Litigation

Can email trackers be submitted as evidence?

Whether email trackers, read receipts and similar indicators that show an email has been received and, ostensibly, read can be submitted as evidence has not been substantially considered in standing jurisprudence.  This article briefly considers whether, in light of existing case law, email trackers can be submitted as evidence. [Read more…]

Costs in unfair dismissal applications – part 2

An earlier article by Dundas Lawyers discussed the difficulties confronted in obtaining a costs order against an unsuccessful party in an unfair dismissal claim.  To recap, subsection 611(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA) holds that a party to an unfair dismissal application, be it the complainant employee or the respondent employer, must bear its own costs in relation to a matter before the Fair Work Commission (FWC). [Read more…]

What is a Case Management Hearing?

In the Federal Court of Australia, a case management hearing is a meeting of the parties and the Court to identify issues at the earliest possible stage (Case Management Hearing).[1]  They are the essential element of, and main procedure used in achieving, case management.[2]  In Queensland Courts, they are referred to as case management conferences.[3]  Case Management Hearings may be referred to by different terms in each State.  This article discusses Case Management Hearings in the Federal Court. [Read more…]

Can legal privilege be waived by using cloud based document hosting?

It is very common nowadays for businesses to store documents online using document hosting applications such as Dropbox or Google Documents that allow multiple parties to read, open and modify documents from any location in the world.  While using these cloud storage facilities is very convenient, it may pose a problem where a person wants to claim legal professional privilege over the documents they contain. [Read more…]

Subpoenas to produce documents – Federal Court

In litigious matters, it is often the case that a third party has documents which may go towards proving (or disproving) a fact in issue in the proceedings.  When this arises, the question becomes whether you can subpoena the documents, what form should the subpoena take and at what stage in the proceedings this is best done. [Read more…]

Emojis used online can be defamatory – watch out!

In the recent New South Wales case of Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485 , the Court was faced with the difficult question of whether an emoji is capable of having a defamatory meaning.  As the case was a first for Australia, the Court relied upon UK case law, as well as the ordinary definition of ‘emoji’, in considering the meaning behind the emoji used. [Read more…]

Consolidating related proceedings in the Federal Court

In civil litigation it is surprisingly common for the parties to have more than one matter before the Court with overlapping fact matrices.  Rule 30.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules) provides a mechanism by which the Federal Court, at the request of one or more of the parties to separate proceedings, can consolidate two or more separate but related proceedings. [Read more…]

Indirect patent infringement – lessons from Quaker Chemical

In the recent decision of Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty ltd v Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 306 (Quaker Chemical) the Federal Court of Australia decided that a company had indirectly infringed two (2) patents by supplying its customers with a product, because its use by customers would have infringed the methods of the patents. [Read more…]

Aristocrat hits the jackpot in Federal Court ruling

In the recent decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCA 778 (Aristocrat Case), the Federal Court had to consider whether a claim in four (4) innovation patents directed to an electronic gaming machine (EGM), having a combination of physical parts and computer software for gameplay, was a manner of manufacture.  The Federal Court ultimately found that the delegate of the Commissioner of Patents (Delegate) had erred in deciding that the claims were not a manner of manufacture. [Read more…]

Send this to a friend