Abetz Curtis

Prior to the introduction of the Surrogacy Act in 2012, surrogacy was not legal in Tasmania. However, changing attitudes and needs within society presented an opportunity for the State Government to pass legislation to ensure that where parties entered into a surrogacy arrangement, they would do so fully informed and with the benefit of considerable legal and psychological support.

If a development proposal manages to tick all the planning boxes but will require ongoing impact assessment and management, for example as regards land slip, and the Council is unwilling to take on that monitoring role, the development application must be refused. So says the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal in A Moon v West Tamar Council [2016] TASRMPAT 11.

Recently a series of amendments to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas) (‘LUPA’) have ushered in a more stream-lined approach to planning enforcement. Under the new provisions Councils are required to take a ‘front and centre’ position in enforcing their planning schemes. Persons are now required to report suspected contraventions of section 63 of LUPA to the Council before they have access to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and enforcement under section 64. A Council may no longer make an application under section 64 of LUPA but rather is provided with alternative powers for direct enforcement. A Council may decide to take action of its own motion or in response to a complaint from a member of the public.

Adverse action is defined in the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘FWA’) as action taken by an employer, principal, employee or industrial association that is deemed unlawful under the General Protections provisions. It includes dismissing or refusing to employ a person, discriminating against a person or otherwise injuring a person in their employment, and extends to action taken by a principal against a contractor or prospective contractor for services.

The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) (‘Act’) provides that an employer is liable to pay compensation to a worker if: the worker suffers an injury, which arises out of or in the course of his employment; or the worker suffers an injury, which is a disease,[1] to which his employment contributed to a substantial degree, in that it was the major or most significant factor. This paper considers the first test: whether an injury has arisen out of, or in the course of, a workers employment. The answer is often obvious; however some factual settings may cause uncertainty as to whether an injury is work related, and therefore compensable.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Dorset Council v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal [2014] TASSC 34 (Dorset’s case) clarifies the circumstances in which deemed approval arise.

When a claim for compensation is received, employers are required to calculate the amount of weekly payment to be paid to the worker. This is called the Weekly Payment Rate, it is the greater of the amounts derived from the Normal Weekly Earnings formula and the Ordinary Time Rate of Pay formula (s. 69(1)(a), Workers Compensation Act 1988).

The rules surrounding superannuation funds are complex and ever evolving. This applies equally to a self-managed superannuation fund. One area which is particularly problematic is “related party transactions”. This paper examines related party transactions, and when the trustee of your SMSF can and cannot invest in a related party.

One of the first steps in the enterprise agreement bargaining process is the issuing by an employer of notices of employee representational rights (‘Notices’) to relevant employees. The requirement to issue a Notice stems from section 173 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cwlth) (the ‘Act’). Disputes often arise between employers and unions or other employee bargaining representatives with respect to the content and distribution of Notices. The purpose of this paper is to summarise the purpose of a Notice and the procedural requirements that employers must adhere to when issuing Notices.

The cornerstone of parenting matters in Australian Family Law is the principle that the best interests of the child are paramount. Sometimes, what is in the best interests of the child does not align with the expectations of either or both parents. It is those situations where the Court may be asked to decide how the child’s best interests are met. Where a parent’s expectations differ from the Court, or the outcome is unsatisfactory to them, it can appear that their “rights” as a parent have been ignored in favour of the “rights” of the other parent. This can lead to frustration, anger and ongoing conflict. In actual fact, such rights as parents may have are always secondary to the rights of the child. Therefore, it is beneficial for separated parents to understand how the law in Australia deals with parenting issues and how best to approach parenting issues when a relationship breaks down.