NEWS - Holman Webb appointed to the Commonwealth preapproved Law Firms List

Making further external recognition of Holman Webb’s legal expertise, we are pleased to advise of our recent inclusion in the Commonwealth Government’s Legal Services Multi-User List. All Commonwealth Government departments and agencies (other than Commonwealth companies and government business enterprises) are required to use the law firms included on this list for their external legal services from 1 July 2013.

Mandatory notification has been in place for three years now, and, if we look beyond the encouraging rhetoric about improving patient safety, the scheme has kicked up some surprises, including last year's 40 per cent surge nationally in the number of reports made, which, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) has, so far, been unable to explain.

While the increase might encourage belief in the scheme fulfilling its goals of ensuring patient safety, we should aslo bear in mind that the rise also increases the chances that health practitioners, who take the serious step of making a report, may face legal action when they do so. If we drill down into the 40 per cent increase, we find that the most significant contribution comes from Queensland where the number of reports has almost tripled, rising from 85 to 220.The increase is even more troubling because health practitioners making mandatory reports about colleagues are not absolutely protected from defamation. Put simply, doctors reporting colleagues, and members of the public reporting health practitioners, can be sued for defamation.

Just one month from the publication of the report of Mr Alan Wein with respect to his review of the Franchising Code of Conduct, the Government’s consultation  paper was released to industry for comment on June 17.

The original report contained 18 recommendations for government with respect to proposed changes to regulation of the franchising industry.

The Government is now seeking industry response with respect to each of the recommendations and whether to implement these recommendations or to select another option, including leaving the Code unchanged.

In our previous article ‘Proposed New Developments in Electronic Contracts: Web Page Advertisements and E-mails’  we dealt with a number of updates to Australia’s electronic transaction regime including default rules to determine the time that the law will deem an email to be sent and received.

In addition to these changes, a safeguard providing a right to withdraw an email or online communication (where an input error occurs in a portion of an electronic communication) has been implemented, the recognition as to when an electronic signature will be legally effective has been broadened and the relationship concerning intermediaries such as web hosts has been clarified, along with default rules that have been formally passed into law to determine the place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications.

Late, in 2012, the Supreme Court had to consider how to deal with a company whose shareholders were in dispute.  One of the shareholders had sought orders requiring the resignation of certain directors of the company, made assertions regarding oppression and demanded that a receiver be appointed to the assets of the company.

The company owned land in Holroyd and the two groups of shareholders held equal rights in respect of the company. One of the shareholders had offered to leave on the basis that the others acquired the shares, but those negotiations also broke down. It was apparent to the Court that the company was dysfunctional and in a state of deadlock.

London's Technology and Construction Court has recently found that a company did not own the emails of its former Chief Executive Office, even though they were work related.

The case turned on its own facts, one of which involved the senior executive sending and receiving company emails using private or non corporate accounts and servers.

The physical storage of the emails was what caused the problem.  At a practical level, the emails were not on the employer’s servers.  Some had been sent using the executive’s private account (and therefore held on external third party servers), others had been sent from a work server, but copied to the personal server and, thereafter, deleted from the employer’s server.

Access to emails is often an important management tool, which facilitates good and proper administration, in relation to the affairs of a business, but, also, is important in corporate negotiations and, potentially, disciplinary matters.  In those circumstances, it is important to ensure that emails of a work nature are sent and received using company facilities and not by utilising private or non corporate accounts and servers.

In mid-June Alan Wein’s report of the latest Federal Government review of the Franchising Code of Conduct was published containing 18 recommendations for Government with respect to changes to regulation of the franchising industry.

Two major issues, which have been the subject of much debate in the sector, are the calls for a good faith obligation in franchising and the rights and obligations at the end of the franchise term.

The report’s recommendation is to incorporate the common law duty of good faith into the Code, rather than inserting a specific definition of good faith. This reflects the shift in attitude of the Franchise Council of Australia – a key stakeholder – to the concept of the duty of good faith being incorporated into the Code. Such a duty would apply to both parties, but would not prevent a party from acting in its legitimate commercial interests.In contrast, the demands by some that franchisees be compensated for their perceived loss of goodwill if a franchise is not renewed at the end of term or for the right of mandatory or automatic extension of franchise agreements have not been met. The report rejects these concepts as interference with the fundamental principles of contract and property law.

The introduction of tablets, smart phones and other mobile devices is driving down the use of personal computers and printers and making life tough for businesses who service these peripherals. For two rival distributors of printer cartridges the increased competition in a declining market has made it all the way to the Federal Court in a case involving a copyright breach when one of the distributors made use of material from its competitor’s website.

Treasury has announced that implementation of the unrelated commercial activities tax will be further delayed to 1 July 2014.  The tax remains retrospective for those unrelated commercial activities that commenced after 7:30 PM on 10 May 2011, subject to passing the enabling legislation.  This leaves charities with uncertainty regarding the tax status of their commercial activities.

Cloud computing is already a big part of our lives; though, often, we don’t realise we are using it. Partly, no doubt, that is the intention. The name itself encourages fuzzy thinking and its users are blissfully unaware of what lies behind the image on the screen.

Cloud computing has been around, as an idea, for decades – since the 1950s, in fact – and has been used widely in practical popular services such as Hotmail, Facebook, YouTube, Gmail and Dropbox for many years now. By definition, a cloud computing service is any service that allows you to load information into a cyber locker that is located elsewhere from the computing hardware you operate.The new services have brought with them new ways of copying and storing text, photos, films and music. All acts capable of infringing the Copyright Act, if done without permission or authorised without permission. When you load information into a cloud, do you still own the copyright on that material? By loading it, are you already infringing copyright? And, more precisely, can the person who stored it for you make copies of that material? And who is legally responsible for any infringements associated with the upload and sharing of that material?