• Headnote
  • Posts
  • Bell CJ on the great challenge of generative AI

Bell CJ on the great challenge of generative AI

Bell CJ discusses change at the bar and the great challenge of gen AI, Victorian Bar issues guidance on the ethical use of generative AI, statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy likely to be tested in proceedings filed by Sam and Brittany Groth in the FCA.

September 01, 2025

Daily wrap  

Like our newsletter?

Chances are, someone you know will too.

  • CHANGE AT THE BAR AND THE GREAT CHALLENGE OF GEN AI - Chief Justice Andrew Bell
     

  • Guidance on the Ethical Use of Generative AI - Victorian Bar
     

  • The Elephant in the Courtroom - Episode 7 - Malcolm Turnbull AC - Apple Podcasts

    In this episode the Elephants meet former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull AC. It’s a feast for the mind as they talk threats to the Rule of Law in a world of lies and shifting narratives, taking on the British Government in the Spycatcher case and how he used his legal training to tackle the big issues as Kerry Packer’s lawyer and as PM. It’s a ripper so strap in!
     

  • High Court case summaries - September hearings 
     

  • The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility and the Presumption of Doli Incapax - 29 August 2025

    The Council of the Law Society of NSW reaffirms its support for raising the age of criminal responsibility in NSW to 14 years old in accordance with international children’s rights recommendations…
     

  • Slater and Gordon chair breaks silence on email crisis [AFR paywall]

    James MacKenzie says he is proud of the way the firm handled the crisis, but concedes it could have responded sooner.
     

  • Bar News Winter Edition 2025 - NSW Bar Association
     

  • Alan Missen Oration 2025 ‘How an Australian Human Rights Act would improve our lives’ - Hugh de Kretser President of the Australian Human Rights Commission - YouTube
     

  • Reputation, Confusion and Discretion in Australian Trade Mark Law: Taylor v Killer Queen LLC | Sydney Law Review

    In Taylor v Killer Queen LLC, the High Court of Australia will have the opportunity to address three complex and unresolved issues under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The first issue relates to one of the key grounds for cancellation of a trade mark registration, namely that another mark had acquired a reputation at the registered mark’s priority date and that the use of the later mark at that time would have caused confusion. The appeal will require consideration of how to determine when a trade mark has acquired a reputation and when the use of a similar mark, but in a different commercial field, will cause confusion. The second issue relates to a separate cancellation ground that applies where the use of the registered mark has come to cause confusion post-registration, and will require the High Court to clarify the nature of the use that needs to be considered. The third issue goes to the interpretation of a provision that gives the court discretion not to order the cancellation of a registration, even if one of the aforementioned grounds of cancellation has been made out. We explore each of these issues, highlighting the main areas of uncertainty on which it would be useful to receive guidance from the High Court. We pay particular attention to the third issue, arguing that the provision in question should be interpreted so that it does not in fact give a court any discretion to refuse cancellation where the application for cancellation is based on the first cancellation ground at issue in this case.
     

  • Kronenberg v Macaulay [2025] NSWCA 195 (28 August 2025)

    [20] This approach departed from “the general principle that a trial judge should determine all issues in order to assist the appeal process and obviate the need for a retrial”, as Bell CJ, Mitchelmore JA and I said in Transport for NSW v Hunt Leather Pty Ltd (2024) 115 NSWLR 489; [2024] NSWCA 227 at [99]. There are occasions where it is unnecessary to take that course, as noted by Ward ACJ, Kirk JA and me in Shinetec (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Gosford Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 174 at [129]- [131]. But the general position remains as Giles JA said in Wolfenden v International Theme Park Pty Ltd (trading as Wonderland) [2008] NSWCA 78 at [6]:

    It is appropriate to remind that it is in the interests of the parties, in avoiding expense and delay in establishing their rights and obligations, and in the interests of the administration of justice, in efficient use of the public resource of court time and judicial decision-making, that trial judges should generally make all appropriate findings material to liability and proceed to assessment of damages, even if finding against the plaintiff on a limited basis. That is not, of course, something which should invariably be done. It must depend on the circumstances, but having well in mind the description of a new trial as “an evil and a deplorable result, to be avoided wherever possible”: per Kirby P in Palmer v Clarke (1989) 19 NSWLR 158 at 164 and cases cited.
     

  • Today’s FCA livestream before Justice Horan - VID448/2024 - WARBURTON ENVIRONMENT INC v SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE ACTION - available here from 10:15am AEST.
     

International

We’d love your help shaping Headnote.
 
Got feedback or ideas? Want to work with us?
 
Hit reply!

© 2025 Headnote.

Privacy policy

Terms of use

Powered by beehiiv