Patrick Gunning

Partner

Posts From This Author

Mandatory data retention bill introduced to Australian parliament

Mandatory data retention bill introduced to Australian parliament

30 October 2014
By Patrick Gunning
Today the Australian government introduced its much anticipated bill to amend telecommunications laws to require providers of certain communications services to retain so-called “metadata” about the communications they carry. The government clearly anticipates that the proposals will be controversial – the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the bill includes a detailed “Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights” of 144 paragraphs. Amongst other things, the statement considers whether the bill satisfies the criteria identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its decision of April 2014 as necessary for a data retention scheme to be compatible with human rights norms.
Read on
De-identification and medical records in NSW

De-identification and medical records in NSW

24 October 2014
By Patrick Gunning
Are health service providers in New South Wales obliged by the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) to de-identify medical records on the request of a patient? Not according to this recent decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Read on
Possessory liens over IP or data

Possessory liens over IP or data

1 October 2014
By Patrick Gunning
A UK decision held that the English common law did not recognise a lien over intangible property. Much of what the Court of Appeal had to say in its decision is likely to be influential in Australia.
Read on
The supply of a right to use source code

The supply of a right to use source code

10 September 2014
By Patrick Gunning
A Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held recently that a fairly typical software distribution agreement did not confer on the distributor a right to use source code. One may ask why would the parties need to know? The answer lies in the application of royalty withholding tax to payments made by Australian taxpayers to Canadian software licensors.
Read on
High Court to decide whether regulator can determine if a broadcasting service has been used in the commission of an offence

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

1 September 2014
By Patrick Gunning
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 it would grant special leave to appeal in respect of a challenge made by the broadcaster to a decision of the broadcasting regulator which found that the broadcaster had breached a condition of its licence.
Read on
Australian Flash Boy in contempt of court

Australian Flash Boy in contempt of court

4 June 2014
By Patrick Gunning
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 its share of ‘colourful’ Flash Boys whose conduct has been challenged in the courts. One such individual is Mr Matthew Hurd, who was found (in late 2012) by the Federal Court of Australia (Justice Gordon) to have “set out on a covert course of conduct that was nothing more than a flagrant and deplorable attempt to appropriate benefits for himself which were properly those of his employer”. Mr Hurd’s saga has continued. On 28 May 2014 Justice Tracey of the Federal Court of Australia found that Mr Hurd and various corporate entities associated with Mr Hurd were in contempt of court because they had breached various court orders.
Read on
Privacy Commissioner awards damages

Privacy Commissioner awards damages

13 May 2014
By Patrick Gunning
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.
Read on
Load More Posts