Update: Western Australia’s Class Action Reform Bill

By Ante Golem, Jonathan Tong and Libby Plajzer

In our Legal Briefing dated 26 August 2022 (Legal Briefing), we reported that the Civil Procedure (Representative Proceedings) Bill 2021 (Bill) was currently before the Legislative Council Western Australia for its second reading speech. On 31 August 2022, the Bill passed through the Legislative Council. Consequently, Western Australia will now become the fifth Australian state with a state-based legislative class action regime. Continue reading

Latin America and the Asia Pacific region: Growing investment and trade, and potential for disputes

From investments in mining and infrastructure, to agricultural commodities and green energy, Latin America and the Asia Pacific region are increasing trade and commercial ties. As those ties grow, so does the potential for disputes, particularly in the current geopolitical context created by the war in Ukraine, price spikes, supply chain and other disruptions, and the specific political landscape in Latin America with significant legal and regulatory changes in several countries such as Chile, Peru or Mexico.

In this article, we focus on the growing investment and trade relationship between Asia-Pacific and Latin America using Australia, China and Korea as an illustration, and the potential for disputes under the relevant investment protection frameworks.

Read more on Latin America Notes

Key contacts

Christian Leathley
Christian Leathley
Partner, New York - Co-Chair, Latin America Practice
+1 917 542 7812
Guillermo Garcia-Perrote
Guillermo Garcia-Perrote
Executive Counsel, Sydney
+61 2 9322 4903

Expansion to Australia’s sanctions regime passed by Parliament (updated)

On 2 December 2021 the Australian Parliament passed the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 (Bill) introducing a new thematic sanctions regime to the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Act) and Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Regulations).

 

As outlined in our previous update, the amendments expand Australia’s existing autonomous sanctions regime (which enabled Australia to sanction specific countries) to a regime where Australia can directly sanction individuals and entities for engaging in particular types of thematic conduct. The expansion aligns Australia with similar ‘Magnitsky’ style regimes that operate in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union and Canada.

To read more of this article, click here.

Key contacts

Leon Chung
Leon Chung
Partner
+61 2 9225 5716
Christine Wong
Christine Wong
Partner, Sydney
+61 2 9225 5475
Jacqueline Wootton
Jacqueline Wootton
Partner, Brisbane
+61 7 3258 6569
Elizabeth Macknay
Elizabeth Macknay
Managing Partner, Perth
+61 8 9211 7806
Tania Gray
Tania Gray
Partner, Sydney
+61 2 9322 4733
Shannan Casey
Shannan Casey
Senior Associate, Sydney
+61 2 9322 4651

THE CLOAK OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARBITRATION IS NOT EASILY REMOVED: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA DECLINES TO ENFORCE A CONSENT AWARD THAT HAD BEEN SATISFIED

In the recent case of EBJ21 v EB021 [2021] FCA 1406 award creditors sought recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award that had already been paid in time and in full. The award debtors resisted the application arguing that it was an improper attempt to circumvent the agreed upon confidentiality arrangement by bringing the dispute into the public arena of a court proceeding. The Federal Court of Australia agreed.
Continue reading

Expansion to Australia’s sanctions regime passed by Parliament

By Leon Chung, Christine Wong and Shannan Casey

On 2 December 2021 the Australian Parliament passed the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 (Bill) introducing a new thematic sanctions regime to the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Act) and Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Regulations).

Continue reading

NOT ALL’S “FAIR DEALING” IN WAR AND GREENPEACE: FEDERAL COURT CONFIRMS LIMITS OF THE “PARODY OR SATIRE” EXCEPTION TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

The Federal Court’s decision in AGL v Greenpeace1 confirms that using a corporate logo in activist or protest materials may be permissible under both copyright and trade mark law, but only where that use constitutes a “fair dealing” for the genuine purpose of “parody or satire”. Not all such uses will fall within that exception, so a fine line must be trodden to avoid infringement.

 

Click here to read our full article.

KEY CONTACTS

Rebekah Gay
Rebekah Gay
Partner and Joint Global Head of Intellectual Property, Sydney
+61 2 9225 5242
Aaron Hayward
Aaron Hayward
Senior Associate, Sydney
+61 2 9225 5739