In a litigious matter, once all the parties in the proceedings have filed their pleadings (documents such as a Statement of Claim, Defence and Reply), pleadings are said to have ‘closed’. Once pleadings have closed, parties to legal proceedings in State based courts are usually obliged to provide disclosure. Note that this article does not discuss the disclosure obligations in the Federal Court where the obligations regarding disclosure are different. To many, this process may seem daunting and confusing, so in this article we consider the key elements of disclosure in Queensland under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). [Read more…]
Do you need to disclose a computer database?
September 22, 2017 by
In a litigious matter in the Queensland Courts, once all the parties in the proceedings have filed their pleadings (documents such as a Statement of Claim, Defence and Reply), pleadings are said to have ‘closed’. Once pleadings have closed, parties are then under an obligation to provide disclosure. A critical element of providing disclosure is determining what documents each party has a duty to disclose. In this article, we consider whether or not a computer database is capable of being disclosed. [Read more…]
What if neither party to proceedings takes a step?
July 19, 2017 by
It is common for legal proceedings to go for extended periods without any steps being taken by either party. Each Court has its own rules limiting the actions that parties may take after extended periods of inaction. In the Queensland Courts, these rules are contained in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). [Read more…]
Vesting of unperfected security interests on liquidation – register or perish!
April 8, 2016 by
Under section 267(2) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA), a security interest granted by a company or individual (Grantor) in favour of another (Secured Party), may, if it is not previously perfected, upon insolvency or bankruptcy of the Grantor (as the case requires), vest with the Grantor and not the Secured Party. In other words you may lose the property which is subject of the unperfected security interest! [Read more…]
Satisfying the evidentiary burden for a search order
December 2, 2015 by
An Anton Piller Order is usually made without the presence of the respondent (ex parte) and consequently the Courts require the satisfaction of a high evidential threshold before granting orders of this nature. They are usually made in intellectual property cases but their utility extends to employment matters involving breach of confidence, both equitable and contractual, as well as other breaches of contract.[1] [Read more…]
Revenge porn – legal options
August 14, 2015 by
Revenge porn (Revenge Porn) refers to sexually explicit media that is distributed without the consent of the individual(s) involved.[1] An act of Revenge Porn therefore involves the recording of video or still images of a person that is usually engaged in sexual acts (Revenge Content) and publishing or threatening to publish it. A persons participation may be consensual or non-consensual with the photographer subsequently uploading the Revenge Content to revenge porn websites with links to social media websites with the intent of humiliating the person depicted.
The ubiquity of devices with picture and video capability coupled with social media that has created numerous opportunities for the recording and distribution of Revenge Content. [Read more…]
Anton Piller orders – preventing evidence destruction
July 13, 2015 by
What is an Anton Piller order?
An Anton Piller order, also known as a search order, is an order of a Court requiring one party (Respondent) to allow the other party (Applicant) to enter the Respondent’s premises to inspect, remove or make copies of documents or other items which might form evidence in an action or proposed action against the Respondent.
Anton Piller orders take their name from the seminal case of Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd.[1] They are primarily sought in intellectual property related cases, but also commonly used in employment and other matters involving an equitable or contractual breach of confidence or breach of contract. They may also be used in family law proceedings. [Read more…]
Reverse engineering of software – what are the legal boundaries?
April 19, 2015 by
Reverse engineering of software can be defined as ‘to copy the function of a program, without having access to the original source code’. In Australia copyright subsists in original works including computer programs as defined in section 10 of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)(Act). The term ‘computer program’ is defined in section 10 of the Act as as a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. The Act and its interpretation by Australian courts provides some protection against reverse engineering of software, but only to a point, beyond which it is necessary to have end users agree to specific terms in order to protect the intellectual property contained within the program. [Read more…]
Misleading and deceptive conduct in business dealings
September 15, 2014 by
Business dealings between two or more parties often involve statements or representations during negotiations prior to reaching a concluded bargain. This article considers some case examples of conduct found to be misleading and deceptive in a variety of common business and commercial settings
Electronic service of documents
August 6, 2014 by
Last updated 25/08/2015
The use of email communication in everyday businesses must be, by now, almost standard. With the increasing size of email attachments, business and particularly those exchanging large documents with their clients or B2B businesses are now increasingly using cloud technology or third party document exchange systems such as Dropbox.
B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.
