-
Anton Piller orders – preventing evidence destruction
An Anton Piller order is an extraordinary remedy used to prevent evidence destruction. This article explores scenarios in which it may be granted and the Court safeguards imposed.
-
Ownership of employee inventions – disputing ownership of patents
Section 35(6) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) establishes a general rule that an employer will own the copyright in many types of works if they were created by an employee or apprentice, in the course of their employment. Unfortunately, there is no such legislative equivalent in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act). The absence…
-
Failure to redeem – default on redeemable preference shares
This article examines the legal issues surrounding Redeemable Preference Shares (REDP’s) and the consequences of a failure to redeem them. The remedies available to aggrieved shareholders are explored.
-
Why employers require a drug and alcohol policy
Employers need to draft and implement a drug and alcohol policy to protect workers and the business from the risks associated with drug and alcohol use. This article outlines the importance of such a policy.
-
Does a franchise system require registration?
This article provides an overview of the legal requirements for franchisors in Australia. Contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement to register a franchise system in the Code, meaning a franchise does not need to be ‘registered’ in Australia.
-
Franchisors’ end of term arrangements – valuation of goodwill versus risk of competition
Section 23 of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Franchising) Regulation 2014 (Cth) (Code) limits Franchisors in their ability to include restraint of trade clauses in Franchise Agreements, protecting Franchisees if the Agreement is not renewed. Franchisors must be aware of the implications of this Regulation when deciding not to renew an Agreement.
-
Reverse engineering of software – legal boundaries?
Reverse engineering software in Australia is complex, with legal implications and cases providing authority on “infringing” verses “non-infringing” reverse engineering. Courts have provided some protection to intellectual property (IP) through licence agreements and distinguishing between ideas and expressions of a program.
-
Deceiving conduct costs Coles a lot of dough: ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 330
Coles Supermarkets has been ordered to pay a $2.5 million penalty for breaching the Australian Consumer Law. The Federal Court ruling serves as a reminder to businesses to be aware of their obligations under the Competition and Consumer Act and the Australian Consumer Law.
-
Dallas Buyers Club wins preliminary discovery order
The Federal Court of Australia has granted a controversial application that could allow copyright holders to identify and pursue alleged infringers of their work. Find out what conditions were imposed on the copyright holders and what this could mean for the future of online copyright infringement.
![Deceiving conduct costs Coles a lot of dough: ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 330](https://www.dundaslawyers.com.au/wp-content/smush-webp/misleading-and-deceptive-scaled-1.png.webp)
