ByLawyers News and Updates

Excluded beneficiary – NSW

by

A recent Supreme Court case regarding an excluded beneficiary will be of interest to wills and estates practitioners. The court considered the effect of statements under s 100 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

Nikolaos Tsiokanis died in 2019, aged 86. His will appointed two of his children as the executors of his estate. He made only $100  provision for his other daughter. The deceased made a lengthy statement in the will as to his reasons for effectively excluding his daughter.

The daughter brought a family provision claim. The estate was not a large one.

The court held that the relationship the deceased had with the executors was a stable one and they played an important role in caring for the deceased. The court said the deceased was entitled to, and did, take the plaintiff’s behaviour into account and was satisfied that it justified the reduction of the plaintiff’s share in the estate to nominal provision.

The court also held that the deceased was entitled, when considering any claim by an excluded beneficiary, to consider the nature and value of his estate and to consider, and give priority to, the competing claim of each of the executors with whom he had a close, loving, and supportive relationship.

The court noted that statements made by the deceased are admissible pursuant to s 100(2) of the Succession Act, however the court is not required to accept, unquestioningly, the truth, or accuracy, of the statements. This is particularly so if the content is denied by the applicant, or where there is other evidence that casts doubt upon their accuracy. The court needs to consider that the deceased may have made untrue, or inaccurate, statements, either deliberately, or unintentionally, or it may be that their view is misconceived.

Where evidence of a statement of a deceased is admitted under s 100(9), for the purpose of destroying, or supporting, the credibility of the deceased, s 100(10) permits evidence to be given for the purpose of showing that the deceased’s statement is inconsistent with another statement made, at any time, by the deceased.

Georgopoulos v Tsiokanis & Anor [2022] NSWSC 563 (11 May 2022) will be added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers publication.

Domestic and family violence – QLD

by

Some temporary procedural arrangements for initiating and hearing domestic and family violence applications in the Magistrates Court of Queensland have become permanent from 30 April 2022.

These arrangements were originally put in place as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the resulting efficiencies have seen the parliament entrench arrangements that allow parties and practitioners to interact with the court remotely.

Amendments under the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2021 impact various Acts and procedures. Those relating to domestic and family violence matters include:

Audio visual link

A new section 142A of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 provides that the Magistrates Court may conduct all or part of the proceeding by the use of audio visual links, or audio links. This includes:

  • appearances;
  • giving evidence;
  • making submissions;
  • taking an oath or affirmation.

Electronic filing

A private application for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO), or an application to vary a TPO, can be filed electronically in any Queensland Magistrates Court if the court is closed on a normal business day, or if the applicant is required to isolate under a public health order.

Listing before verification

In circumstances of urgency, where a private applicant is unable to verify their application for a Temporary Protection Order before a Justice of the Peace or solicitor, they can obtain a hearing date, and then serve the application on the respondent, without verification. The application can be subsequently verified in front of the magistrate who hears the matter.

The commentary in the By Lawyers Domestic Violence guide has been updated accordingly. An alert has been added to draw practitioners’ attention to the likelihood that proceedings will involve audio visual appearances and evidence.

Removal of an executor – VIC

by

New precedents for the removal of an executor have been added to the Probate and Letters of Administration matter plans.

In Victoria, an application can be made to the Supreme Court for the removal of an executor under s 34(1)(c) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

The court can remove the executor if, following an examination of the facts including a significant weighting to the testator’s intention to appoint the executor, the court is satisfied there is:

  • undue delay in the administration of the estate; or
  • a conflict of interest; or
  • an unworkable relationship between co-executors;

that would lead to significant mischief or harm to the beneficiaries’ interests.

In Connock v Connock (in His Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Connock) [2021] VSC 64 the plaintiff was the widow of the deceased. Both had previously been married and had children from these marriages. The plaintiff’s interest in the estate was limited to the assets of the deceased’s superannuation fund and proceeds from various bank accounts. The deceased’s will made no provision for the widow to take an interest in the residue of the estate.

The executor, the deceased’s child of the first marriage, commenced estoppel proceedings seeking a declaration that the plaintiff held the estate assets for her benefit and maintenance during her lifetime, but, on her death, for the benefit equally of the deceased’s children – one of whom was the executor.

The plaintiff claimed and the court accepted that the executor had a conflict of interest between the executor’s duties and his personal interest in the outcome of the estoppel proceeding, but that this conflict did not warrant the removal of the executor. The court held that, although the executor is in a position of conflict, in the circumstances the welfare of the beneficiaries of the estate did not warrant his removal.

The new form content precedents added to the Probate and Letters of Administration publications are:

  • Originating motion to remove and replace executor;
  • Originating motion to remove and replace trustee;
  • Originating motion to remove and replace executor and trustee.

Amendment of the PIC rules – NSW

by

Recent amendment of the PIC rules impacts procedure for motor accident claims and workers compensation claims in the Personal Injury Commission.

The Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 govern proceedings in both of the Commission’s divisions. The rules have received their first review since the PIC commenced operations. The review has resulted in a number of relatively minor tweaks and additions, and one substantial change.

The minor amendments include:

  • provision for consistency across the divisions as to the material that is lodged in applications;
  • provision for compliance with notices for production across divisions;
  • procedure for lodgment and admission of surveillance recordings;
  • provision for SIRA to intervene in Merit Review Panel proceedings;
  • clarification that an application to refer a medical dispute for assessment can be may be made at any time.

Amendment to time limits for appeals

The substantial amendment relates to time limits. An anomaly in the legislation that established the PIC meant that there has until now been no discretion for the Commission to extend the time for an application or appeal beyond the 28-day period provided in the Act. The legislation has now amended to alleviate that situation, and a new Rule 133A is included in this amendment of the PIC rules to enable the time for applications and appeals to be extended where necessary.

The criteria for extension of time under the new rule is that, for the applicant to lose the right to lodge would result in demonstrable and substantial injustice.

The commentaries in By Lawyers Motor Accident Claims – from 1 December 2017 and Workers Compensation publications have been amended accordingly.

Work health and safety – WA

by

Work, health and safety laws in WA have changed. The Occupational Health and Safety Act 1984 (WA) has been repealed from 31 March, 2022.

The repealed Act has been replaced with the Work Health and Safety Act 2020. The provisions of the old Act have been consolidated and recast in the new Act, which is substantially based on the national model Work Health and Safety Bill.

The national model Bill was developed under the Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety to underpin a harmonised WHS framework in Australia.

This means WA has now harmonised its legislation with the majority of other Australian jurisdictions.

The key elements of the new Act include:

  • a primary duty of care requiring persons conducting a business or undertaking to ensure the health and safety of workers and others who may be affected by their activities;
  • duties of care for persons who influence the way work is carried out, as well as the integrity of products used for work and persons who conduct training in workplaces;
  • a requirement that officers exercise due diligence to ensure compliance;
  • a framework to establish a general scheme for authorisations such as licences, permits and registrations;
  • protection against discrimination for those who exercise or perform or seek to exercise or perform powers, functions or rights under the Act;
  • continuation of Western Australia’s peak consultative bodies, re-established as the Work Health and Safety Commission (WHSC) and the Mining and Petroleum Advisory Committee (MAPAC).

The commentary in the By Lawyers Employment Law publication has been updated accordingly.

Family provision cases – VIC

by

Changes have been made to the way family provision cases are managed in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The latest version of Practice Note SC CL 7 (Second revision) provides guidance on how proceedings in the Testators Family Maintenance List are managed by the court.

Family provision claims made under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 are commenced in the Testator’s Family Maintenance List, in accordance with Order 16 of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 2018.

The main procedural changes for management of family provision cases from the previous version of the practice note are:

  • an increase in the threshold above which a provision statement, rather than an affidavit, is required to be filed – this will now apply to estates with a valuation of less than $1,00,000 rather than $750,000;
  • introduction of a requirement for the parties to attend at the first directions hearing unless they are otherwise advised by the court;
  • in some circumstances, where position statements or affidavits result in the judge hearing oral evidence, the costs of preparing and responding to position statements and affidavits may be ordered separately to the costs of the overall proceedings;
  • an increase in the threshold below which the court may refer the proceeding to mediation before a judge or a Specified Court Officer, from estates under $750,000 to estates under $1,000,000;
  • communication about proceedings in the list can now be made to the Testator’s Family Maintenance Coordinator via email: tfm@supcourt.vic.gov.au.

Links in the commentary in the By Lawyers Family Provision Claims (VIC) publication have been updated to the new version of the practice note.

Franchise disclosure – FED

by

New franchise disclosure requirements apply from 1 April 2022.

A free online franchise disclosure register has been established. The new Part 5A to the Franchising Code of Conduct requires franchisors to upload key franchise systems data. This is intended to allow prospective franchisees to make more informed decisions.

Franchisors have until 14 November 2022 to supply the information. The particulars the franchisor is required to disclose include:

The obligation for franchise disclosure is ongoing. Franchisors must annually publish updated disclosure documents within four months of the end of their financial year.

Franchise disclosure data must be uploaded for at least 14 days before a franchisor can enter into a franchise agreement. Fines of up to 600 penalty units apply for non-compliance.

The By Lawyers commentary on Franchises has been updated. This useful resource can found in the Reference materials folder on the matter plans for both the Sale and Purchase of Business. This includes updated links to the new regulation clauses.

Strata schemes – NSW

by

Amendments to the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 have commenced. They make permanent the previous COVID-related changes which permit procedural and service requirements to be met electronically.

Section 263 as amended allows owners corporations and strata managers to serve documents on owners and occupiers in strata schemes via electronic transmission.

The seal of an owners corporation can be kept and affixed electronically. The regulations can prescribe the requirements for storing the seal in electronic form, affixing the seal, and record keeping.

Owners corporations and strata committees are able to meet and vote in ways other than by physical attendance. The amendments enable the regulations to govern how voting is conducted, voting procedures and reasonable steps taken to allow participation and voting at meetings.

The amending Act provides for these arrangements to be reviewed after 18 months to assess whether the amendments assist strata schemes to operate effectively and efficiently.

The By Lawyers 1001 Conveyancing Answers publication been amended to reflect these changes, with updated links to the new legislative sections.

Visa subclasses – FED

by

There have been changes to a number of visa subclasses. These changes create new conditions and affect the expiration dates and cancellation grounds across various visa subclasses.

The Migration Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2022 introduce the following three migration law changes.

  1. Visa holders in the 482 temporary skill shortage visa subclass can apply for a further 482 visa without leaving Australia. Applicants must have been in Australia between 1 February 2020 and 14 December 2021, when international borders were shut. This only applies to 482 visas in the short-term stream. Applicants will be able to make a further 482 visa application onshore from 1 July 2022 to 1 July 2023.
  2. Holders of skilled graduate visa subclass 476 who were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic have now had their visas extended to 14 April 2024. The extension commenced retrospectively on 31 January 2022, and includes secondary visa holders.
  3. Tourists who hold an Electronic Travel Authority eligible passport can now apply for a tourist visa subclass 601 through the new Australian ETA digital app, in addition to the existing Electronic Travel Authority website.

The Migration Amendment (Protecting Australia’s Critical Technology) Regulations 2022 introduces concepts of public interest criterion in granting and cancelling visas. These changes impact student visa subclass 500, and a postgraduate research course will satisfy the public interest criterion. However, the Minister may cancel any visa class where there is an unreasonable risk of any unwanted transfer of critical technology by a visa holder.

The By Lawyers Immigration commentary for both LEAP and website subscribers has been updated with these amendments. The commentary summarises the new conditions and dates for each affected visa subclass neatly within existing coverage of those visa subclasses.

Retail leases – NSW

by

Certain COVID-19 related arrangements for retail leases have been made permanent.

The COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Act 2022 No 5 preserves temporary protections for certain lessees impacted by COVID-19. This is achieved by inserting a savings provision, s 88(1A), into the Retail Leases Act 1994. This has the effect of retaining the relevant provisions of the Retail and Other Commercial Leases (COVID-19) Regulation 2022 even though it is to be otherwise automatically repealed on 14 July 2022.

The COVID-19 protections in question include:

  • Landlords cannot act against an impacted lessee failing to pay rent, failing to pay outgoings, or not being open for business during the hours required under the lease;
  • Rents cannot be increased, except for parts of rents that are calculated based on turnover;
  • Any breaches of a lease which are caused by the tenants’ compliance with Commonwealth or State COVID-19 laws are excused;
  • An obligation on both parties to retail leases to renegotiate in good faith the rent payable under the lease, based on the economic impacts of COVID-19.

The protections reflect those of the National Code of Conduct’s leasing principles. Impacted lessees are generally those who have received government assistance during COVID-19.

The amending Act also creates a new s 89, generally empowering creation of savings or transitional regulations on leases in response to COVID-19.

The commentary in the By Lawyers Leases guide and the relevant section of the 1001 Conveyancing Answers (NSW) publication has been amended to reflect these arrangements, including links to these new sections.

Connect with us