The regulation of insurance intermediaries in the Australian financial services market

The insurance industry discharges a critical role in the Australian economy and is a significant part of the Australian financial services market. The industry relies upon intermediaries, the principal types being brokers and agents, to promote, arrange and distribute their products and services in the market. The pivotal role that they play in this context and sensitivities associated with the consumer oriented products, such as house and contents insurance, has ensured close regulatory attention. Of particular importance was the passage of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 (Cth), a comprehensive attempt to address the responsibilities of intermediaries as well as particular problem areas associated with the handling of money. However, with the introduction of financial services and market reform early in the new millennium this insurance intermediary specific regulatory approach was abandoned in favour of a market-wide strategy; that is, market reform was based upon across-the-board licensing, disclosure, conduct and fairness standards, and all financial products and services are now regulated at a generic level under Ch 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). This article briefly explores the categories of insurance intermediaries and the relevant distinctions between them but focuses mainly upon the regulatory context in which they operate. This context transcends a strictly legal framework as the regulatory body, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), has sought to inform and guide the market through Policy Statements and Regulatory Guides. The usefulness of these guides as an adjunct to the legislation in explaining the scope and operation of regulatory framework is examined. In addition, the article looks at the self-regulatory and dispute resolution practices in this area and their impact. In conclusion an assessment of this across-the-board regulatory regime is advanced.

The Australian Nonprofit Sector Legal Almanac 2010, ACPNS Working Paper 53

This is the third year that we have summarised annual developments in the law for nonprofit staff, boards and volunteers. We were encouraged by the interest shown in last year’s publication and the use made of the digital copy on our web site, so here is the almanac for the Jan 2010–Dec 2010 period. We are delighted that the Australian Charity Law Association and PilchConnect (Victoria) have again agreed to contribute and promote the publication as well. These two organisations are beginning to fill the void of professional legal development and assistance to small nonprofit organisations that has characterised Australia for too many years. The first conference of the Australian Charity Law Association in Sydney was a significant event and one of the addresses is included in the Almanac. Other materials from the conference can be accessed at the Centre’s website.

Is there a physicality requirement at Common Law? : a survey of the Pre-NRDC cases discussing ‘Manufacture’

One of the fundamental issues that remains unresolved in patent law today, both in Australia and in other jurisdictions, is whether an invention must produce a physical effect or cause a physical transformation of matter to be patentable, or whether it is sufficient that an invention involves a specific practical application of an idea or principle to achieve a useful result. In short, the question is whether Australian patent law contains a physicality requirement. Despite being recently considered by the Federal Court, this is arguably an issue that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved in Australia. In its 2006 decision in Grant v Commissioner of Patents, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that the patentable subject matter standard is rooted in the physical, when it held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patent eligible. That decision, however, has been the subject of scrutiny in the academic literature. This article seeks to add to the existing literature written in response to the Grant decision by examining in detail the key common law cases decided prior to the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, which is the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regards to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This article, in conjunction with others written by the author, questions the Federal Court’s assertion in Grant that the physicality requirement it established is consistent with existing law.

Good faith in contractual performance and enforcement : Australian doctrinal hurdles

In the ongoing and spirited debate about the relative merits of an obligation of good faith in contractual performance and enforcement, widely divergent views have been expressed about the appropriateness and content of the putative obligation. However, relatively less time has been devoted to discussion of the sparseness of tools available to facilitate doctrinal development and the hurdles necessarily imposed by such limited doctrinal resources. This article seeks to examine the Australian doctrinal position against the backdrop of good faith as it finds application in the wider global context.

Physicality in Australian Patent Law

It is generally understood that the patent system exists to encourage the conception and disclosure of new and useful inventions embodied in machines and other physical devices, along with new methods that physically transform matter from one state to another. What is not well understood is whether, and to what extent, the patent system is to encourage and protect the conception and disclosure of inventions that are non-physical methods – namely those that do not result in a physical transformation of matter. This issue was considered in Grant v Commissioner of Patents. In that case the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patentable subject matter. In doing so, it introduced a physicality requirement into Australian law. What this article seeks to establish is whether the court’s decision is consistent with the case law on point. It does so by examining the key common law cases that followed the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regard to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This is done with a view to determining whether there is anything in those cases that supports the view that the Australian patentable subject matter test contains a physicality requirement.

The allocation of taxing rights of ship and aircraft leasing profits under Australia's tax treaties

The Australian Federal Commissioner of Taxation recently released Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2008/D3 with the stated purpose of clarifying ‘what profits derived from the leasing of ships or aircraft fall within the ship and aircraft articles of each of Australia’s tax treaties’. In particular, TR 2008/D3 explains the taxing rights over different types of leasing profits, such as a full basis lease in respect of any transport by a ship operated in international traffic and bareboat leases which are ancillary to the lessor transport operations of ships in international traffic. This article outlines the Commissioner’s views on the application of the standard ships and aircraft articles in the tax treaties to which it is a party as well as considering the major variations on the standard adoption. In doing so, guidance is provided as to the allocation of taxing rights of ship and aircraft leasing profits under Australia’s tax treaties.

Environmental reporting in the Australian mining industry : complying with regulation or meeting international best practice?

It is nearly 10 years since the introduction of s 299(1)(f) Corporations Act , which requires the disclosure of information regarding a company's environmental performance within its annual report. This provision has generated considerable debate in the years since its introduction, fundamentally between proponents of either a voluntary or mandatory environmental reporting framework. This study examines the adequacy of the current regulatory framework. The environmental reporting practices of 24 listed companies in the resources industries are assessed relative to a standard set by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. These Guidelines are argued to represent "international best practice" in environmental reporting and a "scorecard" approach is used to score the quality of disclosure according to this voluntary benchmark. Larger companies in the sample tend to report environmental information over and above the level required by legislation. Some, but not all companies present a stand-alone environmental/sustainability report. However, smaller companies provide minimal information in compliance with s 299(1)(f) . The findings indicate that "international best practice" environmental reporting is unlikely to be achieved by Australian companies under the current regulatory framework. In the current regulatory environment that scrutinises s 299(1)(f) , this article provides some preliminary evidence of the quality of disclosures generated in the Australian market.

Contract Law Case Book [2nd ed.]

This case book contains the essential sections of the most significant cases in Australian contract law. Ready access to this collection of cases enables students to experience the law through the judges’ own words, and to develop the skills of interpreting and analysing cases in order to refine their understanding of the law. Excerpts from important statutes and writings are also included.

National electronic conveyancing : outline of national law and rules

This article will outline the impact of the Electronic Conveyancing National Law (ECNL) and the draft Model Participation Rules (MPR) on conveyancing practice and the obligations of lawyers and conveyancers.

Constitutional Law

"This book systematically explores and clarifies the complexities of Austrealian Constitutional law and provides valuable critical analysis suitable for students, academics and government departments." -- book cover "Constitutional Law examines the foundational principles and concepts of this area of law. Written by practicing lawyers and lecturers in the subject, this book aims to provide an accessible yet comprehensive introductory text for Australian students. In eight parts this book systematically explores and clarifies the complexities of Australian Constitutional law and provides valuable critical analysis suitable for students, academics and government departments. An excellent resource for law students, Constitutional Law provides visual summaries in the form of flow charts, and each chapter includes key concepts and end-of-chapter discussion questions, further reading and useful websites and links. It also introduces students to key examinable areas, legal style essays, problems and assessment." -- publisher website

The state of the art defence : defining the Australian experience in the context of pharmaceuticals

One of the defences within Part 3-5 of the Australian Consumer Law is the state of the art, or development risk defence. This defence, although significant, has often been neglected in Australian jurisprudential analysis and has triggered at most generic academic analysis. However, with the rise of pharmaceutical and medical device litigation in Australia, it could become a vital weapon for Australian manufacturers against product liability claims. This paper will firstly review the two ways this defence could operate. It will also discuss the three types of defects which the defence could apply to. This paper aims to determine exactly when and how this defence should apply in Australia, in the context of pharmaceutical product liability claims.

Disability Standards For Education 2005 (Cth): sword or shield for Australian students with disability?

This article explains the scope and effect of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth) (the ‘Standards’) and considers whether they operate as a legislative sword or shield in respect of the battle to protect the education rights of people with disabilities in Australia. Evidence suggests that the Standards would be a more effective weapon if there were greater understanding of how they oblige education providers to make reasonable adjustments to their policies and practices to support access for and participation by students with disabilities.

Insurance and transport law : controlling insurance contract terms : Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act – compliance, recovery and accountability

Commonwealth legislation covering insurance contracts contains numerous provisions designed to control the operation and effect of terms in life and general insurance contracts. For example, the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth) contains provisions regulating the consequences attendant upon incorrect statements in proposals [1] and non-payment of premiums, [2] provides that an insurer may only exclude liability in the case of suicide if it has made express provision for such contingency in its policy, [3] and severely restricts the efficacy of conditions as to war risks. [4] The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) is even more intrusive and has a major impact upon contractual provisions in the general insurance field. It is beyond the scope of this note to explore all of these provisions in any detail but examples of controls and constraints imposed upon the operation and effect of contractual provisions include the following. A party is precluded from relying upon a provision in a contract of insurance if such reliance would amount to a failure to act with the utmost good faith. [5] Similarly, a policy provision which requires differences or disputes arising out of the insurance to be submitted to arbitration is void, [6] unless the insurance is a genuine cover for excess of loss over and above another specified insurance. [7] Similarly clause such as conciliation clauses, [8] average clauses, [9] and unusual terms [10] are given qualified operation. [11] However the provision in the Insurance Contracts Act that has the greatest impact upon, and application to, a wide range of insurance clauses and claims is s 54. This section has already generated a significant volume of case law and is the focus of this note. In particular this note examines two recent cases. The first, Johnson v Triple C Furniture and Electrical Pty Ltd [2012] 2 Qd R 337, (hereafter the Triple C case), is a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal; and the second, Matthew Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 115, (hereafter the Highway Hauliers case), is a decision of the Court of Appeal in Western Australia. This latter decision is on appeal to the High Court of Australia. The note considers too the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Prepaid Services Pty Ltd v Atradius Credit Insurance NV [2013] NSWCA 252 (hereafter the Prepaid Services case).These cases serve to highlight the complex nature of s 54 and its application, as well as the difficulty in achieving a balance between an insurer and an insured's reasonable expectations.

A crowning glory: Patent law and public health

Australian patent law reforms are critical to ensuring Australians have access to vital health-care services and technologies and that people in developing countries have access to affordable, life-saving medicines...