_sys_txt_homepage_cover
_sys_block_type_html_1564618112

With discussions on legal issues in social media there is always a risk that the other party will find out that you have posted and asked a question about your case and use that against you.

The Australian Paralegal Foundation provides for social media discussions of legal issues where legal professionals and those with legal experiences can discuss legal issues in a safe environment without giving legal advice but still providing valuable legal information.

STEP 1 : Register and Join.

STEP 2 : Create an Anonymous Profile.

STEP 3 : Post your question in the Discussion area.

STEP 4 : We notify our members who are legal professionals or members with relevant experiences and share the issue across our network of social media sites that cover legal issues.

STEP 5 : You can safely interact with your anonymous profile.

LOOKING FOR WHERE TO SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR MEMBERSHIP OR TO UPGRADE YOUR MEMBERSHIP?

CLICK HERE

_bx_forum_page_block_title_new_entries
  •  ·  _view_counter
  •  · 
Beginners Guide to the Australian Paralegal Foundation Network 1.  Getting Started After you hav…
  •  ·  _view_counter
Is it unusual to be more than 4 months post-trial and still not have judgement, or even a date for j…
  •  ·  _view_counter
  •  · 
Hi , a friend of mine her son went to Melbourne a year or so ago.  She only recently heard from him …
  •  ·  _view_counter
  •  · 
Hi , a friend of mine her son went to Melbourne a year or so ago.  She only recently heard from him …
  •  ·  _view_counter
The Courts refused to give me further transcripts and have now said I can have them at $8.10 a page,…
  •  ·  _view_counter
I am currently in the process of building a new home.   Early on in the process I picked up in the …
_bx_posts_page_block_title_recent_entries
Danny Jovica
_bx_timeline_txt_added_sample

Section 18 of the ACL does not of itself prevent a competitor from copying the product of a rival.

A manufacturer does not contravene s 18 of the ACL merely by copying an existing product, provided that it does not represent that its product is the original.

No representation of this kind will be made provided the manufacturer has adopted an adequate branding strategy to identify the product as its own.

Thus, the mere copying of another’s product will not of itself mislead consumers, provided that the imitation product is sufficiently differentiated from the original through pricing, branding and branding positioning, promotional strategies and retail supply:


Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd
(1981) 149 CLR191;

Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd v Rivers (Aust) Pty Ltd [2000] ATPR ¶41-734;

Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 823.

In fact there are businesses out there to help you get it right (and this is not an endorsement of that business, it just serves as example, I have never had contact with them nor examined their products in any way).


  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto
Danny Jovica
_bx_timeline_txt_added_sample

Conduct that contravenes s.18 of the Australian Consumer Law's (which prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct) may give rise to a private proceeding commenced by individual consumers who are seeking an award of damages, compensation (s.236) and refunds (s.237).



  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto
Danny Jovica
_bx_timeline_txt_added_sample

For instance you have a contract with FARM A to haul their organic tomatoes every year to market, but this year the neighboring farms pesticides affect the crop of FARM A and they lose their organic certification and therefore experience economic losses.

FARM A can sue in negligence but can the truck driver?

Indeterminacy of liability becomes the issue, meaning FARM B does not know what contracts FARM A has with whom and for how much for there to be a direct liability to the truck driver what is required is knowledge.   Perre v Appand (1999) 198 CLR 180.

If however the truck driver had put neighboring properties on notice that they had the contract with FARM A and perhaps offered their trucking services to neighboring properties on the basis of economies of scale (since you are in the area anyway) then even if FARM B did not accept your services they were aware of them and that you would be affected if they did something negligently that caused damage to FARM A.  Marsh v Baxter (2015) WASCA 169.





  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto

NSW police treated millions in damages for misconduct as ‘cost of doing business’

Internal memos from former watchdog commissioner accuse police of systematic failure and misinformation

  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto

NSW Police aimed to conduct almost a quarter of a million personal searches last financial year as part of a quota-driven system slammed as a politically motivated "numbers game" by the state's ex-top prosecutor.


Figures revealed under freedom-of-information laws show individual police area commands are set targets for the execution of powers such as searches and move-on orders, as well as addressing an array of crimes, with people in some areas targeted for searches at nearly 13 times the average rate.

 

 

  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto

Honest Government Response to recent fires and climate change policy

  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto

High Court rules Aboriginal people can't be considered 'aliens'

The High Court has found two Aboriginal men facing deportation can't be considered 'aliens' under immigration law. Their lawyers say the decision protects Indigenous people from being deported.

  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto

Court finds dam operators liable for causing the Brisbane floods

The decision exposes the water authorities and the Queensland Government to the damages and costs of the group members, which may be quantified in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Once those losses are quantified and paid, it is likely to become the largest ever class action in Australia.

  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto

So in QLD they are advertising everywhere ‘no need to fear, corona virus risk is real low in QLD’ and then they just rushed through this shit show...you know how far reaching these powers are..there is a good reason they should apply every 7 days!

‘Emergency powers granted to Queensland's most senior health officer to try to contain the spread of coronavirus has been extended, with Parliament passing urgent amendments to the law on Thursday.

The changes mean chief health officer Dr Jeannette Young can be granted emergency powers for three months at a time, instead of having to have them renewed every seven days.’

  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto

Canterbury Bankstown Council successfully defended a claim by a plaintiff pedestrian who suffered a fall as a result of a crack which formed around a Telstra pit. The plaintiff was unable to establish the risk of harm was not insignificant, and the Court also explored the protections offered to roads authorities under section 45 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (‘CLA’).

In Issue

The key issues for determination by the Court were:

  1. whether the defendant Council breached its duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to repair a crack in the footpath; and

  2. even if negligence was established, did the protections offered by section 45 of the CLA apply?

The Background

On 27 February 2016, the plaintiff was walking on a footpath, accompanied by her son, when she tripped on a crack which had formed around a Telstra pit.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant Council owed her a duty of care to ensure the pit and its surroundings were maintained in such a matter as to not create a hazard for pedestrians walking in the area including the plaintiff.

The Decision at Trial

His Honour found in favour of the defendant, concluding that “the risk of harm was not only not significant, but insignificant”. That finding was based on the plaintiff’s evidence concerning the fall, the photograph of the crack and the distinct lack of expert evidence about the physical properties of the crack.

Notwithstanding the finding that the Council was not negligent, his Honour took the opportunity to review section 45 of the CLA, which provides special non-feasance protection for “roads authorities”, such as the Council. Section 45 provides that a roads authority cannot be found liable for harm arising out of a failure to carry out road works, or to consider carrying out road works, unless at the time of the alleged failure the roads authority had actual knowledge of the particular risk that materialised.

His Honour found that even if negligence had been established, the Council had no actual knowledge of the particular risk of harm, and therefore the immunity conferred by section 45 CLA applied. His Honour further held that even if the crack was a significant risk, the immunity would still apply, as section 45 CLA covers a failure to inspect.

Implications for you

The decision reinforces the protections that section 45 CLA offers roads authorities, including Councils, in claims that arise out of injuries sustained on public footpaths and roads..

El-Kak v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2019] NSWDC 768


Source : Barry.Nilsson. Lawyers - Mitch King

  • _sys_pre_lists_vote_reactions_like
  • _sys_menu_item_title_va_more_auto
_bx_timeline_txt_or_jump_to 
_bx_market_page_block_title_latest_entries
SSL Certificates