Privacy and employee records – CP and Dept of Defence

The Privacy Commissioner’s determination in the matter of CP and the Department of Defence illustrates one significant difference in the treatment of federal agencies and private sector organisations under the federal Privacy Act. This case involved an employee of the department who had made a claim for worker’s compensation in respect of an injury alleged read more...
Subjects: Privacy

Can a computer decide whether two business names are “nearly identical”?

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided at the end of August 2014 that the prior registration of “Melbourne Children’s Psychology Clinic” as a business name prevented the registration of “Melbourne Child Psychology” and “Melbourne Child Psychology Services” because the latter names were “nearly identical” to the former. Whilst the decision traversed issues of the kind familiar read more...

High Court to decide whether regulator can determine if a broadcasting service has been used in the commission of an offence

The legal consequences of the prank call made in December 2012 in which Australian radio announcers called a hospital in London pretending to be Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles asking after the health of the Duchess of Cambridge are still to be determined. On 15 August 2014 the High Court of Australia decided that read more...
Subjects: Privacy

Australian Flash Boy in contempt of court

As anyone who has read Michael Lewis’ latest book, Flash Boys, will know there is a lot of money to be made and lost through high frequency trading (HFT). Whilst the Australian securities market is structured and regulated quite differently from the US market described by Lewis, there is no doubt that Australia has had read more...

Privacy Commissioner awards damages

In a rare example of the Commissioner making a determination under the Privacy Act, Aerocare Pty Limited has been found liable to compensate an airline passenger for the manner in which they collected and disclosed sensitive health information about the passenger in an airport departure lounge. The facts and determination Aerocare was acting as a read more...
Subjects: Privacy

Ombudsman’s immunity does not apply to claims of software copyright infringement

The NSW Ombudsman has lost a claim for immunity from liability for copyright infringements alleged by a software company: see MicroFocus v NSW [2011] FCA 787.  Whilst interesting, the decision is unlikely to have widespread application because the court did not need to consider the broader question of whether the federal Copyright Act was inconsistent with the state legislation conferring immunity on a statutory officeholder. 

read more...
Subjects: Copyright