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.

Changes to the REIQ contract and conveyancing case law update

The Reference Schedule to the REIQ houses and land contract and the lots in a Community Titles Scheme (“CTS”) contract has been amended to contain provision for disclosure concerning the installation of an approved safety switch. This section will not be required to be completed if the land is vacant (in the case of the houses and land contract) or if the present use is a commercial use (in the case of the lots in a CTS contract).

The legitimacy of graduated response schemes in copyright law

In an attempt to curb online copyright infringement, copyright owners are increasingly seeking to enlist the assistance of Internet Service Providers (‘ISPs’) to enforce copyright and impose sanctions on their users.1 Commonly termed ‘graduated response’ schemes, these measures generally require that the ISP take some action against users suspected of infringing copyright, ranging from issuing warnings, to collating allegations made against subscribers and reporting to copyright owners, to suspension and eventual termination of service.

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.

The borders that law sets on entertainment

It is natural for those involved in entertainment to focus on the art. However, like any activity in even a free society, those involved in entertainment industries must operate within borders set by the law. This article examines the main areas of law that impact entertainment in an Australian context. It contrasts the position in relation to freedom of expression in Australia with that in the United States, which also promotes freedom of expression in a free society. It then briefly canvases the main limits on entertainment productions under Australian law.

Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner : Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule

The fundamental personal property rule – no one can transfer a better title to property than they had – is subject to exceptions in the Sale of Goods legislation, which aim to protect innocent buyers who are deceived by a seller’s apparent physical possession of property. These exceptions cover a limited range of transactions and are restrictive in their operation. Australia now has national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) - which will apply to many transactions outside the scope of the Sale of Goods Act and which includes rules for sales by non-owners which will provide exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule for many common commercial transactions. This article explores the effect of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) on the Sale of Goods exceptions, explains that the new provisions are so wide that there is little continuing relevance for the Sale of Goods Act exceptions, and indicates where they may still apply.

Surviving the Personal Property Securities Act (2009) Cth

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which is expected to commence operating in February 2012. Previous personal property securities legislation was very complex, with more than seventy pieces of legislation in the states and territories, and more than forty registers. This reform package is the culmination of a process that began many years ago and various drafts have been the subject of much investigation and consultation. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

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.

Physical effect in patent law

This thesis addresses one of the fundamental issues that remains unresolved in patent law today. It is a question that strikes at the heart of what a patent is and what it is supposed to protect. That question 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 patent law contains a physicality requirement. Resolving this issue will determine whether only traditional mechanical, industrial and manufacturing processes are patent eligible, or whether patent eligibility extends to include purely intangible, or non-physical, products and processes. To this end, this thesis seeks to identify where the dividing line lies between patentable subject matter and the recognised categories of excluded matter, namely, fundamental principles of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. It involves determining which technological advances are worth the inconvenience monopoly protection causes the public at large, and which should remain free for all to use without restriction. This is an issue that has important ramifications for innovation in the ‘knowledge economy’ of the Information Age. Determining whether patent law contains a physicality requirement is integral to deciding whether much of the valuable innovation we are likely to witness, in what are likely to be the emerging areas of technology in the near future, will receive the same encouragement as industrial and manufacturing advances of previous times.

Place and Space: Community in the Internet Economy and What This Will Mean for Property

By 2020 Australia‟s National Digital Economy Strategy aims to increase household online participation and engage 12 per cent of all employees in teleworking arrangements. Achieving these goals is generally perceived as positive due to the reduced impact on the natural environment from less use of transport. However, this also will enable greater flexibility as to where people live and thus will impact upon the maintenance and formation of communities and on property use. This paper commences by clarifying what is Australia‟s internet economy before highlighting the impact of the internet on community formation and maintenance. The paper concludes by identifying what the achievement of these goals will mean for property use in the future.