I would like to thank the many contributors who have made this year’s editions possible.

 

 

 

 

Contributors

Peter Ambrose SC

The Honourable Justice Peter Applegarth

Tony Arnold

The Honourable Justice Roslyn Atkinson

Joel Barnett

John Baulch SC

Jane Bentley

Terry Betts

The Honourable Justice John Byrne RFD

Karen Carmody

Robert Carroll

The Honourable Justice Chesterman

Gary Coveney

Glen Cranny

Graeme Crow

James Crowley QC

The Honourable Geoffrey Davies AO

The Honourable Paul de Jersey AC, Chief Justice of Queensland

Richard Douglas SC

The Honourable John Doyle AC

Dimitrios Eliades

Tracy Fantin

John Faulkner

Patricia Feeney

Elizabeth Gass

The Honourable Justice Michelle Gordon

Shaun Gordon

Sarah Holland

Darin Honchin

Joseph Jacob

The Honourable Justice Stanley Jones AO

M.A. Jonsson

Dominic Katter

Stephen Keim SC

Michael Liddy

Kevin McCreanor

Chris McGrath

The Honourable Justice Duncan McMeekin

The Honourable Justice Margaret McMurdo

James McNab

The Honourable Bruce McPherson CBE

Paula Morreau

Dean Morzone

Dan O’Gorman SC

Roly O’Regan

Andrew Philp SC

Gavin Rebetzke

Frank Richards

The Honourable Justice Ronald Sackville AO

Bradley Schatz

Anand Shah

Professor Lee Stuesser

Michael Stewart SC

Jeremy Sweeney

David Thomae

Roger Traves SC

Maria Twomey

The Honourable Justice Willis

 

Special Thanks To …

 

Hearsay is indebted to the Chief Executive Officer of the Association, Dan O’Connor, and to current and former Presidents, Richard Douglas SC and Michael Stewart SC, along with the staff of the Association, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General and the Supreme Court Library for their ongoing assistance and support.

Special mention is also to be made of Emma Macfarlane, Michael Liddy, and Gregory Hale, our designer, and Brett Young, our website developer – each of whom nursed each edition down to the wire.

 

I hope that in the New Year a renewed enthusiasm for the publication amongst the members will result in a more valuable publication from a legal practice perspective. 

I wish everyone the compliments of the Season and look forward to the publication of the next edition — in February 2010.

Martin Burns SC
Editor

The newly appointed Senior Counsel announced their appointment to the Full Court of the Federal Court at the Commonwealth Law Courts on 17 December 2009. The remarks made by the Honourable Justice Greenwood at the ceremony are reproduced below.

The tradition in England has been that on the appointment of silk, the appointee processes in turn to each of the courts that are sitting, announces his or her appointment and makes their bow. 

Since the year 2000 the practice in Queensland has been that in addition to Senior Counsel announcing their appointment before the Supreme Court, Senior Counsel have announced their appointment before a Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia, convened for that purpose. 

This practice has much to commend it not only because of the important distribution of powers contained in our Constitution but also because this Court exercises the judicial power of the Commonwealth of Australia, our national polity, and the thing that ultimately makes us, first and foremost, Australians. 

Announcements are also made to Full Courts of the Federal Court in Sydney and in Melbourne by Senior Counsel appointed in those States. 

On behalf of the Federal Court of Australia, I congratulate each of you upon your appointment and wish you well in your future practice at the Inner Bar, or, put historically, “within the Bar”.  In doing so, I speak particularly on behalf of the Judges who are present in Court this morning, and on behalf of Justice Spender who is presiding at a native title determination application outside Brisbane and Justice Dowsett who cannot be present today.  I also extend the congratulations of Chief Justice Black and the entire cohort of Judges of this Court nationally. 

Mr Rice, you are well known for your role within the office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and your extensive experience in the prosecution of federal offences.  Today, we are sitting in Court 3 due to the renovations to Court 1 to incorporate state of the art jury facilities in light of the enactment of the Federal Court of Australia (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 2009 which commenced on 4 December 2009 conferring jurisdiction to hear and determine the prosecution of indictable offences against particular provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974.¹ 

Mr Rice, perhaps we may see more of you. 

Mr Byrne, you are well known for the role you have discharged as Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions and as a Crown Prosecutor.  In that role, you have shown significant leadership in the supervision, management, training and motivation of a multidisciplinary team of up to 88 staff members drawn from professional and administrative backgrounds. 

Mr Horneman-Wren, you are well known to this Court in federal jurisdiction work and particularly in relation to your work in the Industrial Division of the Court. 

We congratulate each of you on your appointment. 

I mentioned earlier the historical reference to practice as Silk “within the Bar”.  Although the historical origin of the institution of Silk is not an analysis for this morning, there are two early aspects of the institution that have enduring importance at the centre of modern Australian society for these reasons. 

As Sir Victor Windeyer and Mr Bernard Kelly have observed², the term “barrister” may have derived from a reference to the barrae or benches on which the members of the Inns sat during moots³.  The term “barrister” became associated with the bar of the courts to which Counsel came to plead the causes of their clients.  The call to the bar may have originally meant the admission of qualified students to a position in the hall of the Inns immediately below the benches⁴. 

In any event, in early court rooms, part of the floor was railed off by a bar.  Within the bar, members of the Court sat upon their bench.  Outside the bar, members of the public gathered.  All persons having business before the court approached the bar and they and their advocates stood at the bar rail and were heard from there. 

Sergeants and Kings and Queens Counsel however were heard from within the bar and had a right to be heard inside the bar in recognition of their standing, learning and position as leaders of informed thought in the law.  Other barristers stood outside or beyond the bar. 

There is however something much more fundamental to our democracy about the notion of the bar at court. The great constitutional struggle in England against the Stuarts was not, as some commentators think, about the separation of powers, but rather the supremacy of Parliament, in all things: fought for by Cromwell and finally established by the Bill of Rights⁵ and the Act of Settlement⁶ arising out of the revolution of 1688.  The bar of the Parliament is the symbol of that supremacy and independence.  Some may plead a case to Parliament by standing at the bar of Parliament.  The bar of the Court, now represented by tables, represents the independence of the courts, which in their most fundamental role, stand between the citizen and the executive. 

As the Hon. Murray Gleeson has observed, the provisions of the Act of Settlement guaranteeing the independence of the Judges from the executive and removal only by an address by both Houses were adopted by the Act of Settlement Parliament to secure the independence of the Parliament itself by removing the threat to the independence of the Judges arising out of appointments made simply “during the King’s pleasure”. 

Interestingly enough, one final legacy of these constitutional events was the passage of an Act for the union of England and Scotland⁷.  Article IV provides that from and after the union subjects shall have full “freedom and intercourse of trade and navigation to and from any port or place” within the United Kingdom.  That article is the source of s 92 of the Australian Constitution. 

Does any of this matter today? 

Your appointments as Senior Counsel are a central part of the vitality of the Rule of Law characterised by representative and responsible democracy, a written Constitution incorporating a distribution of power and a separation of powers, a free press, an independent judiciary and a profession of advocates led by senior men and women, Senior Counsel, who understand the vital role the Bar plays in the preservation of the Rule of Law and who lead the profession with courage, integrity, intellectual honesty, application and humility, bounded by a recognition that the privileges conferred by your appointment impose even greater responsibilities of leadership than those you have experienced to now. 

The second matter is this. 

The institution of Senior Counsel has in recent years been under significant attack.  However, society values learning, wisdom, insight and the importance of education and looks to leaders in many walks of life.  For a long time, the monasteries were centres of learning and in more modern times the universities have assumed that role.  Leaders of the Academy profess expertise in many disciplines and some become emeritus professors. In the humanities, which most closely have a sympathy of interest with the legal discipline, the Academy of the Humanities and the Academy of the Social Sciences appoint Fellows.  So too does the Academy of Sciences. Aboriginal communities look to their elders for learning, leadership and decisionmaking and the wider community looks to its elders, most recently demonstrated in Andrew Denton’s series of interviews under the title Elders, for leadership, learning and inspiration. 

It is right and proper that the profession of advocates should identify the leaders of this profession. 

These appointments will no doubt present you with opportunities to advance your own interests in many ways.  That is entirely understandable.  The virtue of the institution and its capacity to endure however will be measured by your contribution to the public interest ultimately served in maintaining a disciplined, professional, well educated cohort of advocates who assist the Court in the timely and efficient disposition of controversies confronting our citizens. 

In that regard, your hard work, wisdom, learning, judgement, professional mentoring, work with the Bar Association in helping to bring out the best in others and the general discharge of these wider responsibilities that go with leadership of such an important profession, will if undertaken properly, advance the interests of the community and give you enormous personal satisfaction. 

I also congratulate your families on the great sacrifices they have made in helping you to achieve this appointment. 

Some aspects of the following remarks concerning the “stress of work that weighed upon the upper ranks of the Bar” from an account given in London in 1731, may analogically resonate in your and your families’ experience, to date.  The author of the commentary said this:

Again, I congratulate each of you on your appointment.

The Honourable Justice Greenwood

Footnotes

1. Sections 44ZZRF and 44ZRG
2. Lectures on Legal History, W. J. V. Windeyer, 2nd Ed., Law Book Company of Australasia Pty Ltd, 1957; A Short History of the English Bar, Mr Bernard W. Kelly, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1908; see also:  Pageantry of the Law, Mr James Derriman, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1955; The Rule of Law, Saunders Le Roy, Federation Press 2003; Due Process of Law, Rodney Mott, The BobbsMerrill Company, Publishers, 1926; The Ultimate Rule of Law, David Beatty, Oxford University Press, 2004; Hortensius The Advocate, An Historical Essay on the Office and Duties of an Advocate, William Forsyth, Frederick D. Linn & Company, 1882
3. However, the word “barra” was not the usual Latin word for bench or form.  The correct word was “bancus”.
4. Windeyer at p 141.
5. 1 Will. and Mar. Sess. 2, Cap. 2, 1689; see also Select Statutes Case and Documents edited by C. Grant Robertson, Methuen & Co. Ltd, 4th Ed., 1923
6. 12 and 13 Will. III, Cap. 2, 1701
7. 5 Anne, Cap. 11, 1706
8. A Short History of the English Bar (supra) at p 7577

I note with pleasure the presence of the Honourable the Attorney-General, the Presidents, the Chief Judge and Judges of the District Court, Judges of the Federal and Family Courts, the Chief Magistrate and Magistrates, retired Judges and Tribunal members and the Director-General and her departmental officers.
 
Announcements by Senior Counsel

I now invite the recently appointed Senior Counsel to make their announcements
 
…
 
 Mr Rice
 Mr Byrne
 Mr Horneman-Wren
 
It should be appreciated that although I am the nominated appointer of Senior Counsel, the process is intensely collegial, and benefits from the results of the consultation conducted by the Senior Counsel Consultation Group established by the Bar Council.
 
The appointments are greatly significant to the appointees, in terms of recognition, career advancement and influence within the profession. You present as Counsel of singular probity, learning and accomplishment. We are confident you have the capacity to rise to the particular challenge which now confronts you.  We wish you wel.

Christmas Greetings

I pass now to the seasonal character of this morning’s sittings, and begin by warmly thanking the Crown Law Choir, and its conductor Ms Lydia Daly, for again transporting us melodically and festively.
 
As well as lifting spirits, the Choir pursues a charitable goal. A CD of its work is available for a donation of $6. The proceeds are this year destined for the Ecumenical Coffee Brigade, and so far they total more than $2,300. I hope that total may increase today: CD’s will be available outside. This is a really good initiative, especially at this time of year when the plight of the homeless, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable should particularly engage us all.
 
I do not intend on this occasion to traverse the court’s performance over the last 12 months. A picture of that may be gleaned from the published Annual Report. My principal message this morning is one of gratitude, to my judicial colleagues, the profession and all who have facilitated the discharge of the mission of the courts.
 
The work of the courts is greatly eased by the support of officers of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. We are very disappointed that our much respected Director-General, Ms Rachel Hunter, is retiring from that position. The Director-General has been an outstanding supporter of the courts, and an outstanding facilitator of the administrative initiatives of the courts. The courts, the people have been privileged beneficiaries of her enormous experience and distinction as a leading public servant in this State.  We will greatly miss her, and wish her well as leaves for new ventures and commitments.
 
The past year has seen the sad demise of a serving Judge, a former Chief Justice and two former Judges long retired.  It has seen the appointment of two new Judges of the Supreme Court, the recent inauguration of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and the imminent implementation of the jurisdictional changes recommended by our former colleague Martin Moynihan.
 
The State’s sesquicentennial year has also witnessed the steady construction of the new metropolitan quarters for the Supreme Court and the District Court.  That afforded considerable cause for optimism this year, while the global financial crisis otherwise warranted concern.  We saw not just the survival but the rapid progress of the project, and I thank the Premier and the Attorney for their significant support.  I urge you to look at the computer generated display about the project located in the foyer of this building if you do not have time to walk 5 minutes down George Street to peer through the apertures in the hoarding at the site itself.  My experiences throughout Australia and overseas leave me in no doubt:  all Queenslanders will be enormously proud of this new metropolitan courthouse for their Supreme and District Courts, destined for completion late 2011/early 2012. I particularly thank the Building Committee Judges for their enthusiastic application to the project, and the architects, Mr John Grealy, Dr John Hockings, Mr Ralph Bailey, and from Bovis Lend Lease, Mr Tony Orazio, general manager, and Mr Lucas Stewart, senior project manager and Mr Allan Robertson, project manager, all of whom are present here this morning.
 
I wish this morning to say something briefly, in addition, about two particular matters.  The first is the Moynihan reforms.  The second is national legal profession reform.
 
My own view is that the Moynihan reforms are most appropriate, if not overdue.  It will be important to monitor the consequences of the jurisdictional changes.  The implementation is being carefully managed by a taskforce of which I am a member.  One obvious point to be made with the substantial increase in the District Court’s civil jurisdiction is the prime need to maintain the quality of appointments to that court, especially on the commercial side.  A related consideration, with the increasing Queensland population, is the need to at least maintain the present ratio of judicial officers to population — in fact the lowest in the nation, which may bear testimony to the working commitment of Queensland judges and magistrates.
 
I turn to the second matter, national legal profession reform, an initiative of the Council of Australian Governments. The major objectives are commendable — simplified uniform legislation and regulation, national standards policies and practices where practicable, freedom of movement between jurisdictions to foster a truly national profession, and clear and accessible consumer protection — though it is not clear to me that they are not presently being secured.
 
I have been assured the courts will remain the admitting authorities and that current mechanisms for the treatment of disciplinary complaints will be respected:  that is, disciplinary applications will be determined as at present. They must be. A complaint against a practitioner in regional Queensland should be determined by a State-based tribunal familiar with any relevant nuances of practice in that part of the State. The uniquely decentralized nature of practice in Queensland gives rise to some considerations quite different from those of practice in other, largely metropolitan, jurisdictions.
 
I am concerned about one important aspect of the direction of the taskforce charged with the development of the model.
 
The presently preferred model, I understand, involves a National Legal Services Board responsible for determining national standards on a number of important matters, including admission, suitability for admission, practising entitlements, professional conduct and business practice.  These matters, especially the setting of ethical standards, go to the heart of the profession.

My concern stems from the posited composition of the Board. The discussion paper of the Consultative Group proposes that the Board would comprise “a small body of around five members appointed on the advice of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General”:  a small, powerful body, and because small, one may at once query whether all relevant interests could be represented.
 
The alternative regulatory framework developed by the Law Council of Australia proposed that the Commonwealth Attorney-General appoint the Board, after consultation with other Attorneys and professional bodies. Yet the primary position of the Law Council is that “there must remain an independent legal profession”.
 
I cannot presently see how the legal profession will remain “independent” if effectively governed by a body appointed by the executive government. The substantial constraint to which the profession has to date been subject, and which warrants its being characterized as the legal profession, is the supervisory jurisdiction of the court over its individual members. This would substantially change, were a governmental body in place to determine the sorts of fundamental issues just mentioned. That position may be ameliorated were such a body to be a joint creature of the courts and the profession.
 
I understand the concerns which fired this initiative were experienced primarily in large national firms understandably — from their aspect — frustrated by expense, delay and inconvenience in having to master and operate within varying regulatory regimes from State to State. I have not heard concerns from our 1,200 strong Queensland Bar, nor from the majority of Queensland solicitors, nor from those members of the Queensland public who utilize legal services.
 
The Law Society informs me that the nationally based firms account for about 12% of Queensland solicitors.  It would be unfortunate were the influence of those national and multi-nationally based firms to bring about a refashioning of the profession to the point where it lost its independence and would be regarded as controlled by executive government.
 
It is in truth the practitioner’s relationship with the court — the court admits and as necessary disciplines, the court delineates ethical and professional standards — which distinguishes the legal profession from other professions.  Legal practitioners are officers of the court.  It is to the court they owe their predominant ethical duty.  Implementing the model presently envisaged would transfer that dependence from the court to the executive, and that would be unacceptable in these Australian jurisdictions where the relative independence of the legal profession is an adjunct of the independence of the judiciary and thereby effectively seen as part of the rule of law.
 
My other, concededly more pedestrian though nevertheless still important concern, relates to the cost of the bureaucracies which the proposed new instrumentalities will inevitably spawn.  The proposed National Legal Services Board, the Standards Advisory Committees, and the National Legal Ombudsman will not come inexpensively.  Who will be called upon to bear the cost?  The existing legitimate demands in this State on the interest on trust accounts fund are substantial.  Our present system in Queensland works well.  It would be regrettable were Queensland taxpayers, or Queensland practitioners, required to subsidize the cost of a new national system introduced to appease the misgivings of a small and high earning group of the nation’s solicitors. Interacting regularly with practitioners from regional Queensland, I am struck by their utter dedication. I would be very concerned were the viability of practice in centres like Blackall, Longreach, Mt Isa, Weipa, Cunnamulla, Dalby…jeopardized by any new financial impost.
 
In reality, any present “problem”, so far as it exists, is no more than a degree of untidiness.  Practitioners may readily practise from one Australian jurisdiction to another.  Uniform admission standards are well articulated and carefully implemented. Ethical standards are comparatively uniform and rigorously monitored.
 
At least 88% of Queensland solicitors would not relate to this suggested “problem”, or a problem to be addressed in this way.  Neither would more than 1,200 Queensland barristers. Neither, I venture, would those Queenslanders who utilize legal services.
 
The only relevant objective is not making life easier for the big end of town, but maximizing the availability of good quality legal services.
 
There are particular needs in Queensland which should make us chary about the proposed reforms.
 
The momentum may be unstoppable. It is a pity those behind it will not be paying for it. It will be particularly appalling if it leads to a reduction in on the spot legal services in regional and remote Queensland.
 
There is real need for a prolonged pause in this presently galloping process, and a serious rethink.
 
Please pardon my entering to that extent on such an earnest topic on this particular occasion, but I felt it important that at this stage my view be known.
 
It remains for me to repeat my sincere thanks to my colleagues, the profession, the court’s dedicated administrative and Registry staff, our efficient and loyal associates and secretaries, the ever attentive corps of bailiffs, our patient court reporters, the assiduous security staff, our reliable correctional officers, our invaluable Library staff, and that much appreciated band of volunteers who so willingly and effectively assist litigants and others within the courthouse, the Court Network and the Self-representation Civil Law Service.   I add only this:  we wish that you, your families and friends — and our families — may enjoy a safe, peaceful and refreshing festive season, and a happy and fulfilling year 2010.

The Honourable Paul de Jersey AO

Chief Justice of Queensland 

The following members were elected:

President:  Richard John Douglas S.C.

Vice President: Roger Norman Traves S.C.

Council:

Michael Pascal Amerena

Susan Elizabeth Brown

Catherine Elena Carew

Anthony William Collins

Stephen Thomas Courtney

Graeme Francis Crow

Peter John Davis SC

Liam Matthew Dollar 

Carl Wayne Heaton  

Sarah Catherine Holland

Dominic James Murphy

Daniel Paul O’Gorman SC

Mark Oliver Plunkett

Anand Joseph Shah 

Elizabeth Sybil Wilson

 

Daniel L O’Connor

Chief Executive

 

In April this year, the High Court handed down its decison in IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14.

In separate reasons ((French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) and (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ)), unanimously allowed the appeal by the appellants (jointly IceTV), against the respondent (Channel Nine), determining that the IceTV program guide (the IceTV Guide), did not infringe Channel Nine’s weekly programming schedule (the Nine weekly schedule), on the basis that the program title, date and time of broadcast (the time and title information), was not a substantial part of the Nine weekly schedule.

Factual Background

Channel Nine is a free to air broadcaster. It broadcasts television programs, the rights to which it acquires, in the belief that they will appeal to the viewing public. Channel Nine allocates programming several weeks before the broadcast.

Channel Nine does not itself publish television guides. Channel Nine, as other free to air stations, provide their schedule to third parties (aggregators), who compile the information provided by Channel Nine in the Nine weekly schedule, with the program schedules of other Australian free to air television stations. Viewers are advised, through publications such as TV Week, of the date and time of a proposed broadcast, together with additional program information such as program classification, consumer advice and synopses.

The IceTV Guide is a subscription based electronic program guide, which would be uploaded to the subscriber’s device and would display television programs, scheduled to be broadcast by free to air television stations. IceTV did not receive information from Channel Nine or the aggregators about the time, date and title of programs, proposed to be broadcast by Channel Nine. It claimed that it created a template in 2004 and updated it by predicting the information for inclusion in the IceTV Guide based on its observations of Channel Nine’s programming behaviour and knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of the television industry.

As the accuracy of the guide was important to IceTV, it would check its estimations against publicly available program guides. Discrepancies usually resulted in IceTV altering the IceTV Guide to match the published guides.

The Nine weekly schedule was information in material form. Reproduced in the High Court reasons at [118], is the weekly schedule for Sunday June 11, 2006. Their Honours Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ identified:

• the time and title information in columns 1 and 2;
• additional information such as whether the program was live, in columns 3 and 4; and
• the synopsis in column 5.

The Proceeding History

Before the primary judge, IceTV succeeded in establishing that there had not been a substantial reproduction of the Nine weekly schedules. The full court of the Federal Court reversed her Honour’s decision, finding that IceTV had appropriated the skill and labour of Channel Nine. The basis of the full court’s reasoning was that the skill and labour in compiling the time and title information, could not be separated from the skill and labour in arriving at the programming decisions. Relevantly, their Honours Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ noted in relation to this difference of opinion at [128]ff:

It was in the assessment of this topic that a critical difference of opinion emerged in the reasoning of the Full Court. The Full Court explained at (2008) 168 FCR 14 at 41:

Upon this basis, that the skill and labour invested in the programming decisions     could not be separated from the skill and labour of creating the copyright work,     the     Full Court continued:

Ice took, via the Aggregated Guides, precisely the pieces of information that reflected the exercise of skill and labour by Nine in determining the program for a particular day or other period … Ice’s use of material derived from the time and title information — we would not use the expression ‘slivers of information’ — appropriated the most creative elements of the skill and labour utilised by Nine in creating the Weekly Schedules.” (emphasis added by their Honours)

The Issues

Channel Nine

Channel Nine asserted that copyright subsisted in the Nine weekly schedules as literary works, specifically compilations. Relevantly, the definition of ‘literary work’ in   s10(1) of the Copyright Act includes:

(a)  a table, or compilation, expressed in words, figures or symbols;

Channel Nine submitted that if there were any doubt that the Nine weekly schedules were copyright, such doubt was put to rest by the full court decision in Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2002] FCAFC 112; (2002) 119 FCR 491 (Desktop).

Desktop determined that copyright protection could be attracted to a compilation of factual information, through the expenditure of labour in collecting, verifying, recording and assembling data and that the concept of a substantial part of the compilation was not defined by reference to its form: Desktop at [238]. The question in Desktop, focussed on whether a compilation of factual information could qualify as an ‘original’ work within the meaning of the subsistence provision s 32 of the Copyright Act i.e. could copyright subsist in a collection of factual information?

In terms of the substantiality of the alleged copying, Channel Nine alleged that the IceTV Guide included approximately a 100% reproduction of the time and title information in the Nine weekly schedules and this included late changes made to fine tune the IceTV Guide.   

In terms of infringement of copyright, the issue of substantiality, is raised by s 14 of the Copyright Act which states relevantly:

(1)  In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

(a)  a reference to the doing of an act in relation to a work or other subjectmatter shall be read as including a reference to the doing of that act in relation to a substantial part of the work or other subjectmatter; and

IceTV

IceTV did not put subsistence of copyright in issue, as it admitted that copyright subsisted in the Nine weekly schedule. IceTV did however, deny that it copied the Nine weekly schedule in creating and updating the IceTV Guide.

The basis of its denial is that it alleged that the IceTV Guide was created using templates developed by IceTV in 2004. IceTV contended that it did not copy, but rather itself created the templates by literally watching all of the programs which were broadcasted and writing down the title of the programs and the days and times at which they were shown. These templates were updated since 2004, by its knowledge of industry practices and fine tuning by reference to the aggregate guides.  

IceTV further denied taking all or a substantial part of the Nine weekly schedule or in any of its component parts. Although, infringement in the synopses was not alleged, IceTV claimed that it drafted its own synopses for inclusion in the IceTV Guide, and that these were different from the synopses appearing in the Nine weekly schedule.

The Decision

The High Court unanimously found in favour of IceTV.

Although, there may be a perception of some complexity about the decision its reasoning is straight forward. Their Honours considered that the skill and labour required to compose the expression of the form of the time and title information together was insignificant. As the case was essentially about the appropriation Channel Nine’s skill and labour, there could not be said to have been any.

The High Court, as did the primary judge, distinguished the skill and labour in putting the time and title information together in the Nine weekly schedule from the substantial skill and labour expended by Channel Nine, in determining programming. The latter involved consideration of the public’s viewing habits, program responses, advertising aspects and target markets. French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ observed at [53] and [54] of the reasons:

Their Honours were therefore, acknowledging the considerable skill and labour expended in the programming decision, but as copyright relates to the form of expression, that was the critical issue:

In the context of infringement, in particular the determination of whether a     part reproduced is a “substantial part”, a matter often referred to is whether     there has been an “appropriation” of the author’s skill and labour. As already noted, both the primary judge and the Full Court adopted that approach in this case. However, it is always necessary to focus on the nature of the skill and labour, and in particular to ask whether it is directed to the originality of the particular form of expression: the reasons at [49].

In both judgments therefore, their Honours distinguished the higher level of skill and labour involved in making programming decisions taking into account advertising revenue, from the skill and labour involved in expressing the time and title information, which as identified as ‘minimal’:[54],  and ‘extremely modest’:[168]. In this regard, the nature of the information dictated the lower level of skill and labour involved in the expression: [54] and [170].

The High Court’s warning

In both judgments their Honours identified the need for caution in accepting without question compilations of fact, which necessarily are the product of labour, without addressing the form of expression to which that skill and labour is directed.

French CJ, Crennan  and Kiefel JJ, observed at [52]:

Rewarding skill and labour in respect of compilations without any real consideration of the productive effort directed to coming up with a particular form of expression of information can lead to error. The error is of a kind which might enable copyright law to be employed to achieve anti-competitive behaviour of a sort not contemplated by the balance struck in the Act between the rights of authors and the entitlements of the reading public. The Act mandates an inquiry into the substantiality of the part of the work which is reproduced. A critical question is the degree of originality of the particular form of expression of the part. Consideration of the skill and labour expended by the author of a work may assist in addressing that question: that the creation of a work required skill and labour may indicate that the particular form of expression adopted was highly original. However, focussing on the “appropriation” of the author’s skill and labour must not be allowed to distract from the inquiry mandated by the Act. To put aside the particular form of expression can cause difficulties, as evidenced by Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd.

Comment

The skill and labour involved in the creation of documents, which contain factual information will often not be as easy to separate as the time and title information was from the skill involved in program and time allocation. 
   
The compilation by an alternate parts manufacturer (APM) of a comparative list of alternate spare parts relative to the original equipment manufacturer’s (OEM) parts, including the part numbers of the OEM, might involve considerable research into the OEM’s spare parts naming, numbering and costings. It would be difficult, I suggest, to distinguish the expression of such findings in a table, which is essentially an extrapolation of the expenditure of the skill and judgment, which went into its compilation.

The High Court’s warning commends:

• consideration of the skill and labour expended in terms of the originality of the work;
• consideration of the skill and labour expended in terms of infringement, by looking at the expression complained to have been appropriated, and identifying the skill and labour involved in the creation of that form of expression;
• caution in accepting the expenditure of substantial skill and labour as a global basis for substantial reproduction, where the ultimate expression, does not draw directly on that expenditure in its compilation.

Dimitrios Eliades

The Hon Justice Peter Richard Dutney died suddenly at the age of 54, relaxing at day’s end after completing one of the final legs of a bike ride across the Simpson Desert. He was born on 22 June 1955 at Charleville in Western Queensland, the second son of Beth and Neil Dutney, a local solicitor. Gifted academically, he won a scholarship to Brisbane Boys College where, in his final year, he was Captain of Debating.

Peter displayed restless and almost inexhaustible energy. He was fond of physical pursuits, some bordering on the extreme. He had a fondness for absailing, long distance running, triathlons and long distance cycling. He ran in the Gold Coast and Berlin marathons and competed in the Noosa triathlon for ten successive years.

His interests, however, were by no means confined to the physical. Peter completed a Bachelor of Arts degree, part-time, in 1982, majoring in history and maintained an interest in history and literature throughout his life. He was a voracious reader and collector of books and enjoyed music, the theatre and the arts. His well-furnished mind and scholarly bent, coupled with his pleasing personality, made him an effective and sought after public speaker.

Peter served his articles of clerkship at Morris Fletcher and Cross (the predecessor in Brisbane of Minter Ellison) before being admitted to the Bar in 1979. His practice flourished from the outset and he was in much demand as a junior. Quite early in his career at the Bar, he developed a corporations law practice second to none which saw him in Supreme Court chambers on an almost daily basis. His practice expanded to embrace commercial work generally but was never restricted to the commercial sphere, or for that matter, entirely to civil work.

The qualities he later displayed as a judge made him a formidable barrister and advocate: soundness of judgment, quickness of mind and clarity of thought and expression, allied with knowledge of the law.  His directness and ever present charm and sense of humour also did him no disservice.

Peter’s chamber colleagues, and often his juniors, had the benefit of a gregarious and irreverent companion ever ready to socialise at the end of a day with a dry martini, chilled ale or glass of respectable wine. Peter appeared to be, and most probably was, remarkably stress free. Whether in a difficult case or socialising, he never exhibited any signs of anger, stress or even mild irritation. This characteristic, coupled with his ready wit and unfailing good humour, made him the most enjoyable of companions. He was universally liked and respected.

Peter took silk in 1990 after 11 years at the Bar, continuing his busy commercial practice on a higher plane. His many fortunate juniors had the privilege of observing an advocate precisely identify the critical issues in the case and explain them lucidly and with deceptive simplicity to the Tribunal.

After Peter was appointed the Central Supreme Court Judge on 16 March 2000, he and his wife, Bronwyn, immersed themselves in the affairs of the Rockhampton community and profession.  Peter became trustee of the Art Gallery, a member of the golf club and a strong supporter of the local law association.  Accommodating and approachable, he ran his court efficiently.  Prompt hearings were available to anyone who wanted them and were provided to some who didn’t. Yet he retained reserves of energy which were more than sufficient to severely challenge the social stamina of friends and colleagues.

In his court, efficiency and the prompt dispatch of business did not come at the expense of patience and courtesy. His associates wondered at his ability to deal with the most difficult of litigants and the most trying of advocates without a flicker of annoyance or hint of impatience. As at the Bar, he was able to produce high quality work promptly and, in comparison with most of his peers, effortlessly. His reasons were invariably felicitously and succinctly expressed. His work was greatly valued by his colleagues and, unsurprisingly, he was held in high and affectionate regard by the Central Queensland legal fraternity.

Through his term as the Central Supreme Court Judge, Peter participated in and invariably spoke at the Annual Central Queensland Law Association Conference.  He mixed freely with members of both branches of the profession, supported and attended their functions, both in Rockhampton and Mackay, and was particularly active in encouraging young members of the profession.

Since 2003, Peter participated in a programme which provided judicial education to Bangladeshi advocates in Dhaka. Before that, he had assisted the Bar Practice Centre with advocacy training. In his earlier years at the Bar he had provided pro bono advice on a regular basis at the Caxton Street Legal Centre.

Peter returned to Brisbane at the end of 2007 and in December 2008 was appointed one of two commercial list judges. The appointment was enthusiastically welcomed by the commercial bar. He also became chairman of the Supreme Court Library Committee and was appointed to the Mental Health Court.  In addition to these activities, he happily assumed the not inconsiderable burdens of membership of the Rules Committee. All of these roles were embraced with his characteristic enthusiasm. He was appointed the inaugural president of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 16 July 2009 and promptly assumed, in addition to his already existing workload, the burden of readying the new Tribunal for the commencement of its operation on 1 December 2009.

The Bench provided Peter an outlet for his deep-seated sense of justice, humanity and compassion, qualities which he tried, quite unsuccessfully, to mask behind a facade of irreverence. There was no prospect of his succumbing to pomposity or failing to treat lawyers, litigants and witnesses alike with patience and good humoured courtesy.

Peter is survived by his wife, Bronwyn, whom he married in February 1978, and by his sons, Paul and Sam. He leaves behind him many friends, and a legion of admirers. He will be sorely missed but never forgotten.

The Hon Justice John Muir

 

 

On 4 December 2009, the Honourable Chief Justice of Queensland delivered the following address at the Queensland Law Society Breakfast.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address you this morning, at the invitation of our host Queensland Law Society, and acknowledging the generosity of our sponsor UniQuest, which continues to do effective work in assembling expert evidence for presentation in the courts.

This is the 6th consecutive Christmas breakfast at which I have been privileged to deliver a short address. The first occurred on 8 December 2004. That came at the end of a most significant year for the profession, with the commencement of the Legal Profession Act. Apprehensiveness about the operation of that legislation was at that time naturally felt. From my point of view, the revision to the disciplinary regime in particular appears to have worked well, and plainly in the public interest. I am assured that with the commencement of QCAT, its President, Justice Alan Wilson, will constitute the Legal Practice Tribunal in dealing with disciplinary applications. That must be so, to ensure the Supreme Court effectively retains ultimate control over ethical standards in the profession.

Now six years on we confront another cognate development.

A major initiative commenced this year was national legal profession reform, an initiative of the Council of Australian Governments. The major objectives are commendable — simplified uniform legislation and regulation, national standards policies and practices where practicable, freedom of movement between jurisdictions to foster a truly national profession, and clear and accessible consumer protection.

I have been assured the courts will remain the admitting authorities and that current mechanisms for the treatment of disciplinary complaints will be respected; that is, disciplinary applications will be determined as at present.

But I have concerns over aspects of the direction of the Taskforce charged with the development of the model.

The presently preferred model, I understand, involves a National Legal Services Board
responsible for determining national standards on a number of important matters:

• admission, including academic qualifications and practical legal training;
• suitability for admission; and assessment of overseas qualified lawyers;
• practising entitlements, including the grant, renewal, suspension and cancellation of practising certificates; conditions on practising certificates of Australian legal practitioners and practising entitlements of Australian registered foreign lawyers; professional indemnity insurance requirements; and continuing professional development;
• professional conduct, including duties to clients, the court and other practitioners, such as requirements for confidentiality; and
• business practice, including requirements for trust money and trust accounts, costs disclosure, billing and costs assessments; management of fidelity fund claims; legal practice interventions and external management; and the regulation of business structures.

That is taken from a paper prepared for the Consultative Group dated 16 September 2009.

These matters go to the heart of the profession, especially the setting of ethical standards. My concern stems from the prospective composition of the Board. That consultative paper proposes that the Board would comprise “a small body of around five members appointed on the advice of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General”: a small, powerful body, and because so small, one may query whether all relevant interests could be represented.

The regulatory framework developed by the Law Council of Australia proposed that the Commonwealth Attorney-General appoint the Board, after consultation with other Attorneys and professional bodies. Yet the primary position of the Law Council is that “there must remain an independent legal profession”.

I cannot see how the profession will remain “independent” if effectively governed by a body appointed by executive government. The substantial constraint to which the profession has to date been subject, and which warrants its being characterized as the legal profession, is the supervisory jurisdiction of the court over its individual members. This would substantially change, were a governmental body in place to determine the sorts of fundamental issues just mentioned. The position may be ameliorated were such a board a joint creature of the courts and the profession.

My second principal concern relates to cost. I fear that the operation of the proposed National Legal Services Board, the Standards Advisory Committees, and the National Legal Services Ombudsman, creatures of government, will not come inexpensively. They will inevitably spawn bureaucracy. It is fanciful not to recognize the prospect that the costs will be recovered through fees levied for the issue of practising certificates, with the flow-on burden eventually borne by the client.

I understand the concerns which fired this initiative were experienced primarily in large national firms frustrated by expense, delay and inconvenience in having to master and operate within varying regulatory regimes from State to State. I have not heard of concerns in the bar. It would be unfortunate were the influence of those national and multi-nationally based firms to bring about a refashioning of the profession to the point where it lost its independence and would properly be regarded as controlled by the executive government. How do mega firms cope in the USA, where differing State regimes include even the sitting of exams?

It is in truth the practitioner’s relationship with the court — the court admits and as necessary disciplines, the court delineates ethical and professional standards — which distinguishes the legal profession from other professions. Implementing the model presently envisaged would transfer that dependence from the court to the executive, and that would be completely unacceptable in these Australian jurisdictions where the relative independence of the legal profession is an adjunct of the independence of the judiciary and thereby effectively seen as part of the rule of law.

Reverting to State affairs, we look forward to the implementation of the recommendations of Martin Moynihan’s review of the jurisdictions of the three State courts. My own view is that the reforms are most appropriate, and probably overdue. I expect considerable change to the workload of the Supreme Court on the civil side in particular, acknowledging the extent of work accomplished in the applications jurisdiction especially, where the amount at issue does not exceed $750,000. On the other hand, one should foresee some increase in the work coming before the Court of Appeal. It will be interesting and important to monitor the consequences of the jurisdictional changes. The implementation is being carefully managed by a taskforce of which I am a member. One obvious point to be made with the substantial increase in the District Court’s civil jurisdiction is the prime need to maintain the quality of appointments to that court.

A considerable cause for optimism this year, when the global financial crisis otherwise warranted concern, was not just the survival, but the rapid progress, of the new metropolitan Supreme and District Courthouse project. I urge you to look at the computer generated display about the project which is located in the foyer of the Supreme Court building, if you do not have time to peer through the apertures in the hording at the site itself.

It is right today to express thanks to the Attorney-General for his continuing support of that project, and to the Director-General.

We in the courts are very disappointed that the Director-General is retiring from that position. Rachel Hunter has been an outstanding supporter of the courts, and an outstanding facilitator of the administrative initiatives of the courts. We will greatly miss her, and wish her well as she leaves for new ventures and commitments.

I conclude these remarks by referring to my recent travel to Vietnam. I chair the Judicial Section of Lawasia, and thereby chair a biennial Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific, held concurrently with the Lawasia Conference. This commitment took me in the second week of November to Saigon, the City of Ho Chi Minh.

Thirty national Chief Justices attended, including the Chief Justices of Vietnam, China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia…the war of the seventies is little known to the youth of Vietnam, and the war museums in Saigon and Hanoi have a victory focus in relation to the French and Americans — barely a mention of our role. We visited the Cu Chi tunnels outside Ho Chi Minh City, and descended, but don’t worry, I haven’t “changed sides”! The reality is the divisions have largely gone.

That conference is distinctive for collegial interaction between Chief Justices from across the board — nations as vast as China and Russia, as tiny as Kiribati and Palau; both the richly and poorly resourced; the democratic and totalitarian.

That conference accomplishes important progress, in instilling proper perceptions in disparate regions, of the significance of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the optimal delivery of legal services.

I mention that conference now to note that the judicial contribution of the State of Queensland is not confined to the State, but extends more broadly. The stability of our regime here informs that contribution. For the stability of our regime, I express gratitude to the profession, because you, ladies and gentlemen, ultimately play an important part in upholding the rule of law.

You have my very best wishes for a restful and contented festive season, and a prosperous and fulfilling year 2010.

The Honourable Paul de Jersey AO

Chief Justice of Queensland

 

Letter to Editor of The Courier Mail –
Overseas Conference Travel by Judges

 

 

The article in the Courier Mail on 20 November 2009 headlined “Queensland judges spend $400,000 on European conference” was most unfair to its target, the judges, and was evidently written in the knowledge that propriety prevents them from responding in a way that the article deserves.

Overseas conference travel by judges undertaken pursuant to their jurisprudential allowance is a salary sacrifice. It is quite erroneous to characterise this expenditure as that of “taxpayers’ money”.

Your article, identifying individual members of the judiciary, was unfair to hard working men and women who chose to expend part of their salary package, approved by Parliament, to attend a legal conference.

To describe the internationally lauded 2009 Australian Bar Association conference as “controversial” and to say the “judges fled the state” was an unfortunate attempt to sensationalize, by pejorative language, a complete non-story.

While proper scrutiny and full transparency are to be applauded (after all most courts conduct their affairs in public), your attempt to inflame public sentiment against the judiciary in this fashion serves only to discourage the improvement of the judicial services provided to the community by such continuing judicial education.

The Bar Association of Queensland fully supports judges who choose to exercise their lawful entitlement to spend that part of their salary in pursuit of advancing professional development by attending law conferences whether overseas or in Australia, as Parliament intended to encourage when it granted those allowances.

Richard Douglas S.C.
President

 

New Silks, appointments, events, forthcoming national and international conferences, CPD Seminars, and more …

 

 

QCAT – Appointment of Members and Adjudicators

The Attorney-General, The Hon. Cameron Dick MP, has announced that twenty members and adjudicators have been appointed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) which commenced on 1 December, 2009.

The appointments included four members of the Bar Association of Queensland. The Association congratulates Senior Member, Richard Oliver and Members, Susan Gardiner, Bridget Mandikos and Adjudicator, Trevor Davern.

Underprivileged Childrens’ Education Program
 
There remains time to donate to UCEP for the 2010 education of children living in slums in Bangladesh (remembering that 100% of any donation goes to UCEP).  Perhaps you would like to make a donation in the memory of the late Justice Peter Dutney who visited a number of these schools.
 
A cheque can be forwarded directly to Dan O’Gorman S.C. (who will be visiting at least one of those schools in December 2009 but at no cost to UCEP) and he will also be checking with Australia’s High Commissioner in Bangladesh to ensure that, in the opinion of the Australian High Commission, UCEP is adhering to its Charter. Please contact Dan O’Gorman for further information.

Call for papers – 25^th Annual Calabro SV Consulting Family Law Residential, 13 – 14 August 2010

The 25^th Annual Calabro SV Consulting Family Law Residential, presented in partnership by the Queensland Law Society and the Family Law Practitioner’s Association will be held on Friday 13 to Saturday 14 August 2010 at Royal Pines Resort, Gold Coast. In 2010, the organising committee invite a call for papers on topics for the two-day program. To express your interest in presenting, please send a 200 word abstract of your nominated topic, along with your CV to Ms Rachel Castles r.castles@qls.com.au, by Thursday January 21 2010. The committee also invites suggestions on topics generally, including ideas for panel/workshop scenarios within the program and these can also be emailed to r.castles@qls.com.au

TC Beirne School of Law — 2010 Master of Laws
 
Information is now available about the TC Beirne School of Law 2010 Master of Laws (LLM) program. UQ’s LLM has recently undergone a major review and a number of progressive changes are planned over the next two years to meet the specific and varied needs of law graduates in the work force. These changes include more courses in areas of law which are particularly relevant to Queensland and increased flexibility in modes of delivery. The majority of courses will be taught intensively, either in blocks of four days or in two blocks of two days, at UQ’s St Lucia campus or at Brisbane city venues.  LLM courses can be taken individually and may be used as credit towards the Master of Laws, provided participants meet the program entry requirements and undertake assessment. If you would like further information about the TC Beirne School of Law postgraduate programs, please contact Mrs Jennifer Gibbons on 3365 8824, j.gibbons@law.uq.edu.au or visit www.law.uq.edu.au/master-of-laws

Project for Perfect Patents

A new initiative by Queensland University of Technology and IP Australia designed to improve patent examination and the quality of patents was being launched on November 9 2009.

Peer-to-Patent Australia uses Web 2.0 technology to allow experts within the community to review participating patent applications and bring relevant prior art to the attention of IP Australia’s patent examiners. The project is based on the successful Peer-to-Patent projects run out of the New York Law School (NYLS) in the United States and is the result of the collaborative efforts between QUT and NYLS. For more details on Peer-to-Patent Australia, go to www.peertopatent.org.au.

Bar Association of Queensland Wine Society

60

members enjoyed the final BAQ Wine Society event of the year with an evening showcasing of champagne and sparkling wines.   Thanks to Simon Arms from Auscellardoor for the flow of Moët Champagne, Veuve Cliquot, Ruinart and Chandon.  Favourites of the evening were the Ruinart Blanc de Blanc and the Moët & Chandon Grand Vintage 2003. Thanks also to Brett from Moët for his informative discussion on sparkling wines.

If you have any ideas or requests for 2010 Wine Society event splease send through to celeste@qldbar.asn.au

To order logon to www.auscellardoor.com.au or phone 1800 088 022

 

Niseko Conference – 18-21 January 2010

Internet Law for Professionals is the theme of the Niseko Conference 2010 which will take place at Niseko Hirafu, Japan from 18 to 21 January 2010. Attendance at the conference has been accredited 5 CPD points. For more information, visit www.nisekoconference.com 

The New Legal Challenges: Global Warming and Financial Freeze
– 5^th World Bar Conference – 1-5 April 2010

Expressions of interest are now being taken for the 5^th World Bar Conference to be held in Sydney between 1 to 5 April, 2010.
 
The Conference will commence on 1 April 2010 with an Opening Reception at the Sydney Opera House.  The Business Sessions will be held on Saturday 3 and Sunday 4 April at the Sheraton on the Park.  The Conference will conclude with a Gala Dinner at the Art Gallery of New South Wales on Sunday 4 April.
 
The names of those interested will be placed on a Priority List to receive a registration brochure prior to any general distribution.  Please send your full contact details to honsec@austbar.asn.au
 
Further updated information can be obtained at www.worldbaronline.com

 

AustLII contains a range of Queensland content including the decisions of the Queensland Industrial Relations Court and Commission, Supreme Court, District Court, many tribunals that will soon form a part of QCAT as well as many other case databases and Queensland legislation. In 2008, AustLII received over 14 million hits to Queensland legislation and over 1.2 million hits to Queensland cases. In the ten months ending October 2009, AustLII has already received more than 14.5 million hits to Queensland legislation and more than 973,000 hits to Queensland cases.

 

At a recent seminar at the Queensland Bar, Professor Graham Greenleaf, Co-Director AustLII presented on “Free access on-line legal research for busy practitioners” and showed Queensland barristers tips and techniques to more effectively search AustLII. In addition, he highlighted two of AustLII’s new free-access services: LawCite, AustLII’s free-access international case citator and the English Reports available for free-access back to the 13th century on CommonLII.  CommonLII is one of three international services AustLII operates which are predominately being developed with research and grant funding. The other two sites are AsianLII and WorldLII.

In the last couple of years, AustLII has been changing its structure to ensure it remains sustainable as a free-access service.  It has incorporated as a company limited by guarantee, with the University of Technology, Sydney and the University of New South Wales as its members. The company operates as a charity and is registered as the AustLII Foundation Limited and has its own deductible gift recipient status, hence donations are tax deductible.

Donations are used to maintain AustLII’s Australian operations, infrastructure and existing services. To date, AustLII has 370+ databases available for free-access. AustLII needs over one million dollars in donations each year to be sustainable, with the amount increasing each year as the number of users and databases increases. As such, it seeks support from all its major users. Donors are acknowledged on AustLII’s sponsors’ page.

Funding to date from Queensland is not in proportion to usage. Eighteen percent of AustLII’s users come from Queensland, which is in line with population figures, yet in 2008 only 6% of funding came from Queensland, most of which came from Queensland’s Law Schools. AustLII seeks support from Queensland lawyers to assist in rectifying this imbalance. Donations to the AustLII Foundation Limited can be made through AustLII’s contribution form located on AustLII’s front page.

For further information on search tips please refer to AustLII’s user guide and its recent newsletters for new content developments. Please contact Annelies Moens, AustLII’s External Relations Manager on 02 9514 4930 or annelies@austlii.edu.au regarding donations, seminars, training etc.

AustLII’s User Guide: http://www.austlii.edu.au/austlii/guide/user/Userguide_AustLII.pdf
AustLII’s Newsletters: http://www.austlii.edu.au/austlii/news/
AustLII’s Contribution Form: http://www.austlii.edu.au/austlii/sponsors/contribute.pdf
AustLII’s Sponsors: http://www.austlii.edu.au/austlii/sponsors/
Lawcite: http://www.austlii.edu.au/lawcite/