ByLawyers News and Updates

Claim farming – NSW

by

Claim farming is the practice of giving or receiving consideration for a claim referral or potential claim referral or soliciting or inducing a claimant to make a claim for personal injury. This practice is now banned under the Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Act 2025 (the Act) which came into effect on 9 April 2025.

When the Act applies

The Act applies to all personal injury claims as defined in s 11 of the Civil Liability Act 2002, including intentional torts. Some personal injury claims are not covered, including dust diseases claims, claims relating to tobacco use, workers compensation, and motor vehicle accident claims.

Criminal consequences

The Act makes breaches of its provisions a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of $55,000.

Section 5 makes it an offence to contact a person:

  • to solicit them to make a claim for personal injury damages; or
  • to refer them to a third party to provide services in relation to a claim; or
  • using a third party to contact a person for the above purposes,

if the person making the contact receives a fee or other benefit, or agrees or expects to receive a fee or other benefit, or asks that someone else receive a fee or other benefit because of the contact.

Section 6 makes it an offence to:

  • provide or receive a fee or other benefit for the referral of a claim in civil proceedings; or
  • enter into agreements or arrangements relating to referrals of claims for a fee or other benefit.

Professional consequences

Conduct contrary to the Act by a lawyer can also amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct irrespective of whether the lawyer has been convicted of an offence under the Act. Section 165B of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014, which sets out the conduct capable of amounting to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, was amended to include contraventions of the Act.

Costs consequences

The Act further inserts s 61A to the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 which provides that if a lawyer breaches the Act and is convicted, legal costs cannot be charged or recovered for the claim and any costs that have been paid must immediately be refunded. The costs can be recovered as a debt by the client.

Exceptions

Some exceptions apply to the application of the Act. It is not an offence if a lawyer acting for a claimant refers the matter to another person providing a service for the claim, or the claim is transferred because the law practice is sold.

There is also an exception for advertising, marketing, or promoting a legal practice: s 7.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Personal Injury (NSW) guides have been updated accordingly.

County Court – VIC

by

Common Law Division Practice Note PNCLD 1-2025 takes effect in the County Court from 25 March 2025 and replaces 21 existing practice notes.

The new practice note, which stretches to 159 pages and includes a dictionary setting out key definitions, covers all the practices and case management expectations for all proceedings in the Common Law Division, including for the various specialist lists, and Appeals.

The new Common Law Division practice note supersedes the following practice notes:

  • PNCLD 1-2023 Common Law Division practice note
  • PNCLD 2-2023 Serious injury applications practice note
  • PNCLD 3-2022 WorkCover List practice note
  • PNCLD 4-2023 Family Property List practice note
  • PNCLD 5-2023 Medical List practice note
  • PNCLD 6-2023 Confiscation List practice note
  • PNCLD 7-2023 Defamation List practice note
  • PNCLD 8-2023 Adoptions, Surrogacy and Name Change List practice note
  • PNCLD 12-2023 Applications for approval of compromise practice note
  • PNCLD 13-2022 Applications by a solicitor for costs in work injury damages claims practice note
  • PNCLD 14-2023 Applications to file a notice of ceasing to act practice note
  • PNCLD 15-2023 Applications to take evidence by deposition practice note
  • PNCLD 16-2023 Information Technology (IT) practice note
  • PNCLD 17-2023 Judicial mediation practice note
  • PNCLD 18-2023 Subpoenas practice note
  • PNCLD 19-2023 Institutional Liability List practice note
  • PNCLD SP-2-2022 Suppression, pseudonym (and like) order applications practice note
  • PNCLD SA 2-2022 Applications for compensation under s85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 practice note
  • PNCLD SO 2-2022 Applications for supervision orders under the Serious Offenders Act 2018 practice note
  • PNCLD FV 2-2024 Family Violence and Personal Safety Intervention Order appeals practice note
  • PNCI 9-2021 eCase: electronic subpoenas practice note.

The specialist lists dealt with by the practice note are:

  • The Civil Claims lists: Serious Injury List; WorkCover List; Medical List; Institutional Liability List; Defamation List; Family Property List; and the General List.
  • Adoptions, Surrogacy and Name Changes List.
  • Confiscation List.
  • Appeals and Post Sentence Application List.

Commentary links for both Acting for the Plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant in the By Lawyers County Court (VIC) publication have been updated accordingly.

Magistrates’ Court – VIC

by

Two important new practice directions apply in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria from 10 February 2025.

  1. Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 governs practice and modes of appearance, in person or online, in proceedings across the criminal and family violence divisions of the Magistrates’ Court. It revokes Practice Direction No. 6 of 2022.
  2. Practice Direction No. 2 of 2025 governs practices in the civil division of the Magistrates’ Court. It revokes 51 previous practice directions.

The following are the key points of each.

Magistrates’ Court criminal and family violence jurisdiction

Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 sets out the procedure for all appearances, online or in person, except a first remand hearing which is covered by Practice Direction 1 of 2024.

In general, online appearances by clients and practitioners are available, encouraged, and in many cases required. However, physical appearances are also possible, mainly by request, and in some cases required.

The practice direction sets out detailed arrangements for all types of appearances, including:

  • accused on bail or summons;
  • bail applications and other hearings with the accused in custody;
  • contest mention hearings, committal mentions, special mentions, and applications, and matters in Judicial Registrar lists;
  • contested hearings and committal hearings;
  • specialist courts and programs;
  • intervention orders – applications and hearings; and
  • filing materials with the court.

Represented accused and their lawyers are to appear in person or online as provided for in the practice direction, unless the court directs otherwise.

If a represented accused appears in person, their lawyer must also appear in person, unless otherwise directed by the court.

If a practitioner seeks to appear in a mode contrary to that set out in the practice direction, they must apply to do so by contacting the relevant court registry at least 7 days before the date.

When appearing online, it is the practitioner’s responsibility to ensure they and their client have audio-visual capability from an appropriate private location, and their online appearance must not cause delay or interrupt the court.

Magistrates’ Court civil jurisdiction

Practice Direction No. 2 of 2025 applies to all civil proceedings including the WorkCover Division, Industrial Division, and Federal Jurisdiction matters. It excludes matters arising under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010, and Industrial Division criminal proceedings.

The practice note covers the following for general civil matters:

  • overview and purpose;
  • definitions;
  • jurisdiction;
  • self-represented litigants;
  • issuing proceedings, filing documents and corresponding with the court;
  • attending the court;
  • consent orders;
  • appropriate dispute resolution;
  • applications in open court and directions hearings;
  • call overs for contested matters and open court applications;
  • contested hearings; and
  • inspecting subpoenaed documents.

Specific directions in the WorkCover Division include:

  • medical panel referrals;
  • inspection of medical and other records;
  • subpoenas relating to confidential communications; and
  • dependents’ compensation.

Specific directions in the Industrial Division include:

  • support for self-represented litigants;
  • filing documents;
  • pre-hearing conferences; and
  • contested matters.

Specific directions in the Federal jurisdiction concern the commencement of proceedings.

Appendix A to the practice direction lists the 51 previous Magistrates’ Court practice directions that are revoked.

Publication updates

The commentary and hyperlinks in the following By Lawyers Magistrates’ Court (VIC) guides have been updated accordingly:

Generative AI – NSW

by

Practice Note SC GEN 23 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence and the associated Judicial Guidelines concerning the use of generative AI in documents that are put before the court apply to all matters in the Supreme Court from 3 February 2025.

The same provisions apply from the same date in the District Court by virtue of a new District Court General Practice Note 2 Generative AI Practice Note and Judicial Guidelines, which adopts the Supreme Court’s practice note and guidelines.

The key provisions of the practice note are:

  • Legal practitioners should be aware of the limits, risks, and shortcomings of any particular generative AI program they use, including the scope for hallucinations.
  • It is impermissible, without the leave of the court, to enter into any generative AI program information to which the implied undertaking, also called the Harman undertaking, applies, such as another party’s affidavits or material produced under subpoena, unless the legal practitioner or person with responsibility for the file is satisfied that the information will remain confidential, will only be used in connection with the proceedings, and will not be used to train the AI program.
  • AI must not be used in generating the content of affidavits, witness statements, character references, or other material intended to reflect a deponent or witness’ evidence or opinion, or any other material tendered in evidence or used in cross-examination.
  • If generative AI has been used in the preparation of written submissions, summaries, or arguments the author must verify in the document that all citations, legal and academic authority, and case law and legislative references exist, are accurate, and are relevant to the proceedings.
  • Affidavits, witness statements, and character references must contain a statement that AI was not used in generating their content.
  • Generative AI must not be used to draft or prepare the content of an expert report, without the prior leave of the court, and parties must bring that requirement to the expert’s attention.
  • There is a procedure for parties to seek leave if an expert proposes to use generative AI for their report, and also imposes disclosure and record-keeping obligations on the expert if leave is granted and AI is used for the report.

The Judicial Guidelines apply to all courts in New South Wales.

The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules have also been amended from 3 February 2025 to reflect these changes.

The following rules have been amended:

  • Rule 31.4: Court may direct party to furnish witness statement
  • Rule 31.27: Experts’ reports
  • Rule 51.12: Party to file and serve White Folder with summons seeking leave
  • Rule 51.13: Opposing party to file a response
  • Rule 51.36: Content of written submissions
  • Rule 51.45: Proceedings in supervisory jurisdiction
  • Rule 59.8: Procedure—Court Book, defendant’s argument and plaintiff’s argument in reply
  • Schedule 7: Expert witness code of conduct

The following new rules have been created:

  • Rule 35.3B: Use of generative artificial intelligence in affidavits
  • Dictionary: Definition of generative artificial intelligence

These amendments to the rules regulate the use of generative AI for:

  • affidavits, witness statements and other evidentiary material;
  • written submissions and summaries of argument; and
  • experts’ reports.

The commentary and precedents in By Lawyers Supreme Court (NSW) and District Court (NSW) guides have been updated in line with these new rules and practice directions. This includes links to the practice notes, and precedents such as letters instructing expert witnesses and clauses for affidavits.

The commentary in By Lawyers Local Court Civil (NSW) guide has been updated in line with the new rules.

Relevant precedents have also been added to the NSW Injuries publications: Personal Injury, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Workers Compensation, and Family Provision Claims.

The Implied undertaking section in By Lawyers 101 Subpoena Answers, available in the Reference Materials folder on all litigation matter plans, has also been updated.

New UCPR Forms 40 and 163 that contain the required disclosure notice that generative AI was not used are also being added to the relevant matter plans.

County Court costs – VIC

by

New rules provide for County Court costs to be taxed in the Costs Court under the Supreme Court Scale of Costs that operates by reference to hourly rates from 1 January 2025.

Costs in the County Court are dealt with under Order 63 of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018, which now adopts the Scale of Costs in Schedule 1 of Appendix A to the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.

In most cases, the parties will agree on the amount of costs to be paid. If they do not agree, the dispute is referred to the Costs Court.

The scale is based principally on time costing. If a client has been charged on the basis of hourly rates for work done, Section 1 of the Scale applies and provides that the costs payable to the entitled party are to be allowed on the basis of reasonable hourly rates, up to the maximum hourly rate set out in the scale. There are 3 tiers of maximum rates according to a practitioner’s years of post-admission experience. There are no minimum rates.

Section 1 also sets out maximum hourly rates for work done by employees of a law practice who are not legal practitioners. The maximum rates for those employees depend on whether their work required legal skill or knowledge.

All claims must be reasonable. In setting rates to be charged to clients, and in making costs claims, practitioners must observe their overarching obligation to ensure that costs are reasonable and proportionate under s 24 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

The time-based model does not mean that a law practice must charge their clients on an hourly basis. The scale also provides for assessment of costs where the entitled party has not been charged on the basis of hourly rates. In such a case, the Costs Court will allow a reasonable amount for the work.

See the By Lawyers County Court (VIC) and Supreme Court (VIC) publications for more information.

Costs Court – VIC

by

Changes to the way costs are calculated in the Costs Court have effect from 1 January 2025 following amendments to Order 63 of the Supreme Court Rules, and the Appendix that deals with costs.

The new scale of costs is based principally on time costing, whereas the previous scale was based principally on items of legal work or particular services.

If a client has been charged on the basis of hourly rates for work done, Section 1 of the scale applies and provides that the costs payable to the entitled party are to be allowed on the basis of reasonable hourly rates, up to the maximum hourly rate set out in the scale. There are three tiers of maximum rates according to a practitioner’s years of post-admission experience. There are no minimum rates.

The scale also sets out maximum hourly rates for work done by employees of a law practice who are not legal practitioners. The maximum rates for those employees depend on whether their work required legal skill or knowledge.

The maximum hourly rates are not an endorsement by the Court that those rates are reasonable in every case, or even in most cases, nor an invitation for practitioners to charge clients the maximum hourly rate and then claim that rate as between the parties.

All claims in the Costs Court must be reasonable. In setting rates to be charged to clients, and in making costs claims, practitioners must bear in mind their overarching obligation to ensure that costs are reasonable and proportionate: s 24 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

In assessing costs, the Costs Court will determine whether the amount claimed relative to the work performed is reasonable on an item-by-item basis. This means that the same hourly rate will not necessarily be allowed for all time spent or work done by the same individual.  The hourly rate allowed for a lawyer drafting a letter requiring legal skill may be higher than the rate for the same lawyer collating court books.

An application can be made for the Court to allow an increase to the maximum rates if there are special grounds arising out of the nature and importance, difficulty, or urgency of the case. If the matter runs to trial, then the trial judge will usually be best placed to determine such an application.

The time-based model does not mean that a law practice must charge their clients on an hourly basis. The scale provides for the assessment of costs where the entitled party has not been charged on the basis of hourly rates. In such a case, the Costs Court will allow a reasonable amount for the work.

The scale sets out what the court can consider in determining reasonableness for both time-based costing and alternative costing. These include the actual hourly rates charged to the client, the complexity of the matter, the time required, and the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved.

The By Lawyers Supreme Court – Acting for the Plaintiff (VIC) and Supreme Court – Acting for the Defendant publications have been updated accordingly.

500-page limit – PIC – NSW

by

A 500-page limit applies for documents lodged with most applications or replies in the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) from 25 November 2024.

The Personal Injury Commission deals with disputes about injuries sustained in motor accidents and workplaces in New South Wales.

Intent of the rule

The new rule is intended to assist the Personal Injury Commission in conducting its proceedings justly, quickly, cost effectively and with as little formality as possible.

It will focus the parties’ attention on the real issues in dispute and will ensure that the process is efficient which will reduce process trauma for claimants.

The rule will also reduce the amount of highly personal information that is filed with the Commission which in turn will assist the Commission with its approach to cyber security.

Exclusions

The 500-page limit does not apply:

For motor vehicle accident claims, in certain:

  • medical review panel proceedings;
  • merit review panel proceedings;
  • merit review proceedings; and
  • settlement approvals;

For workers compensation claims, in certain:

  • expedited assessment proceedings;
  • medical appeal panel proceedings;
  • presidential proceedings; and
  • work injury damages and related proceedings.

Additional documents

If additional documents are relevant to the real issues in dispute in a matter before the PIC, they may be able to be lodged either by consent if the proceedings relate to medical assessments, or otherwise with leave on application.

Application to lodge additional documents

Applications to lodge additional documents must be made no later than 14 days before a medical assessment, or no later than 3 working days before any conference or hearing for any other dispute type. Only one application is permissible in proceedings unless leave is granted.

Transition period

There is no transition period. The new rule applies from 25 November.

The By Lawyers Workers Compensation (NSW) and Motor Vehicle Accidents (NSW) – Accidents from 1 December 2017 publications have been updated to reflect the new rule.

Costs – All states

by

By Lawyers 101 Costs Answers reference manual has been extensively reviewed and enhanced.

This comprehensive reference manual is available in the Reference materials folder on all By Lawyers matters plans. The 101 Costs Answers guide is also as part of the By Lawyers Practice Management publication.

Commentary enhancement

An important new section of commentary has been included dealing with disclosure before settlement in litigation matters. Barrister Philippe Doyle Gray, who we are delighted to welcome to the ranks of our authors, covers in detail the requirement under the Legal Profession Uniform Law for clients to receive advice about the cost implications of settlement. Philippe has also made his helpful Settlement Computer available via a link in the By Lawyers commentaries. This automated spreadsheet assists practitioners with the sometimes complicated calculations required to properly give disclosure before settlement, taking into account the various possibilities for the resolution of a matter.

The new section of commentary has been added to the By Lawyers litigation and injuries guides in those states where the Legal Profession Uniform Law applies, namely New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.

New precedents

Two new precedent letters to the client have been added to provide clients with the necessary disclosure before settlement:

  • Letter to client – Costs disclosure before settlement – NSW, VIC and WA;
  • Letter to client – Costs disclosure before settlement – QLD, SA, TAS, ACT and NT.

There is one precedent letter for Legal Profession Uniform Law states and one for the other jurisdictions where costs disclosure before settlement is not mandatory but is nonetheless best practice.

These new letters are available in the If required – Updating costs disclosure and security for costs folder on all By Lawyers matter plans. They are also available on the relevant litigation and injuries matter plans under Going to court.

Costs agreements

By Lawyers extensive suite of costs agreements that comply with the regulatory requirements in each state are currently under review. Keep an eye out for a future News & Updates post when the revised versions are published.

Administrative Review Tribunal – FED

by

The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) commenced on 14 October 2024. It replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) which are both abolished.

The new tribunal was set up with the stated objective of providing an independent mechanism for review that:

  • is fair and just;
  • ensures that applications to the tribunal are resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permits;
  • is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties to proceedings;
  • improves the transparency and quality of government decision‑making; and
  • promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal.

The ART consists of a President and a Deputy President, both of whom must be judges, as well as senior members and general members.

The tribunal’s governing legislation is the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the Act) and the Administrative Review Tribunal Regulations 2024 (the Regulations).

Provisions of other legislation can apply in addition to or instead of the Act. The Migration Act 1958 contains several such provisions.

The Minister has rule-making power under the Act, and the President of the ART can make practice directions.

Publication updates – Immigration

The Administrative Review Tribunal deals with matters including reviewable migration decisions and reviewable protection decisions. The By Lawyers Immigration guide has been updated accordingly.

Changes concerning how reviews of visa decisions are dealt with include:

  • The divisions of the previous tribunal have been replaced with eight jurisdictional areas, one of which is migration. Lists within each jurisdictional area led by a Deputy President or Senior Member will focus expertise on particular types of applications.
  • The procedures of the tribunal are harmonised and contained in the Regulations, the Rules and Practice Directions.
  • Fast-track reviews under the provisions of Part 7AA of the Migration Act 1958 in relation to protection visa decisions, previously dealt with by the IAA, are no longer available and the provisions have been repealed.
  • Reviews under Parts 5 and 7 of the Migration Act 1958 are now heard by the Administrative Review Tribunal.
  • Appeals and reference of questions of law can be made from the ART to the Federal Court under Part 7 of the Act.
  • A guidance and appeals panel has been established consisting of senior tribunal members to review tribunal decisions if there is an issue of significance to administrative decision-making, or an error of fact or law materially affecting the tribunal’s decision.
  • The ART is subject to monitoring by the newly established Administrative Review Council with regard to the overall administration of justice, not individual decisions.

Commencement and transitional provisions

The new law applies to all new and existing cases from 14 October 2024. Proceedings commenced in the AAT of IAA under the old statutory regime will automatically be transferred to the ART and dealt with under the new law.

Proceedings for review of a reviewable protection decision previously fast-tracked by the IAA will be continued and finalised by the ART.

New forms will be created, but the old forms can continue to be used for review applications after 14 October 2024.

Defamation – VIC

by

The long-awaited second stage of the uniform defamation law reform has effect in Victoria from 11 September.

These reforms have already commenced on 1 July in the ACT and NSW. Other states are expected to follow in due course.

The 2024 amendments include:

Exemption from liability in defamation as publishers for digital intermediaries

The legislation now provides an exemption from liability in defamation for digital intermediaries providing caching, conduit, or storage services, provided the intermediary did not:

  1. initiate the steps required to publish the matter;
  2. select any of the recipients of the matter;
  3. encourage the poster of the defamatory material to publish the matter;
  4. edit the content of the matter whether before or after it was published; or
  5. promote the matter whether before or after it was published.

The section applies regardless of whether the digital intermediary knew or ought reasonably to have known the digital material was defamatory.

Exemption from liability under defamation law for search engine providers

Like digital intermediaries, search engine providers are not liable for defamatory material comprising search results if the provider’s role is limited to providing an automated process for the search engine user to generate search results or hyperlinks, provided the search results or hyperlinks are not promoted or prioritised by the search engine provider receiving a payment or another benefit by or on behalf of a third party.

The provision applies regardless of whether the search engine provider knew or ought reasonably to have known the digital matter was defamatory.

Early determination of digital intermediary exemptions

The court must determine whether a defendant has a digital intermediary exemption and whether the exemption is established as soon as practicable before the trial commences unless there are good reasons to postpone the determination. In doing so, the court can make any orders it considers appropriate, including dismissing the proceedings, if satisfied the digital intermediary exemption is established.

Content of offer to make amends

The digital intermediary exemptions from liability as publishers include changes to offers to make amends, in that an offer in the case of digital matter may include an offer to prevent access to the defamatory material, instead of, or in addition to, other offers to make amends.

Orders for preliminary discovery in defamation cases about posters of digital matter

Defamation litigants can take advantage of pre-litigation or preliminary discovery to assist in identifying the poster of defamatory material or the physical or digital address of the poster, to allow concerns notices and court proceedings to be served.

Defence for publications involving digital intermediaries

This new defence is available if a digital intermediary has provided an accessible complaints mechanism for an aggrieved person to use and they use it to make a complaint.

The digital intermediary must have taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the defamatory material, either before the complaint was received, or within seven days of the complaint .

The complaints mechanism must be an easily accessible address, location or other mechanism available for the plaintiff to use to complain to the defendant about the publication of the digital matter concerned.

Defence available to content moderators

The defence of digital intermediary is available to defendants who moderate content by taking steps to detect or identify and remove, block, disable, or otherwise prevent access to content that may be defamatory, or that breaches the terms or conditions of the online service.

Orders against non-party digital intermediaries

If a plaintiff secures judgement, or an injunction, against a defendant in proceedings the court may order a non-party digital intermediary to take access prevention steps, or other steps the court considers necessary to prevent or limit the continued publication or re-publication of the matter complained of.

Such an order may require access prevention steps to be taken in relation to all or only some of the users of an online service.

The new section does not limit other powers of the court to grant injunctions or make other orders for access prevention.

Service of notices and other documents

The amendments expand the existing options for serving notices and documents to include messaging or other electronic communication to an electronic address or location indicated by the recipient.

Extension of the defence of absolute privilege under uniform defamation law

Concerns were raised in the Stage 2 review of the uniform defamation law about liability in defamation for someone reporting a person to the police for suspected wrongdoing, and then being sued by that person in defamation if the police dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence or absence of culpability on the part of the person reported.

These concerns were addressed by amending the absolute defence provisions of the uniform defamation law to provide that defamatory matter published to a police officer while the officer is acting in an official capacity is covered by the defence of absolute privilege.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Defamation and Protecting Reputation publication has been updated accordingly.

 

Connect with us