The Federal Court recently declined an application for leave to issue subpoenas pursuant to Section 23 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 on the basis that Section 23 of the act did not give the court jurisdiction to do so in aid of an arbitration seated outside Australia. While some practitioners will agree with the court's strict interpretation of the act, others – particularly those engaged in international arbitration in Asia-Pacific – may find the decision less satisfactory.
In a recent case, the Federal Court stayed the proceedings brought before it and referred the dispute to arbitration, save for the ultimate question of whether a winding-up order against the first defendant should be made. Among other things, the decision illustrates the policy of minimal curial intervention that the Australian courts follow where arbitration is concerned. It also confirms the arbitrability of certain claims under the Corporations Act 2001.
A growing workforce, strategic expansion or the end of a lease can force businesses to relocate their premises or employees. While such changes are often positive, relocation can pose a number of practical and legal issues that should be carefully negotiated in order to minimise disruption to the business and employees and reduce exposure to employment-related claims. Two recent unfair dismissal decisions provide useful guidance on business relocation.
The #metoo movement has helped to expose the prevalence of sexual harassment in society, particularly in the workplace. While the spotlight has been on individuals working in Hollywood's film and television industry, a 2012 survey by the Australian Human Rights Commission found that 25% of women in Australia had been sexually harassed at work. Three key tips can help employers to support gender equality, prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and ensure that no one is alienated in the process.
For 74 days in 2017 Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd 'locked out' a number of its employees from the workplace during an industrial dispute. The Fair Work Commission was called on to resolve a dispute over whether employees who had been locked out during the industrial action were entitled to accrue annual leave and long service leave during the lock-out.
The Fair Work Commission recently rejected an Uber driver's claim of unfair dismissal on the grounds that he was an employee, upholding Uber's argument that he was instead an independent contractor. It stated that the fundamental elements of an employment relationship were absent from the relationship between the parties, as the driver was not required to perform work or provide services for the benefit of Uber, and Uber made no payments to the driver for the provision of any work or services.
The Fair Work Commission's bullying jurisdiction recently rejected an aged care worker's bullying claim against her supervisors and managers. The employer successfully argued that, at all times, the employee was subject to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. This case demonstrates that bullying is not always top-down; it can be horizontal or even bottom-up.
In the last few years three subject matters have been lurking on the fringes of patentability: methods of treatment, genes and software. The High Court recently considered methods of treatment (which are generally patentable) and isolated naturally occurring genes (which are not). Now the High Court may have the opportunity to consider the extent to which software is properly the subject of patent protection.