Homepage

Recent Victorian Offer of Compromise reform: costs inclusiveness, claim failure, pre-litigation offers and other changes

The Magistrates’ Court General Civil Procedure (Offers of Compromise Amendments) Rules 2014 bring the rules on offers of compromise in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (“MCV”) largely into alignment with the Supreme Court of Victoria (“VSC”) and County Court of Victoria (“CCV”) rules on offers of compromise. This amendment commenced on 1 August 2014. The VSC and CCV rules were amended on 1 September 2013 and 7 October 2013 respectively.

Copyright, ISPs and authorisation

The Commonwealth Government released an Online Copyright Infringement discussion paper (pdf) on 30 July 2014. Responses are required by 1 September 2014. The problem the discussion paper identifies is the high level of usage of the Internet by Australians to infringe copyright by downloading illegally movies, recorded music and the like and a perceived need, following the High Court’s decision in Village Roadshow v iiNet, to compel ISPs to negotiate with copyright owners about the introduction of systems such as ‘Notice and Takedown (and Put back)’ procedures.

Unsuccessful invocation of equitable principles to deflect a tax liability

The HCA disallowed a joint venturer’s claim to have derived a lump sum as constructive trustee. Alleged fiduciary duties owed to a non-venturer were not accepted. Alternatively, the venturer’s purported equitable assignment of his rights to the lump sum was not tax-effective.

Successful patentee not required to amend patent to reflect adverse findings in respect of certain claims before obtaining relief for infringement

Co-authored by Peter Heerey AM QC, Tom Cordiner and Alan Nash. Following on from his Honour’s decision reported above, JAI Products asserted that, because the only patent claims upon which Damorgold succeeded were dependent on claims that had been found invalid, it was necessary for Damorgold to amend the patent pursuant to section 105 of the Patents Act before it was entitled to an order for injunctive relief. JAI Products plainly wished to argue that the Court should exercise its discretion not to amend the patent because of culpable delay or the like.