By war Logan J has ruled that documents prepared by a firm of trade mark attorneys in connection with a domain name arbitration are not covered by trade marks attorney privilege. The limits on the scope of “trade marks attorney privilege” is the main takeaway – in particular, Logan J considered that a draft statutory declaration prepared in connection with a UDRP complaint did not fall within the scope of the privilege. There is a warning about how a claim of privilege is made too.
Logan J has ruled that documents prepared by a firm of trade mark attorneys in connection with a …read more

Source:: IP Wars

Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 introduced

By David Jacobson The Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 has been introduced into the House of Representatives.
If passed, the Bill will insert a new Part IIIC into the Privacy Act to require government agencies and organisations currently regulated by the Privacy Act to provide notice to the Australian Information Commissioner and affected individuals of an eligible data breach. The Bill also applies to credit reporting bodies, credit providers and recipients of tax file number information.
The Bill’s notification scheme will commence within 12 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
What is an eligible data breach?
An eligible data breach happens if:

(a) there …read more

Source:: Bright Law

Life insurance remuneration regulations

By David Jacobson Treasury has released revised draft Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Regulation 2016 for consultation to implement the Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016.
The Regulation supports the reforms by:
prescribing circumstances where benefits paid in relation to life risk insurance products are considered to be conflicted remuneration. A benefit is conflicted remuneration if it is given to an Australian financial services licensee or its representative in relation to: a dealing in a life insurance product with a retail client; financial product advice provided to a retail client in relation to a life insurance product; or information given to …read more

Source:: Bright Law

Call to arms: Australians should own their own history.

By Peter Timmins This post four years ago commented on the cringe-worthy news that Governor General’s official correspondence with the Queen after the event is packed off to archives at Buckingham Palace and beyond reach of Australian disclosure laws.Now it emerges that GG Kerr’s 1975 correspondence with the Palace that he designated personal is ‘private’ in the hands of National Archives Australia, not part of official Commonwealth records and subject to normal archives disclosure rules, is embargoed until at least 2027, and the Queen’s private secretary holds a final veto over release even after that date.Shoulders to the wheel folks-If you can contribute …read more

Source:: Open and Shut

Refusal of medical treatment by a prisoner

By wjmadden A first instance decision from Ireland, AB v CD [2016] IEHC 541 is unusual for its consideration of refusal of medical treatment by a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder.
The discussion of the initial provision of treatment, given concerns about capacity and in the circumstances of an emergency, is not controversial. However far more novel is the discussion of whether a prisoner has a right to autonomy to refuse medical treatment: [13] ff. The court decided against the existence of such autonomy at [50], saying that it was a false premise that a prisoner has a legal entitlement …read more

Source:: Bill Madden

Senate Estimates: Brandis changes his mind on the OAIC, Pilgrim soldiering on

By Peter Timmins From Senate Estimates (pdf) questioning of Attorney General Senator Brandis and Australian Information Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim (pp 63-67) on Tuesday:Cease fire at last:Attorney General Brandis no longer thinks, as he did until May this year at least, that abolishing the OAIC would be a “good economy measure.” In response to questions about the change of mind he said “I am not going to comment on decisions in previous financial years that have been reversed. I do not think that is germane…. A policy was made in a previous financial year, essentially for reasons of economy. That decision was revisited more …read more

Source:: Open and Shut

Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 introduced into House of Representatives today….first step to mandatory data breach notification in Australia

By Peter Clarke Today the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 was introduced and read for the first time. Mandatory data breach notification laws have been long overdue.
The Bill provides:
Schedule 1—Amendments
Privacy Act 1988
1 Subsection 6(1)
at risk from an eligible data breach has the meaning given by section 26WE.
eligible data breach has the meaning given by Division 2 of Part IIIC.
2 After subsection 13(4)
Notification of eligible data breaches etc.
(4A) If an entity (within the meaning of Part IIIC) contravenes subsection 26WH(2), 26WK(2), 26WL(3) or 26WR(10), the contravention is taken …read more

Source:: Peter A Clarke

Requests for changes to medical records

By wjmadden With thanks to Karina Hafford for noting a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia: Morris v Information Commissioner [2016] WASC 336.
The applicant had applied to the Information Commissioner for a direction that certain of her medical records be amended (by the entity holding those records) so as to delete certain references to her mental health: [2].
The Information Commissioner did not accede to the request and ultimately the Court dismissed her application as it was not an appeal on a point of law: [62].
In doing so the Court commented on the differences between objective matters in records, and …read more

Source:: Bill Madden

Tribunal finds GST payable on the sale of new residential premises

By chrissievers In FKYL and Commissioner of Taxation [2016] AATA 810 the Tribunal found that the Applicant was liable for GST in respect of the sale of four residential premises as they were “new residential premises” within the meaning of s 40-75 of the GST Act. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant was not entitled to use the […] …read more

Source:: Chris Sievers – Barrister