In the recent decision of Fadlallah v Insurance and Care NSW (2021) NSWCATAD 304, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) found that there was no legal professional privilege in a report obtained by a workers compensation insurer’s lawyer to meet and deal with a claim for permanent impairment compensation.

This decision is a reminder that careful consideration must be given to the process of how medical experts are briefed by insurers and their lawyers.

Back in February 2020, Holman Webb published an article ‘AI and Facial Identification Technology – the Face of the Future?’, which referred to an article in the New York Times highlighting Clearview AI, and the use of the company’s facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies internationally.

At the time the Australian Parliament was considering the introduction of the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 and Australian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2019 which would enable the Department of Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs and Trade to utilise similar facial recognition technology.

As it turns out, Holman Webb Lawyers were not the only ones taking a close look at Clearview AI. Since that time, it appears that Clearview AI was offering free software trials to numerous law enforcement agencies within Australia, some of whom have commenced their investigation into the use of the app and have been feeding visual data into the system.

The Franchising Code of Conduct may be about to change again - this time, to introduce a ‘Franchise Disclosure Register’.

It remains to be seen whether the exposure draft of the changes will become law (through changes to the Code), and if so whether any amendments are made as a result of the consultation process. Regardless - in anticipation, Holman Webb’s Franchising & Retail Group has answered some FAQs in respect of the introduction of the register.

The new Director Identification Number regime commenced on Monday 1 November 2021. 

If you are a company director, you are now required to have your own unique Director Identification Number - a 15 digit identification number issued by the Australian Business Registry Services. 

You only need to apply for it once, and you keep it forever.

In Holman Webb’s April 2020 article Drone (UAV) Laws: Focused on Safety or Keeping Australia Back?, we discussed the strict regulations surrounding the use of drones (aka Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or ‘UAVs’) within Australia. That article considered the impact of these regulations on Australia’s advancement with respect to UAV technology, especially within the agricultural and medical industries.

Since April 2020, the regulations have increased.

In this case note, Insurance Special Counsel Joanne Vesper takes a look at the recent decision in Foti v Biordi [2021] NSWDC 496, delivered by Her Honour Judge Gibson of the NSW District Court on 16 September 2021.  Holman Webb Lawyers acted for the Defendants.

Holman Webb Lawyers is incredibly proud to have been recognised as an Employer of Choice in The 2021 Australian Business Awards!

The Australian Business Award for Employer of Choice recognises organisations that develop workplaces that maximise the full potential of their workforce through established policies and practices which demonstrate effective employee recruitment, engagement and retention.

With New South Wales edging closer to the 70% double-vaccination target required for the state to start ‘opening up’, and the associated changes to restrictions being rapidly made, Holman Webb’s Workplace Relations Group thought it timely to review the status of mandatory vaccinations for employees within New South Wales.

The Commissioner of Patents will appeal the Australian Federal Court’s recent decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879, to allow machines to be recognised as inventors on a patent application, on the basis that the decision is ‘incompatible’ with Australian patent law

In the recent decision of Infosys Technologies Limited v State Of Victoria [2021] VSCA 219, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that that an employer is not liable to make long service leave payments to former employees in circumstances where part of their employment has been undertaken outside Victoria, and where there is no sufficient connection between that external employment and the State of Victoria.