CAMLA COMMUNICATIONS LAW

BULLETINCommunications & Media Law Association Incorporated Volume 37, No 4. December 2018

Disruptor Edition

Defamation Trials: Contents Defamation Trials: Why Plaintiffs are Why Plaintiffs are Rush(ing) Rush(ing) to File in the Federal Court Questions for Madeline Hall, to File in the Federal Court Banco Chambers The Hack Back: The Legality Richard Leder (Partner), Sanjay Schrapel (Senior Associate) & of Retaliatory Hacking Conor O’Beirne (Law Graduate), Corrs Chambers Westgarth consider A Flood of Damages for Defamation: The Dam Breaks in Wagners v developments in defamation practice in following the Harbour Radio decision in Crosby v Kelly1 (Crosby) where the Federal Court of Interview with Katherine Sessions Australia decided that it has jurisdiction to hear defamation matters. A number of early advantages for plaintiffs may exist. Proposed Changes to EU Copyright Law – Implications for Rights Holders in the News and Media Industries Principally, a plaintiff in a defamation 2 Profile:Sophie Ciufo matter can—by closely considering Wing v Fairfax Counsel Business and Legal Affairs at TheWing more) cements recent thisdecision restriction of the Full Viacom International Media Networks onFederal defendants Court in invoking their right Disruption in Legal Practice Territory—effectivelywhether to file in the Federal elect whether Court ( Uniform Acts to have or a Superior Court of a State or Establishing a Right to Privacy in under the Australia: What Would it Look Like, they wish to have a trial by judge or the matter tried by a jury after and How Would it Work? jury. the issuing of proceedings in the The Broadcasting Reform Act and Federal Court, In this context, this Getting the Media We Need This advantage is likely an unexpected decision in Crosby, and is one, which defamationarticle examines trials, the and legal looks landscape at how CAMLA Young Lawyers Committee consequence that flows from the Speed Mentoring asurrounding plaintiff can the elect use whether of juries their in Brace Yourselves: Data Portability is increasingly being taken up by Rights Are Coming to Australia by choosing whether to bring their plaintiffs who choose to file in the claim will be heard by a jury simply Considering International elsewhereFederal Court. by a This defendant advantage – the is, in Non-Compete Clauses Within Employment Contracts most cases, unable to be recouped claim in the Federal Court or a State/ TerritoryUltimately, Superior while there Court. are other EU Antitrust Regulators Went After proposition of running a trial in strategic imperatives that might Google. Now They’re Going After front of a group of jurors, whose Amazon… values, beliefs and attitudes are Interview with Amritha Thiyagarajan representative of the community at otherwise inform the decision to issue proposition to presenting a case depriving defendants of the chance to CAMLA Young Lawyers Year in Review large, is a fundamentally different haveproceedings their matter in a particular decided by jurisdiction, members It is an advantage which is, on its face, before a judge. with the ethos of the Uniform Acts, and contrary to the legislative intent that of the public is arguably not in keeping Defamation Acts Editors as enacted in all States and Territories presents a potential unfair advantage Victoria Wark & Eli Fisher underpins s.21 of the Uniform Acts to plaintiffs. Continued on page 2 > Editorial Assistant Imogen Yates bar ( ). 1 [2012] FCAFC 96. Design | Printing | Distribution 2 [2017] FCAFC 191. MKR Productions Editors’ Note

And just like that, we’re here. The final edition of the as an independent entity. It is expected that the new company, Communications Law Bulletin for 2018. called Nine, will begin operations on 10 December 2018. It’s been a game-changing year in our areas of law, Meanwhile in the USA, the White House revoked press and we have labelled this