ByLawyers News and Updates

Publication reviews – All states

by

Publication reviews are part of By Lawyers’ commitment to quality and keeping our subscribers up to date with changes in practice and procedure.

Our publication reviews target commentaries, or precedents, or both. The purpose of the reviews is to update and ensure consistency in styles, formatting, hyperlinks, naming protocols and, if necessary, the substantive content.

The results of a review can include new, amended, or deleted commentary, commentary headings, and precedents.

Sometimes the title or location of a precedent will be altered.

Occasionally there are amendments to the sequence of folders, commentary headings, precedents, and hyperlinks on the matter plan.

Any changes applied will be reflected in an amended matter plan.

Practitioners using our guides will not always realise when a publication review has been conducted. However, sometimes the resulting changes will be apparent, and amendments or enhancements might take a moment to get used to.

Lately, our in-house team, in conjunction with our authors in the various jurisdictions around Australia, have been focussed on reviewing the Full Commentaries in the following publications:

Some of these are still a work in progress, so keep an eye out for any changes.

We love to help our subscribers, and we love feedback. If you have any questions or concerns about changes arising from a publication review, do not hesitate to let us know. We are always happy to discuss any change we have made, or consider others. If you can’t find a section of commentary or a precedent, send us an email and we will point you in the right direction.

And, if you like the changes we have made, please take a moment to let us know so we can continue helping you to enjoy practice more.

Our email is: askus@bylawyers.com.au

Trusts – All states

by

For the assistance of practitioners acting in trusts matters, a new precedent Trust Deed Review Checklist has been added to the matter plan in the By Lawyers Trusts publication. The new precedent was developed in response to a request from a practitioner.

The checklist is a useful tool for lawyers when:

  • preparing a new trust deed on a client’s instructions;
  • reviewing an existing trust deed in the course of trust administration;
  • reviewing an existing trust deed when acting for the trustees in a transaction involving trust property;
  • acting for a client in a transaction where the other party is a trustee’ or
  • acting for parties in a dispute over a trust, or trust property.

The new Trust Deed Review Checklist is found in folder B. Trusts generally in the By Lawyers Trusts guide.

At By Lawyers we love feedback from the firms using our content and are always ready to add new precedents that practitioners need. It’s part of our commitment to practicality and helping lawyers enjoy practice more.

Bail – NSW

by

From 1 July 2024 serious domestic violence offences and coercive control are included as offences to which the show cause requirement applies for bail to be granted in New South Wales courts.

Section 16B of the Bail Act 2013 lists offences for which bail must be refused, unless the accused can show cause why their detention is not justified. These are all serious offences, generally involving violence, including sexual offences, plus drug dealing and firearms offences.

Following proclamation of the Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Act 2024, serious domestic violence offences, and the new offence of coercive control under s 54D of the Crimes Act 1900 are included in s 16B.

Serious domestic violence offences are defined in s 4 of the Crimes Act 1900 as those under Part 3 of the Act, being crimes against the person, that have a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment or more if the offence is committed by a person against an intimate partner, or equivalent offences under a law of the Commonwealth or another State or Territory.

Further the amendments require that, if bail is granted for a s 16B offence, it must be subject to a condition for electronic monitoring, unless the bail authority making the grant is satisfied there are sufficient reasons in the interest of justice not to impose such a condition.

The section on bail in the Full Commentary in the By Lawyers Local Court – Criminal (NSW) guide has been updated in accordance with these amendments.

 

1 July – All states

by

1 July updates are always a big focus for By Lawyers. Many Commonwealth and state legislative instruments provide for the scheduled indexing of relevant monetary amounts, and adjustments – usually increases – in government fees and charges. These regular updates occur at the start of every financial year and they impact many different areas of law, and therefore numerous By Lawyers publications.

The 1 July updates include court filing fees, lodgment fees for property dealings, land tax thresholds, minimum weekly compensation amounts for Workers Compensation, the cap on damages in defamation claims, and penalty units for fines for various criminal offences and civil penalty provisions.

By Lawyers always monitor and apply these changes for our subscribers. Each year we ensure our publications are amended where necessary to reflect 1 July updates.

We also monitor and update for similar legislative indexing and increases which occur regularly at other times of the year. These include 1 January changes and other specific dates for various areas of law as prescribed by some statutes.

The 1 July updates have been applied this year, or are in the process of being applied as they get released, to the following By Lawyers publications:

Quite separately, there is also new and amending legislation from both Commonwealth and state parliaments that commences on 1 July. Substantive amendments have been made to a number of By Lawyers publications to account for the commencement of such legislation. Please see the various other By Lawyers News & Updates posts dealing with those updates.

By Lawyers is always up to date!

Fair Work Act – FED

by

The final tranche of amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009, under the Fair Work Act Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2024 apply from 1 July 2024.

The changes introduce a detailed definition of casual employment, and a limited right to disconnect from work.

Casual employment under the Fair Work Act

Section 15A of the Fair Work Act 2009 sets out a general rule for when an employee is a casual, along with detailed guidance for applying the rule, and some exceptions to it.

The general rule is that an employee will be a casual if:

  • the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work; and
  • the employee would be entitled to a casual loading or a specific rate of pay for casual employees under the terms of a fair work instrument if the employee were a casual employee, or the employee is entitled to such a loading or rate of pay under the contract of employment.

Whether the relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work is to be assessed on the basis:

  • of the real substance, practical reality, and true nature of the employment relationship; and
  • that a firm advance commitment can be in the form of the contract of employment or, in addition to it, in the form of a mutual understanding or expectation between the employer and employee.

The section sets out a number of considerations that may indicate the presence of such a commitment, and includes notes about how the commitment might be manifested.

There are also some specific exceptions to the general rule for academic and teaching staff at higher education institutions.

The right to disconnect under the Fair Work Act

Section 333M of the Act provides that an employee can refuse to monitor, read, or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from their employer or a third party if the contact relates to their work and is outside their working hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable.

Sub-section 333M(3) sets out a non-exclusive list of matters that can be taken into account to determine whether the refusal is unreasonable, including:

  • The reason for the contact;
  • How the contact is made and how disruptive it is to the employee;
  • The extent to which the employee is compensated to be available or to work outside their normal hours;
  • The nature of the employee’s role and their level of responsibility;
  • The employee’s personal circumstances including any family or caring responsibilities.

The right to disconnect is a workplace right for the purpose of s 341 of the Act, which means the adverse action protections apply.

The Fair Work Commission can deal with disputes about the right to disconnect, including by making orders to stop an employee refusing contact or an employer requiring it. Contravention of an order is a civil remedy provision under Part 4-1 of the Act for which fines apply.

The commentary and precedents in the By Lawyers Employment Law guide has been updated accordingly.

Defamation law – FED

by

The long-awaited second stage of the uniform defamation law reform has effect in NSW and ACT from 1 July 2024 with all states except South Australia to follow.

The 2024 amendments include:

Exemption from liability as publishers for digital intermediaries

Division 2A of the various state Defamation Acts 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 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

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.

Further updates to this publication for recent defamation cases are also imminent.

 

Coercive control – NSW

by

From 1 July 2024 the new offence of coercive control under s 54D(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 is included in the definition of personal violence offence under s 11 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, and can therefore be the grounds for a court making an apprehended domestic violence order.

The offence is found in the new Division 6A in Part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900, inserted by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022.

Section 54D(1) creates an offence of abusive behaviour towards a person who is the offender’s current or former intimate partner. It is punishable by a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

The offence requires a course of conduct consisting of abusive behaviour, and the offender must intend that the course of conduct coerce or control the victim.

An intimate partner is someone to whom the offender is or has been married or in a de facto relationship, or with whom they have or have had an intimate personal relationship.

A course of conduct is defined as behaviour that is either repeated, or continuous, or both. There is no minimum number of incidents, they need not be in an unbroken series, nor in immediate succession. Incidents both in and outside of NSW can be included.

Section 54F(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of what can constitute abusive behaviour, including:

  • causing harm to a child if a person fails to comply with demands made of them;
  • causing harm to the person against whom the behaviour is directed, or another adult, if the person fails to comply with demands made of them,
  • economic or financial abuse;
  • shaming, degrading, or humiliating a person;
  • harassing, monitoring, or tracking a person;
  • damaging or destroying property;
  • isolating a person or preventing them from keeping connections with their family, friends, or culture.

The amending Act also inserted a new s 6A into the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 to provide a definition of domestic abuse, being:

…violent or threatening behaviour, behaviour that coerces or controls, or behaviour that causes a person to fear for their or others’ safety and wellbeing.

The new s 6A includes a non-exhaustive list of behaviours that can constitute domestic abuse. This largely mirrors the list in s 54F of the Crimes Act, but includes behaviour that exposes a child to the effects of domestic abuse.

Behaviour may be domestic abuse, and therefore ground an apprehended domestic violence order, even if it doesn’t constitute a criminal offence.

The By Lawyers Apprehended Violence Order (NSW) guide has been updated accordingly.

Powers – NSW

by

Among By Lawyers most frequently used precedents in New South Wales are powers of attorney, appointments of enduring guardian, and the related personal documents associated with lifestyle, health, and estate planning. With an ageing population it is not surprising that lawyers are increasingly called upon to advise their clients on these documents and to prepare one or more of them, often at the same time a client gives instructions for preparation of their will.

As a result of feedback from our subscribers, a number of formatting amendments have been made to the following precedents, with a view to maximising the benefits of document automation, ensuring consistency, and enhancing usability:

  • General powers of attorney;
  • Enduring powers of attorney;
  • Appointments of enduring guardian;
  • Advance care directive;
  • Revocations.

We encourage and value all feedback from subscribers using these and our other precedents; it is one of the ways that we consistently enhance and update our content.

These precedents are found in the Powers of Attorney, Appointment of Enduring Guardian, and Advance Care Planning (NSW) publication.

Until 2003, powers of attorney in NSW were made under the Conveyancing Act 1919 and were used to cover all decisions relating to both the donor’s financial affairs and any health or lifestyle decisions to be made on their behalf. With the introduction of the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 and related amendments to the Guardianship Act 1987 passed at the same time, the parliament created the current regime under which decisions about a donor’s financial affairs are covered by a general power of attorney or, if the donor has lost capacity, an enduring power of attorney, and decisions relating to a donor’s health and lifestyle are covered by their appointment of an enduring guardian. Powers of attorney previously prepared under the Conveyancing Act 1919 remain effective under the Powers of Attorney 2003.

Transfer duty – NSW

by

A recent case dealing with transfer duty on real property in deceased estates has been added to the By Lawyers wills and estates publications in New South Wales.

A reassessment of duty almost 5 years after the transaction is a cautionary tale for practitioners to ensure compliance with the Duties Act 1997 and relevant transfer duty rulings.

Section 63 of the Duties Act 1997 provides for concessions when dutiable property is transferred pursuant to a will or the laws of intestacy. The concessions apply when a transfer is made to a beneficiary in conformity with the trusts contained in a will, or arising on an intestacy, or as an appropriation of the deceased’s property towards satisfaction of a beneficiary’s entitlement in the estate.

When a transfer is made to a beneficiary under an agreement, whether or not in writing, to vary the trusts contained in the will or arising on intestacy, the dutiable value of the property is reduced by the value of the beneficiary’s entitlement.

However, under s 63 and NSW Revenue Ruling DUT 046, the transfer duty concessions do not apply to a contract of sale, only to a transfer.

This was confirmed in Cohen v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] NSWCATAD 136, in this case, Harry Cohen left a property to his three children, Stephen, Peter, and Wendy, in equal shares. The beneficiaries agreed that Stephen could have the property if he paid each of his siblings for their one-third share plus an extra $100,000 each. Rather than a transfer pursuant to a deed of family arrangement, the executors of the estate executed a contract to sell the property to Stephen for the total value.

The contract was submitted to Revenue NSW in 2017, noting that Stephen was beneficially entitled to a one third share of the property from his father’s estate. Duty was assessed and paid on the reduced dutiable value, reflecting Stephen’s one-third interest in the property.

In 2022, the Chief Commissioner issued a Notice of Investigation and ultimately decided that duty had been underpaid. The reassessment stated the dutiable value was the full value of the property as shown on the contract, not two-thirds as initially assessed, resulting in a further duty liability of $29,315.00 plus interest, which was ultimately waived.

The commentary in the By Lawyers Probate (NSW) and Letters of Administration (NSW) guides has been enhanced to cover this situation, and a summary of the case is being added to both 101 Succession Answers (NSW) and 1001 Conveyancing Answers (NSW).

Pathway – NSW

by

The launch of the NSW Personal Injury Commission’s Pathway portal for workers compensation claims brings the process for workers compensation disputes into line with that used for motor accident claims since June 2023.

Workers compensation claims go first to the insurer, then to internal review by the insurer, and then to the Personal Injury Commission (PIC), then if necessary to court.

From 12 June 2024 all applications to the Personal Injury Commission must be lodged via Pathway.

The Pathway portal will digitise the claims process, enabling practitioners to view documents electronically.

Service will also occur via the Pathway portal. Service of applications by the applicant on the respondent will no longer be necessary. Applications will be served by the Commission sending an email to the respondent, with an invitation for them to view the claim online. Respondents will receive a reply request in the same way.

The By Lawyers Workers Compensation (NSW) guide has been updated to reflect this new process.

The Personal Injury Commission website provides a link to Pathway and information for practitioners.

The Pathway portal is used to lodge workers compensation disputes involving:

  • weekly benefits, if the period is more than 12 weeks;
  • medical expenses;
  • domestic assistance;
  • compensation for property damage;
  • lump sum compensation when liability is disputed;
  • suitable duties following a work injury;
  • compensation for the death of a worker;
  • lump sum compensation when the degree of permanent impairment is disputed;
  • threshold for work injury damages when the degree of whole person impairment is disputed.

All relevant information and documents on which the applicant intends to rely need to be included and noted as attachments to the application.

 

Connect with us