Image: Screenshot of the Home Office’s twitter feed (now deleted).
It was not an overly exerting bank holiday weekend for the author of this week’s round-up. The influence of the summer holiday appears to have resulted in relatively few judgments from the senior courts, with particularly little in the field of human rights law. However, the week was not wholly without incident…
In response to the growing numbers of migrants seeking to cross the English Channel in small boats, the Home Office tweeted a short video explaining that “current return regulations… (allow) activist lawyers to delay and disrupt returns”. The video was helpfully illustrated with little pictures of planes taking off from the English coast bound for Europe, although why the Home Office would seek to return migrants to Europe following the UK’s withdrawal from the Dublin Regulations was unclear.
In the interests of fairness, despite being removed from the Home Office’s twitter feed following numerous complaints, the video can still be viewed here. Readers will without doubt form their own opinions. It is submitted however, that the following statements are uncontroversial:
that upholding the law and ensuring it is correctly applied would appear to the be the very job of courts/lawyers;
that if a court were to rule in a way it knew to be incorrect, in order to achieve an outcome desirable to one particular party to legal proceedings, that would represent corruption;
that applying the law correctly is usually considered a good thing, particularly in a country that values the rule of law;
that it is usually better for governments (and indeed people generally) to act within the law;
that the Home Office’s track record on ejecting from the country people who later turn out to have the right to be in the UK, including on occasion British citizens, isn’t great;
that the Home Office could avoid such delays and disruptions by acting in compliance the law;
that conveniently for the Government, it gets to decide what the law is by writing new laws and passing them in Parliament, where it currently enjoys a large majority.
With uncanny timing, one of the few cases in which judgment was handed down this week provided an illustration of the risks faced by those working within the judicial system when its legitimacy comes under attack. In Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2253 (QB) (24 August 2020), a judge succeeded in bringing committal proceedings against an individual held to have committed numerous breaches of the terms of an interim injunction restraining him from harassment. Shaikh had appeared before the judge concerned in 2014 in relation to proceedings concerning his dismissal from his role as a trainee cardiac physiologist for gross misconduct. Upon judgment in those proceedings being entered against him, he proceeded to launch a wide variety of online attacks amounting to abuse and harassment.
The week’s news also illustrated the consequences when a Government chooses to stop acting within the law and seeks to denigrate those working to ensure compliance with it. Once again, in the interests of fairness, it is the view of some (including a “Government source”) that “there’s a bunch of particularly loudmouthed lawyers and barristers who seem to spend more time on social media than representing their clients, who think even the mildest criticism of their profession will bring about the destruction of democracy” (The Times, 28th August). Conversely, on the UK Human Rights Blog, Joanna Curtis wrote this week about the European Court of Human Rights exercising its powers to secure information pertaining to the condition and medical treatment of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who was allegedly poisoned on a flight to Moscow last week (here). Sceptics may wish to type “Russia, Lawyer and Window” into google.
Finally, to conclude this week’s (short) round up, in a noteworthy case the Court of Protection ruled that a young woman suffering with anorexia nervosa should not have feeding or further treatment imposed upon her – Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB [2020] EWCOP 40 (16 August 2020). This was notwithstanding the fact that the court held her to lack capacity to make decisions in this regard. On balance, the likelihood of death could not justify the extreme suffering which would be imposed on her by way of further forcible treatment. For a further examination of the case, see Rosalind English’s blog post here.
In 2019, construction contributed 6% of the UK’s gross domestic product and employed 2.4 million people – 6.6% of the entire workforce. However, the sector’s immense size and importance belies a core problem: low productivity. The Office for National Statistics estimates that average output in the construction sector stands at £29.40 per hour, compared to the national average of £36.50, and is roughly 25% lower than the average across manufacturing.
One of the major reasons for construction’s productivity problem is that globally, the sector is recognised as one of the least digitalised industries. This is an assessment shared by the sector itself. A recent survey of 200 key decision-makers across the UK building industry found that 54% felt that the industry had been slow to adopt new technologies.
Given the benefits that digitalisation has brought to other sectors, what is holding construction back? We can identify three major reasons: the large capital investment traditionally required for digitalisation, the complexity of the industry, and the difficulty in securing buy-in for digitalisation with a wide variety of stakeholders.
Why construction is behind in digitalisation
One of the primary reasons for construction’s digitalisation deficit is that it’s hard for building firms to afford the initial investment. Digitalisation projects have traditionally meant large, organisation-wide efforts to overhaul technology and processes, which means a significant capital expenditure. In a low margin environment, such as construction, this sort of capital-intensive model for digitalisation is difficult to embrace. In the aforementioned survey of key decision-makers, 56% believed that low margins had restricted their ability to invest in new technology.
A second reason for construction’s digitalisation deficit is the sheer complexity of the industry. Construction projects see lots of stakeholders involved in every stage of proceedings, including clients, employees, contractors, developers, architects, suppliers and consultants. This makes it difficult to standardise and digitalise processes, and such a crowded and multifarious prospective user base is difficult to onboard.
There are also issues with connectivity. Compared to a white-collar worker at a desk or even a factory worker on an assembly line, it’s much harder to utilise technology that tracks, analyses, and improves processes in an industry where day-to-day labour is highly mobile and where the work environment itself rapidly changes over time.
A third reason why construction lags in digitalisation is hesitancy from workers themselves. Construction unions and many workers are concerned about digital technologies encroaching on worker privacy and autonomy through logging their activity. This makes buy-in for new technologies very difficult, especially when they don’t provide any immediate benefit on the ground and seemingly just add additional work and sources of supervision to their jobs.
However, these reasons should not be seen as evidence that construction is not a viable space for digitalisation in the first place. Rather, it shows that digitalisation in the sector requires a different approach – aiming for iterative improvement rather than a total overhaul. This is where construction tech startups become vital.
How the iterative approach of startups changes the dynamic
When it comes to investing in technology, then, the low margins of the construction industry are a major bottleneck. In the absence of debt financing, traditional digitalisation projects in the sector would require a long period of saving prior to investment – all with a high degree of uncertainty as to whether that investment would pay off.
Startups offering construction tech solutions offer a challenge to this paradigm. This is because a startup’s approach to digitalisation is modest in its approach. Rather than seeking to digitalise an entire organisation’s IT infrastructure at once, startups have thrived on optimising specific challenging processes and then creating APIs to allow their platforms to integrate into other systems. This changes digitalisation from a monolithic process to an iterative one, which is much more amenable to low-margin businesses.
In addition, startups typically monetise by offering digital transformation as an operational expense rather than a capital expense. That is, a subscription rather than an investment. This works particularly well with low-margin organisations, since it means they don’t have to spend a long time accumulating and risking a large investment. Instead, the operational expense model of startups lets them test solutions and build the ongoing costs into their business plans.
Construction startups: Digitalising to solve specific problems
In addition to affordability, collaborating with tech startups means that workers and stakeholders can tackle specific problems with tangible solutions, as opposed to a wider overarching digital transformation project. Unlike top-down digitalisation initiatives, startups are invested in ensuring that their solutions identify and fix particular pain points that are close to the users themselves. This means that a digital tool that provides immediate relief to a pain point will quickly find a willingness to be used by teams.
Startups can focus on optimising particular processes, concentrating on the granular and low-level, and they also have room to run pilot projects to see what works and what doesn’t for users on the ground. Through using APIs and other integration tools, construction firms can then seamlessly fit individual digitalised processes together.
Rather than being a sudden switch, startups present a new path to digitalisation for the building industry by allowing firms to iterate and test processes to make financial and practical sense in their relevant context. Through providing specific and clear services that optimise processes one by one, construction tech startups make digitalisation financially viable, operationally sound, and aligned with the interests of workers and other stakeholders.
Marie-Helene Ametsreiter is industrial tech lead partner at Speedinvest, a venture capital fund that invests in seed & early-stage tech startups across Europe.
Good morning and welcome to Tech Report Weekly 31 August. This week in tech Zoom announces its latest quarterly results. Has its pandemic surge continued? Samsung will reveal more details about the latest model of its foldable phone, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2. And London Tech Week kicks off ten days of virtual events celebrating innovation in the capital.
We’ll be taking a deeper look at the growing interest in central bank digital currencies in this week’s Spotlight. The Verdict team has also highlighted some of the top technology journalism we’ve been reading from around the web, as well as key quotes, news and features from our own reporting. If you’d like all of this sent straight to your inbox every Monday at 7am, subscribe here.
Have a brilliant week and we hope you enjoy Tech Report Weekly.
Three things happening in technology this week
Has Zoom sustained its pandemic surge?
What’s happening: Zoom, Crowdstrike and Broadcom all post their latest quarterly earnings reports.
Why it matters: It’s been a big year for Zoom. The pandemic has seen demand soar for its video communications software, which has propelled its share price by 335% since the start of the year. Last quarter, the US company generated revenues of $328m – a 169% year-over-year increase. Has this remarkable growth continued? Analysts seem to think so. They anticipate revenues of $500m, which would mark quarter-on-quarter growth of 52%. But as offices continue to cautiously reopen, will demand for Zoom remain?
Also reporting earnings this week is Crowdstrike. Analysts expect the cybersecurity company to post quarterly revenue of $186m. This would mark a 74.5% year-over-year increase, with companies investing more to protect remote workforces from cyber threats a possible growth driver. Meanwhile, US chipmaker Broadcom is expected to be another pandemic winner, with revenues forecasted to come in at $5.78bn, a 4.8% year-over-year increase.
How to follow it: Zoom posts Q2 earnings on Monday, Crowdstrike shares its Q2 results on Wednesday and Broadcom reports Q3 earnings on Thursday.
London Tech Week steams ahead in virtual format
What’s happening: London Tech Week gets underway to celebrate innovation, talent and development of the tech sector in the capital.
Why it matters: The pandemic may have put a pause to physical events, but that hasn’t stopped London Tech Week from scaling up. Now in its seventh year, it has expanded the virtual event to span across 10 days.
Within the umbrella of London Tech Week are ‘anchor’ events covering areas ranging from AI to quantum computing to accelerateHER, which champions women founders and tech leaders. Among the speakers are chief executives from Houseparty, IBM and Trainline and even music legend Nile Rodgers. One drawback to online events is the limited networking opportunities that arise spontaneously in-between talks or in the queue for the burrito stand. To counter this, London Tech Week is hosting virtual networking sessions and roundtable discussions.
How to follow it: London Tech Week takes place between 1 September to 11 September. You can register here.
Why it matters: Folding phones burst onto the scene at Mobile World Congress 2019 and for a brief moment it seemed as though every phone maker was betting on this new design becoming the future of mobile handsets. More than a year on and foldable phones are yet to hit the mainstream. High price points – often approaching $2,000 – and functionality issues have so far proved to be big barriers.
This week Samsung is expected to reveal more details about its second foldable model, the Galaxy Z Fold 2, such as the release date and specs. The Fold 2 will address some of the complaints against the Fold 1, such as giving the new version a bigger external display from 4.6 inches to 6.2 inches. It will also be compatible with 5G. Samsung is already listing the phone on its UK retail sites at £1,900, making it £100 cheaper than the previous model. While this still puts it firmly in the premium price range, it could garner attention for the South Korean firm’s other devices at a time when global smartphone sales have been on the decline.
As global lockdowns lift, consumer behaviour is changing, bringing new challenges to companies. But things won’t return to pre-pandemic normal. Jeff Housenbold, managing partner at SoftBank Vision Fund, shares his thoughts on the key trends for consumer-facing companies as the post-coronavirus world begins to emerge.
Spotlight on: Central bank digital currencies
One topic that has been quietly gaining ground this year has been central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and a recent public meeting of central bank and industry representatives hosted by the OMFIF Digital Monetary Institute has shone new light on what may be in store. Although still in the early stages of consideration, CBDCs have the potential to dramatically transform banking operations, increasing efficiency and transparency, as well as virtually eliminating money laundering and fraud. They are currently being explored by banks across the world, with the Bank of England among those that are seriously considering the technology.
However, what form they will take remains very unclear. While some are considering retail CBDCs, which would either work alongside or in replacement for cash, others are looking mainly at wholesale CBDCs to work within finance. The technology that underpins them is also up for discussion. While representatives from the blockchain industry are, naturally, eager to make the case for the technology’s role in CBDCs, the central banking industry is also looking beyond blockchain to other digital ledger technologies. The end result is very likely to be blockchain-inspired, but it may not actually be blockchain.
While all this remains firmly on the horizon, there are potential benefits for businesses, particularly around potential efficiency improvements in auditing and near-instant cross-border payments. What it does highlight is that digital currency naysayers are very unlikely to be vindicated. From JP Morgan to Facebook, central banking has seen the digital currency efforts enterprise is engaging in, and doesn’t want to be left behind.
“In recent weeks, as the political environment has sharply changed, I have done significant reflection on what the corporate structural changes will require, and what it means for the global role I signed up for. Against this backdrop, and as we expect to reach a resolution very soon, it is with a heavy heart that I wanted to let you all know that I have decided to leave the company.”
– TikTok CEO Kevin Mayer announces his resignation from the video-sharing app less than three months into the job.
Matthew Smith unpacks Facebook’s use of US law to obstruct an investigation of Myanmar’s role in in the genocide against the Rohingya people in this piece for Time.
Yet despite the heated moments and arguments, matrimonial lawyer Raymond Tooth believes that humour can sometimes be the best remedy of all. Known for his ruthless approach of getting eager-eyed ex-wives their fair share of the deal, it may surprise you that one of the UK’s most famous divorce lawyers who has been coined the nickname ‘Jaws’, actually has a playful and humorous side to him.
But, of course, even though Raymond reveals that one of the best ways to settle a case is by cracking an (appropriate) joke to break the ice, he still remains to not ‘get even, but get Tooth’. Known for fighting for Sadie Frost (who divorced Jude Law) and Cheryl Barrymore (who divorced Michael Barrymore), Raymond has built a name for himself that can make rich husbands clench their wallets. In our September issue, we had the delight of picking his brains, getting to know more about his journey into the legal sector and the lessons he has learnt throughout the years.
What are your top three lessons you have learnt throughout your time as a lawyer?
There are always two sides to the story.
Common sense is needed.
Sound judgment is vital.
Those are my top three things I have learnt as a litigation lawyer, particularly a matrimonial lawyer, but I would have to add that I have also learnt a lot about the psychological aspects of law which plays a part in people’s behaviour and thus their marriage and divorce. A lot stems from an unhappy childhood. Control freaks, for example, are not born but made because of an unhappy childhood; if a child feels helpless and unloved, it is a very painful experience, and therefore when that person grows up they are likely to want to control everything, including their future relationships.
The big advantage of getting older is that you learn from experience. Having said that, another important lesson I have learnt is that in this field where you have to know the law, the law itself is very discretionary in our jurisdiction and even though there are various established principles, cases are fact specific.
How do you win seemingly unwinnable cases?
Virtually no case is unwinnable, some are just more difficult than others. You can win especially as the opposition is bound to make a few mistakes.
Having a difficult case is a bit like playing the black pieces on a chessboard… you hope the white piece makes a mistake.
In many ways, you have to think outside the box and think laterally. A good way to do this is by working backwards. To some extent, you are in the hands of the judge, who is also a human being. Some judges are meaner in financial matters, some more generous; they have their own dynamics so it is best to know your judge prior to a case.
Nonetheless, if you are going to run a difficult case you have to make sure you do everything correctly and you don’t leave any stone unturned. Take nothing for granted – the worst thing is not taking care with a strong case and then suddenly realising it is not as easy as you think it is. One should never take anybody – the opponent or their lawyer or indeed your client – for granted.
I begin meetings with a simple question: “Tea, coffee or cyanide?” If my client replies asking for the last named, I know then we have a big problem on our hands or a client with a good sense of humour.
What pressures come from high-profile cases? How do you work around them?
The secret is to deal with it like any other case. Nobody is above the law, however big and powerful they might be; we are all equal before the court. The main difference with high-profile cases is that you also have to deal with the press and I firmly believe in saying nothing to them.
Where does your nickname ‘Jaws’ come from?
Well, of course, ‘tooth’ and ‘jaws’ is almost synonymous. I was known as the rottweiler to begin with and I moved onto Jaws. I remember being asked by a famous psychoanalyst at a dinner party ‘If you couldn’t be a human being, what would be your first choice of animal, what would be your second choice and what would be your third choice?’, and my second choice was a shark. The first choice is how you see yourself, second is how you think others see you and the third is how you really are. It is a neat way of identifying a person’s character quickly.
People often avoid going to Court and will aim for settling – why do you fight until the end?
Everybody should try to settle their case. You don’t want to make the lawyers rich but from my experience, it is not usually the lawyers that are the reason for the parties ending up in court. In 99% of the cases, it is the clients that cause the issues. You can spend the entire day in a meeting with the FDR (financial dispute resolution) judge or dealing with a private QC or retired judge trying to settle the case sensibly, but some couples will always let revenge get the better of them. It is human nature to get revenge but revenge is like drinking your own poison: it is self-defeating. You hear these cases where people go mad and spend all their assets on legal fees, leaving them very little money and not enough for their future life. Often people are in denial with what the situation is. I will always say that denial is similar to looking out the window at a brick wall from which you will never escape, and so long as you are in denial you will always be behind that brick wall. However, once you accept the situation and you deal with it, the wall disappears and there is a view beyond.
What are the advantages of taking a more direct approach to divorce?
You are required to try to mediate, which is a good process. Choosing the right mediator, again, is very important. You also have the FDR during the court process, so you have every chance of settling a case. Only about 2% of cases go to trial; if mediating was not an option or we do not have the FDR procedure, one will be waiting for years to get their case heard as there are fewer judges and more people getting divorced.
Most people do settle and as I mentioned above, it is the better option, but if you are acting for a spouse after a long marriage and the other spouse is being mean, you have to remember that this is the most important transaction they are going to do and if you don’t get it right, they will have a long time to repent.
If you ask me, ‘What is the main reason for divorce?’, I would say your childhood.
Most, if not all, of your strengths and weaknesses, can be identified from your childhood.
A national survey revealed that 34% of British adults would be less likely to begin divorce proceedings during the coronavirus pandemic. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the pandemic has impacted couples?
I don’t think people are choosing to get divorced because of lockdown; there must have been a problem within the marriage beforehand. On the other hand, there have been situations where people have been ‘locked in’ together, have talked about their problems and had a proper dialogue that they wouldn’t usually have, resulting in them understanding each other much better. If you are able to discuss things, you are able to resolve them, as one of the great problems in life is a lack of communication.
I do think a lot of marriages survive because the couple doesn’t actually see each other very often, although I do think there will be more babies than divorces as a result of lockdown!
Only 20% of under 55s sought help from a legal adviser compared to 66% of over 55s; what issues do you see arising here, when people rely on the internet for advice?
I think the younger you are, the less worried you are about life, and you don’t worry as much about security and pensions. Younger people are more concerned about the here and now, such as going on holiday and their social life, and quite rightly, too! I think the truth is when you are younger, you don’t need much money but being poor when you are older is not fun, so the older generation will want to know their entitlements and protections.
If the pandemic and lockdown have caused couples to realise that divorce is for them, what financial aspects should they consider, especially given that their pockets may be lighter?
There is no doubt, in relation to divorce during the pandemic, that the courts will be much more conservative because most people’s finances have deteriorated. Somebody always gains in someone else’s disaster but most people’s finances and assets – especially if you invest in property or the stock market –, have gone down and if you are a husband (or the main breadwinner), the best thing is to settle now whilst the economy is taking a hit and the court is more conservative about financial awards. They are less likely to push the boat out, whereas, in a very strong market, the court can be more robust and take the view that – assuming the husband is the main earner – the wife’s financial situation is usually static and what she gets she is going to have to live on for the foreseeable future, but on the other hand the husband’s finance is dynamic, he’s a businessman and is able monetarily to recover his finances quickly.
It is often said that “A man wants a woman for her looks without commitment and a woman wants a man’s chequebook for security” and that is why it is sensible to have a pre nuptial agreement.
Proceedings have been taking place via video – do you think this is good enough?
I have done quite a few of these and in my view, I think they work adequately. However, when credibility is at stake here you don’t get a full grasp of the dynamics of the situation on Zoom or Skype. The judge would usually look at a witness, see how they behave, which is very important, as the judge needs to assess the person in the witness box appropriately. You don’t get this via video.
Another example is committal applications which should never be done by video. In my view it should be done in person as a person’s liberty is at stake and the court has to see that person.
Aside from the logistics, where the links may not work etc., video calls have succeeded. It has got better as time has gone on and we will become used to it like everything else in life; once you are used to it, it is the norm. I would much rather go to court, however, as the atmosphere is different.
Raymond’s top tips on divorced couples trying to protect their assets
If you want to protect your assets, there a number of ways. If before marriage you give away your assets to someone you trust, the court can do nothing about it.
If a couple start their married life early together at a young age, they should expect to share the fruits of their marriage equally. There may well be children and it must be remembered that a homemaker makes an equal contribution to the breadwinner.
If, however, a person has made a substantial amount of money and then gets married, it is sensible to have a pre nuptial agreement to protect pre acquired assets. If you have a prenup, you have to give full disclosure, giving the other party full knowledge of your financial affairs and there has to be independent legal advice and no undue pressure to sign the agreement. I know one case where a man had hidden his assets so successfully in various different jurisdictions, he’d be mad to have a prenup, as he would have to disclose everything, leaving a road map for his future wife, so he chose to keep quiet!
You have to bear in mind that our law states that the starting point is the parties equally share what has been made during the marriage, but this is only the first stage. Once you have done that exercise, which can be quite complicated, the court then has to look at the needs of each party and if the needs are greater than the sharing, then you have to delve into non-matrimonial assets.
Therefore, a spouse does not come to the court as a supplicant but comes as an equal partner. One of the great problems is that many husbands, especially those coming from a different culture, do not understand that. We are the most generous in the world when it comes to financial matters. It is fully discretionary, so we can take pre-acquired assets into account, but elsewhere (including in America), it is much more restrictive.
“You can only have a successful meeting and resolution, if everyone is prepared to listen.”
In essence, the prenup has to meet the needs of the other party; if it offers nothing to the other party, it is most unlikely to survive. You have to be careful, you have to discuss finances with your partner and be rational, in order to know where you stand and avoid speaking about financial matters in the future. Prenups are a very sensible option, but they are never binding on the court. The courts always have jurisdiction to decide on what is fair between parties. In fact, the more generous you are in your prenup, the safer you are in a divorce.
It is often said that “A man wants a woman for her looks without commitment and a woman wants a man’s chequebook for security” and that is why it is sensible to have a pre nuptial agreement.
Raymond’s tips for a happy marriage
There are five things I think are important for a successful marriage:
An active sex life (with your spouse!)
A tidy house
A good sense of humour
No arguments about money
Kindness.
On a more general level, a big issue is that couples take each other for granted.
You also need to think of yourself, however. There are only four things that matter in your own life: your physical health, your mental health, your peace of mind and your freedom. If you want to strive for a good relationship with other people, you need to think of those four things and if you have them, you shouldn’t complain!
Another tip is to not rush into marriage. I would never advocate getting married until you are in your late twenties, after you have seen more of life and understand yourself more. I would also always advise a person to meet their partner’s parents to see what their relationship is like. As I mentioned before, one’s childhood shapes one’s future and if your partner has not had a good nurturing upbringing or has had an abusive upbringing – it is certainly not their fault – you both may need to resolve difficult issues for a successful marriage.
My final tip: avoid control freaks. If a person comes up to you and puts his/her arms around you and says, ‘Don’t worry, I will look after you’, it is a strong sign of a control freak. Refer to my point above and keep well away because once you let them look after you they control you!
Was law always your calling?
My father, uncle and grandfather were lawyers at a firm called A&G Tooth in New Square, Lincoln’s Inn – but my aunt was a famous actress and my mother was also an actress and so I thought I wanted to go into acting, even though my parents didn’t think it would be a very good idea.
When I was 18, I was invited to climb Petit Mont Blanc in Switzerland and on the way back the host said that it was normal to share the expense. He handed me a bill for £29 which was far more than I had. I said I would have to arrange for payment and then wrote a very diplomatic letter saying if I had known that I would have had to politely decline his invitaton but that I would sort it out very shortly. I sent a copy to my father who said ‘You’re a born lawyer’, and so I became a lawyer from simply climbing a mountain!
What has been the highlight of your career so far?
I have been a lawyer now for 54 years and I am still sane. Whilst I have not gone mad I have certainly driven my secretaries mad, indeed mad enough to stay with me. I also still seem to be able to enjoy the cut and thrust which I suppose is an achievement!
I did get a certificate from the Law Society as a congratulation for my 50 years and I wrote to them asking if I was the only matrimonial lawyer who had achieved that to which they replied that there were about four or five others, including one with 60 years qualification and one with 70 years! I can only admire somebody who has done 70 years and hope that honourable person is still sane!
What has been your most memorable case?
I have taken on the South African Government during the apartheid, and I have also taken on the mafia in Las Vegas and, yet, I am still here! But my most memorable case took place in the 80s. It is still the longest financial case that went on for over two and a half months in court which was very complicated. The case eventually settled on the 11th week. It was very frustrating, for both me and my client, and I remember quoting to her a famous saying by the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius “If you wait by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by.” That is what happened in this case, not literally(!). She then sent me a silver plaque with that saying on, which led that to be my most memorable case
Raymond Tooth advises in complex and high profile, high net worth matrimonial financial disputes often involving persons in the public eye. He founded Sears Tooth in 1982 and his impact on the landscape of family law is indisputable. His long standing and highly respected practice has been built by taking difficult and novel cases to final hearings and winning. His reported cases include leading cases in all areas of family law involving finance and children in marriage and unmarried couples. Raymond believes that whilst every case should be capable of settlement, the best approach is to move matters forward as quickly as possible because delay generally serves only to cause anxiety, frustration and unnecessary legal expense. This is very much the ethos of the firm.
Sears Tooth is a specialist family law practice. In business for over 40 years, we have unrivalled experience across the whole spectrum of family law for winning complex cases at first instance and on appeal, including cases involving jurisdiction, divorce and children.
Our preference is to settle your matter quickly, amicably and fairly. However, if this is not possible, we will not shy away from fighting for you in Court. We realise how important it is for a client to reach a proper settlement and have somebody defending their financial position and not to be financially destroyed.
Our clients are often high profile and ultra-net worth from the worlds of business and entertainment. However, the firm is committed to helping people from all walks of life who may not be in a strong financial position in order to give them the assistance they need because we acknowledge their being in that situation can be the most challenging and difficult time in their lives.
What are the filing requirements for patents in Japan?
Since 2016, a Paris route application may be filed either in Japanese or any other language. When a Paris route application is filed in a foreign language, a Japanese translation must be filed within 16 months from the priority date, and mistakes in the translation may be rectified by Amendments (during the patent prosecution procedure) or Corrections (after the grant of a patent).
A Japanese application may be filed with a copy of the specification, drawings, and the following information:
Priority right date and country;
Priority application number (if assigned);
Name and address of inventor(s);
Name and address of assignee(s).
If the PCT route is chosen, then the PCT application filed in its original language is the basis of the examination. Mistakes in the translation may be rectified under the same conditions as described in connection with the Paris route applications filed in a foreign language. In case of a PCT application, the applicant only needs to provide the application number to its counsel in Japan, as all other information can be obtained from the PCT publication.
What issues do foreign companies run into when trying to file a patent in your jurisdiction?
International companies are often not familiar with the Japanese practice, which makes it important to have a close relationship with the local Japanese counsel so that an optimal prosecution strategy can be developed together. In practice, this is, however, not always easy due to language and communication barriers. It is, therefore, important to choose a counsel willing to communicate openly and frequently, going beyond simply providing basic services in filing and office action reporting but providing holistic support in optimising the Japanese IP strategy.
The following are two examples of aspects of the Japanese patent prosecution system where foreign applicants frequently do not get enough information or support from their local counsel:
Examiner Interviews
Though examiner interviews (in person, by phone or online) have existed for a long time in the Japanese practice, most counsel are hesitant to include them into their prosecution work. Our experience and statistics have, however, shown that an applicant can substantially reduce the number of issued office actions and increase their overall patent application grant rate by including examiner interviews to their best practice in Japan.
Appeal against Examiners Decision to Reject and Application
Another good example is the use or non-use of the appeal against the examiner’s decision system.
International applicants are often not aware of how to benefit best from the appeal proceedings in Japan as they are not aware of the high success rate, low cost and short duration of the system.
One surprising aspect of Japanese patent prosecution is that the criteria for patentability seem to be lower if one goes further in the examination. That is, when an application is rejected by the examiner and if one files an appeal to the Board of Appeals, the success rate is 68% (as of 2019). If the Board of Appeals rejects the application, and the case is appealed to the IP High Court, the success rate is still approximately 20- 30%.
These statistics indicate that an applicant still has a chance even if their application is rejected. Approximately 75% of applications rejected by the examiner are granted either by the Board of Appeals or by the IP High Court.
Applicants might also hesitate to file an appeal fearing the cost and long pendency. Neither of this is however justified since the costs for filing an appeal are in between 3,000 – 4,000 USD, including professional and official fees. The average pendency for an appeal is 12.3 months (as of 2019).
What important points must foreign businesses operating in Japan consider when developing or managing their technology development?
Employee remuneration
In April 2016, an important change to Japanese patent law was made regarding ownership of employee inventions. Under the new law, a company is permitted to establish company rules which rule that all employee inventions are owned by the employer. To benefit from this provision, it is important that companies establish rules on ownership and on remuneration for employee inventions as early as possible because otherwise, the inventor is presumed to own the invention unless the company proves the assignment of the patent.
What further considerations must be made when acting jointly with Japanese corporations?
Crucial and, at the same time, tricky, is to keep smooth communication between the partner corporations. If a strong relationship exists with the Japanese counsel it might be a good idea to include them in the form of interpreters or as cultural bridge builders.
It is also important that the Japanese corporation has updated its employee invention rules as described above and is taking possession of employee inventions to avoid potential problems in regard to ownership of a jointly developed invention.
In the above, what issues can arise if there is a dispute about the ownership of IP between a Japanese corporation and a non-Japanese company?
Problem 1: Which country’s law on IP ownership applies?
Problem 2: Which country’s rule on picking the right country’s law applies?
SONODA & KOBAYASHI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Shinjuku Mitsui Building, Suite 3401 PO Box 268 2-1-1 Nishi-Shinjuku Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-0434 Tel: +81-3-5339-1093 Fax: +81-3-5339-1094 mailbox@patents.jp
About the Firm
Sonoda & Kobayashi Intellectual Property Law is a leading Japanese IP firm, which was established in 1998 and is located in central Tokyo. The firm was founded with the specific intention of creating a Japanese IP law firm with a global mindset, to foster stress-free communication and provide exceptional services. Since then, Sonoda & Kobayashi has stayed true to this goal. Unique philosophy and high standards have allowed the firm to exclusively represent leading global and domestic companies in a wide spectrum of enterprises, and to become one of the most trustworthy firms in Asia for the prosecution and enforcement of IP rights.
The regulatory landscape of the Cannabis industry remains to be in flux; how should businesses deal with this, to ensure they remain on top of changing regulations?
Like with any new emerging market, oversight and regulatory compliance are essential. The majority of the states now have some form of legalised cannabis. Although the federal government still does not recognise the cannabis industry as a legal industry, they are taking a passive stance on enforcing those laws. The best advice would be to follow the strict laws that are put in place by the specific states that you are doing business in. And if you are in multiple states, comply with the stricter of the state guidelines.
What makes this industry particularly challenging and unique?
There is no blueprint for it, despite perhaps the end of prohibition. You have an industry that has been deemed taboo at best and illegal at worst. Now, as we have learned more about the industry and the good it can do both from a health and financial aspect, businesses are scrambling to catch up with demand. In some instances, the cart was put before the horse. And by that, I mean that the government is trying to regulate an industry after the fact.
The key to being successful is to have a strict compliance policy in place and adhere to the different regulations.
Every state has different regulations; can this impact a business’ growth? What’s the best way to handle this?
Currently, there are different requirements in states for alcohol, tobacco, and many other products. Therefore, it is not uncommon to have to follow different regulations when doing business in different states. The key to being successful is to have a strict compliance policy in place and adhere to the different regulations.
IP Matters:
What protection is ideal for cannabis businesses?
Cannabis businesses that are determining which forms of IP protection are ideal should view themselves like any other business selling a good and utilise all of the different protection tools available to them under IP to the fullest extent possible. These tools include trademark protection for brand names, patent protection for inventions related to the cannabis business, trade secrets for protecting certain aspects of the business that are not generally known or readily ascertainable by others, and copyrights for protecting creative works.
As businesses expand both within their state and nationwide, securing federal trademark registration protection is highly advisable. This will preserve national expansion rights and the presumption of trademark ownership and validity. While cannabis businesses cannot register trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for cannabis products and services that involve cultivating, manufacturing or dispensing cannabis products, they may secure federal trademark registration protection for their brand names for certain products and services. In states that have legalised cannabis, state trademark registrations and common law trademark rights may also be available.
Patent protection also adds value. Patents are property, and therefore a capital asset, and can exclude competitors from using a patented invention in the market. Businesses may secure patent protection for inventions, including new strains of the cannabis plant itself, as well as new methods or devices.
Patents do not require an applicant to show that the product is lawfully used in interstate commerce and are therefore an inviting avenue of protection for cannabis businesses.
Trade secrets can also offer valuable protection and an economic advantage over competitors and could be the most easily accessible protection offered to cannabis businesses. Businesses should be aware, however, that to remain eligible they must be stringent in taking the necessary steps to legally protect their trade secrets.
Finally, copyrights may be secured for certain creative works, including any artwork, written materials, photographs and software utilised by the cannabis business.
Businesses may secure patent protection for inventions, including new strains of the cannabis plant itself, as well as new methods or devices.
The biggest hurdle for securing a federal trademark registration is the fact that cannabis is still listed as a Schedule I drug[1]. How can you get around this?
For federal trademark registration, it’s important to distinguish between cannabis products and services, including certain hemp-based products that are currently illegal under federal law, and cannabis-related activities that are legal. The USPTO requires that the use of trademarks must be lawful under federal law for federal trademark registration eligibility. However, businesses may secure federal trademark registration protection for their brand names for certain cannabis-related products and services that are currently legal under federal law.
The concept of a zone of natural expansion in trademark law could also be used to extend a trademark’s prior rights into a new geographical area or into a new product line. It applies when a company is using their trademark in one area and a newly expanded area is a natural extension of the prior use. Given the USPTO’s current stance on the illegality of certain products and services, the best strategy is to secure federal trademark registration protection for marks and legal activities. Those trademark registrations and rights may preserve future expansion under the same registered mark for related goods and/or services that are unlawful as of the trademark application filing date but could become lawful after the legalisation of cannabis at the federal level.
What other hurdles are presented in this area?
Cannabis businesses should be wary of infringement of IP of other companies in other industries. They should have foresight and perform their due diligence on all aspects of their business where another business’ IP rights may reside. In one recent example, the Girl Scouts sued a California-based cannabis edibles company for promoting its cannabis-infused cookies as similar to several of the Girl Scouts’ cookie brands.
Risk Management and Licensing:
Without the ability to have nationwide rights through federal trademark law, issuing a “nationwide” licence is extraordinarily difficult. How can businesses work around this?
Unfortunately, until the federal government legalises cannabis and creates universal governing laws, issuing nationwide licences will remain difficult. Cannabis businesses should work with a local law firm which works closely with law firms in other states and issue licences on a state-by-state basis. Working with local firms and issuing licences state-by-state allows the cannabis business to avoid any potential pitfalls that may arise due to the difference in legislature between the different states.
What consequences are there when violating regulations?
Violating such regulations in a highly regulated industry like cannabis includes, but is not limited to, the revocation of your licence to operate, fines, and criminal charges.
Further, more and more insurance companies are beginning to write policies that will help protect cannabis businesses and their owners.
Loans and insurance can be hard to obtain when involved in the cannabis industry – are there particular methods/ companies to approach here?
This is one of the more difficult hurdles in the cannabis industry. Most banks that are insured by the FDIC will not work with businesses in the cannabis industry because the federal government does not recognise them as a legitimate business. Additionally, many large insurers are wary of providing insurance policies to businesses in the industry. However, we have found that state-chartered banks have been helpful with assisting cannabis companies. Further, more and more insurance companies are beginning to write policies that will help protect cannabis businesses and their owners.
Standardisation of compliance rules is inevitable for the cannabis industry; when do you think this will occur and what should companies look out for?
I personally believe that we will see the federal government step in over the next 4-6 years to pass legislation regarding the legalisation of cannabis. If this does not happen, I foresee some states using the Commerce Clause to argue that the states with legalised cannabis have an unfair advantage over states that do not. This will force the Supreme Court to rule on the issue.
About Arnold Shokouhi
Arnold Shokouhi is the Managing Partner of McCathern, PLLC, a full-service law firm based in Dallas with additional offices in Frisco, Houston, and L.A. His practice focuses on complex civil litigation, with a particular focus on business disputes, real estate, director and officer liability, health care litigation, and cannabis law.
Contact: Arnold Shokouhi McCathern, PLLC 3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1600 Dallas, Texas 75219 214-741-2662 www.mccathernlaw.com
“I subsequently retrained as a British and European Patent Attorney for five years, which was not easy!”, he tells us. “I then worked for well-known corporate companies involving IPR Due Diligence in M&A deals, whilst also drafting, responding and advising existing clients.”
Darren now runs his own firm (EvokeIP.com) and specialises in advising on and protecting Software and AI inventions. Below, he shares some of his thoughts towards patenting software and the issues which come with it.
If you’re an inventor with an idea involving software, why is speed of the essence?
Software in nature is ever-changing and moves fast, but that doesn’t mean your patent attorney is not right there with you, making sure everything is right and on track.
The software industry differs from other major innovative industries; what unique issues can this present when trying to patent an invention?
Software, in my opinion, is the new technical glue that makes everything work and allows for effective communication, but software patents – which follow the same basic rules as other utility patents* – is difficult to prove as a novel and non-obvious invention.
Why some jurisdictions (such as the UK, US, CN) have problems with this has always baffled me. The most innovative, and by value the greatest companies are Apple, Facebook, Google. What is the common designator here? At base they are software companies.
Software has a shorter innovation cycle compared to other inventions – how does this impact start-ups/inventors? What should they consider when looking for protection with this in mind?
I have been fighting the good fight for software to be patentable, since 2003, as long as what it does is novel and inventive.
Some argue that to prevent patent trolls and promote true software innovation, the scope and length of software patent protection should be limited, e.g. allowing only the means of implementation but not the function to be patented[1]. Do you agree with this?
We have challenges with the “Alice” ruling** in the US now being applied to manufacturing. This is in my opinion, and in the opinion of my US colleagues, a worrying development.
Trolls or Non-Practising Entities (NPEs) are not solely related to software, and the law is gradually weeding them out.
Software Facts:
*The USPTO has established five elements for patent eligibility: (1) The invention must be a process, machine, or object; (2) It must have utility; (3) It must be novel or new; (4) It must be non-obvious; and (5) It must not have been disclosed to the public before the patent application. An invention must qualify under all of these elements in order to move forward in the patent process[2].
**Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International was a 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court about patent eligibility. The issue in the case was whether certain claims about a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service for facilitating financial transactions covered abstract ideas that were thus unsuitable to be patent protected. The court decided that the patents were invalid because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that idea into patentable subject matter[3].
In the United States software is patentable. Software patents are typically referred to as computer implemented processes and can be protected in the US if it is unique and tied to a machine. For this to be the case, the software needs to offer some kind of identifiable improvement, however, US patent law also excludes “abstract ideas”, and this has been used to refuse some patent applications involving software[4].
Dr Darren Murley
Chartered British and European Patent Attorney (CPA, EPA)
Dr Darren Murley started his career as an electronic engineer, gaining a first class degree in Physics with Digital Microelectronics. He then undertook a PhD, gaining his doctorate in plasma physics for semiconductor deposition. Following that, Darren was employed as a senior research display scientist with Philips, where he helped invent and patent OLED TV.
As an inventor, Darren subsequently became interested in Intellectual Property, and qualified as a British Chartered patent attorney and a European Patent Attorney.
Darren specialises in hi-tech semiconductor and computing systems, and regularly lectures in London on software patenting.
What are common environmental issues that people run into when development planning?
These are usually available in the local planning authorities checklist. These vary from district to district, but there are common themes: 1) an initial ecological site appraisal; 2) a landscape appraisal; 3) protected species potential, which is usually addressed in point 1, as following the initial ecological appraisal, further work may be required and; 4) a tree survey – which may be required to assess tree quality and to advise on root protection areas.
What are time-consuming ecological impacts that can cause issues in the long run, if not addressed early on?
Probably the most difficult, expensive and time-consuming is the presence of Habitats Regulations’ protected species, whose key habitat is located onsite in such a way that a mitigation licence from Natural England is required. This can be very lengthy to resolve and can result in delays and extra work during the build phase. The key way to avoid this is to survey early in the development process and identify workarounds.
How can these issues lead to court cases?
Mitigation under a licence can be complex. The build-out chain can involve many individuals/companies that may not be well briefed on the licence requirements. Violations may occur that involve either local residents or regulatory bodies (such as the Environment Agency) that can and will prosecute significant violations.
What are common cases you see and how can these be avoided?
In many instances, they mostly occur due to failing to take protected species into account from the beginning. There can be a certain “head in the sand” attitude from developers: for example, if we pretend it isn’t there we can avoid having to do anything about it. I advise against treating regulatory authorities of the local planning authority as though they are stupid. They are not.
How much influence does the EU have with environmental planning regulations and do you expect these to change over the next few years?
Obviously, we are notionally out of the EU, but depending on the final settlement we may have to comply with most EU regulations to trade with them. A lot of the species protection measures the EU implemented were driven by the UK, so whilst the name of certain legislation may change, the intent will remain. I think it will be window-dressing to show independence from the EU, but the reality is that species will continue to be afforded a high degree of protection. And don’t forget, the complex nature of mitigation licensing is largely a result of our own bureaucracy.
Have there been any updates in the European Protected Species Licensing?
Yes, but at the moment it has not been significant (as aforementioned). There has been a lot of play made about the changes to great crested newt mitigation strategy using the District Licensing methodology, but most of my clients have avoided this as to huge uncertainty as to cost. They would rather use the current site-based licensing regime as the costs are better defined: a classic case of bureaucrats and NGOs not understanding how business views regulation and cost risks.
When we last spoke you had mentioned how the Habitats Directive was a very awkward and legalistic “fix”, which cries out for improvement. Have there been any improvements?
What’s left to change? See above. There is a pretence that district licensing is an amazing fix. It is not, and it only applies to great crested newts. How about bats? Dormice? Water voles? (And so on).
At JFA our mission is to guide our clients through all aspects of UK, European and international
environmental legislation through effective collaboration. Through our unified ecological and landscape approach we aim to be the leaders in the creation of environments that are rich in biodiversity. Our staff have expertise in policy framework and stakeholder requirements that drive present concerns in providing environmentally and ecologically sound design, supporting planning applications on large and small sites.
We offer services in Landscape, Arboriculture and Ecology which are tailored to suit the changing needs of the environment and construction professions. From inception through to completion, these are designed to suit organisations, contractors and consultants alike.
Previously, Blackstonian notions of dominion and control had dominated legal thinking about how to make claims to property. The Crown in right of the State of Queensland had difficulty establishing to the satisfaction of their Honours a legal relationship or right to the property it claimed it had vested in a crocodile under the Fauna Act. That relationship to property in the crocodile was said to ground the Crown’s right to prosecute an indigenous man who took that crocodile in accordance with his traditional laws and customs. The Court held that the Crown could not establish that legal relationship sufficient to overturn the man’s honest claim of right to take the crocodile by exercising his native title right to hunt the crocodile.
Likewise, the history of land law in Australia is one of difficulty in establishing exactly how the Crown in right of the States establishes a legal relationship to land such that it exercises lawfully its right to grant, demise or dispose of land. The Mabo judgment has done much to put those claims onto a more secure foundation, but as one author has put it, the ‘radical title fiction’ has simply replaced the ‘feudal fiction.’1
And of course, Mabo could say nothing about the acquisition of sovereignty over Australia’s land mass and territorial seas. It was not a question justiciable in a court deriving its power from the Commonwealth Constitution, whose authority derives from that very sovereignty.2
So claims of a legal relationship to land by the States remain compromised. After the Uluru Statement of the Heart, the Commonwealth’s recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty is also now under the spotlight. This paper seeks briefly to survey some of the voluminous literature on these related topics. It asserts that treaty-making between the Commonwealth, the States and indigenous Australians has a legal justification. This paper seeks to articulate that justification for a general legal readership.
It is divided into two parts: the first part examines the difficulties of the natural law arguments in Mabo to deal with the sovereignty and land management issues that will not go away, and explores the origin and role of terra nullius in creating those difficulties. The second part sets out the legal argument for a compact/Makkerata or recognition of prior sovereignty in Indigenous Australians, based both on part 1 and the New Zealand precedent.
Several propositions derived from the literature can be baldly stated, and then examined more closely.
Terra Nullius (‘land without an owner’) has its origins in Roman natural law, as does territorium nullius (‘country with no internationally recognised sovereign’).
Initially the concept was used to justify indigenous rights to land, because as early as the 16th century, land inhabited by indigenous peoples was not considered ‘desert and uninhabited’ for the purposes of international sovereigns’ acquisition of
In the scramble for Africa in the late 19th century, the 16th century formulation was turned on its head using a property framework: land could nevertheless be considered terra nullius if it was inhabited by indigenous people who were “so low in the scale of social organisation that their usages and conceptions of rights and duties are not to be reconciled with the institutions or the legal ideas of civilized society’ (In re Southern Rhodesia (1919) AC 211 at 233-234).
Andrew Fitzmaurice has very usefully explained the origins of terra nullius in the Roman law idea of the first taker. That which is captured by the first taker becomes his or her property. If applied to territory inhabited by indigenous peoples, the original law of nations provided that ‘’goods which belong to no owner [that is, no sovereign] pass to the occupier.’”3 On this view, a mainly Continental European one, dispossession of first nation peoples was wrong. The English, citing Locke, inverted it:
those who mixed their labour with the soil and with things available in nature were entitled to a first claim to property rights in those things, a sort of first taker as first fashioner.4
These two results from the different understandings of terra nullius fought for supremacy in the 19th century. Eventually the scramble for Africa in the late 19th century saw the English formulation temporarily win out.5 But by 1975, in international law, the anti-dispossession view of terra nullius was re-established: “‘Occupation’ being legally an original means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid ‘occupation’ that the territory should be terra nullius – a territory belonging to no-one – at the time of the act alleged to constitute ‘occupation.’” Those “territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as terra nullius”.6 Thus we can state proposition 6.
The justification by European powers for the acquisition of African territories using a concept of terra nullius turned on its head lost momentum at least by the time of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1975 on the Western Sahara ((1975) ICJR at 39). It was clear that land could only be settled if there were no indigenous inhabitants at all. At this point, Paul Coe began to prepare his statement of claim for Coe v Commonwealth, which argued that terra nullius had grounded British justifications for the acquisition of the absolute beneficial ownership of the land by the Crown. But, as we have seen from proposition 3, this was never the case as terra nullius was never mentioned in the 19th century British historical records about Australia. And it was not mentioned in the case law either
As Connor has pointed out, it was the Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara in 1975 which led directly to the idea of terra nullius taking hold of the historical and legal imagination in Australia. Paul Coe’s statement of claim in Coe v the Commonwealth used the concept expressly, and it was taken up by historians such as Reynolds and others.7 Thus it is now necessary to put proposition 4:
Terra nullius was not used by the British Crown to justify the acquisition of territory in Australia.
There is no reference to terra nullius being the basis for settlement in 19th century historical sources relating to the settlement of Australia. The second part of this essay will address the basis as it appears in the archive.
At law, commencing with Attorney-General v Brown8and then by assertion in subsequent cases (see proposition 7), occupancy of the Crown by settlement of British subjects in the new colony of New South Wales grounded absolute beneficial ownership. To use the Roman law concepts here, the occupancy of the Aboriginal people was not considered sufficient to make them first taker and thus property owner of the land in the new colony. The Crown’s title, through settlement (or to put it another way, through the occupancy of British settlers) gave them the status of first taker in the eyes of the Supreme Court of NSW: “…in a newly-discovered country, settled by British subjects, the occupancy of the Crown is no fiction… Here is a property, depending for its support on no feudal notions or principle.”
But this case must not be wrenched from its historical context. In Attorney-General v Brown, a landowner tried to take coal from his granted land where a reservation clause in the grant provided for Crown ownership of the coal. The case took the form of a Crown information against the defendant landholder Brown for intruding into the coal seams and trespassing on the Crown’s rights to the coal in the soil. Brown’s intrusion was a direct attack on the Crown’s albeit fictional feudal right as ultimate holder of the title to the waste lands. The attack went further: “The defendant’s counsel maintained that there was a material difference between dominion, or the right of sovereignty over the soil and country, which were unquestionably in the Crown, and the possession or the title to the possession in or of that soils, with power to grant the same at her discretion, which title be broadly denied.”9
In Cooper v Stuart,10 a landholder sought to prevent the Crown from resuming 10 acres reserved in the original grant in 1823 of the Waterloo estate for a public park. In passing their Lordships referred to NSW as “a Colony which consisted of a tract of territory practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled law, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominions.” In this sense the comment was more akin to obiter than a ratio. The case was about the reception of English law into the new colony and only en passant does it address the issue of indigenous rights to land. As we shall see, that was a right of occupancy readily acknowledged by successive Governors of NSW. Where the indigenous people were in “actual occupation”, however, was a question to which the facts on the ground did not readily admit an answer.
But, we shall see in part 2, these cases were all to attack or defend the Crown’s prerogative against settlers “pushing the envelope” to narrow that prerogative so as to enlarge individual rights in a colony far from the centre of British metropolitical power. They did not mention indigenous rights at all, except to appear to argue, interesting in hindsight, that such Aboriginal rights were allodial in nature.11 This legal statement can only be reconciled to the historical record using the propositions discussed in part 2.
Each of the cases (Attorney-General v Brown, Cooper v Stuart) in the 19th century were designed to guard the Crown against the unwarranted overreach of powerful and wealthy colonists intent on challenging the skeleton of principle underpinning English land law and the exercise of the Crown’s prerogative through Governors in granting land before any representative assembly was established. Attorney-General v Brown must, as we shall see, be viewed in light of the battle Governor Gipps ultimately lost in exercise of the Crown’s prerogative to protect the lands beyond the limits of location from the unlawful encroachment by squatters. The Crown in London gave up the fight to stop leases being given to those who had simply spread out beyond the limits of location, and passed the 1846 waste lands legislation providing for leases of Crown land. This was not because necessarily indigenous rights were ignored. They were simply not relevant to the parties to the proceedings in the two cases. But nevertheless Cooper v Stuart mandates the statement of proposition 6 because in 1971 Justice Blackburn still considered himself bound by it:
The key Australian decision from the Privy Council in Cooper v Stuart ((1889) 14 App Cas at
291) was heavily influenced by this reversal of argument previously used to protect indigenous rights in the face of colonial acquisition of territory. Importantly, Cooper v Stuart, through the doctrine of stare decisis, prevented Justice Blackburn in Milirrpum v Nabalco ((1971) 17 FLR 141 at 242) from recognising indigenous rights to land in the Northern Territory.
And proposition 7 can be stated because it demonstrates just how flimsy the legal basis established in Cooper v Stuart was to justify the denial of indigenous rights to land.
In Mabo no 2, their Honours Deane and Gaudron JJ critically examined the Australian cases which underpinned the original legal claim of the British Crown to absolute beneficial ownership of land in Australia. These were Attorney General v Brown, Williams v Attorney General (NSW),12 Randwick Corporation v Rutledge13and Cooper v Stuart (at 102 of Mabo no 2). The first thing that strikes you about all of these cases, as it struck their Honours, is that they are all based ultimately on “little more than bare assertion” (at 103-104 Mabo no 2).
So terra nullius was never part of the law of the land, and Mabo no 2 did not overturn it. Brennan J’s decision recognised the indigenous right to occupancy of the land, sovereignty over which was acquired by the British Crown.14 The occupancy of the Aboriginal people, in the absence of any claim to sovereignty, gave them ownership as first taker. At least that is what the law now says.
The problem is how to explain how that ownership appeared to be ignored when the law was based on mere assertion and could hardly ground a reasonable justification for Crown absolute beneficial ownership of land, and when that common law was promulgated in the context of battles over the extent of the Crown prerogative in the new colony of NSW without reference to indigenous interests. Part 2 will address this question, and explain how the assertion of the law was contextualised as part of the colonial project to ignore indigenous claims to ownership as first taker. It will examine these further three propositions:
To justify the acquisition of land in Australia, the British combined the common law notion of settlement (from Blackstone), an argument of indigenous rights to land where the indigenous people were in ‘actual occupation’, and a scale of civilisation framework borrowed from both the Lockean idea of property rights being generated from labour mixing with the soil and the Scottish moral philosophers four stages of civilisation (Hunter-gatherers, Agriculture, Mercantilism and Industrialisation). Despite the Treaty of Waitangi, this idea of actual occupation coupled with the labour theory of property was applied not just by British settlers but by the Crown in New Zealand as well as Australia (where no treaties were made by the Crown).
As a result, neither conquest, cession by treaty nor settlement establishes an uncontestable relationship to property of each State and Territory in the land those jurisdictions encompass.
A political compact or settlement which addresses past wrongs, establishes a proper basis for the acquisition of land by the Crown, and settles the compensation which is required to seal that compact between the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth on the one hand. and the indigenous peoples of Australia on the other should now be actively debated by Australian society at large, not just by academics and elites. Only then can the Crown in each of its capacities in Australia establish a legal relationship between its claims to sovereignty and rights in the land. On this view, Mabo is only a step on the path to the establishment of that legal relationship. Without it, Australia cannot claim to be a post-colonial landscape.
1 Ulla Secher “The doctrine of tenure in Australia post-Mabo: Replacing the ‘feudal fiction’ with the mere radical title fiction – Part 2 (2006) 13 Australian Property Law Journal 140
2Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 53 ALJR 403; Mabo v State of Queensland (no 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 31
3 A Fitzmaurice “The Genealogy of Terra Nullius” (2007) 129 Australian Historical Studies at 7 quoting Francesco de Vitoria
4 Ibid, 8
5In re Southern Rhodesia, [1919] AC at 232
6Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara, [1975] ICJR at 39
7 M Connor, The Invention of Terra Nullius: historical and legal fictions on the foundations of Australia Sydney: Maclaey Press 2005. This is a very interesting and well researched book marred by its sometimes hectoring tone and enthusiastic embracement of the revisionist side of the History Wars; Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 53 ALJR 403; (1993) 118 ALJR 110; H Reynolds The Law of the Land 2nd ed Melbourne: Penguin Books 1992. See also footnote 2 in Fitzmaurice, “The Genealogy…”
8 (1847) 1 Legge 312 at 316
9 At 316
10 (1889) 14 App Cas 286 at 291; (1886) NSWR 1; Evening News, Sydney, Monday 17 August 1885 at 5; Darling Downs Gazette Saturday 6 April 1889; The Daily Northern Argus Rockhampton Monday 28 January 1889
11Attorney-General v Brown at 324
12 (1913) 16 CLR 404
13 (1959) 102 CLR 54
14 Exactly what the defendant’s counsel in Attorney-General v Brown had argued, see footnote 9
Part Two
Leading up to 9 July 1840, Governor George Gipps pored over papers relating to the law of recognition of indigenous rights to land. He examined Chief Justice Marshall’s famous American judgments on the subject, Storey’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Kent’s Commentaries on American Law and various Colonial Office documents relating to an attempt by William Wentworth to purchase land from Maori people directly and without the involvement of the Crown.1 The 9 July proceedings centred on the Claims to Grants of Land in New Zealand Bill, which was designed to render null and void Wentworth and others’ purported purchase of Maori land.
His Excellency’s conclusions were clear:
European colonists could not acquire land from indigenous peoples, only the Crown could effect that;
Discovery gave title to the Crown, subject only to the fact that the indigenous inhabitants “were admitted to possess a present right of occupancy, or use in the soil, which was subordinate to the ultimate dominion of the discoverer.” As Chief Justice Marshall had noted, “ [i]t has never been doubted, that either the United States, or the several States, had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty [with Great Britain after independence was won], subject only to the Indian right of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in that government…”
As Kent’s Commentaries pronounced, “[t]he peculiar character and habits of the Indian nations, rendered them incapable of sustaining any other relation with the whites than that of dependence and pupillage. There was no other way of dealing with them, than that of keeping them separate, subordinate and dependent, with a guardian care thrown around them for their protection.” The original Indian nations, despite being acknowledged by the discoverers as the proprietors of the soil, had no power of alienation except to the governing power of the discoverers.
It is not difficult to see how Henry Reynolds could assert that native title was recognised by the Crown in the 1840s, through the provision of reserves, the insertion of reservation clauses in pastoral leases to recognise practically the right of occupancy on ‘runs’, and provision in clause 20 of the Waste Lands Act 1842 (Imp.) of 10% of the land fund being devoted to Aboriginal welfare. The right of occupancy asserted by Gipps’s examination of legal commentaries looks like native title as we understand it from Mabo, and the title in the Discoverer looks like radical title.
But there is anachronism in this. As Hannah Robert has shown, the story is more complex and the central problem is how occupancy as a concept played out. Both in the Select Committee Report on New Zealand in 18442 and in the South Australian Letters Patent, the word “actual” qualified the indigenous right to “occupation:”3
Provided Always that nothing in those our Letters Patent contained shall affect or be construed to affect the rights of any Aboriginal Natives of the said Province to the actual occupation or enjoyment in their own Persons or in the Persons of their Descendants of any Lands therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such Natives.
The South Australian Colonization Commissioners followed this up with instructions to the Protector of Aborigines, narrowing “the legal meaning of Aboriginal rights in land” to “cover only lands used for cultivation, fixed residence or ‘funereal purposes.’”4 Land “not actually occupied” by Aboriginal people was beneficially owned by the Crown.
Of course, deciding where nomadic peoples “actually occupied” the land was a nonsense, but it grounded the colonial project in Australia and New Zealand. It is this founding phrase that justified the creation of reserves, the reservation clauses being placed in pastoral leases and the establishment of a fund for Aboriginal welfare from sales of “waste lands”. It was applied in the Australian colonies and in New Zealand, regardless of the existence of treaties (be it Batman or Waitangi).
There was no recognition of common law native title: only a recognition of a right of occupancy fatally qualified in the southern hemisphere colonies by the word ‘actual.’ The effect was of course to force an ‘actual’ occupancy by the policy mechanisms just described, thus wresting Aboriginal people from their spiritual connection to country. This is summed up by proposition 8:
To justify the acquisition of land in Australia, the British combined the common law notion of settlement (from Blackstone), an argument of indigenous rights to land where the indigenous people were in ‘actual occupation’, and a scale of civilisation framework borrowed from both the Lockean idea of property rights being generated from labour mixing with the soil and the Scottish moral philosophers four stages of civilisation arising out of political economy (Hunter- gatherers, Agriculture, Mercantilism and Industrialisation). Despite the Treaty of Waitangi, this idea of actual occupation coupled with the labour theory of property was applied not just by British settlers but by the Crown in New Zealand as well as Australia (where no treaties were made by the Crown).
In Canada and America, the domestic dependent nation status of indigenous peoples produced perhaps no less injustice than in the south. The difference of course has been that where there were treaties a modern clawing-back has taken place to re-establish the honour of the Crown in Canada, America and New Zealand. The lack of treaties in Australia is one more obstacle to such a reestablishment in Australia.
The consequence of the settlement doctrine producing a justification of Crown full ownership of most of the land in Australia in this way is, as Mick Dodson has pointed out, that the “sovereign pillars of the Australian state are arguably, at the very least, a little legally shaky.”5 Neither conquest, cession nor settlement provides a proper legal basis for the establishment of the Crown’s legal relationship to property in land. Even Blackstone himself remarked that the “American plantations” were “obtained in the last century [that is, the 17th century] either by right of conquest and driving out the natives (with what natural justice I shall not at present inquire) or by treaties.”6 Blackstone was not sure of the legality of what occurred, but with an unwarranted delicacy declined to examine the issue of indigenous rights further.
As a result, neither conquest, cession by treaty nor settlement establish an uncontestable legal relationship to property of each State and Territory in the land those jurisdictions encompass.
There has been some excellent work published in the last few years on developing a treaty with Australian indigenous people.7 I have little to add to them suffice to say that there is little obstacle to effecting a treaty from a precedent standpoint, as New Zealand and Canada have shown from the 1980s.8 The latest of this work from Professor Megan Davis has demonstrated how grass roots indigenous people across the country want an indigenous body to advise the Commonwealth
Parliament, and want to work more slowly towards a national treaty.9 Nevertheless, Victoria and South Australia have started consultation towards provincial treaties.10 Proposition 10 is the consequence:
A political compact or settlement which addresses past wrongs, establishes a proper basis for the acquisition of land by the Crown, and settles the compensation which is required to seal that compact between the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth on the one hand and the indigenous peoples of Australia on the other should now be actively debated by Australian society at large, not just by academics and elites. Only then can the Crown in each of its capacities in Australia establish a legal relationship between its claims to sovereignty and rights in the
On this view, Mabo is only a step on the path to the establishment of that legal relationship. Without it, Australia cannot claim to be a post-colonial landscape.
Jonathan is a Partner and the Head of the leading Resources and Energy practice. Jonathan applies his extensive projects, resources, native title and cultural heritage experience to mining, oil and gas transactions, renewable energy, infrastructure developments, joint venture arrangements, and asset and share sales and acquisitions across Australia and internationally. He is skilled in the art of negotiation, mediation and the resolution of disputes in relation to resources and energy projects.
Jonathan is regarded as one of Australia’s leading native title and cultural heritage lawyers and has been recognised by Chambers Asia Pacific every year since 2007 in addition to several other legal publications. Most recently, was included in The Best Lawyers in Australia 2021 for Corporate Law; Mining Law; Native Title Law; Oil & Gas Law.
1Votes and Proceedings of the NSW Legislative Council, no 13, 9 July 1840
2 See Select Committee on the State of the Colony of New Zealand Report (1844) reproduced in “Accounts and Papers [of the] House of Commons”, 1844 (9) vol XIII, Irish University Press series of British Parliamentary Papers, Colonies: New Zealand pp 5ff; see J Fulcher, “The Wik judgment, pastoral leases and Colonial Office Policy and intention in NSW in the 1840s” Australian Journal of Legal History, vol 4, no 1 1998, 33-56 at 41.
3 Letters Patent for South Australia 19 February 1836
4 H. Robert, Paved with Good Intentions: Terra Nullius, Aboriginal Land Rights and Settler-Colonial Law , ACT: Halstead Press 2016 at 50.
5 Quoted in S. Brennan, L. Behrendt, L. Strelein and G. Williams, Treaty, Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press 2005 at 72.
6 Cited in Mabo no 2 at 34-35. Milirrpum v Nabalco at 202
7 Examples include S. Breanna et al, Treaty; M Mansell Treaty and Statehood: Aboriginal Self-Determination, Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press 2016
8 “The case that recognised the Treaty of Waitangi principles was the Lands Case (New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641). The Waitangi Tribunal was set up by the government in 1975 by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Its authority to deal with claims was backdated from 1975 to 1840 in 1985 (Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985 (NZ) s 3). The Tribunal gives recommendations to the Crown, and often these recommendations are not binding (they have capacity to make binding recommendations in relation to Crown Forest Licence, or land subject to a memorial, but it is not often used. Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988 (NZ); Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (NZ), ss 8A-8HJ). The Tribunal cannot conduct negotiations. The Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988 (NZ) amended the Treaty of Waitangi Act and gave power to the Tribunal to recommend that the Crown conduct negotiations to provide redress to the Maori as a result of suffering caused (see sections 5(1)(a) and 6(3) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act). Each of the settlement is incorporated into an Act for each Maori group and includes the Crown Apology.” H Watson, unpublished paper 2018. Canada inserted section 35 into its Constitution in the 1980s, thus embedding indigenous rights into the foundational structure of the nation.
9http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/06/symbolic-constitutional-recognition-table-after-uluru-talks-indigenous-leaders-say ; see also M. Davis, ‘Political Timetables Trump Workable Timetables: Indigenous Constitutional Recognition and the Temptation of Symbolism over Substance” in S Young, J. Nielsen, J. Patrick (ed) Constitutional Recognition of Australia’s First Peoples Theories and Comparative Perspectives, Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press 2016; speech at University of Queensland, 20 April 2018.
10 The Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Bill 2018 https://www.vic.gov.au/aboriginalvictoria/treaty.html; South Australia’s new Government has just halted talks on a treaty The Guardian Australia 30 April 2018 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/30/south-australia-halts-indigenous-treaty-talks-as-premier-says-he-has-other-priorities
What has it been like being an immigration lawyer during Trump’s era?
I could not describe what being an immigration lawyer during this administration is. I have practised immigration law for the past 18 years and I have never seen this. First, the administration has changed the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) mission. Previously, its mission was to render immigration services within a customer service approach. Now, the mission of the USCIS is to enforce immigration law. And we know USCIS has to apply the U.S. immigration law, yet, this organisation became an enforcing agency just like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Therefore, the approach towards the applicants and attorneys is totally different.
Second, the administration issues proclamations, memorandums, new regulations, (etc). so often and so fast that we basically have to wake up every day and check what change had occurred while we were sleeping.
Thirdly, due to the importance and sensitivity of such changes, litigation has ensued. This litigation brings changes as well; some changes are just temporary injunctions and others are more permanent.
Fourth, some litigation brings changes in certain circuits only, which creates chaos because immigration law is federal and one would think that changes should apply uniformly among the states.
Fifth, the delays with USCIS cases and wrongful rejections are staggering; this may be caused by the same enforcing approach that the agency is taking. The cases referred to removal (or deportation) proceedings keep piling and the immigration courts cannot keep up with the weekly amount of cases being filed. These are just a few of the issues we are facing as immigration attorneys.
What impact has his somewhat controversial rulings had on your clients?
The major impact on the changes this administration has proposed has been caused by the public charge (PC) rule that entered into force on 24 February 2020. This rule has motivated many lawsuits that are currently pending. In New York, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction recently ordering that this rule does not apply during the pandemic. So, we immediately notified our clients to file their petitions as soon as possible so they could take advantage of this ruling. Two weeks after, the court of appeals issued another decision stating the rule must continue being applied during the pandemic. Thus, we have to notify our clients, again, that the rule is being applied! We now are waiting for the next ruling, probably from the Supreme Court, and the rulings from other circuits. The uncertainty is definitely a feeling that we immigration attorneys are experiencing, as well as clients.
The PC rule has also caused much turmoil in terms of litigation. The rule itself will be chaos for the USCIS adjudicators and clients, because it requires so much financial information and documents, that a small package can easily reach 500 pages just for the PC rule. How will adjudicators review this? How much time would they have to allocate a review of the PC documents? I personally think this ruling will cause USCIS cases to take about 3-4 years to be adjudicated.
How do you push through and get the best results for your clients, despite when things seem tough?
It is really difficult. First, I try to stay calm and positive and ask my clients to do the same. Second, I try to be super careful with the filings nowadays to avoid minimal mistakes. Third, I explain to my clients that they should expect changes from one day to the other and that I cannot guarantee that the information I am giving them today is going to be the same next week. Most of the clients do not understand this, but it is our job to inform them what is really going on with immigration law and hope that they assimilate the information.
With Trump issuing ‘Muslim Bans’ in the past and other orders which have been somewhat thrown onto lawyers, can you share the lessons you have learnt over the past years, when it comes to dealing with the unanticipated changes in immigration law?
As mentioned, it is chaotic for immigration attorneys nowadays. We have to pick up the phone and write email templates to clients letting them know that the law or regulation has changed and that the course of action we chose must be changed; this does not happen in all cases, but it does happen. This creates more administrative costs for us. In some cases, we have to change the legal agreements to reflect the change in services. We have also had some people who just give up and leave the country or abandon their cases. This means we have to close those contracts and in some instances refund some money to the client. There is a change to the asylum law coming this August on the 25th, that will completely change the asylum petitions in this country. I am not thrilled to handle asylum cases now and I am probably not the only one feeling this way. This means, there will be less seasoned attorneys handling these types of cases.
Coronavirus:
How has the pandemic impacted immigration law?
There have obviously been delays. USCIS offices were closed until 4th June 2020, and many interviews and oath ceremonies were postponed. The immigration courts are not having hearings until 11 September 2020, but every week they extend the opening day. This means thousands of cases are being postponed and many new cases have not had their first hearings, leaving more backlog. On the other side, the pandemic has impacted people’s finances and this means fewer people can afford an attorney now or they have not been able to submit their petitions to USCIS.
Did clients face issues trying to extend their visa when they could not return home?
Yes, we had a couple of clients whose immigrant visas (green cards) were approved at the consular office and could not travel back due to the pandemic. Most of them have been able to return with humanitarian flights, but those flights are very expensive. Other clients could not get approved because the consular offices closed; these are stuck in their countries waiting for the consular office to reopen. There is no specific date for the reopening of the consular offices and it seems that they are opening on different days depending on the country’s conditions to where they are located. I think, therefore, that there will also be a huge backlog for consular interviews once they reopen, because they will have about six months worth of interviews to be rescheduled, alongside the upcoming cases.
Harvard and MIT filed a suit against the new ICE regulations[1] that were put in place last month – what grounds do they have here to fight against them? If they don’t win this suit, what impact will this have on foreign students and American universities?
Currently, the administration has already backed off from this endeavour. The universities and students can have virtual classes as long as they registered by 9th March 2020. The rule will apply to future students. The impact on the universities and students is huge because international students pay very high tuition fees that universities love! This is in addition to many other services the international students use such as housing, food, transportation, etc.
About Ms Arias
Why did you choose immigration law?
I did not choose immigration law… immigration law chose me! I wanted to practise tax law because I had been a legal research assistant at the LLM in International Taxation at St. Thomas University, School of Law, for two years. Yet, when I started looking for a job after graduation, my son was five years old and starting kindergarten. So, when I applied to some taxation law firms, they saw my eyes rolling when they informed me that the schedule was 8:00 AM to 8:30 PM, but that most attorneys left the office at 12 am or 1:00 AM. Of course, my rolling eyes did not help me get those jobs! So, my boss at that Tax LLM gave me advice: he said I had to look for a job in a small law office in something like family law or immigration. I followed his advice and here I am! I appreciated his words because I was able to develop my career as well as be an engaged mother for a now successful son, (my son just graduated from the University of Miami, from the finance school and began law school this fall).
What do you think makes a good immigration lawyer?
Compassion, compassion, compassion. You cannot be a successful immigration attorney if you do not feel compassion and empathy towards your clients that come from many cultures and backgrounds. This is definitely a humanising field that is not fit for every attorney.
What motivates you in your role?
The importance of my job in people’s and their family’s life. If I do my job well, families may be able to stay together, from spouses, children, to grandchildren, etc. I am motivated when I see people who I helped with their legalisation in this country and then with their citizenship, and years later, I see them as successful professionals or entrepreneurs. I also feel proud when I help young clients with their removal proceedings and waivers and they get a second chance in this country; I take the opportunity to guide them and mentor them during the removal proceeding and I feel proud of them when they come back and say they appreciate all the work I put in their case and how my advice helped them be a better person. That’s very rewarding for me!
I use my role as an attorney to help others. Just like during the old times when the attorneys and doctors were top of the society and helped others, but it is not just the money the client pays us which is rewarding. We, attorneys, must have an impact in the life of our clients. I give you another example, I have had clients that come to me for a fiancé visa and they have only met that fiancé during a trip abroad. I asked them if they are certain what they are signing for and the obligation they acquire. Some of them think twice or take more time to get to know their future spouse. I have a couple that came back thanking me for the advice because they got to know that person better and found out that they were not the right person for them. That is also rewarding for me to know that people are making an informed decision before they endeavour in an immigration case.
As global lockdowns lift, consumer behaviour is changing, bringing new challenges to companies. But things won’t return to pre-pandemic normal. Jeff Housenbold, managing partner at SoftBank Vision Fund, shares his thoughts on the key trends for consumer-facing companies as the post-coronavirus world begins to emerge.
in Australia 2021 for Corporate Law; Mining Law; Native Title Law; Oil & Gas Law.
