obiter | ByLawyers News and Updates

Online applications for intervention orders – VIC

By

Online applications for intervention orders are now available for family violence related matters, via the Magistrates’ Court website.

Amendments to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 which commenced on 31 July 2019 allow an applicant to apply online, instead of attending in person at a police station or magistrates  court. Online applications for intervention orders take about 15 minutes to complete. They can be saved, amended and lodged at any time within 4 weeks of being started.

Police can also make the online application on someone’s behalf.

There is no requirement for the application to be sworn or witnessed. Rather, when completing the online application the applicant must make a declaration of truth as to the contents of the application. Making a deliberately false declaration of truth is an offence carrying serious penalties – up to 600 penalty units and 5 years imprisonment. The applicant must also acknowledge their understanding of that offence and those penalties when completing the application.

When deciding whether to make an interim order based on an online application, the Magistrates’ Court can waive the requirement that the application be supported by oral evidence or an affidavit. Before waiving the requirement the court must consider whether it is practicable to obtain oral evidence or an affidavit before the order is made.

The By Lawyers guide Intervention Orders (VIC) has been updated to cover online applications for intervention orders. This publication is located in the By Lawyers Criminal – Magistrates’ Court guide.

Assistance for potential applicants and background information on the new process is available from the Neighbourhood Justice Centre via the Magistrates’ Court website.

E-conveyancing from 1 July 2019 – NSW

By

In a continuation of the transition to E-conveyancing version 5 of the Conveyancing Rules replace version 4 from 1 July 2019.

Version 5 of the rules provide that all mainstream dealings including transfers, mortgages, discharges of mortgage, caveats, withdrawals of caveat and transmission applications, or combinations thereof, must be lodged electronically when signed on or after 1 July 2019, except where a waiver applies.

Waivers

Waivers apply to certain transactions that are not able to be lodged electronically.

The following waivers which operate from 1 July 2019 in conjunction with Conveyancing Rules version 5 have now been published:

If eligible for a waiver, a Conveyancing Rules Exception form will need to be complete at the point of lodgement. This form is available in the sale and purchase matter plans.

An Alert has been added to the by Lawyers Conveyancing Sale and Purchase matter plans regarding the 1 July 2019 mandate.

Keep up to date with By Lawyers

By Lawyers keep you up to date with E-conveyancing. A brief explanation of the transition to E-conveyancing in the By Lawyers Conveyancing Sale and Purchase matter plans can provide further assistance.

Off the plan – sunset clauses – VIC

By

Vendors face new restrictions when seeking to activate sunset clauses to end off the plan contracts in Victoria.

Amendments for off the plan contracts

The Sale of Land Amendment Act 2019 commenced on 4 June 2019. It amends the Sale of Land Act 1962. The amendments require vendors wishing to end residential off the plan contracts pursuant to a sunset clause to either obtain the purchaser’s consent, or an order from the Supreme Court.

New notice requirements created by section 13 of the amending Act for off-the-plan contracts for residential land including a sunset clause, have yet to commence.

The changes do not affect the existing statutory rights of purchasers to end a contract if the plan of subdivision is not approved by the sunset date.

Rescission

Section 10A of the Sale of Land Act 1962 provides that if a sunset clause in a contract allows the vendor to rescind the contract, then rescission must be in accordance with the Act. Section 10C overcomes any inconsistent contractual provision.

Purchaser’s consent

Section 10B of the Sale of Land Act prohibits a vendor from relying on a sunset clause unless the vendor obtains the purchaser’s written consent to any such rescission.

A vendor seeking to obtain the purchaser’s consent must give the purchaser 28 days notice setting out the reason that the vendor proposes to rescind, the reason for the delay in registration of the plan and that the purchaser is not obliged to consent to the proposed rescission.

A precedent ‘Notice of rescission of off the plan contract’ in accordance with s 10B(3) can be found on the By Lawyers matter plan.

Court order

Section 10D of the Sale of Land Act provides that the vendor may apply to the Supreme Court for an order permitting the vendor to rescind a contract pursuant to a sunset clause. The Court must consider a wide variety of matters relating to the contract and the property, including increase in value. If an order is made it may include compensation to the purchaser and the vendor will be liable for the purchaser’s costs.

Notice

Section 10F, created by section 13 of the Amendment Act, has yet to commence. This new section will require residential off-the-plan contracts that include a sunset clause to include a notice informing the purchaser that:

  • the vendor may give a notice proposing to rescind the contract;
  • the purchaser may consent to rescission, but is not obliged to consent;
  • the vendor may apply to the court for an order permitting rescission;
  • the court may make such an order.

A precedent notice in compliance with s 10F will be included in General Condition 9 of the By Lawyers contract on commencement of s 10F.

By Lawyers contract

The general conditions and particulars of sale in the By Lawyers Contract satisfy all of the statutory requirements when selling prior to registration, relying on the default sunset period of 18 months.

Subpoenas – Legitimate forensic purpose – VIC

By

Subpoenas and the considerations for setting them aside were considered recently in Walters v Perton [2019] VSC 356.

The court in its probate jurisdiction, was considering an application to set aside two subpoenas under r 42.04 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, which provides that a court may set aside all or part of a subpoena which is an abuse of process. The applicant submitted that there was no legitimate forensic purpose for the subpoenas.

At [30] the court succinctly stated the principles which govern an application to set aside subpoenas in civil cases, with reference to the leading authorities on legitimate forensic purpose. This is a useful statement of the principles and summary of the cases. At [30] the court noted:

(a) the subpoena process under Order 42 should not be used as a substitute for discovery or non-party discovery;

(b) it is necessary for the party at whose request the subpoena was issued to identify expressly and precisely the legitimate forensic purpose for which access to the documents is sought;

(c) except in cases where the subpoena is plainly too broad and merits the description of a fishing expedition, the judge should normally inspect the documents for the purpose of making a final decision as to whether a legitimate forensic purpose exists;

(d) however, the Court will not require production of subpoenaed documents, and will not permit access to subpoenaed documents, if the subpoena is expressed so broadly that the applicant cannot demonstrate, having identified a forensic purpose, that it is ‘on the cards’ or that there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that the documents will materially assist the case of the party.

(e) the subpoena must sufficiently describe the documents to be produced so as to not require the recipient to make a judgment about the documents being sought and must not be oppressive or fishing (a ‘fishing expedition’ is not a legitimate forensic purpose and will not be permitted);

(f) The relevance of a document to the proceeding alone will not substantiate an assertion of legitimate forensic purpose. There is no legitimate forensic purpose if the party is seeking to obtain documents to see whether they may be of relevance or of assistance in his or her case. The test of relevance, however, may be a general one, particularly where the Court has only a general idea of the nature of the evidence which may be led as relevant to an issue or as to credit of an expected witness;

(g) A mere assertion of bad faith by an applicant or that something might be found demonstrating bad faith is not enough – the criteria set out in paragraph (c) must be satisfied; and

(h) Where a party fails to demonstrate a legitimate forensic purpose, the Court should refuse access to the documents and set aside the subpoena.

The court also commented on legitimate forensic purpose in probate proceedings specifically. The court noted that legitimate forensic purpose in probate proceedings may be informed by the court’s inquisitorial role which requires a greater supervision and control of proceedings than adversarial common law proceedings.

This case has been added to the By Lawyers Reference Guide 101 Subpoena Answers.

Family Provision – Widows claims – NSW

By

New commentary, including an entry specific to Widows claims, has been added to the Family Provision section of the By Lawyers Reference Guide 101 Succession Answers.

Case note

These enhancements reflect the recent Court of Appeal decision in Steinmetz v Shannon 2019 NSWCA 114. In that case, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of a single judge where the court had refused to make further provision for the widow of a testator. The deceased left the bulk of his $6,650,000 estate to the adult children of his first marriage. The will gave the widow only an annuity of $52,000. The couple had been together for 28 years.

The Court of Appeal found that leaving a 65-year-old widow, who is capable of managing her own affairs, reliant for the rest of her life on quarterly payments by the children of her deceased husband’s first marriage, with one of whom there had been historical tensions, rather than placing her in control of her own resources, was not an appropriate form of provision. Instead, the Court of Appeal ordered that the widow receive a legacy of $1,750,000, in addition to the annuity.

The judgment includes a detailed analysis of the leading cases on widows claims. Additionally, it considers how the court should balance the competing imperatives of the deceased’s testamentary freedom and the legislative requirements for provision to be made for eligible persons. In considering the applicant’s need for maintenance, education and advancement, the Court of Appeal also acknowledged the relevance of the non-financial needs of the applicant, such as her desire to relocate to a bigger town for better access to medical care.

Publication update

The new section in 101 Succession Answers discusses this Court of Appeal decision and widows claims generally. There have also been related and incidental enhancements made to other sections of the publication. The interactive alphabetical contents list has been updated accordingly to maintain the easy access to content which is the hallmark of all By Lawyers reference guides.

Reference materials

101 Succession Answers covers Powers of Attorney, Appointments of Enduring Guardian, Wills, Estates and Family Provision. This valuable By Lawyers reference guide is located in the Reference Materials folder on the matter plan in each of those publications.

Domestic Violence Evidence In Chief – NSW

By

A recorded video or audio statement of a domestic violence complainant, known as Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief, or DVEC, is admissible as evidence in chief in criminal proceedings for domestic violence offences and in concurrent or related proceedings for applications for apprehended domestic violence orders under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. This is pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 6, Part 4B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

In the recent Supreme Court case of Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Banks [2019] NSWSC 363  the court determined that a DVEC may be admitted to evidence even where the complainant is not present at the hearing of the matter – although whether or not it actually will be admitted depends on the provisions of the Evidence Act, as for any other piece of evidence.

The  considerations under the Evidence Act of the complainant’s reliability and the prejudice to the defendant of not being able to cross-examine the complainant still have to be overcome. A defendant’s solicitor should still be prepared to argue strongly against the DVEC being admitted in those circumstances.

The commentaries in the By Lawyers Criminal and Apprehended Violence Orders publications have been amended accordingly.

Complex transactions – Conveyancing – VIC

By

Land Use Victoria has mandated that complex transactions for land transfers, currently managed via paper settlement, must be lodged and managed online from 1 August 2019. To meet this requirement, enhancements are being made to Duties Online. These enhancements are scheduled to take effect from 17 June 2019.

This new mandatory requirement applies to solicitors and licensed conveyancers acting for a party or for themselves, as well as PEXA subscribers. Examples include a case comprising withdrawal of a caveat, discharge of a mortgage and transfer and mortgage.

This move to require complex transactions to be managed exclusively via electronic conveyancing means:

  • The Digital Duties Form is mandatory for all transactions.
  • Duties Online (DOL) transaction types listed on the SRO website must be processed electronically using an electronic lodgement network operator.

As a result of this requirement, almost 100 per cent of transactions will now be managed online.

For further information, see the SRO Duties Online page.

See the By Lawyers Conveyancing & Property (VIC) publications for further information about electronic conveyancing and duties requirements.

Electronic Duties – Conveyancing NSW

By

Electronic Duties Return (EDR) is a service that allows an approved person to electronically assess and endorse a range of duties transactions in NSW.

Revenue NSW has released a new Electronic Duties Return, effective from 15 April 2019. This release has introduced four new transaction types:

A new digital service called eDuties to replace paper lodgements with Revenue NSW is now available in a beta version.

The OSR Ref ID has changed its name to the Duties Assessment Number (DAN).

For further information, see the NSW Revenue EDR Update newsletter.

The By Lawyers conveyancing publications deal with online duties.

Retaining children overseas – Family Law – FED

By

Retaining children overseas is now an offence under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Existing offences

Subdivision E of Division 6 of Part VII of the Act provides for the ‘Obligations under parenting orders relating to taking or sending children from Australia’. Sections 65Y and 65Z already provide that it is an offence to take or send a child overseas if there is a parenting order in force, or sought in a live application, unless there is written and authenticated consent of each person in whose favour the order was made or sought, or it was done in accordance with a court order. The penalty for contravention is imprisonment for three years.

As part of the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 subdivision E has been amended, with new sections added that deal with retention of children overseas. These amendments have effect from 26 April 2019. Sections 65Y and 65Z have been renamed and re-organised in the Act, but essentially remain the same. The only addition is an exception described below.

New offences

Under the amendments, any person retaining children overseas now commits an offence pursuant to the new sections 65YA and 65ZAA, unless they are doing so in accordance with authenticated consent in writing, or a court order. This applies whether or not the person originally took or sent the child outside Australia. The penalty for contravention is imprisonment for three years.

Statutory exception

There is one legislative exception to the offences created under subsections 65Y(1), 65Z(1), 65YA(1) and 65ZAA(1). The subsections do not apply if the person who takes, sends, or retains the child outside Australia believes the conduct is necessary to prevent family violence and the conduct is reasonable in the circumstances as the person perceives them. This applies regardless of whether or not the person who takes, sends, or retains the child is or was the party to the proceedings.

Commentary updated

The Children commentary in the By Lawyers Family Law guide has been updated accordingly.

 

Judicial registrars in the Magistrates’ Court – VIC

By

Some recent legislative amendments have expanded the categories of criminal offences which can be dealt with by judicial registrars in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.

The offence of Improper Use of a Motor Vehicle has now been added to the list of offences which can be dealt with by a judicial registrar rather than a magistrate.

All traffic offences commence in the Magistrates Court and most traffic offences remain there, as only a relatively few traffic offences such as culpable driving and dangerous driving causing death are serious enough to be dealt with on indictment.

Some criminal offences, including some traffic offences can be dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court by a judicial registrar – see Rule 6(ea) of the Magistrates’ Court (Judicial Registrars) Rules 2015 for a full list of these. This now includes Improper Use of a Motor Vehicle. One of the ways in which that offence can be committed is to drive a motor vehicle in a manner which causes the motor vehicle to undergo loss of traction by one or more of the motor vehicle’s wheels. The maximum penalty for the offence is 5 penalty units.

The Full Commentary in the By Lawyers Victorian Magistrates’ Court – Criminal publication has been updated accordingly.

The commentary also includes, in the Overview, an explanation of the nature and value of ‘penalty units’.

Connect with us