-off and marketeers

The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 commenced on 1 July 2001. Significant changes have now been made to the Act by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Act 2001 (“the amending Act”). The amending Act contains two distinct parts. First, ss 11-19 of the amending Act provide for increased disclosure obligations on real estate agents, property developers and lawyers together with an extension of the 5 business day cooling-off period imposed by the original Act to all residential property (other than contracts formed on a sale by auction). These provisions are expected to commence on 29 October 2001. The remaining provisions of the amending Act provide for increased jurisdiction and powers to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) enabling the Tribunal to deal with claims against marketeers. These provisions commenced on the date of assent (21 September 2001).

Can compensation be claimed under the standard commercial land and building contract where the property sold has no legally enforceable vehicular access?

This was the question that confronted Wilson J in Jarema Pty Ltd v Michihiko Kato [2004] QSC 451. Facts The plaintiff was the buyer of a commercial property at Bundall. The property comprised a 6 storey office building with a basement car park with 54 car parking spaces. The property was sold for $5 million with the contract being the standard REIQ/QLS form for Commercial Land and Buildings (2nd ed GST reprint). The contract provided for a “due diligence” period. During this period, the buyer’s solicitors discovered that there was no direct access from a public road to the car park entrance. Access to the car park was over a lot of which the Gold Coast City Council was the registered owner under a nomination of trustees, the Council holding the property on trust for car parking and town planning purposes. Due to the absence of a registered easement over the Council’s land, the buyer’s solicitors sought a reduction in the purchase price. The seller would not agree to this. Finally the sale was completed with the buyer reserving its rights to seek compensation.