Useful commercial, corporate, technology, intellectual property and social media cases
June 16, 2012 By Dundas Lawyers (Edit)
For those interested in cases on Corporate Law, Technology Law and Intellectual Property, please find a list below of interesting decisions of Australian Courts and links to legislation related to our areas of practice:
Commercial law
Commercial law
- Megalift v Terminals [2009] NSWSC 324 – are quotes legally binding offers which can be accepted?
- Perri v. Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537 – Conditions precedent to contract formation.
- Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 – estoppel
Corporate Law
- United Dominion Corporation Ltd v Brian (1985) 157 CLR 1
- The State of NSW v UXC Limited [2011] NSWSC 530
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 11) [2009] NSWSC 287 – Strict requirement for compliance with Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for Minutes to be evidentiary
Capital raising
Minutes of meetings
- John J Star (Real Estate) Pty Ltd v Robert R Andrew (A’Asia) Pty Ltd and others – (1991) 6 ASCR 63
Joint Ventures
- St Jude Property Investments Pty Ltd v Folari Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 328
- Scott v Medley Close Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 395
Employment law
- Barker v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2012] FCA 1076 (3 October 2012) – Breach of implied duty of good faith by employer
- Reeves v Koops Martin Financial Services Pty Limited [2006] NSWCA 221 – Restraint of trade
Technology law
Software development
- Business Bytes Pty Limited v Ateco Automotive Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 197 – Alleged breach of contract for defective system, highlights need for comprehensive requirements analysis.
- Unisys Australia Ltd v RACV Insurance Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] VSCA 81 (Unisys) – Precontractual misrepresentation, misleading and deceptive conduct
- The State of NSW v UXC Limited [2011] NSWSC 530 – where contract provides that determination over certain amount can be litigated but amount left blank
- Peter Pan’s Backpacker Adventure Travel Pty Ltd v Eye Jam Interactive Pty Ltd – concerned the ownership of the intellectual property in the software as provided in the draft agreement.
Intellectual Property
Confidential information
- Cactus Imaging Pty Ltd v Glenn Peters [2006] NSWSC 717 – Restraint and confidential information
- Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Aust Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; 210 CLR 181 – Restraint and confidential information
Copyright
- Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v IInet Limited (N0.3) [2011] FCAFC 23 (Authorisation of Infringement)
- Perez & Ors v Fernandez [2012] FMCA 2 (Copyright and moral rights infringement)
- IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14 (Copyright Act what is substantial reproduction)
- TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd & Ors v Network Ten Pty Ltd (No 2)
User generated content (UCG)
- Kaplan v Go Daddy Group Inc [2005] NSWSC 636
- Silberg v The Builders Collective of Australia Inc [2007] FCA 1512
- Patchett and another v Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 717 (Uk) (Websites owner can owe a duty of care to users who rely on the respresentations).
Click wrap vs Browse Wrap
- Goldstein v Jumbo Corporation Limited (Civil Claims) [2006] VCAT 2472 (28 November 2006) – Incorporation of contract terms by click wrap
Trademarks
- Mantra Group Pty Ltd v Tailly Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 66 (10 February 2010) – Trademark infringement by using infringing domain
Social Media Law
- Jamie Neville McIntyre v Google Australia Pty Ltd (On 6 October 2011, the Supreme Court of Queensland (Court) ordered Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google) to release details of those behind a website who labeled Gold Coast entrepreneur, self-help guru and motivational speaker, Jamie McIntyre, a “thieving scumbag. The anonymous blogger was an advertising client of Google. The Court has given Google twenty eight (28) days to release the details of the owners of the website in question).
- Australia Competition and Consumer Commission v Trading Post Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1086 (Misleading and deceptive Conduct in use of Google Adwords – Commentary)
- Mr Damien O’Keefe v Williams Muir’s Pty Ltd T/A Troy Williams The Good Guys [2011] FWA 5311 (Employment and right to dismiss and employee for online conduct – Commentary)
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 74 (Misleading and deceptive Conduct in Facebook Testimonials – Commentary)
- State of Victoria v Pacific Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 065 199 439) NSD 1429 of 2008 (Pacific)
- Stutsel v Linfox Australia Pty Limited [2011] FWA 8444 – wrongful dismissal unjustified where company had no social media policy to communicate expectations – Commentary)
- Mothership Music Pty Ltd v Darren Ayre (trading as VIP Entertainment & Concepts Pty Ltd) and Flo Rida (also known as Tramar Dillar) [2012] NSWDC 42 – Substituted services via email and Facebook
- Richard O’Connor v Outdoor Creations Pty Ltd [2011] FWA 3081 – Application for unfair dismissal | Excessive use of social media during working hours may constitute a valid reason for termination of employment as may the misuse of an employer’s intellectual property;
Legislation
Commonwealth
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – Schedule 1 Australian Consumer Law
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)
Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth)
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)
Queensland
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
