Kavitha Gupta's blog

Journalistic privilege upheld as police warrant and search ruled unlawful Newsletters March 29 2016 | Contributed by Wilson Harle In 2015 the High Court ruled in Hager v Attorney-General that a police warrant to search a journalist's house, and consequently the search itself, was unlawful. (1) The judgment offers useful comment on the importance of disclosure by law enforcement agencies seeking warrants, particularly where journalistic privilege is concerned. However, it does not address the question of who is a journalist, or what journalism is, for the purposes of the privilege. Facts Nicholas Hager, described in the judgment as an investigative journalist, had published a book during the 2014 general election campaign called Dirty Politics . (2) The book claimed that Cameron Slater, in coordination with persons associated with the governing National Party, was running a "dirty tricks" campaign through Slater's

Strategies for the Effective, Satisfied In-house Lawyer By Olga Mack  |  2015-Sep-22     Unlike a tangible good, like a cup of coffee or dress, advice — which is a product of many legal interactions — evaporates as soon as it uttered. Sometime during my legal career I noticed that my satisfaction with a relatively high-stress career is correlated with how seriously my advice is considered before it evaporates and disappears into a big, black hole of the universe. As a very happy lawyer, one who, if given the choice, would still go back to law school and do it all over again, below are some principles and strategies I have developed that make my legal practice rewarding, satisfying, and sustainable. Be a partner, not a cop. Many lawyers view themselves in a "policing role." While there may be a time and place for a police role, such as when lawyers are in a compliance role or they have Sarbanes-Oxley responsibilities, most lawyers' role should be closer to

Data Protection Authority backs decision to suspend employee for unauthorised access to company data Newsletters March 16 2016 | Contributed by Stanchi Studio Legale The Data Protection Authority recently found that an employer's decision to suspend an employee was legitimate in light of its right to defence against the employee's breach of Article 24 of the Privacy Code and Articles 2104 and 2015 of the Civil Code. Facts An employee appealed to the Data Protection Authority against his employer processing his personal data, which was stored on his work computer. The computer had been seized when the employee was suspended. It was subsequently subjected to a content check and a copy of the hard disk was made. The employee challenged the employer's actions as unlawful and arbitrary due to the absence of assurances regarding "the immutability of the contents of the PC" and the fact that the data acquisition took place "in his absence an

Balancing the right to employer control with employee privacy concerns Newsletters March 02 2016 | Contributed by Schoenherr Rechtsanwälte Introduction Surveillance of employees in the workplace has long been a hot topic among managers, human resources professionals and employment lawyers. The development of IT equipment used in the course of work, the widespread use of social media, the increasing level of teleworking and other flexible working methods all require employers to implement new techniques to control their employees' work. Most jurisdictions have regulations which give employers the right to control their employees, and rightfully so. At the same time, employees have a legitimate expectation of both privacy in the workplace and appropriate protection of their personal data. Employers' rights of control are therefore always limited by employees' right to privacy. The recent European Court of Human Rights judgment in Barbulescu v Romani

Negotiating Software Contracts – Successfully Negotiating a Limitation of Liability By Scott & Scott, LLP Limitation of Liability ranks as one of the most important contract provisions in a software contract. The limitation of liability limits each party’s liability for all sorts of harm. A software provider’s liability is usually limited to the amount of fees paid to the vendor or a fraction thereof. The risk in not negotiating these terms is that the licensee is capped at the amount of damages. A “cap” is the aggregate upper limit for direct damages associated with a party’s liability. The cap on liability can be a specific dollar amount, but in many contracts the “cap” is tied to the amounts paid for the products or services purchased. This cap may not equate to the actual amount of harm of the licensee. Therefore, successfully negotiating a limitation of liability becomes the key point in finalizing the contract. But, what exactly are the pitfalls when negotiating