This tag is associated with 3 posts

COPYRIGHT – Equitable remuneration – Government use of artistic works – Survey plans – Use for State land title registration system – Remuneration for non-government use of artistic works COPYRIGHT – Reproduction – Distinction between reproduction and electronic communication – Treatment of reproduction and communication on the same basis – Whether appropriate in particular circumstances COPYRIGHT – Equitable remuneration – Distinction between compensation for the provision of survey plans and remuneration for use of copyright works – Economic justification for charging for use of copyright works – State economic policies

Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales (includes Corrigendum dated 28 August 2013) [2013] ACopyT 1 (17 July 2013) Last Updated: 29 August 2013 COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales [2013] ACopyT 1 Citation: Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales [2013] ACopyT 1 Parties: COPYRIGHT … Continue reading

Hindu Marriage Act – Jurisdiction of Indian court in respect of couples who applied for foreign citizenship =Whether the petition by the wife for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and custody of the children is not maintainable. ? Since the marriage was taken place at India and since the wife is of Indian Domicile and since the husband failed to prove that he is domicle of Australia and also failed to prove of his giving up of indian Domicle = “the husband has miserably failed to establish that he ever abandoned Indian domicile and/or intended to acquire domicile of his choice”.- “A conjoint reading of Ss. 1 and 2 of the Act would indicate that so far as the second limb of S. 1(2) of the Act is concerned its intra territorial operation of the Act applied to those who reside outside the territories. First limb of sub-section (2) of S. 1 and Cls. (a) and (b) of S.2(1) would make it clear that the Act would apply to Hindus reside in India whether they reside outside the territories or not.”- Hindu marriage Act sec. (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and applies also to Hindus domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories.”; The general principle underlying the sovereignty of States is that laws made by one State cannot have operation in another State. A law which has extra territorial operation cannot directly be enforced in another State but such a law is not invalid and saved by Article 245 (2) of the Constitution of India. Article 245(2) provides that no law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation. – whether a nexus with something in India is necessary.= In our opinion, this extra-territorial operation of law is saved not because of nexus with Hindus but Hindus domiciled in India.; “It is, thus, clear that a condition of a domicile in India, as contemplated in Section 1(2) of H.M.Act, is necessary ingredient to maintain a petition seeking reliefs under the H.M.Act. In other words, a wife, who is domiciled and residing in India when she presents a petition, seeking reliefs under H.M.Act, her petition would be maintainable in the territories of India and in the Court within the local limits of whose ordinary civil jurisdiction she resides.”- Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Act will apply to Hindu outside the territory of India only if such a Hindu is domiciled in the territory of India.; law permits raising of alternative plea but the facts of the present case does not permit the husband to take this course. = It is specific case of the appellant that he is a Swedish citizen domiciled in Australia and it is the Australian courts which shall have jurisdiction in the matter. In order to succeed, the appellant has to establish that he is a domicile of Australia and, in our opinion, he cannot be allowed to make out a third case that in case it is not proved that he is a domicile of Australia, his earlier domicile of choice, that is Sweden, is revived. ; Domicile of origin is not necessarily the place of birth. The birth of a child at a place during temporary absence of the parents from their domicile will not make the place of birth as the domicile of the child.; Domicile of origin prevails until not only another domicile is acquired but it must manifest intention of abandoning the domicile of origin.- when we consider the husband’s claim of being domicile of Australia we find no material to endorse this plea. The residential tenancy agreement is only for 18 months which cannot be termed for a long period. Admittedly, the husband or for that matter, the wife and the children have not acquired the Australian citizenship. In the absence thereof, it is difficult to accept that they intended to reside permanently in Australia. The claim that the husband desired to permanently reside in Australia, in the face of the material available, can only be termed as a dream. It does not establish his intention to reside there permanently. Husband has admitted that his visa was nothing but a “long term permit” and “not a domicile document”. Not only this, there is no whisper at all as to how and in what manner the husband had abandoned the domicile of origin. In the face of it, we find it difficult to accept the case of the husband that he is domiciled in Australia and he shall continue to be the domicile of origin i.e. India. In view of our answer that the husband is a domicile of India, the question that the wife shall follow the domicile of husband is rendered academic. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that both the husband and wife are domicile of India and, hence, shall be covered by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As on fact, we have found that both the husband and wife are domicile of India, and the Act will apply to them, other contentions raised on behalf of the parties, are rendered academic and we refrain ourselves to answer those. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO.487 OF 2007 In view of our decision in Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2005 (Sondur Gopal vs. Sondur Rajini) holding that the petition filed by the appellant for judicial separation and custody of the children is maintainable, we are of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the respondent for somewhat similar relief is rendered infructuous. On this ground alone, we allow this appeal and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent.


Livestock Transport (Sydney) Pty Limited is a horse transport company. It claims to have suffered substantial financial loss as a result of the introduction of equine influenza into Australia in August 2007, which greatly restricted horse movement and transport for a period of time. By these proceedings, Livestock Transport seeks to recover its losses from the Commonwealth of Australia. The claim is based on the allegation that the spread of the virus among horses in various parts of New South Wales and Queensland was due to negligence in the administration of the nation’s quarantine system. 2 Livestock Transport alleges that a stallion named “Snitzel” from Japan who was received at the Eastern Creek Quarantine Station was infected with equine influenza at the time of his arrival and that the virus subsequently escaped from that facility as a result of the fact that grooms, farriers and private veterinarians attending horses there were not required to take adequate steps to decontaminate themselves upon leaving the facility. It seeks to have the Commonwealth held liable for the consequences of those events as the entity responsible for quarantine in Australia, the occupier of the Eastern Creek Quarantine Station and pursuant to a statutory duty of care alleged to arise under the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth). 3 The Commonwealth admits that it was the occupier of the Eastern Creek Quarantine Station and that it was responsible for quarantine in Australia but denies that it owed any duty of care to Livestock Transport in the circumstances alleged. The Commonwealth also denies that the virus escaped from the Eastern Creek Quarantine Station in the manner alleged, denies breach of any duty owed to Livestock Transport and denies that the company suffered any loss caused by the events alleged. 4 Separately, the Commonwealth has pleaded that it cannot be vicariously liable for the allegedly negligent acts or omissions of any of the relevant officers since those persons are immune from suit by operation of section 82(1) of the Quarantine Act (paragraph 52 of the defence). The Commonwealth further pleads that it cannot be liable because any loss suffered by Livestock Transport was caused by reason of the wrongful acts or omissions of public officers which occurred in the course of their acting in the performance or purported performance of a duty imposed by the Quarantine Act (paragraph 53 of the defence). The matter presently before the Court is an application by Livestock Transport to have those defences struck out.

Livestock Transport (Sydney) Pty Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [2011] NSWSC 7 (2 February 2011) Last Updated: 14 March 2011 Supreme Court New South Wales Case Title: Livestock Transport (Sydney) Pty Limited v Commonwealth of Australia Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWSC 7 Hearing Date(s): 21 September 2010 Decision Date: 02 February 2011 Jurisdiction: Before: McCallum … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,130 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com