ByLawyers News and Updates

Serial family violence – WA

by

From 1 January 2021 new provisions regarding serial family violence commence in WA. These are the final provisions of the Family Violence Legislation Reform Act 2020. Various sections of this amending Act have commenced over the course of the year. The amendments affect the Criminal Code, Sentencing Act 1995, Bail Act 1982 and Restraining Orders Act 1997, among others.

Serial family violence

From 1 January 2021 there is a presumption against bail for a person charged with a ‘family violence offence’ who has been declared a ‘serial family violence offender’. These terms are defined in s 3 of the Bail Act.

The presumption may be rebutted if there are exceptional reasons why the accused should not be kept in custody and the bail authority is satisfied bail may properly be granted.

Previous amendments

Practitioners will recall that the previously commenced provisions of the amending Act include:

Family violence – Bail considerations

The court may defer consideration of bail for 30 days for an accused charged with an offence where the accused is in a ‘family relationship’ with the victim, as defined in s 3 of the Bail Act. The purpose of the deferral is to allow the court to determine what, if any, bail conditions should be imposed to enhance the protection of the victim of the alleged offence.

There are additional provisions relating to the interaction of bail conditions and restraining orders.

Family violence – Restraining orders

Sections 3 to 6A of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 define all relevant terms used in the Act, including what constitutes ‘family violence’.

Some of the amendments deal with the conduct of family violence proceedings.

The court must enquire as to whether any family law orders are in place for the parties to a restraining order application before the court makes a restraining order. If family law orders are in place, the court must take reasonable steps to obtain a copy or information about the orders and take their terms into account.

At any defended hearing the court is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter in such a manner as it sees fit: s 44A. This section also specifically makes hearsay evidence admissible.

Victims of family violence may have one or more support person with them when they give evidence.

The court, either on its own motion or at the request of a party, may use CCTV or other screening arrangements for the giving of evidence by any party or witness in restraining order proceedings, subject to consideration of a number of factors set out in s 44E.

More information

The By Lawyers Criminal and Restraining orders guides have been updated accordingly. The changes to these publications will be live from 1 January 2021.

Court books – All states

by

Court books are an indexed collection of all documents that the parties rely upon in proceedings, collated for convenience of use during a hearing. They are commonly used in all litigation matters and are compulsory in some courts, especially in specialist lists and on appeal.

A court book ordinarily includes all pleadings and evidence. It generally omits any irrelevant documents, even if they were disclosed in the proceedings. For example, a voluminous bundle of documents may have been produced under a subpoena issued by one of the parties in the lead-up to the hearing, but the party only seeks to rely on a few documents out of the bundle. The court book will contain the subpoena itself plus those relevant documents only.

A properly compiled and indexed court book allows solicitors, counsel and the bench to have a common reference point and easily navigate to relevant documents and issues as the hearing proceeds.

Two new precedents for creating court books have been added to every By Lawyers litigation guide in Australia.

The precedents Court book cover page and Court book index are customised for each court in each jurisdiction. They comply with each court’s requirements and will assist practitioners in compiling court books in all types of litigation.

 

HomeBuilder – FED

by

The Federal Government has announced an extension to the HomeBuilder scheme to 31 March 2021, however the grant amount has been reduced to $15,000. The $25,000 grant is still available, with amended eligibility criteria, for building contracts signed on or before 31 December 2020.

HomeBuilder $25,000 grant

For building contracts signed between 4 June 2020 and 31 December 2020, a $25,000 grant is available to certain individuals who build a new home or buy an off the plan home, or substantially renovate an existing home. The grant cannot be used to buy an existing house and is limited to Australian citizens earning less than $125,000 or couples earning less than $200,000.

The value of new builds is capped at $750,000. For renovations, the home must be worth less than $1.5 million before the renovation, and projects must cost between $150,000 and $750,000.

The building contract must be signed between 4 June 2020 and 31 December 2020, and work must commence within six months of the contract date.

Applications must be submitted by 14 April 2021.

HomeBuilder $15,000 grant

For building contracts signed between 1 January 2021 to 31 March 2021, a $15,000 grant is available to certain individuals who build a new home or buy an off the plan home, or substantially renovate an existing home. The grant cannot be used to buy an existing house and is limited to Australian citizens earning less than $125,000 or couples earning less than $200,000.

The value of new builds is capped at $950,000 for NSW, $850,000 for VIC and $750,000 for all other States and Territories. For renovations, the home must be worth less than $1.5 million before the renovation, and projects must cost between $150,000 and $750,000.

The building contract must be signed between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2021, and work must commence within six months of the contract date.

Applications must be submitted by 14 April 2021.

State-based grants

On top of the HomeBuilder scheme, some states are offering related payments in addition to the Federal grant. See the relevant By Lawyers Conveyancing – Purchase Guide for further information and relevant application forms or links where applications are made online.

All By Lawyers Conveyancing – Purchase Retainer instructions precedents now also include these grant details.

Estates cases – VIC

by

New estate cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (VIC) reference manual.

The new cases under the Estates section of the publication relate to:

Vesting of interest in beneficiaries – Rule in Saunders v Vautier

A beneficiary can apply to the court to have their interest vest earlier than provided for in the will. The rule in Saunders v Vautier possibly provides such a mechanism.

The High Court set out the modern formulation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier in CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2005] HCA 53 at [47]:

Under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, an adult beneficiary (or a number of adult beneficiaries acting together) who has (or between them have) an absolute, vested and indefeasible interest in the capital and income of property may at any time require the transfer of the property to him (or them) and may terminate any accumulation.

If the beneficiaries are ascertained, have capacity and all consent then ‘they may put an end to the trust by directing the trustee to transfer the interest in the estate to themselves, notwithstanding any direction to the contrary in the trust instrument’: Krstic v State Trustees Ltd [2012] VSC 344 at [15].

For a case where the rule was not upheld due to the beneficial interest being classed as contingent, see Arnott v Kiss [2014] NSWSC 1385. This case also suggests that a gift over clause may defeat application of the rule.

Accordingly, whether there is any reason for the executor to resist the application would depend upon there being any terms of the will that might support such a position. If the executor is in any doubt then the trustee can and should seek judicial advice.

The addition of these new estate cases to 101 Succession Answers (VIC) is part of our continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

Estate cases – QLD

by

New estate cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (QLD) reference manual.

The new cases under the Estates section of the publication relate to:

Vesting of interest in beneficiaries – Rule in Saunders v Vautier

A beneficiary can apply to the court to have their interest vest earlier than provided for in the will. The rule in Saunders v Vautier possibly provides such a mechanism.

The High Court set out the modern formulation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier in CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2005] HCA 53 at [47]:

Under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, an adult beneficiary (or a number of adult beneficiaries acting together) who has (or between them have) an absolute, vested and indefeasible interest in the capital and income of property may at any time require the transfer of the property to him (or them) and may terminate any accumulation.

In Re Tracey [2016] QCA 194 the Court of Appeal at [10] stated that:

The context of that reference makes it clear that the rule may be invoked only by a beneficiary who is sui juris. The expression sui juris connotes in law “a person who can validly contract and bind himself by legal obligation uncontrolled by another person”.

For a case where the rule was not upheld due to the beneficial interest being classed as contingent, see Arnott v Kiss [2014] NSWSC 1385. This case also suggests that a gift over clause may defeat application of the rule.

Accordingly, whether there is any reason for the executor to resist the application would depend upon there being any terms of the will that might support such a position. If the executor is in any doubt then the trustee can and should seek judicial advice.

The addition of these new estate cases to 101 Succession Answers (QLD) is part of our continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

Unpaid parental leave – FED

by

Unpaid parental leave entitlements have been enhanced by the Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Act 2020.

These amendments provide greater support to parents who experience stillbirth, infant death, premature birth and the hospitalisation of their baby immediately following birth.

The amendments ensure the following:

  • Employees who are parents of stillborn babies or parents of babies or infants that die have the same entitlement to leave as parents of babies that survive;
  • Following a stillbirth or the death of an infant or child, the employee parent’s unpaid leave can only be cancelled by the employee;
  • Employees who are parents of premature babies and newborns that require hospitalisation after birth can put their unpaid parental leave on hold during the hospitalisation; and
  • Employees cannot also take compassionate leave unless it is following the stillbirth or the death of the child.

Employees may choose to access flexible unpaid leave options in the first 24 months after the child’s actual or expected date of birth or placement, for example, to enable a gradual return to work or shared caring responsibilities between parents.

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

Estates cases – NSW

by

New estates cases have been added to By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW) reference manual.

The new cases under the Estates section of the publication relate to:

Additional assets after grant

The administrator’s obligation to disclose is a continuous one. Any assets not disclosed in the initial affidavit must be disclosed to the court by way of further affidavit: r 78.91 Supreme Court Rules 1970. If an asset has come to light after the grant has been finalised, an Affidavit of Additional Assets needs to be filed.

If an updated copy of the grant is required, an Application for Exemplification also needs to be filed. An exemplification is a certified and sealed copy of a grant. The Inventory of Property does not need to be amended.

The Affidavit of Additional Assets and the Application for Exemplification are available in the By Lawyers Estates guide, on the Probate and Letters of Administration matter plans.

Vesting of interest in beneficiaries

A beneficiary can apply to the court to have their interest vest earlier than provided for in the will under the rule in Saunders v Vautier.

The High Court set out the modern formulation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier in CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2005] HCA 53 at [47]:

Under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, an adult beneficiary (or a number of adult beneficiaries acting together) who has (or between them have) an absolute, vested and indefeasible interest in the capital and income of property may at any time require the transfer of the property to him (or them) and may terminate any accumulation.

In Beck v Henley [2014] NSWCA 201 the Court of appeal at [35] stated that:

Adult beneficiaries who are absolutely and indefeasibly entitled have power to “overbear and defeat the intention of a testator or settlor to subject property to the continuing trusts, powers and limitations of a will or trust instrument”.

A case where the rule was not upheld has been added –  Arnott v Kiss [2014] NSWSC 1385.

The addition of these new estates cases to 101 Succession Answers (NSW) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – QLD

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (QLD) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provision claims sections of the publication.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/ trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (QLD) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – VIC

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (VIC) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provisions claims sections of the publication.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (VIC) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – NSW

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provision claims sections of the publication.

Proof of death by inference

The Estate of Alan Bruce Beeby [2020] NSWSC 1512 concerned proof of death by inference. A court may declare a missing person dead, without a death certificate and before the seven-year period relating to the presumption of death is met. At [53] Hallen J explained:

…an inferred death is one where, although a body is not found or recovered, the death can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, and where it can be inferred that it is more probable that the person has died, rather than that he, or she, is living.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

Intermeddling by executors

The Victorian case of Re Abat [2020] VSC 560 contains a discussion of when intermeddling in an estate might deprive an executor of the right to renounce. It should be read in conjunction with the NSW case of Mulray v Ogilvie [1987] 9 NSWLR 1 which is already in 101 Succession Answers.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (NSW) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

Connect with us