Latest Legal Blogs
Law update: Coercive Control Amendments
In 2022 we spoke about the intention of the Queensland Government to introduce a raft of new changes to domestic violence laws in Queensland. On 11 October 2022, the proposed laws were introduced into parliament, and on 6 March 2024, the Queensland Parliament passed these new laws. In this series, we will highlight some of the most significant changes to the laws in Queensland. The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 was enacted by the Government 6 March 2024. The significance of these amendments was to tackle the serious ongoing rise of domestic violence offences and focusing specifically on coercive control. These legislative changes began with the Government passing the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act (Combating Coercive Control) and other Legislation Amendment Bill. This legislation laid the foundation for what coercive control really is, and more importantly, it set up the basis for a stand alone criminal charge for coercive control. The legislative changes came about after recommendations by the Queensland Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce. These new laws were driven by the tragic deaths of Hannah Clark and her children and have been referred to as ‘Hannah’s Law’. These laws have been passed by Parliament, and assent has been provided, however, a date has to be fixed when these laws come into play. What these new laws mean? The effect of these amendments is broad in nature, and largely affects a number of pieces of legislation including:- The Bail Act 1980 The Criminal Code The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Regulations 2023 The Evidence Act 1977 The Evidence Regulation 2017 The Justices Act 1866 The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 The Youth Justice Act 1992 The Recording of evidence regulations 2018 These changes are to have an immediate and significant impact within Queensland. The most significant of these changes is the creation of a standalone criminal offence of Coercive Control. Queensland is only the second state in Australia that has legislated this offence, following New South Wales. Coercive Control – New Criminal Offence Coercive Control is a form of domestic violence that involves a repeated pattern of behaviour, that, over time, has the cumulative effect of denying a person their personal autonomy and independence. It is a form of behaviour that seeks to create an environment where the victim is in constant fear, isolation, intimidation, and humiliation. Section 334A defines this behaviour broadly, and the legislative definition is prescribed in the offence under Section 334C of the Criminal Code. It is relevant to note that the new amendments cross-reference the definitions of domestic violence from the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act, namely under Section 334B of the Criminal Code. Section 334C of the Criminal Code provides that a person who is an adult commits an offence (a coercive control offence) if:- The person is in a domestic relationship with another person and; The person engages in a course of conduct against the other person that consists of domestic violence occurring on more than one (1) occasion and; The person intends the course of conduct to coerce or control the other person and; The course of conduct would, in all the circumstances be reasonably likely to causer the other person harm What must be proven? For the Prosecution to prove that a person has committed this offence they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:- That the defendant and complainant are in a domestic relationship That in the context of that relationship, the defendant engaged in a course of conduct against the complainant that was domestic violence Conduct that is domestic violence is defined under section 344B of the Criminal Code That the defendant intended the course of conduct to control or coerce the complainant. That the course of conduct by the defendant would be reasonably likely to cause the complainant harm. Reasonably likely in all the circumstances is the test. An offence under this section is a crime, and the maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment. The prosecution does not have to prove that the person intended each act of domestic violence that would constitute coercive control. The prosecution does not have to prove the particulars of any act of domestic violence, and a jury does not have to be satisfied with the particulars of any specific act of domestic violence. Defences available If you are charged with an offence of coercive control, it is a defence for a person to prove that the course of conduct was reasonable in the context of the relationship between the person and the complainant as a whole. This means that there is an obligation on the defendant to prove that the conduct was reasonable in the context of the relationship. The defendant will bear the onus of proof to show to the Court or a Jury that the behaviour was reasonable. It is not a defence if the person believed that any single act of domestic violence that formed part of the course of conduct for coercive control, when considered in isolation, was reasonable in the context of the relationship as a whole. Effectively what this section is saying is that whether or not the defendant intended or believed that the behaviour was in isolation, coercive or not, is immaterial and not a defence to the offence. Restraining Orders Section 334E of the Criminal Code now allows a Court to consider making a restraining order. The order is separate from a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVO), and the distinguishing feature is that while a DVO can only be made in circumstances where a relevant relationship exists, a restraining order is a separate order made by a court preventing a person from acting in a certain way towards another person. The new provision under Section 334E allows a Court to make a restraining order, regardless of whether a person is found guilty or not guilty, or whether the persecution of the matter ends in another way (such as a summary dismissal or withdrawal of the charge). The Magistrate or Judge may consider whether or not to make a restraining order. This effectively means that it is the discretion of the Court as to whether or not a restraining order should be made. The application for an order can be made by either the Crown (Prosecution), an interested party, or the Judge and Magistrates own initiative. The Court would take into account any relevant evidence in the hearing and would otherwise consider whether or not it is desirable that they make the order. If the Court makes a restraining order, it is important to note the following:- The application for a restraining order is not a criminal proceeding, it is a civil proceeding. If the restraining order is made it takes effect on the day the order is made, until a specified date. If a date is not specified, the order is deemed to operate for 5 years after the day the order is made. The order continues in force for 5 years, it can operate for less than 5 years only if the Court is satisfied of the safety of the person is not compromised The restraining order can be revoked at any time. While it is not a criminal offence for a restraining order to be made against a person, it is important to note that contravening or breaching the order is a criminal offence. The maximum penalty for knowingly contravening a restraining order is 120 penalty units or 3 years imprisonment. If you have been convicted of a domestic violence offence within 5 years, then you can be liable for a fine of 240 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years. How can we help you? Domestic Violence offences have significant consequences for individuals. What is important to be aware of is not just the simple penalty for these offences but also the secondary effects a conviction for these types of offences can include. For example, offences of this nature can have a bearing on whether or not a blue card holder will have to face show cause proceedings or if a revocation of a blue card can be made by the department. If you are a professional who requires membership in a governing body, such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority, you may have an obligation to report being charged with or convicted of an offence under these proceedings. It is incredibly important to obtain legal advice if you are charged with any domestic violence offence, or if you are approached by the Police for an application for a domestic violence order. If you are experiencing domestic violence, being subject to coercive control, or have been accused of coercive and controlling behaviour, you can contact Connolly Suthers Lawyers to assist you. Our Criminal Law team practice extensively in Domestic and Family Violence Law and can assist you in obtaining a Domestic Violence Order, responding to an application for a Domestic Violence Order or Police Protection Notice, and representing you in relation to any criminal offence that may be DV related. If you need any further information or assistance, please contact: DVCONNECT MENSLINE - 1800 600 636 DV CONNECT WOMENSLINE - 1800 811 811 Lifeline- 131 11 14
The Power of an Attorney to Renew a BDBN
The recent decision of Justice Applegarth (Queensland Supreme Court) in Re Rentis Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 252 examines an attorney’s powers to make a binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) for an incapacitated member of an SMSF. Justice Applegarth said that “renewing” a BDBN extended to nominating different beneficiaries where the original beneficiary of the BDBN had died. In Rentis:- Robert was a member of an SMSF. He lost capacity in December 2020; Robert had appointed his wife and brother Peter as attorneys under an EPA (which gave Peter an express power to ‘renew’ a BDBN). Prior to losing capacity, Robert made a BDBN directing the trustee to pay his death benefits as follows: 50% to his wife; and 25% to each of his children. Robert’s wife died in February 2021. Robert’s brother Peter remained as the sole attorney under the EPA. Peter, in his capacity as attorney for Robert, made a BDBN directing the trustee to pay Robert’s death benefits as follows: 25% to each of his children; and 50% to Robert’s estate. The EPA provided, “I authorise my attorney/s to ‘renew’ any binding death benefit nomination made by me for any superannuation benefits or entitlement.” Justice Applegarth considered the meaning of the term ‘renew’ and whether it should be construed narrowly or given a purposive interpretation. It was contended that the term ‘renew’ would only permit an attorney to make another BDBN that repeats the terms of the previous BDBN made by the principal. Justice Applegarth did not favour this narrow interpretation and said, “A narrow construction would produce capricious, unreasonable, and certainly inconvenient results for a principal who became incapacitated and whose circumstances had changed or where other circumstances had changed. One would think that it is precisely the existence of changed circumstances that gave rise to the authority given to the attorney to renew any binding death benefit in the sense of making a fresh BDBN, that is, to make a new BDBN to address those circumstances or to renew the BDBN.” He held that the term ‘renew’ did allow the attorney to make a BDBN that differed from the earlier BDBN made by the member. Rentis provides useful guidance on how courts may determine the meaning of the power to ‘renew a BDBN’ if these words appear in an EPA. Of course, if the EPA spelt it out clearly to say different beneficiaries could be nominated, proceedings may have been avoided. With dementia cases on the rise, the terms of EPAs, BDBNs, Reversionary Pensions, SMSF Trust Deeds and Wills should be regularly reviewed holistically (and not in isolation) so that court proceedings can be avoided. If you would like assistance with any of the above information, please contact our Wills and Estates team via (07) 4771 4665.
Domestic Violence and Property Settlements
If my relationship involved serious domestic violence, would this affect the outcome of a property settlement? Domestic violence in a relationship might affect the outcome of a property settlement if there is evidence of serious violent conduct, which has made it significantly more difficult for the victim party to contribute properly to the relationship. A property division is based largely on the contributions. This includes those made by the parties initially, during the relationship, and sometimes even post-separation, as well as the factors that affect each party’s future. The case of Kennon v Kennon established the principle which has to be met in order to vary a property settlement on the basis of serious domestic violence. This case involved a property settlement whereby domestic violence was present in the relationship. The court considered in this case whether the domestic violence had an impact on the victim’s ability to make contributions during the relationship and whether this could influence the outcome of the property settlement. The case predominantly focused on the contributions set out in section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975, specifically 79(4)(c) – (the welfare of the family and homemaker contributions) and also considered section 75 – (the future factors). Three elements were established to satisfy whether the presence of domestic violence could change the outcome of a property settlement: Violent conduct must be established; The violence must have a discernible impact on the victim; and The victim’s contributions to the relationship must be made significantly more ‘arduous’ as a result of the violent conduct This is reflected in the case when the court said: “Our view is that where there is a course of violent conduct by one party towards the other during the marriage which is demonstrated to have had a significant adverse impact upon that party's contributions to the marriage, or, put the other way, to have made his or her contributions significantly more arduous than they ought to have been, that is a fact which a trial judge is entitled to take into account in assessing the parties' respective contributions within s 79.” Their honours also commented that these principles should only encompass “exceptional cases.” What you need to remember: The outcome in Kennon isn’t always going to be reflected in every property case involving domestic violence. It is a high threshold to prove and there have been multiple cases in which the court was not satisfied that the domestic violence actually affected the victim party’s ability to contribute to the relationship or family. If you wish to obtain legal advice about your property matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Family Law team at Connolly Suthers Lawyers by phoning (07) 4771 5664 or submitting an online enquiry on the Family Law page.
Injured QLD Nurse - Awarded $1.6M in Damages
A Queensland Nurse badly injured during a patient restraint gone wrong has been awarded $1.6M in Damages for Robina Hospital’s failure to provide adequate Hospital Security. Justice Ryan of the Supreme Court of Brisbane handed down their Decision on 23 June 2023 in the matter of Trinet Ruth Wilson v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service [2023] QSC 135 finding Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service liable to pay $1,634,418.55 to a Registered Nurse badly injured during a shift on 12 March 2016 at the Robina Hospital. Key points from Justice Ryan in reaching their Decision, as follows:- Wilson was a Registered Nurse aged 39 at the time of her injury [1, 12]. She was involved in the restraint of a patient with dementia, who had been difficult, disruptive, acting out physically and refusing medication [1]. Security Guards were called to assist in administering the patient’s anti-psychotic medication [42]. Two Security Guards (instead of three) arrived to assist with restraining the patient [45]. The Security Guards marched/dragged the patient back to her room. She was elevated and resisting [46]. The Security Guards restrained one arm each. The patient’s legs were flying, kicking and thrashing about [47]. Nurse Wilson was over the base of the patient’s bed, placed her hands around the patient’s ankles, pushed them to keep them straight so that she would not move while another Nurse injected her thigh [48]. After the injection was given, Nurse Wilson made sure her colleague administering the injection was out of the way, Nurse Wilson and the Security Guards all let go at the same time. As Nurse Wilson let go of the patient’s legs “both feet, like, nearly connect with my face and I’ve managed to, like, come from this position and I arched back really quick and I felt her feet. And then I noticed she had thrown like, her arm movement, like she was throwing something, so I’ve twisted – so I’ve gone and then twisted… I felt uncomfortable. I was uncomfortable. There was discomfort” [50]. To her credit, Wilson attempted to return to work the day after the incident, as it was a Sunday and penalty rates applied. She commenced her shift at 8:00 am, made it through the “safety scrum”, made it to the second or third medication rounds, and then, as she went to unlock a drawer with a key at head height, she became stuck in position. Her evidence at Trial was “it happened again”; “out of nowhere”. She returned to the Nurse’s station to sit down. She could not recall whether she completed the remainder of that shift. Wilson called in sick Monday and had a further three (3) days scheduled off before returning to work the Friday with a lighter patient load. She persevered through a couple of shifts but found she was continuing to experience spasms, whether she stood or sat still. Squatting down at the Nurse’s station eased her pain. She again attempted to work the following Sunday (Easter Sunday). She experienced another spasm when picking up a folder from a desk. She lay in an empty Hospital bed. Some months passed and Wilson attempted to work again in July 2016, within her suitable duties program (being short shifts, three (3) times a week). Wilson did not perform any tasks on those shifts other than making patients cups of tea and continued to suffer spasms. The state of the Ward at the time of the incident On 12 March 2016, Wilson was rostered to work from 1:00 pm to 9:30 pm at the Robina Hospital’s Specialised Medical Unit (SMU), a 24-bed medical ward with a “mixed bag” of patients. The SMU was a busy ward, requiring heavy work. Most of the patients in the SMU were over 65/70 years of age, which included those transferred from nursing homes with medical problems. Often, those patients suffered from dementia or delirium. During the pre-start or “safety scrum” of Nurses at the beginning of the shift, Wilson was told that the patient who later injured her had “a couple of Code Blacks previously and had been quite aggressive to other nurses”. The patient had previously grabbed her at-home care Nurse by the throat and kicked and scratched her. The staff skill mix for the shift on 12 March 2016 was, in the evidence of Wilson, “really bad” and included two new Graduate Nurses (in their second month), a pregnant Enrolled Nurse, a Clinical Nurse and one other Registered Nurse. Wilson was not allocated to the patient who later caused her injuries. A new graduate Nurse was assigned to the patient, who became overwhelmed. There were also three (3) to four (4) other patients who also suffered dementia in the Ward and had been wandering “non-stop” throughout the Ward. The patient who later caused Wilson’s injury had been being difficult, and disruptive, attempting to break into other patients’ rooms, acting out physically and refusing medication. Security Guards were called to assist in administering the patient’s anti-psychotic medication. In making a Judgment as to the factual findings of the workplace incident, Justice Ryan declared: [283] I find that in 2016, the patient mix on the SMU included an increasing proportion of older patients with “behaviours” as a consequence of their dementia or other cognitive vulnerabilities, which manifested in confusion, disruption, wandering, verbal abuse, physical aggression and assault. [284] I find that the staff on the SMU were not trained to deal with those patients, as the defendant acknowledged in the 2016 OVRAT, beyond being told to prioritise their own safety via the “ICE” approach – isolate, contain and evacuate. [289] I find that “M” (the patient) did not settle upon the arrival of the two security officers on the ward. They had to drag her or march her back to her room. She was not subdued by their mere presence as she demonstrated by her resistance in the face of it; her conduct whilst on the bed; and the urgency around the need to administer medication to her so that she might calm down. [294] I find (indeed, the parties essentially agreed) that the plaintiff did not receive training in how to (safely or at all) restrain a patient – either from the point of view of her participating in restraint or being able to evaluate whether a restraint executed by security officers (or other relevant trained staff) was being safely executed. Nor was the plaintiff instructed not to participate in the restraint of a patient, but to leave that to security officers (other than, obviously in circumstances in which the plaintiff was entitled to defend herself). Justice Ryan found that the patient “M” who injured Wilson posed a foreseeable risk of injury to Wilson generally and in the course of being restrained. Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service tried to argue the risk posed by this patient to Wilson was insignificant. Justice Ryan found the risk was not insignificant. Justice Ryan found Robina Hospital negligent on the following grounds:- The Defendant was negligent in failing to instruct Nurse Wilson not to be involved in the physical restraint of a patient [5]; and Additionally, …the Defendant was negligent because of the failure of two security officers who attended the ward to call for a third to take part in the restraint, rather than the plaintiff. Had the security officers called for a third to take part in the restraint, then, for the same reasons as above, Nurse Wilson would not have been injured. The injuries and impact on employment The Plaintiff underwent significant treatment, including:- Treatment by Dr Cleaver (Spinal Orthopedic Surgeon); Cortisone injections (which gave her about nine (9) days of relief); Physiotherapy; Hydrotherapy; Sacroiliac belt; Pilates; Acupuncture; Yoga; TENS machine; Hot and cold gel packs; Treatment with a Pain Clinic; Right-sided sacroiliac joint fusion (which she funded herself). Following fusion surgery, Wilson (after a five (5) day hospital stay and an inability to weight bear for a few weeks) was free of spasms and pain for three (3) to four (4) weeks before sadly experiencing “out of nowhere” that the dragging sensation in her groin had returned, followed by spasm. “Things were back to how they had been”. Wilson describes experiencing deep aching in her right sacroiliac joint, a dragging sensation in her groin, numbness, and spasms occurring five to twenty times per day with those symptoms relieved by crouching, curling and squatting. The pain is mostly in her pelvis and hip. The aching (in the right sacroiliac joint) and dragging sensation (in the groin) are constant. There is also numbness in the joint. The Court found she is now in a worse state than she was in 2016 because she has de-conditioned. Wilson now walks with a limp, has gained thirty kilograms and pain medications make her drowsy. Her mental health has deteriorated. At the time of the Trial, she was receiving a Disability Support Pension and Family Tax Benefit ($750.00 a week). Her rent, per week, was $550.00 a week. Future intentions Wilson’s intention was to work as a Clinical Nurse, in the SMU for as long as possible “til I drop, pretty much”. Pre-existing conditions It was of great debate throughout the Trial as to what impact, if any, Wilson’s earlier fusion surgery prior to the incident in 2015 for correction of a degenerative process had on her current state. It was not contested that Wilson had widespread degenerative pathology in her sacroiliac joint. However, Justice Ryan opined “That did not mean that she inevitably would have become symptomatic (even if she had not been injured at work in March 2016), but I find that there was a degree of probability that her degeneration would progress to the point at which she was symptomatic”. Despite her prior surgery and condition, Damages were assessed as follows: - General Damages - $25,150.00 Past Economic Loss - $473,548.16 with interest of $50,926.00 Past Superannuation Loss - $60,377.39 Future Economic Loss - $800,000.00 Future Superannuation - $95,040.00 Past Expenses - $78,556 Future medicals - $15,000 Future travel expenses - $2,000 Future pharmaceuticals - $12,000 Fox -v- Wood damages - $21,821 In determining Future Economic Loss, the Defendant argued the Nurse only had a further twenty (20) years residual earning capacity due to her pre-existing degenerative condition, and, that this was to be further discounted by 50% for contingencies, including the hypothetical event that the plaintiff in any event would have suffered a similar disabling back condition. Wilson, however, invited that the more usual reduction of 10% for contingencies only be made, and no further discounting was appropriate. Justice Ryan reached the award for Future Economic Loss by “starting at the scenario proposed by the plaintiff but discounting it (by 50%) for contingencies including, but not only, the contingency that she might not work a 40-hour week plus Sunday and weekend shifts from 2019 until she was 67; and the contingency that she might, in the future, suffer from pain symptoms because of pre-existing degeneration and/or the consequences of her prior surgery which might shorten her working life.” The Plaintiff was awarded Damages of $1,634,418.55. The full Judgment from the Queensland Supreme Court can be found here.
Driving while intoxicated: Keep an eye on .05
How being intoxicated while driving or even being a passenger with an intoxicated driver can damage your Personal Injuries Claim. Motor vehicle accidents can cause horrific, debilitating injuries that change your life and livelihood forever. The only potential relief - compensation through a personal injury damages claim. However, add alcohol into the mix and that compensation can very quickly be eroded. Intoxicated drivers or even passengers of intoxicated drivers are at serious risk of damaging their personal injuries claim. Legal Definition of Intoxication. Legally, you are defined as intoxicated if, due to alcohol consumption, you can no longer exercise proper care and skill. Although (unlike traffic law) under compensation law your BAC is not a conclusive factor in determining if you are “intoxicated”, there is no shortage of studies and expert opinion as to the relationship between alcohol consumption and reduced physical ability and mental cognition. In recent cases, expert witness testimony has confirmed that a driver with a high BAC would have: behavioural changes leading to inappropriate driving for the prevailing conditions. a degree of muscle incoordination. marked impairment of perception, judgment, and the ability to concentrate. A real-world example of how your compensation can be affected by intoxication. Dylan is at a bar with his friend Sam having drinks. Sam seems alright; a little stumble here and there but he’s speaking properly. Dylan is about to call a cab when Sam offers to drive saying he feels fine and cab fees are so expensive these days. Dylan agrees and hops in Sam’s car. The car is approaching a turn (which Sam usually makes with ease), but not this time and the car crashes into a traffic pole. Dylan suffers extreme whiplash, and the pain persists for months rendering Dylan unable to return to his heavy labouring role in the mines where he earns big money. His Employer lets him go and he’s now unlikely to pass the Mining Assessments – so his career in the mines and his ability to earn high income are over. Dylan makes a personal injury claim but only receives 25% of his damages as a result of a reduction for contributory negligence. What is Contributory Negligence? Contributory negligence sounds more complicated than it is. To de-bunk what contributory negligence means let’s split the two words up. Contributory Negligence Defined as an aid or playing a part in something Refers to the breach of a duty of care that has resulted in harm. Therefore, contributory negligence simply means that you played a part in the harm caused to you by a breach of duty owed to you by someone else. All drivers have a legal responsibility to exercise proper care and skill to avoid causing harm to both passengers and other road users. But passengers must take reasonable care for their own safety as well. Relating it back to our Example Sam owed Dylan a duty of care to drive safely. However, Dylan knew or should have known that Sam was intoxicated, placing himself in a situation that presented an obvious risk. Consequently, Dylan contributed to his own harm by entering a vehicle driven by an intoxicated person (and was therefore contributorily negligent). Implications for the Passenger. The legal consequences for a passenger injured in a motor vehicle accident where the driver was intoxicated are laid out in the Civil Liability Act 2003. A passenger is presumed to be contributorily negligent if: The passenger is at least 16 years old; and The passenger relied on the skill of an intoxicated driver; and The passenger was aware or reasonably should have been aware that the driver was intoxicated. The minimum reduction of damages for a passenger who is found to be contributorily negligent by the reasons above is 25% unless: The driver’s BAC was 0.15 or more. The driver was so much under the influence of alcohol as to be incapable of exercising effective control of the vehicle. In those cases, the minimum reduction is then increased to 50% however the court can apply a greater reduction if the facts warrant it – that is if the passenger’s conduct is more “contributory”. 3 ways a Passenger can rebut the Presumption. The passenger can rebut the presumption of contributory negligence only if it is established that: The passenger was unaware of the Driver’s intoxication and reasonably so (for example, if Dylan hadn’t seen Sam drinking or stumbling). Or The driver’s intoxication did not contribute to the accident (for example, because of a fault in the steering mechanism of the car, the accident would have happened regardless of the driver’s intoxication). Or The passenger could not reasonably have avoided taking a lift from the intoxicated driver (for example, because he was stranded in an unsafe place, the middle of nowhere with no other means of getting home). What if I didn’t know my Driver was Intoxicated? Ignorance is not always bliss when it comes to negligence law. The court does not just rely upon whether a passenger was aware of the driver’s intoxication but also upon whether the passenger ought reasonably to have been aware of it. The Court applies the “reasonable person test”. The test allows the court to properly assess whether a normal, regular person could reasonably have known that their driver was intoxicated. Further, voluntary intoxication on the passenger’s part cannot be used to defend the passenger’s inadequate assessment of the driver’s behaviour as the observational powers of a reasonable person are taken from the perspective of a sober state of mind. What if the accident was caused by a defect in the vehicle? Proof that the true cause of the accident was a defective part or servicing could be used to prove that the driver’s intoxication did not actually contribute to the accident and to displace the presumption of contributory negligence on the part of the passenger. On the other hand, if the Driver was aware of the defect and drove the vehicle recklessly due to intoxication, Contributory Negligence could still be argued by the Driver’s Insurer. Could I have avoided taking a lift with an Intoxicated Driver? To determine whether a person reasonably could have avoided being the passenger of an intoxicated driver the court assesses the objective factors of the case. Objective factors are not dependent on personality and include the characteristics of a “reasonable person”. The Courts expect a reasonable consideration of the risks of alternative courses of action, based on known or reasonably known facts and by a person with a normal capacity to observe, understand and consider the available alternatives, un-influenced by Subjective factors such as one’s abnormal personality behaviour, irrational fears or mental disorders What if I was an intoxicated driver? Intoxicated drivers are not automatically found wholly negligent if they are involved in car accidents (although this is often the case). Consider Beth’s position in the example below. Beth has been at a party drinking for a couple of hours and decides to drive home. A car has run a red light and T-bones Beth mid-way through an intersection. Beth had no chance to avoid the accident even if totally sober. Her intoxication played no part in the accident. Beth suffers serious spinal injuries and as a result, can no longer walk. Beth seeks compensation and receives her full damages as she is not found contributorily negligent by the court as her intoxication did not contribute to the breach of duty by the other driver. An intoxicated driver who suffers harm may only rebut the presumption of contributory negligence if it can be established on the balance of probabilities that: The intoxication did not contribute to the breach of duty; or The intoxication was not self-induced (for example if you were spiked). How Much Will the Driver's Damages Be Reduced? A minimum reduction of 25% or a greater percentage which the court thinks reasonable will be applied. However, If the person who suffered harm was the driver (Beth and Sam), and the evidence proves that: 1. The driver’s BAC was 0.15 or greater. Or 2. that the driver was so much under the influence of alcohol as to be incapable of exercising effective control of the vehicle The minimum reduction is then increased to 50%. How Connolly Suthers Can Support You: Although being a passenger in a driver’s car (even an intoxicated one) seems quite “blameless”, depending on the circumstances, it can lead to a huge loss of your damages entitlements. Imagine losing 75% of the compensation you deserve because of a spur-of-the-moment lapse of judgment. And for the driver, things can be worse. Connolly Suthers specializes in compensation law and can provide you with expert legal advice about your next steps after an injury. Contact our Compensation department at (07) 4771 5664 to schedule a consultation. *Paul Sterling is a Consultant with Connolly Suthers specialising in Accident Compensation Law. Tarlia Condon is a Legal Studies student at the Ryan Catholic College
Changes to the First Home Guarantee System
In 2020, then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, announced the introduction of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. The Scheme was designed to assist first home buyers break into the property market with as little as a 5% deposit of the value of a home. The Scheme also removed the requirement for buyers to take out Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI) Changes to the Scheme In 2023, the Australian government introduced new changes to the Scheme effective from 1 July. Some of the key changes to the scheme include:- First Home Guarantee Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee Family Home Guarantee How many places are available in the Scheme for the 2023-24 Financial Year? 35,000 10,000 5,000 Minimum deposit required 5% 5% Under this scheme, the federal government acts as a guarantor on up to 18% of the loan which means applicants can buy a home with as little as a 2% deposit of the value of the home. Prior Property Ownership First-home buyers or previous homeowners who haven’t owned a property in Australia in the past 10 years. Applicants for either of these schemes can be first home buyers (i.e. never owned property in Australia) or previous homeowners who haven’t owned a property in Australia in the previous ten years prior to the date they executed their home loan. According to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation website, Prior property ownership includes a freehold interest in real property in Australia (this includes owning land only), an interest in a lease of land in Australia with a term of 50 years or more, or a company title interest in land in Australia. The criteria for applicants of this scheme have been expanded beyond single natural or adoptive parents with dependents. The scheme will be open to eligible borrowers who are single legal guardians of children, such as aunts, uncles and grandparents. Eligibility *other eligibility criteria may apply Applicants must: be an Australian citizen or permanent resident; be an individual or joint applicant (a joint applicant may include partners, friends, siblings and other family members) Applicants must: be an Australian citizen or permanent resident; be an individual or joint applicant (a joint applicant may include partners, friends, siblings and other family members); have lived in the regional area or adjacent regional area they are purchasing in for the preceding 12 months to the date they execute a home loan agreement. Employees who have been required to relocate for work may be exempt from this requirement. Applicants must:- be an Australian citizen or permanent resident; be a single parent or a single legal guardian of at lease one dependent. Purchase Location All of Australia Regional Areas only. For the purposes of this scheme, a Regional Area is defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as an Australian Statistical Geography Standard 2016 Statistical Area Level 4 (ASGS SA4 2016). These areas are based on population density and labour markets and vary in size reflecting these criteria. The greater capital city areas of each state and the Northern Territory; and the entire Australian Capital Territory are excluded from this scheme. All of Australia Property Price Caps The various schemes also set out to put a ‘cap’ on the value of the property. You will need to check the property price cap in your area: First Home Guarantee and Family Home Guarantee State/Territory Capital City and Regional Centres* Rest of State NSW $900,000.00 $750,000.00 VIC $800,000.00 $650,000.00 QLD $700,000.00 $550,000.00 WA $600,000.00 $450,000.00 SA $600,000.00 $450,000.00 TAS $600,000.00 $450,000.00 ACT $750,000.00 NT Regional $600,000.00 Territory All areas Jervis Bay Territory & Norfolk Island $550,000.00 Christmas Island and Cocos (Kneeling) Islands $400,000.00 Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee State/Territory Regional Centres* All other Regional Areas NSW $900,000.00 $750,000.00 VIC $800,000.00 $650,000.00 QLD $700,000.00 $550,000.00 WA $450,000.00 SA $450,000.00 TAS $450,000.00 Territory** Regional Area ACT Not Applicable NT Regional $600,000.00 Jervis Bay Territory & Norfolk Island $550,000.00 Christmas Island and Cocos (Kneeling) Islands $400,000.00 * Regional Centres include Newcastle and Lake Macquarie, Illawarra, Geelong, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. ** The greater capital city areas of the States and the Northern Territory; and the entire Australian Capital Territory are excluded from the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. Eligibility Criteria If you are unsure whether you are eligible for any of these schemes, you can access the questionnaire from the federal government’s National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) website which will help you to determine whether you are eligible for one of these schemes. The link to the website is below:- Click here
How to Change a Parenting Order
If I’m not happy with the Final Orders made by the Court in relation to parenting arrangements, can I change them? The short answer is generally no. However, if your current circumstances have significantly changed, having an effect on the parenting arrangements and what is in the best interests for your children, you may be able to apply to the court for a change of the Final Orders pursuant to the principles set out in Rice v Asplund. This is a very sticky area of law and the test that is applied is a hard one to satisfy the court. The Rice v Asplund principle: This case dealt with the living arrangements of the parties 3-year-old daughter. The court had previously made orders that the child live with the father. Nine months later, the mother brought an application to the court to vary the order. The mother sought that the daughter live with her and spend time with the father. The application was ultimately successful. There had been a significant change in circumstances following the making of the final orders. The circumstances had changed, being that the child was to commence school, which made the previous orders “unworkable” and “unrealistic,” and not in the child’s best interests. The wife had also remarried changing the circumstances of the order and the living arrangements for the child. However, Chief Justice Evatt stated in his judgement that the court “…should not lightly entertain an application.” The rule established from this case involves a question of whether there has been a ‘significant change in circumstances’, or ‘some material factor was not disclosed at the earlier hearing which would justify “such a serious step.”’ The purpose of the Rice v Asplund principle is to protect children from exposure and involvement in further unnecessary litigation. What constitutes a ‘significant change of circumstances?’ Chief Justice Evatt stated In Rice v Asplund that change alone will not be enough for the Court to accept such an application. The change must be of a serious nature to allow for a change to the Final Orders. What you need to consider Is there a significant change of circumstances which renders the previously made Final Orders extremely difficult to follow? Is it no longer in the best interests of the child/children to continue to follow those Final Orders? Is it in the best interests of your child/children to change their living arrangements all over again through another process of litigation? If you wish to obtain legal advice about your parenting matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Family Law team at Connolly Suthers Lawyers by phoning (07) 4771 5664 or submitting an online enquiry on the Family Law page.
Can I File for Divorce in Australia if I was Married Overseas?
There are a few considerations that need to be taken into account when determining if you can file for Divorce in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) when you were married overseas. Firstly, you need to prove one of the following elements: Are you or your spouse an Australian Citizen? This can be by either birth, descent or Grant of Citizenship. Have you or your spouse lived in Australia for the last 12 months prior to filing for Divorce? Do you regard Australia as your home and intend to live here indefinitely? If you satisfy one of the above 3 criteria, you are eligible to file for Divorce in Australia. You will need to be able to provide evidence that you satisfy one of these criteria. To apply for Divorce, you need to provide the Court with a copy of your Marriage Certificate. In the event your Marriage Certificate is not in English, you will be required to have it translated. A qualified translator needs to undertake this task and provide an affidavit to the Court that the translation is accurate and that they are qualified to undertake the translation. What if my spouse is overseas? When filing an Application for Divorce, there are two types of Applications you can file. These are either: a sole Application for Divorce or a joint Application for Divorce. If your former partner is agreeable to filing for divorce, you can file a joint Application. This requires both of you to agree on the contents of the document and you will both be required to sign the document. If your former partner is overseas they will need to find the appropriate witness (such as a Solicitor, Notary or Justice of the Peace) to witness their signature on the document. If your former partner is not agreeable to filing for divorce, you will need to file a sole Application. Once filed, you will be required to serve a copy of this Application upon your former spouse, no less than 42 days before the Divorce Hearing. In the event you are unable to serve your former partner, you will need to apply to the Court and seek an order for either: Substituted Service or Dispensation of Service. Substituted Service is where you serve your former partner either by way of email or you serve a third party who will pass those documents onto your former partner. You will need to satisfy the Court that this third party is reliable and will pass on the documents. Dispensation of Service is where you are not required to serve your former partner, however, you have to satisfy the Court that you have made all reasonable attempts to do so. Note that you have to be separated for a period of 12 months before you can file an Application for Divorce. If you require assistance with your Divorce matter or your family law matter generally, please do not hesitate to contact our Family Law Team by calling (07) 4771 5664 or submitting an online enquiry on the Family Law page.
2023-2024 Federal Budget Update - $3 million Super Threshold Confirmed
As expected, the 2023-2024 Federal Budget has placed a strong emphasis on the cost of living and establishing a stronger, secure economy. From an SMSF perspective, we were pleased to see there were no unexpected changes likely to significantly impact the sector or superannuation more broadly. As expected, we saw continued provisions for the Government’s proposed $3 million tax threshold for superannuation balances. The following is a brief summary of the key changes relevant to the SMSF sector. Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions The Government will be going ahead with its previously announced measure to reduce the tax concessions available to individuals with a total superannuation balance exceeding $3 million, from 1 July 2025. This follows the release of the Government’s Fact Sheet and Consultation Paper on this proposed measure. This reform is intended to ensure that superannuation concessions are better targeted and sustainable. It will bring the headline tax rate to 30 per cent, up from 15 per cent, for earnings corresponding to the proportion of an individual’s total superannuation balance that is greater than $3 million. The Government has indicated that earnings relating to fund assets below the $3 million threshold will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent or zero per cent if held in a retirement phase pension account. The Budget papers also note that this measure will include earning amounts calculated on defined benefit fund interests. While the precise details on how ‘earnings’ will be calculated under this measure are yet to be finalised, and the Budget papers were silent on the methodology to be applied, the initially proposed model broadly relies on a person’s total superannuation balance to calculate earnings. Unless this proposed approach is modified, unrealised gains, accounting adjustments, and/or book entries and tax refunds will potentially be subject to this new tax. Note: While the Budget papers state that this measure will include earning amounts on defined benefit fund interests, the papers made no mention of the previously announced measure to allow SMSFs a two-year amnesty period to convert legacy defined benefit pensions. Non-arm’s length income (NALI) The Government is proposing to amend the non-arm’s length income (NALI) provisions that apply to certain expenses incurred by superannuation funds. Specifically relevant to SMSF trustees, the Government is proposing to limit the level of a fund’s income that is potentially taxable as NALI to twice the level of an impacted ‘general’ expense. Additionally, fund income is taxable as NALI will exclude contributions. Treasury had previously proposed that the maximum amount of income, subject to the highest marginal rate, would be five times the level of the general expenditure breach. So, at face value, this proposal would appear to result in an improved outcome for SMSF trustees. However, further details are required to determine whether this calculation relies on the value of the general expense itself or the level of the general expenditure breach – calculated as the difference between the amount that would have been charged for the general expense under an arm’s length arrangement and the amount that was actually charged to the fund. Superannuation Guarantee – Changes to payment frequency From 1 July 2026, employers will be required to pay their employees’ compulsory SG entitlements on the same day that they pay their salary and wages. Currently, employers are only required to pay their employees’ SG on a quarterly basis. This measure will increase the payment frequency of superannuation to align with the payment of salary and wages, ensuring employees have greater visibility over whether their entitlements have been paid and better enabling the ATO to recover unpaid superannuation amounts. The increased frequency of payment will also support better long-term retirement outcomes. This measure was announced prior to the Federal Budget and will provide individuals and their professional advisers greater certainty on the timing of superannuation contributions. From a contribution planning perspective, this is critically important and is expected to help reduce instances of inadvertent contribution cap breaches.