Queensland Nickel Pty
Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (HCA) - Constitutional law - special case - Div
48, Pt 3 Sch 1 Clean Energy Regulations
2011 (Cth) did not contravene s99 Constitution |
Dallas Buyers Club
LLC v iiNet Ltd (FCA) - preliminary discovery granted to owner of copyright in film on
conditions |
Lisec Australia Pty
Ltd and Saremach Pty Ltd v Lisec Australia (NSWSC) - contract - evidence - interim
preservation order in respect of machinery |
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Queensland
Nickel Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia
[2015] HCA 12
High Court of Australia
French CJ; Hayne, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler,
Keane & Nettle JJ
Constitutional law - special case to
determine whether Div 48, Pt 3 Sch 1 Clean
Energy Regulations 2011 (Cth) was invalid in application to plaintiff as result
of giving preference to one State over another contrary to s99 Constitution - plaintiff
contended Jobs and Competitiveness Program contravened s99 because allocative
baselines it prescribed by were fixed by reference to industry averages and resulted
in same number of free carbon units per unit volume of production regardless of
differences between producers’ inputs, production processes and outputs - held:
validity of provisions of Regulations upheld - Div 48 did not give preference
to one State over another - no contravention of s99 Constitution.
QueenslandNickel
|
Dallas
Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Ltd
[2015] FCA 317
Federal Court of Australia
Perram J
Preliminary discovery - owner of
copyright in film sought preliminary discovery of documents - internet service providers
were respondents to application - applicants claimed they had identified 4,726
unique IP addresses from which their film was shared on-line their permission
contrary to Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
- held: ISPs to divulge names and physical addresses of customers associated with
each of IP addresses identified by applicants on condition information only be
used for purposes of recovering compensation for infringements and not
otherwise disclosed without Court’s leave - Court also imposed condition that
applicants were to submit draft of any letter they proposed to send to account
holders associated with IP addresses.
Dallas
|
Lisec
Australia Pty Ltd and Saremach Pty Ltd v Lisec Australia [2015] NSWSC 365
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Campbell J
Contract - proceedings relating to sale
of complex machinery - plaintiff sought interim preservation order in respect of
machinery so that evidence could be gathered for it to defend proceedings -
plaintiff concerned that moving machine might cause loss of data which would
make it impossible to diagnose any difficulty and, specifically, may make it
impossible to obtain expert evidence to defend the case - r 25.3 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
- held: Court made interim preservation order for a limited period and
timetable to facilitate prompt exchange of evidence.
Lisec
|