The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recently handed down the decision of Phillips v Abel [2019] VCAT 1031 which continues the trend of pushing the boundary of what had traditionally been considered ‘retail premises’ for the purposes of the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Act).
Lainson Holdings Pty Ltd (Lainson) has unsuccessfully challenged the outcome of an expert determination, on the grounds that the determination contained a legal error.1 The Court had to interpret a contractual provision requiring the expert to make a determination ‘according to law.’ Ultimately, the Court found that ‘according to law’ did not mean that an expert’s decision had to be free from legal error. The expert determination was binding and Lainson was ordered to pay $1,837,212.
The Victorian Court of Appeal has recently handed down its decision in The Edge Development Group Pty Ltd v Jack Road Investments Pty Ltd.1 The case involved a dispute as to whether a letter of offer signed by both parties was a binding contract for the sale of property. Ultimately, because the letter of offer was ‘subject to the contract being executed’, the Court found that the letter was not binding.
Further to our update last year, Wills: 20,000 reasons why not to DIY, a recent Queensland case has again highlighted the importance of having a properly drafted Will. The case illustrates the fact that while informal Wills can be accepted by the Court, the potential stress, delays and significant extra cost of getting a Court to accept an informal Will could otherwise have been avoided by ensuring there was a valid properly drafted Will in place.
Recent Fair Work Commission decisions have confirmed that employers must meet strict technical requirements before enterprise agreements will be approved.
Investigating misconduct complaints in the workplace is never easy for any employer, but the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission in Natoli v Envision Employment Services [2018] FWC 4034 should provide some comfort: an investigation need not be perfect for an employer to be able to rely upon it in dismissing an errant employee.
As most employers will be aware, an employee dismissed due to genuine redundancy cannot claim unfair dismissal. Under section 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), in determining whether a dismissal is a genuine redundancy the Fair Work Commission (FWC) is only required to consider whether:
On 21 June 2018, the ATO released Taxation Ruling TR 2018/5 (Ruling). The Ruling finalises Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2017/D2 (Draft Ruling), which was a response to the High Court’s decision in Bywater Investments Limited & Ors v. Commissioner of Taxation; Hua Wang Bank Berhad v. Commissioner of Taxation1 (Bywater).
Employers may be forgiven for thinking they’re entitled to make a call on conflicting medical evidence when it comes to deciding on whether an employee has the capacity to fulfil the inherent requirements of the job.
Ms Sorbello gave birth at the Bankstown Hospital to a son, Joseph, in 2008. Joseph suffered severe injury as the result of oxygen deprivation during his birth and as a result, he is profoundly disabled, has a significantly shortened life expectancy and requires lifetime care.
Proceedings were brought in negligence on behalf of Joseph against the South Western Sydney Local Health Network, which settled on confidential terms.