Removal of a valid caveat - how convenient?

This article analyses in detail the approaches which have been taken when the court has been called upon to order removal of a caveat, particularly in circumstances where the caveat in question is valid as to form and protects a recognisable caveatable interest in land. It examines the question in all jurisdictions, with a primary focus on Western Australia.

In conversation with the Honourable Ian Callinan AC

When, in 1977, the Australian electorate provided a double majority to effect a change of section 72 of the Commonwealth Constitution requiring judges of the High Court of Australia to retire at the age of 70 years old, I doubt we understood the continuing capacity of these esteemed members of the judiciary. For the opportunity to sit and talk with Ian Callinan AC who, in compliance with that amendment, retired from the High Court in September 2007, I needed to wait until he returned from The Hague where he was sitting as a Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice. Although a native of Casino, New South Wales, Mr Callinan is regarded as a Queenslander. Indeed, he grew up in Brisbane, finished high school at Brisbane Grammar and graduated in law at The University of Queensland. Appointed in 1978 as a Queen’s Counsel, Mr Callinan enjoyed this period of his legal career and we discussed an aspect of the Christopher Skase case, which reinforced my belief that Mr Callinan is an incredibly skilful advocate. On 14 September 1998, ABC Four Corners broadcasted the views of some prominent Australians on the appointment of Mr Callinan to the High Court. In assessing the type of person Mr Callinan is, Tony Morris QC said: “Ian Callinan isn't a coward”, while former Commonwealth Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, said: “He was regarded as an absolutely outstanding criminal lawyer within the Queensland legal profession, I mean really a top-notch advocate”. I was not interested in raising any of the controversial issues that Mr Callinan has encountered as an advocate in high profile matters. I wanted to know how he felt about his time on the High Court, what his thoughts are on the operation of the High Court, the IP cases he decided, the real life issues that he feels impact on counsel who are appearing before the High Court and the people he regarded as role models. During our conversation, Mr Callinan laughed often and when he did his eyes lit up, revealing his passion for life. He is an incredibly genuine Australian who loved his time as a barrister, enjoyed his role on the High Court, enjoys his current job as mediator, loves writing novels, has a great desire for continual improvement in the quality of legal education and legal advocacy and sees a need for change in IP law. When I asked: “So, what might the future hold for you?”, he laughed and said: “Well, at my age I don’t have a long horizon time”. I said: “Just enjoy the journey?”, to which Mr Callinan responded: “Exactly”.

Multimedia copyright protection

Internet and its widespread usage for multimedia document distribution put the copyright issue in a complete new setting. Multimedia documents, specifically those installed on a web page, are no longer passive as they typically include active applets. Copyright protection safeguards the intellectual property (IP) of multimedia documents, which are either sold or distributed free of charge. In this Chapter, the basic tools for copyright protection are discussed. First, general concepts and the vocabulary used in copyright protection of multimedia documents are discussed. Later, taxonomy of watermarking and fingerprinting techniques are studied. This part is concluded by a review of the literature dealing with IP security. The main part of the chapter discusses the generic watermarking scheme and illustrates it on three specific examples: collusion-free watermarking, spread spectrum watermarking, and software fingerprinting. Future trends and conclusions close the chapter.

Legislative impact on the mortgagee’s exercise of power of sale : the need for rationalisation

Throughout Australia, regulation of the power of sale is highly inconsistent. In response to the uncertain nature of the mortgagee’s duty at common law, many legislatures have intervened. As a result, there has been a proliferation of statutory formula conferring varying degrees of protection on mortgagors. The differences in approach indicate a lack of consensus as to the best method of regulation. This article exposes the extent of the inconsistency and provides a comparative assessment of the various provisions with reference to the policy concerns that underpin legislative intervention. The article identifies a number of deficiencies associated with existing provisions and concludes that mortgagees and mortgagors alike would benefit from improved clarity and consistency. To that end, the article proposes a model provision that seeks to address the deficiencies identified.

Is Australia ready for biosimilars?

The biosimilars market is potentially the single fastest growing pharmaceutical sector with an estimated worth of US$67bn in global sales by 2020. This market generally refers to larger molecule, biological, protein-based pharmaceuticals which have lost its patent. This has stimulated the emergence of non-conventional pharmaceutical investors such as Fujifilm and Samsung as well as host countries such as Brazil, Mexico, China, India, South Korea, Turkey and Russia, which view biosimilars as a key macroeconomic driver of growth. Internationally, the European Medicines Agency has led the regulation of the quality, safety and efficacy of biosimilars; however, many countries have developed their own biosimilar regulatory frameworks. Despite the similarity of these with European guidelines, differences do exist across jurisdictions and have implications for cross-jurisdictional registration and regulation. The consideration of biosimilar regulation, however, demands attention beyond quality, safety and efficacy. The potential implications of extended patent protection, international trade and globalisation require a congruent policy approach to their regulation. Notwithstanding the fact that Australia is a relatively small pharmaceutical market and that there are only 14 biosimilar products currently approved for use, Australia’s geographical proximity to pharm-emerging countries and its trade relation with the major pharmaceutical markets have positioned Australia in a unique position to influence international development and regulation of biosimilars. Australia’s National Medicines Policy (2000) potentially provides the foundation for a partnership approach to biosimilar regulation, minimise duplication of regulatory efforts while at the same time fostering a viable pharmaceutical industry.

Buyer's hardship precludes specific performance

The case is noteworthy for its consideration of the relevance of circumstances arising after formation of the contract of sale in a summary judgment context...

Australian patent enforcement : a proposal for an expert panel opinion

The Australian Government has been concerned “to find ways of making patent enforcement less of an issue” and to make it “cheaper, simpler and quicker to get fair and appropriate resolution for any dispute”. Major problems relating to patent enforcement in Australia have been identified as: the cost of legal proceedings; the lack of patent owners’ financial capacity to fund enforcement proceedings; delay; and uncertainty as to the outcome and lack of knowledge about the processes of enforcement. This paper considers some of the problems associated with patent enforcement in Australia and proposes an approach to patent litigation which is directed at alleviating some of the difficulties which have been identified. Specifically, it proposes a strategy designed to identify the parties’ risks at an early stage of patent litigation proceeding and facilitate an early resolution of the dispute.

Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper July 2014

The Paper, by consideration of the issue of authorisation, addresses a very practical development in commerce. Online copyright infringement is now not only about unauthorised uses of cinematograph films but has filtered down to become more prevalent amongst small to medium enterprises (SME), as some competitors embrace online trading by aggressively and often unlawfully, seeking market share. It is understandable that internet service providers (ISPs), as gatekeepers of internet traffic, may be considered as being more than a conduit of contravening conduct but not a joint tortfeasor involved in a common design. In between those extremes lies the concept of authorisation in copyright which has a long history in Australia since the Copyright Act 1905 (Cth). The text of s 101(1A) of the Copyright Act, in particular s 101(1A)(a) and (c), derived from statements of Gibbs J in Moorhouse.

Commercial Leases in Australia [7th ed.]

Commercial Leases in Australia is a comprehensive guide to understanding and drafting commercial leases agreements in Australia and to managing disputes when they arise.

New sale and leasing requirements for owners of swimming pools and their application to strata schemes

This article considers the changes to the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (NSW)(Act) which established a State-wide online register of all private swimming pools in NSW requiring pool owners to register their pools by 19 November 2013. Amendments to the Act introduced changes to the conveyancing and residential tenancy regulations to require vendors and landlords to have a valid Compliance Certificate issued for their swimming pool before offering the property for sale or lease. This article provides a brief overview of the new sale and leasing requirements effective from 29 April 2014, focusing on its application to lot owners within strata and community title schemes and other owners of water front properties with pools on Crown Land Reserves.

New laws for off the plan contracts in Queensland

The Land Sales Act 1984 regulates “off the plan” sales in Queensland in conjunction with several provisions in the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. Together the Acts regulate sales in both unit developments and housing estates. From 2010 to 2013 the Queensland Government undertook a comprehensive review of the Land Sales Act 1984 to identify opportunities to modernise and improve the legislation. Significant changes were recommended by the Review to align the Land Sales Act 1984 (LSA) with current surveying and conveyancing practice and to overcome a number of practical issues faced by developers under the current legislation. A significant outcome of the review is the removal of provisions related to off the plan community title sales from the LSA to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (BCCMA) and the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (BUGTA). This article examines the Land Sales and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 due to commence in November 2014.

Repeatability or reproducibility in Australian Patent Law

This article considers the extent to which a claimed process must be repeatable or reproducible in order to be patentable according to Australian patent law. It asks whether a process must yield identical or near-identical results each time the process is invoked, or if not, what degree of repeatability is required. The question is relevant when considering, among other things, the patentability of some methods of medical treatment and diagnosis, biotechnology inventions and business methods.

The defence of hardship to specific performance actions

The decision of Evans v Robcorp Pty Ltd[2014] QSC 26 is of interest as being an instance where the defence of hardship, in this case, financial hardship, was successfully pleaded in defence to a summary application for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. Equity has always recognised the defence of hardship in response to an action for specific performance which, as an equitable remedy, might be refused in the discretion of the Court (Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 at 664). However, whilst the remedy is discretionary, there are certain accepted principles which have guided the courts in their application of this defence to particular facts. It is not a blanket defence to a claim for specific performance where the buyer simply does not have the funds to complete the contract at the time when settlement is called for. Occasionally, a radical change in, say for instance, the health of the defendant between contract and completion, perhaps coupled with a long delay by a seller in calling for completion not being the fault of the buyer might enliven the defence (Patel v Ali [1984]1 Ch 283)

Is there such a thing as an “irrevocable authority”?

The Queensland Court of Appeal decision of FTV Holdings Cairns Pty Ltd v Smith [2014] QCA 217 analysed many issues concerning the enforceability of an “irrevocable authority” signed by clients directed to their solicitors regarding the payment of money to a third party. The action also drew those solicitors into the litigation as they acted contrary to that “irrevocable authority” by paying the money concerned directly to their clients but upon their clients’ later instructions. The result probably confirmed what many solicitors have believed to be the case for some time but which had never been considered in legal analysis in an appellate court. The facts of the case would be common to many day to day transactions.