ON 15 MAY 2014, the Governor General granted a two month extension to allow Royal Commissioner Ian Hanger QC time to produce his report into the Home Insulation Program.
The Royal Commissioner’s report is due on 31 August 2014.
1300 00 2088
ON 15 MAY 2014, the Governor General granted a two month extension to allow Royal Commissioner Ian Hanger QC time to produce his report into the Home Insulation Program.
The Royal Commissioner’s report is due on 31 August 2014.
1300 00 2088
ON 13 MAY 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in case C-131/12 Google Spain SL, Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez.
If a search engine shows a link to a web page containing personal information, the data subject may approach the search engine operator and request that the link be removed from the list of results and if the request is not granted, bring the matter before competent authorities to have the link removed.
The ruling applies to the European Union Member States but is likely to have an impact world wide.
1300 00 2088
The Australian Marriage Act 1961 defines “marriage” as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.
People at the age of 18 or over may marry a person of the opposite sex, thought people over 16 but under 18 may marry with the court’s authorisation and the consent of the parents or guardians. It is an offence to marry a person who is not of marriageable age.
Marriages are to be performed by either marriage celebrants (at the Registry or privately) or religious celebrants.
A completed notice of intention to marry must be given to the celebrant at least a month before the date on which the marriage is to take place.
Foreign marriages are valid under Australian law if they were validly made under the law of the foreign country.
It is an offence (of bigamy) to marry whilst already married.
De facto relationships
The Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) defines a de facto relationship as “a relationship between two adult persons: (a) who live together as a couple, and (b) who are not married to one another or related by family”. Unlike marriage, this includes two persons of the same sex.
When determining whether or not a de facto relationship exists, all of the circumstances of the relationship are to be taken into account, including:
Divorce and nullity
The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) defines “divorce” as the “termination of a marriage otherwise than by the death of a party to the marriage”.
The Family Court, state Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Court have the jurisdiction to grant a divorce or a decree of nullity to either Australian citizens, persons domiciled in Australia or persons who are an ordinary resident of Australia and have been so for the 12 month period prior to proceedings being instituted. Proceedings are usually brought in the Federal Circuit Court.
A party may make an application for divorce if there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the court is satisfied that the parties have separated and lived separately for a continuous period of 12 months before the application and there is no reasonable likelihood of the cohabitation being resumed. The divorce order takes effect 1 month after the date on which the divorce order is made.
A party may make an application for a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that the marriage was void in the first place.
Division of property
The Family Court, State Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Court have the power to divide matrimonial property after the separation of the parties, upon an application from one or both of the parties. The orders the court makes can either by the consent of the parties or by the court’s own determination.
All de facto couples have the same rights as married couples provided that one or more of the following applies:
The court only considers property that arises out of the relationship but this is quite broad and includes property owned by the parties before the marriage, property purchased during the marriage, gifts and inheritances, superannuation, assets and goodwill built up in a business and compensation awards, redundancy payments and windfalls.
Once the matrimonial property and debts are identified, the court alters the property interests between the parties by making orders dividing or redistributing the property and debts. First they decide the value of the property that each party owns. Then they consider the financial and non-financial contributions in the past (as a percentage); and the parties present and future needs, including their income and capacity to earn, care of the children and the effect of orders on capacity to earn and financial resources. Then they consider whether or not the proposed division is just and equitable in all of the circumstances of the case.
Maintenance
Maintenance is paid by one party to another for financial support or the support of the children.
Spouse maintenance is paid to a former spouse when it can be shown that the former spouse is unable to support themselves due to them caring for the children or else unable to work due to ill health, age or lack of job sills. Spouse maintenance applications can be made to the court after separation and must be made within 12 months of divorce, unless special leave is granted by the court.
Child maintenance is payable by all parents, whether they are married, divorced, de facto or never lived together, regardless of who the children live with. The amount is collected by the Child Support agency and depends on the financial situation of both parents.
Parenting after separation
On the application of a party, the court may make orders about the parenting arrangements of a child (“parenting order”). The order may be either by consent, or by the court’s determination.
Parenting orders may stipulate:
If there is joint parental responsibility, a genuine effort must be made to reach a joint decision and long term decisions about the child must be made jointly.
The status of an order may be altered in the future if the parties enter into a parenting plan.
If you require advice on a family law matter, contact Peter O’Grady on 0418 248 214.
FRANCE has passed a law allowing employees to transfer unused sick leave to colleagues who have sick children.
ON 10 MAY 1951, the House of Lords delivered Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850; [1951] 1 All ER 1078; [1951] UKHL 2 (10 May 1951).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1951/2.html
Liability does not extend to damage caused by a certain act or omission unless the possibility of causing the damage was reasonably foreseeable at the time.
The damage is not reasonably foreseeable if the likelihood of it happening involves a risk so small that a reasonable person would feel justified in disregarding it.
1300 00 2088
ON 7 MAY 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited v Hills Industries Limited [2014] HCA 14 (7 May 2014).
Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited (AFSL) had sought to recover monies had and received by the first and second respondents (Hills and Bosch) on the grounds that Hills and Bosch were paid under a mistake of fact arising from a fraud committed by a third party (Sharzynski) who controlled a group of companies (TCP) who traded with Hills and Bosch.
Sharzynski had led Hills and Bosch to expect that monies transferred from AFSL (TCP’s finance company) were for a reduction of debt owed to Hills and Bosch by TCP. On the faith of receiving the monies, Hills and Bosch continued to trade with TCP and chose not to pursue their remedies against TCP for the recovery of outstanding debts. However, the monies had been transferred from AFSL under a mistake of fact induced by a fraud committed by Sharzynski, who had falsified invoices from Hills and Bosch to represent that the monies in question were for AFSL to acquire equipment from Hills and Bosch to be leased back to TCP.
Hills and Bosch argued that on the faith of receiving the monies, they had suffered an irreversible detriment by choosing not to pursue their remedies against Sharzynski and TCP.
The NSW Court of Appeal held that Hills and Bosch were not required to repay the monies as they had established a complete defence that they had changed their position and suffered an irreversible detriment on the faith of the receipt of the payments.
The High Court unanimously rejected AFSL’s appeal of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The High Court held that the relevant inquiry is whether or not the retention of the monies would be inequitable in all of the circumstances and concluded that it would be inequitable if Hills and Bosch were required to repay AFSL. The High Court rejected the approach proposed by AFSL that it must take into account the extent to which Hills and Bosch had been “disenriched” as this principle, like the principle of unjust enrichment, is inconsistent with the Australian law of restitution.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/14.html
1300 00 2088
ON 29 OCTOBER 2012, new swimming pool laws were introduced with the amendment of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 (NSW) by the Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012 No 77 (NSW).
The Swimming Pools Act 1992 (NSW) contains a range of measures to restrict access to private swimming pools in the interests of public safety.
Under the new measures, it is compulsory from 29 APRIL 2014 that:
In addition to freehold and leasehold, the laws apply to strata schemes, community schemes and Crown leases.
For further information, go to http://www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au/.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 26 APRIL 2014, Mosman Lawyer Barry O’Keefe QC died aged 80.