Bank Fees Class Action

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Admin

Banks could charge up to $60 if you became overdrawn, went beyond an agreed limit, or made a late payment. Although the real cost of this is probably only one or two dollars, Banks have netted millions as a result. Litigation funding firms have now begun planning large scale class actions, to make banks repay all the exception fees they have deducted over the last six years, plus interest. The normal deal on litigation funding like this is that the lender will receive its money back and a 25% share of any compensation received.

The banks which are involved in this class action and could be liable to anyone who was a customer of theirs that they charged these fees to. The banks who are involved in these actions include Australia New Zealand Banking Corporation (ANZ), Bank of Queensland, Bank South Australia, Bankwest, Bendigo Bank, Citibank,
Commonwealth Bank, Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), National Australia Bank (NAB), St. George, Suncorp and Westpac. If you think that you may have a case in relation to these banks the option of litigation funding makes it very likely that you can litigate this case without any financial risk involved. Please do not hesitate to contact us using the contact form on this site if you would like more information about the bank fees class action.

Lawyers say sexting means risk of legal sanctions

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Admin

If you are a person under 18 in New South Wales, there is a big chance that if you send flirtatious text images to your partner. You will be at risk of being prosecuted under child pornography charges because of discrepancies in state and federal laws. This is because the age of consent in NSW is 16 – and the legal definition of a child in NSW is the same – under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18. If you are charged with a crime like this, you could be placed on the child-sex register which could in turn, could affect your employment and travel prospects. Greg Burns of the Australian Lawyers alliance says that ”We need laws that can be readily understood by people and not make criminals out of teenagers who are having a bit of innocent, consensual fun together.”

However, the other side of the debate is concerned that the the increasing trend of ‘sexting’ is damaging to the psychological development of teenagers and although they may simply be innocently flirting with each other, opening up this area of the law would frustrate attempts to protect children from sexual predators, cyber bullies and sexual harassment. At present, the NSW government appears to fall firmly on the side of the debate which says that it is unsafe and has published a paper known as ‘Safe Sexting: there is no such thing, detailing the dangers of sexting’. The report warns that ”Images sent by mobile phone can easily fall into the wrong hands, and once they are in cyberspace it is impossible to remove them or control who sees them,” it warns. Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory have an age threshold for child pornography offences set at 18 years of age. In remaining jurisdictions, including NSW, it is 16 years of age. While there are no statistics on the prevalence of sexting, latest crime statistics show that threats and harassment, under which sexting can be categorised, have increased by 5.5 per cent in NSW in the past two years. If you are worried about an issue related to this, please do not hesitate to contact us in relation to this matter using the contact forms on this site.

Get Up Wins Election Case in the High Court

Posted on August 7, 2010 by Admin

In a major change which will affect the august 21 election, the High Court has decided to overturn laws enacted by the Howard government which effectively excluded a large part of an essential consitutency being young people who have only just turned 18 and are now eligible to vote because of the reform. The decision will affect approximatey 100,000 young Australians and has caused a scramble at the Australian Electoral Comission to ensure that these new voters are aware that they will be entitled to vote in the upcoming election. The High Court gave a ruling that the laws which close the electoral rolls on the day that writs for an election are issued are invalid on the basis that the parliament lacks the appropriate power to make such a law.

There has long been an argument that the laws were politically motivated because of the fact that young people tend to vote labor and this law benefited the Howard government which is why it was enacted. The court did not publish reasons for its decision.
He said that never before in Australia’s history had a case of this magnitude been won in a two-week period.

About 20 lawyers, led by Ron Merkel, QC, worked around the clock on a pro-bono basis. The High Court has ordered their costs be covered by the Commonwealth. The opposition defended the changes which were made back in 2006 as a method of ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll. However, the activist organisation behind the case remains unconvinced of this and firmly believes that the reforms were part of political manouvering by the Howard Government during the 2006 election. Whatever the ultimate reason for the changes, there is little doubt that expanding the general voting franchise of Australian citizens is a positive step in the health of our democracy and for this reason is a welcome decision.

Discrimination Law in Australia

Posted on August 3, 2010December 7, 2023 by Admin

It is against the law in Australia to discriminate against people on the basis of certain criteria such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, martial status, disability. Laws in Australia have been in existence for a large amount of time to prevent discrimination against people on these arbitrary grounds. Some of the legislation when applies in Australia is the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth), Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). All of these different acts make it illegal to discriminate against people on various grounds. The major body which regulates human rights in Australia is the Australian Human Rights Commission and it was formed under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). It investigates breaches of human rights by any Commonwealth body or agency and discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin, age, medical record, criminal record, marital status, impairment, disability, nationality, sexual preference, trade union activity. It only investigates in relation to a Commonwealth body or agency; employment and occupation. Emphasizing the importance of process serving, complaints must be submitted in writing, after which the commission evaluates whether they fall within its jurisdiction. If attempts at conciliation fail, the Federal Attorney-General may eventually present these complaints in Parliament.

There are also anti-discrimination laws in existence at state level which are in some senses more enforceable. For example, in New South Wales, the Anti-Discrimination Board can fine those guilty of discrimination under the relevant piece of legislation. If you think that you have been discriminated against, it is certainly a good idea to get legal advice about the matter to see if you have any rights to claim against the person or organisation that is claiming discrimination. If you are being wrongfully accused of discrimination, it is essential that you obtain legal representation in order to protect your reputation and your legal rights. Please do not hesitate to contact us about any discrimination matter in which you may be involved.

Pregnancy Discrimination is an issue of emerging Concern

Posted on August 2, 2010 by Admin

It is an all too familiar story, a woman falls pregnant and suddenly her boss is no longer interested in her work. There is gossip around the office. She goes on maternity leave in order to have the child and returns to find that someone else is doing her job or that her position has been made redundant. It may not be openly stated or there may be reasoned used by management which do not actually paint the full picture, but it does often happen that people who fall pregnant have far less career prospects than those that do not take on children.

In NSW it is generally against the law to treat you unfairly or harass you because you are pregnant, in employment; when you get, or try to get, most types of goods or services — for example, from shops, hotels, entertainment venues, banks, lawyers, government departments, doctors or hospitals;
when you rent, or try to rent, accommodation — for example, a unit, house, commercial premises, hotel room or motel room; or when you apply to get into, or are studying in, any State educational institution — State school, college, TAFE or university; and when you try to enter or join a registered club, or when you’re inside one — a registered club includes any club that sells alcohol or has gambling machines.

In terms of rights at work, it is unlawful to not hire you because they think you might become pregnant;
dismiss or retrench you because you are pregnant; harass you, deny you training just because you’re pregnant; stop you being promoted just because you’re pregnant; or not give you the same or a similar job when you return from maternity leave. Generally, if you’ve been working regularly for 12 months with the same employer, you have the right to take maternity leave and return to your job afterwards. If you think that you have been discriminated against in one of these contexts, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Massive Sexual Harrasment Case against David Jones

Posted on August 2, 2010 by Admin

Kristy Fraser-Kirk, 25, is junior publicist formerly employed by David Jones. She is now suing the company for and the former CEO, Mark McInnes for a total of over $37 million dollars. The company has said that it will vigorously defend the claims. The amount is approximately 5% of the profits of the company for the time that ms Fraser-Kirk was employed in the company. The claim was lodged in the Federal Court of Australia and at present is composed of a 31 page statement of claim which details the sexual activities of the former CEO. Details of how the damages are calculated at present are sketchy, although a normal principle in the award of damages is that you must adequately compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused and it should be quantified in terms of general damages, punitive damages, special damages and any other types of damages which the court sees fit.

In order to prove that she is not simply interested in money for herself, she has given a statement that all of the damages potentially awarded to her will be given to a charity in order to prevent the accusation that she is simply gauging the company for its deep pockets on the back of the sexual harrassment. The case is similar to one where there was a finding against the firm Price Waterhouse Coopers in the Sydney Office where a massive payout was given because of the behaviour of a partner towards a female partner. If the courts do award the amount as stated in the statement of claim it will be the largest payout of this type in Australian legal history. The claim is also seen as a sign that sexual harrassment is rife in the modern Australian Workplace and that employment conditions for women in Australia have not improved significantly in recent years despite the reforms driven by several generations of feminism. It will be another landmark in the history of the Australian legal system if this case is successful.

Insurance claim dispute template

Posted on August 1, 2010 by Admin

If you have a dispute with a insurance company and insurance claim dispute template can assist you to prepare a letter to make your case to an ombudsman. Insurance and financial services ombudsman services have undergone some changes in the recent past. An Australian scheme named the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) began on 1 July 2008 following a merger between the Insurance Ombudsman Service (IOS), the Financial Industry Complaints Service (FICS) and the Banking and Financial Ombudsman Service (BFOS).

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is independent and accessible for dispute resolution services. It serves the interests of financial services consumers and is approved by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The appropriate time to contact the ombudsman is when an attempt has been made to resolve complaints directly with the insurance company but this is unresolved according to the guidelines and the only appropriate response is to take up the matter with the ombudsman. Most Insurance providers are supposed to have in place adequate internal dispute resolution services as well which are designed to resolve complaints. Assuming that the company is operating legally, if a complaint remains unresolved customers can then ask that their dispute be dealt with by the company’s Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) process. All participating insurance companies have IDR processes and must provide customers with a final decision in writing within 15 business days of receiving any request to deal with the dispute.

If you have a question about an insurance claim dispute you can post your question to our lawyers who are available online now to answer your questions. We also have a suite a of documents available which can be useful when dealing with any legal aspects of an insurance claim. You can also contact our offices. Please click on the ‘contact us’ section of the website in order to find out more about how you can get in contact with us. If you would like to purchase an insurance claim dispute template please click here:

Insurance claim dispute : Referral to ombudsman

Civil Dispute Resolution Bill and Access to Legal Services

Posted on July 30, 2010 by Admin

In yet another effort to curb the costs and delays involved in litigation, the Attorney-General announced that the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill will implement key recommendations made by the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) in its November 2009 report, The Resolve to Resolve: Embracing ADR to improve access to justice in the federal jurisdiction (the report). Although the precise content of the Bill has not yet been made public, the report gives some guidance on the sorts of measures likely to be included in the Bill. Cynics of reform however point out that there have been many attempts in the past to make the justice system more quick, cheap and efficient and that they have continuously filed to achieve the outcome by simply adding to the expense of litigation through the extension of the number of boxes which lawyers need to tick before they can initiate litigation. It in some respects also increases the risks that litigants face by abandoning litigation because of concerns about the enormous cost involved. The report by Ronald Sackville in the latter part of the twentieth century concluded that lawyers fees were one of the key elements making the legal system more and more inaccessible to ordinary citizens and this this trend must be curbed in order to ensure that ordinary people would still have access to justice in Australia.

However, looking back on the time intervening since the reforms were suggested there have been many attempts but few successes. The experience of most people who are the clients of law firms is that that the situation is getting worse and that legal costs are getting higher. Compared to inflation, however, legal costs do not actually appear to be going up proportionally to other elements of the cost of living. Although it is now true that many individuals do not factor legal costs into the costs of living because it is so expensive and there is no system of legal costs insurance as there is with medical bills. In any event law appears to be set on another attempt to reform itself and become more efficient.

Separation agreement

Posted on July 30, 2010August 31, 2023 by Admin

If you are looking at separating from your partner it can be complicated and confusing time. You may need a Separation Agreement to give you some clarity and understanding to your rights and obligations in relation to you partner and what you can expect from them going forward. Depending on if you are a defacto or if you are getting a divorce having been separated it can be extremely important to ensure that you can secure your right in relation to the events which occur after the separation. Although many people believe that their partner is likely to be honest and forthright in relation to their affairs after the separation and often this is the case, for many, it is not as simple as this and people can change to become something that you had no way of expecting before the separation. For this reason it is important to ensure that you have legal representation and advice about the documentation which you need, which will include a separation agreement, in the event of a life changing event like a separation.

The two major issues which generally dominate a separation include the division of the property, assets and in many cases, income of the the marriage and the custody of the children. If you need assistance with the visitation agreement, you may consult a visitation lawyer. Unless you take the time to get a good understanding of what you are entitled to, you will risk being taken advantage of by your former partner or their aggressive legal representation who will fight for every dollar and every privilege coming from the separation against you. Although not all lawyers take this approach, unless you have a lawyer who can assist you to protect your interests, it is very likely that you will miss important details in relation to your rights and entitlements. If you would like to obtain a separation agreement, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Click here to obtain a separation agreement:

Separation agreement