Legal news
If you have been declared bankrupt, or are looking to recover debt from an individual or company that has been declared bankrupt, you may be wondering what happens to debts following a declaration of bankruptcy.
This article sets out what debts are and are not recoverable from a bankrupt person, including specific debts which survive bankruptcy and remain recoverable by creditors even after the bankruptcy ends.
On 28 August 2024, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) published Draft Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2024/D2 (Draft PCG) on Personal services businesses and Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
Further to our Snippet on Monday, the Federal Court has now lifted the stay on the Contractor Driver Minimum Payments Road Safety Remuneration Order 2016 (Order).
The Full Federal Court dismissed NatRoad’s application for a stay pending the hearing of its substantive application as to whether the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal made legal errors in rejecting industry calls to defer the commencement date of the Order. The substantive application is set down to be heard on 9 and 10 May 2016.
This month we bring you the latest newsletter from the Employment, Industrial Relations & OHS team, Employment Essentials.
Employment Essentials reports on topical issues in HR and brings you the latest updates in employment law. Plus much more.
If you would like further information, want to ask a question or subscribe to receive Employment Essentials via email, contact us at employmentessentials@sladen.com.au.
If you would like further information, want to ask a question or subscribe to receive Employment Essentials via email, contact us at employmentessentials@sladen.com.au
A Melbourne accounting firm is being prosecuted by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for its alleged involvement in the underpayment of two Taiwanese backpackers working for one of its clients, who operated a fast-food outlet.
The accounting firm provided payroll services for its client.
According to the FWO, the workers were paid a flat rate of $16.50 an hour, which was below the minimum hourly rate payable to the workers under the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 (Award). The workers were also not paid a casual loading or penalty rates when they worked on weekends, evenings and on public holidays. In just a little over 6 months, this resulted in an alleged underpayment of $9,549.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has found that a confectionary company directly discriminated against a 63 year-old production worker when it dismissed him because of a disability, and has ordered the company to pay him $20,000 compensation for the shock caused by the dismissal.
The worker had been employed by the company for almost 30 years and had previously suffered chronic “tennis elbow” (which had arisen as a result of his employment but had fully resolved at the time of dismissal). Relying upon a medical report that warned the company the condition could flare up if he maintained his regular duties, the company terminated the employee’s employment effective immediately.
The Workplace Relations Management Plan (WRMP) requirements under the Building Code 2013 (Code) have been amended to include a requirement that principal contractors have a fitness for work policy to manage alcohol and other drugs in the workplace.
Amongst other things, the policy must include:
In the case of Stellard Pty Ltd & Anor v North Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd [2015], the Queensland Supreme Court recently held that negotiations via a chain of emails resulted in a binding contract, despite the email communication stating that the terms of agreement were subject to a signed contract. The judgment serves as a warning to those involved in the negotiation of a contract via email correspondence.
A recent judgment of the New South Wales Supreme Court serves as an important reminder that verbal agreements can be just as enforceable as written agreements. In the case of Yulema Pty Ltd & Anor v Simmons & Anor [2015], the Supreme Court upheld contractual obligations imposed by a verbal agreement in October 2009. As a result, the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff approximately $350,000 plus interest from May 2011. It is significant to note that the Court upheld the agreement notwithstanding that one of the parties involved in the negotiations was unable to give evidence because they had passed away.
The phrase “without prejudice” is commonly overused and misunderstood. When using the phrase, people should be mindful that simply labelling communication “without prejudice” does not automatically guarantee the privilege. Rather, the surrounding circumstances and the content of the communication will be taken into consideration when determining whether the privilege applies.
On 1 May 2015 a unanimous judgement was handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court, stating that in deciding the outcome of a case, the court would no longer receive or act upon any agreement as to penalties previously agreed to between parties.
This followed a recent High Court judgement, which held that the regular practice in Victoria of permitting the prosecution to make submissions on the available sentence range or outcome in criminal cases should cease. The High Court held that such submissions by a prosecutor were inadmissible on the basis that they were a statement of opinion not a submission of law.
In the recent case of Featherstone v D J Hambleton as liquidator of Ashala Pty Ltd (Featherstone Case), the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which a shadow/de facto director may be caught under the insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Act 2001. Section 588G of the Act deals with the liability of directors for insolvent trading by their company, which not only applies to directors, but also to any employee determined to be a ‘director’ of a company when the company incurs the debt.
“If you’re contracting out, and the price seems too good to be true, someone’s probably getting ripped off. And if it turns out to be the workers, and it turns out you half knew that, then you are in danger yourself of having been involved in a contravention”
These comments were made by Natalie James of the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) last month after the workplace regulator settled its long running prosecution with retail giant Coles, in connection with the unprecedented ‘trolley collectors case’. In an environment where outsourcing is prevalent and often complex, the prosecution of Coles has been a sobering reminder to the business community that lawmakers and regulators are sharpening their view on chain of responsibility.
The Australian Government has released a consultation paper which seeks to protect small businesses from the burden of unfair contract terms in standard form contracts.
Unfair contract terms go beyond what is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party seeking to include the terms in the contract (for example a large corporate business). These terms create a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. Similar provisions currently exist to protect consumers in dealing with businesses.
There is no doubt about it, kids are addicted to mobile phones. To add to their fascination, games are becoming more and more addictive by requiring in-app purchases to maximise the experience of the game. Even though an app or game might be free to download, the app may offer the purchase of extra content such as additional lives, virtual supplies like diamonds, food, ammunition, clothing or virtual currency to buy more virtual supplies. And this can be addictive. For $2 I can buy 500 diamonds which will let me buy lots of things from the virtual corner store or for $2 I can buy an extra life and continue to play the game.
The Victorian Government has recently passed legislation that will affect a vendor’s disclosure obligations when selling property in Victoria. The changes relate to the information to be contained in the statement provided to purchasers under section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 before they sign a contract of sale (commonly called a Section 32 Statement, or Vendor’s Statement).
