Free legal advice Fridays at G&B Lawyers

G&B Lawyers want to hear from you.

Come and speak to one of our leading experts about your legal issues. We won’t charge you a cent.

If we believe we can help you, your first month will be half price.

Call Nathan on 0411 067 367 or email at nbuckley@gandblawyers.com.au to make an appointment.

 

G&B Lawyers

Office: Suite 1, Level 1, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000

Mail: GPO Box 1849, Sydney, NSW 2001

M: 0481 287 528

E: info@gandblawyers.com.au

W: www.gandblawyers.com.au

Legal Proceedings Commenced by NSW Councils

News about the various Council mergers in New South Wales (NSW) seems to have quietened down since the majority of Council mergers occurred in May 2016.

However, the objecting Councils are still running or preparing to run their arguments against the NSW Government’s proposed mergers in the relevant Courts in the back ground.

One such battle has been played out between Woollahra Council and the NSW Government for its proposed merger with Waverley and Randwick.

On 20 July 2016 Chief Judge Brian Preston dismissed Woollahra Council’s on the basis that the Council had not established the grounds of its challenge.

The Council was ordered to pay the NSW Government’s costs which will come from rate payer’s money.

Despite this outcome, Woollahra Council has decided to battle on and appeal the decision of the LEC. In a Media Released dated 26 July 2016, the Mayor of Woollahra Council, Councillor Toni Zeltzer said:

“The decision to appeal was made on the same basis as our original legal challenge. This is just a further way of demonstrating how serious we are about protecting the democratic rights of our community and serving their best interests”.

The merger of Woollahra Council with Waverley and Randwick will now remain on hold until a final outcome is achieved.

Other Councils who have elected to challenge the NSW Government’s proposed mergers are also exempt until their appeal rights are exhausted.

Councils such as North Sydney, Botany Bay, Ku-ring-gai, Mosman, Strathfield and Hunters Hill have all voted to commence legal action against the NSW Government for proposed mergers.

The reasons for challenging the NSW Government’s decision include:

Ø  Increases to rates;

Ø  Failure to hold a proper public inquiry into the merger proposal; and

Ø  Failure to provide procedural fairness.

It will be a matter for the Courts to now determine whether each of the Councils that have commenced proceedings against the NSW Government have sufficient grounds to avoid the proposed amalgamation. Otherwise the amalgamations will be forced.

Watch this space.

G&B Lawyers

Office: Suite 1, Level 1, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000

Mail: GPO Box 1849, Sydney, NSW 2001

M: 0481 287 528

E: info@gandblawyers.com.au

W: www.gandblawyers.com.au

Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) Update

The South Australian Government has been successfully running a Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) to reduce the amount of litter in their environment since 1977.

Since the New South Wales Premier’s announcement in September 2015, the NSW Government has been working towards creating their own, state wide refund CDS.

The containers that will be included in the CDS scheme are currently identified as “[a]ll NSW beverage containers between 150mL and 3 litres in volume” except the following:

Ø  plain milk (or milk substitute) containers;

Ø  flavoured milk containers 1 litre or more;

Ø  pure fruit or vegetable juice containers 1 litre or more;

Ø  glass containers for wine and spirits;

Ø  casks (plastic bladders in boxes) for wine and casks for water – 1 litre or more;

Ø  sachets for wine 250ml or more;

Ø  containers for cordials, concentrated fruit/vegetable juices; and

Ø  registered health tonics.

At this stage, we have very few details on how the CDS scheme will work in practice.

It appears that the finer details are a matter for the appointed Scheme Coordinator to determine with the help of a number of working groups and committees.

What we currently know is that it is proposed that the funding for the 10-cent refund will be provided by the suppliers/manufacturers of the containers who will undoubtedly pass the cost onto consumers.

Suppliers/Manufacturers will pay the 10-cent deposit, a handling fee and an administration fee to the Scheme Coordinator.

Consumers who utilise the CDS will receive a 10-cent refund from the Scheme Coordinator who is responsible for providing the containers received to a recycling facility.

Further, we know that a network of collection depots is to be established throughout NSW. However, we do not know when or where.

It seems that a lot of the finer details are yet to be finalised.

For a scheme that is due to commence from July 2017, one would have to ask – is the NSW government on track to deliver?

There are a number of industries that are affected by the CDS including manufacturers, retailers, transporters, recyclers and not to mention consumers. Perhaps other nearby States that do not have their own CDS have an interest as well.

Whilst the CDS scheme emanates the “polluter pays” principle which can only be good for our environment, we need a CDS that works in and for NSW.

 

 

G&B Lawyers

Office: Suite 1, Level 1, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000

Mail: GPO Box 1849, Sydney, NSW 2001

M: 0481 287 528

E: info@gandblawyers.com.au | kglassborow@gandblawyers.com.au

W: www.gandblawyers.com.au

 

 

Credit card late payment fees to stay

A multimillion-dollar class action that has been running through the hierarchy of courts for the past 6 years between ANZ bank and 43,500 ANZ customers has today finally been decided once and for all.

The main issue that was the subject of the proceedings was the legality of credit card late payment fees.

ANZ customers took ANZ to Court on the basis that the late payment fees for credit cards are extravagant, unenforceable and amounted to unconscionable conduct.

In 2014 the Federal Court found that some of the bank’s charges were illegal as the late payment fee for a credit card was $35.00. It is now known that the actual cost to the bank was often as little as 50 cents.

However, in 2015 the full Federal Court reversed this decision. As a consequence, the solicitors for the customers of ANZ sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

In 2015, Mr Watson, solicitor for the ANZ customers, stated that the decision to reverse the finding that the bank’s charges were illegal,

“runs the risk of turning the doctrine of penalties and the statutory provisions on which we rely into empty vessels devoid of any practical or meaningful content, and significantly reducing the protection for all consumers in Australia.”

Today, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision over the matter.

It was ruled that the proceedings brought by the 43,500 ANZ customers were to be dismissed and that ANZ are able to charge customers fees, as well as interest, for the late payment of credit cards. It was found that the charges were not established to be “penalties” and that the bank was entitled to recover losses that they sustained due to late payments.

Other big banks including Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and St George also faced similar proceedings as ANZ. Perhaps unfortunately for NAB, a settlement worth $6.6 million in compensation for customers was reached before today’s decision.

In light of the decision today, banks can be comforted in charging their customers who are late in the payment of their fees.

This decision is also likely to be seen as a big win for telecommunication and energy companies in dealing with customers who are late in their payments.

G&B Lawyers

Office: Suite 1, Level 1, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000

Mail: GPO Box 1849, Sydney, NSW 2001

M: 0481 287 528

E: info@gandblawyers.com.au | kglassborow@gandblawyers.com.au

W: www.gandblawyers.com.au

 

 

 

Compulsory Acquisitions – Have you been put on notice?

Government authorities, such as Local Council or the NSW State Government, are able to acquire privately owned land for public purposes.
 

Recent public examples in NSW include compulsory acquisitions of both residential commercial properties for the construction of WestConnex and the Sydney Metro.
 

If current headlines are true, the Sydney Motorway Corporation Pty Limited, the body responsible for delivering the WestConnex motorway is on the verge of announcing that further homes and businesses will need to be acquired for the project as it expands.

 

Homeowners who may have been just on the brink of having their homes acquired, may now find themselves issued with a Proposed Acquisition Notice.

 

Aside from acquisitions due to major government projects, there are other examples that may hit more closely to home when a Local Council acquires a property for the purposes of performing its functions such as upgrading the sewerage and stormwater drainage facilities in an area. These acquisitions can be equally as surprising and distressing.
 

What’s the process?

 

Once an authority has decided to acquire a property, the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) provides the mechanism for determining the amount of compensation to be paid to a landholder.
 

This Act must be complied with.
 

Usually, an agreement is sort to be reached between the Landholder and the Acquiring Authority first.
 

Where this is not possible, the acquiring authority has the power to compulsorily acquire the land for a public purpose.
 

Where land is to be compulsorily acquired, the Valuer General is responsible for independently determining the amount of compensation payable by the Acquiring Authority.
 

To assist the Valuer General, both parties generally obtain independent valuations by experts to support their side. Depending on the type and location of the property, the number of experts may range from one real estate valuation to numerous opinions from experts such as accountants, engineers and environmental scientists.
 

Getting the right advice
 

Obtaining advice from an experienced lawyer is essential for maximising ones claim.
 

An experienced lawyer will be able to provide guidance to ensure that an experienced valuer is retained. It critically important that you use a valuer who is capable of preparing a robust valuation that will be difficult for the acquiring authority to refute.
 

An additional benefit is that reasonable legal costs and expert costs are likely to be paid by the Acquiring Authority.
 

You can then use the services of seasoned professionals with the peace of mind that you will be obtaining more than the initial offer made by the Acquiring Authority without professionals taking a large cut.
 

If you have been issued with a Proposed Acquisition Notice or want to know more about the process, please contact Kim Glassborow, Partner at G&B Lawyers on M: 0481 287 528 or kglassborow@gandblawyers.com.au for professional and experienced advice.

 

 

G&B Lawyers

 

Office: Suite 1, Level 1, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000

Mail: GPO Box 1849, Sydney, NSW 2001

M: 0481 287 528

E: info@gandblawyers.com.au | kglassborow@gandblawyers.com.au

W: www.gandblawyers.com.au

 

Create a will - a small price to pay to give your family certainty

Do you have a will?

Or perhaps the better question is, do you have a will that articulates exactly how you want your estate to be distributed should you pass away?

An article published by news.com.au on 18 July 2016 describes the story of a mother who lost her son whilst he was at work. During the family’s grieving period, it was found that the son did not have a will and that the immediate family had no entitlement to the deceased’s workers’ compensation.

However, there was someone else who did have a claim.

The ACT Magistrates Court awarded the workers compensation in the amount of $200,000 to a lady who proved to the Court that she was a dependent of the deceased.

Whilst the deceased’s family had never heard of the existence of the lady, evidence compelled the Court that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Evidence included that the pair had plans to spend their lives together, they were domestic partners and had been in a relationship for eight months. Contrary evidence was given by the deceased’s landlord and a friend of the deceased to the effect that neither had met or seen the lady before. However, the compensation was solely awarded to the lady.

The family of the deceased will never have any certainty as to how the deceased would have wanted his estate to be distributed. It had probably never crossed any of their minds that they needed to prepare for something so tragic.

Whether you are at the beginning of your working life or in the process of winding down, giving a small amount of time to formalising your intentions is a small price to pay for giving your family certainty as to what your final intentions may be.

In our experience at G&B Lawyers, wills are generally not hard to prepare and can take as little as a few hours when you have clear intentions in your mind.

Should you wish to either create or update your will, contact Nathan Buckley, Partner at G&B Lawyers on 0411 067 367 or by email at nbuckley@gandblawyers.com.au.

Reference:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/kay-catanzariti-was-left-heartbroken-after-her-dead-sons-girlfriend-won-his-workers-compensation/news-story/4b74a63ba4cef2e053bd9bdbc502d1bb

 

 

 

 

NSW EPA’s compliance tools

Sydney Water Corporation (SWC) is wholly owned by the NSW Government.

However, this does not make SWC immune from environmental consequences of management oversights and the inevitable knock on the door from the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

Recently SWC entered into an enforceable undertaking with the EPA to pay $200,000 to the Parramatta River Catchment Group for the purpose of improving the health of the Parramatta River catchment which was polluted due to SWC’s failure to properly maintain its plant and equipment.

An enforceable undertaking is one approach that the EPA may use when there has been a serious breach of legislation.

Refer to Section 253A of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW). In essence, an enforceable undertaking is a written undertaking by a company or an individual to take action to deal with an actual or potential breach of environmental protection legislation.

Should the person or company who entered into the enforceable undertaking breach any of its terms, the EPA has the power to apply to the Court for a number of orders.  Some of the orders that the EPA can apply for include:

-          An order directing the person to comply with the undertaking;

-          An order directing the person to pay to the State an amount not exceeding the amount of any financial benefit that the person has obtained (directly or indirectly) and that is reasonably attributable to the breach; and

-          Any order that the Court considers appropriate.

However, an enforceable undertaking is just one tool in the box that the EPA can use to address actual or potential breach of environmental protection legislation.

Other tools that may be used by the EPA include:

-          Show cause letter;

-          Formal warning;

-          Official caution;

-          Vary, suspend or revoke an Environment Protection Licence;

-          Clean-up notice;

-          Pollution reduction program;

-          Mandatory environmental audit;

-          Penalty notice; and

-          Prosecution.

Most people would want to avoid a situation where they are prosecuted by the EPA for breach of environmental protection legislation.

If this is not possible, mitigating one’s loss is the next best option.

To obtain legal assistance for dealing with and responding to EPA notices, contact Kim Glassborow, Partner at G&B Lawyers.

Kim can be contacted on M: 0481 287 528 or E: kglassborow@gandblawyers.com.au

 

 

G&B Lawyers

Office: Suite 1, Level 1, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000

Mail: GPO Box 1849, Sydney, NSW 2001

M: 0481 287 528

E: info@gandblawyers.com.au | kglassborow@gandblawyers.com.au

W: www.gandblawyers.com.au