Our legal experts will keep you up to date on all relevant and current developments.
Amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act) give the Fair Work Commission jurisdiction over complaints of bullying in workplaces covered by the Fair Work Act. Previously, bullying could only be raised as an example of conduct that may breach adverse action provisions of the Fair Work Act or unfair dismissal laws. The amendments commence on 1 January 2014, six months later than originally proposed. Click here to read more.
When the word franchising is mentioned, most readers of the Health Law Bulletin think of fast food chains, home maintenance and retailing. What does it have to do with health, aged care and community services?
Quite a lot it turns out from talking to Corinne Attard, who has recently joined Holman Webb in our Sydney office as a commercial partner specialising in franchising. Click here to read more.
NEWS - Holman Webb appointed to the Commonwealth preapproved Law Firms List
Making further external recognition of Holman Webb’s legal expertise, we are pleased to advise of our recent inclusion in the Commonwealth Government’s Legal Services Multi-User List. All Commonwealth Government departments and agencies (other than Commonwealth companies and government business enterprises) are required to use the law firms included on this list for their external legal services from 1 July 2013.
Summary of article by UK legal academic Gerald Swaby entitled “Blurring distinctions: Should innocent insureds be tarred with the same brush as their fraudulent agents? (Insurance Law Journal April 2013 Vol 24 No. 1).
A husband and wife go through an acrimonious separation. One spouse acts violently against the other by burning the house down. Should the victim forfeit his/her insurance claim?
Mandatory notification has been in place for three years now, and, if we look beyond the encouraging rhetoric about improving patient safety, the scheme has kicked up some surprises, including last year's 40 per cent surge nationally in the number of reports made, which, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) has, so far, been unable to explain.
While the increase might encourage belief in the scheme fulfilling its goals of ensuring patient safety, we should aslo bear in mind that the rise also increases the chances that health practitioners, who take the serious step of making a report, may face legal action when they do so. If we drill down into the 40 per cent increase, we find that the most significant contribution comes from Queensland where the number of reports has almost tripled, rising from 85 to 220.The increase is even more troubling because health practitioners making mandatory reports about colleagues are not absolutely protected from defamation. Put simply, doctors reporting colleagues, and members of the public reporting health practitioners, can be sued for defamation.
The Scheme does not provide income replacement benefits, such as a disability pension or weekly compensation entitlement, but may fund supports, such as:
Does a plaintiff’s grandmother owe her grandchild a duty of care?
In the case of Hoffman v Boland (2013) NSWCA 158, the NSW Court of Appeal was split as to whether a duty of care arose in the circumstances of a domestic situation involving permanent injury to an infant - but the Court agreed after a lengthy opinion that there had been no breach and overturned the primary Judge's decision.
Just one month from the publication of the report of Mr Alan Wein with respect to his review of the Franchising Code of Conduct, the Government’s consultation paper was released to industry for comment on June 17.
The original report contained 18 recommendations for government with respect to proposed changes to regulation of the franchising industry.
The Government is now seeking industry response with respect to each of the recommendations and whether to implement these recommendations or to select another option, including leaving the Code unchanged.
In our previous article ‘Proposed New Developments in Electronic Contracts: Web Page Advertisements and E-mails’ we dealt with a number of updates to Australia’s electronic transaction regime including default rules to determine the time that the law will deem an email to be sent and received.
In addition to these changes, a safeguard providing a right to withdraw an email or online communication (where an input error occurs in a portion of an electronic communication) has been implemented, the recognition as to when an electronic signature will be legally effective has been broadened and the relationship concerning intermediaries such as web hosts has been clarified, along with default rules that have been formally passed into law to determine the place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications.
Late, in 2012, the Supreme Court had to consider how to deal with a company whose shareholders were in dispute. One of the shareholders had sought orders requiring the resignation of certain directors of the company, made assertions regarding oppression and demanded that a receiver be appointed to the assets of the company.
The company owned land in Holroyd and the two groups of shareholders held equal rights in respect of the company. One of the shareholders had offered to leave on the basis that the others acquired the shares, but those negotiations also broke down. It was apparent to the Court that the company was dysfunctional and in a state of deadlock.