*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 99 Part 12) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING \u2013 Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth<\/strong><\/p>\n CLASS ACTIONS \u2013 Editor: Lachlan Armstrong KC<\/strong><\/p>\n TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW \u2013 Editors: Lyria Bennett Moses and Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n NEW ZEALAND \u2013 Editor: Justice Matthew Palmer<\/strong><\/p>\n Cyber Risk, Cyber Preparedness and Cyber Resilience \u2013 Challenges for Corporate Law and Financial Regulation<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Paul Latimer and Michael Duffy<\/p>\n Corporations today operate as much in cyberspace as they do in the physical world. Recent high-profile hacking and data loss from Australian corporates including financial services licensees demonstrate how ASIC, other regulators, government departments and stockexchanges regulate companies and financial markets in relation to issues in cyberspace and play a role in fostering cyber security and resilience. This article traces the fast-developingduties of financial services licensees and the related duties of directors and managers in relation to cyberspace risk management. It follows the RI Advice case in 2022 which confirmed that administration and enforcement of cybersecurity is now no longer a matter solely for information technology departments. Obligations of licensees, directors and management in relation to cyberspace risk management under the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) now include cybersecurity and cyber resilience controls and documentation to manage cyber risk as the world continues to move into a digital future.<\/p>\n Less than Meets the Eye: Federal Court’s Costs Orders in\u00a0Munkara v Santos and Their Relevance for Lawyers and Expert Witnesses<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013\u00a0John Southalan<\/p>\n The Federal Court has ordered the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) to pay $9 million in indemnity costs to Santos NA Barossa P\/L (Santos) following failed legal proceedings. This was the final event of a years\u2019 litigation which started with an interlocutory injunction(preventing Santos work in the Timor Sea), before a full hearing and dismissal of the claims(with criticism of the applicant\u2019s lawyer and experts), then interlocutory proceedings (with Santos contemplating costs against the EDO and other parties) and concluding with the costs order. Commentary on these proceedings sees the costs implications as significant but overlooks that the final orders were made by consent. Given concerns about SLAPP lawsuits and \u201clawfare\u201d, this article explains the precedent from these proceedings is limited to its unusual combination of features. Nevertheless there are important implications \u2013 for advocacy organisations, but also for companies and regulators \u2013 and their lawyers and expert witnesses.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n