Uncategorised

The current unfair contract terms legislation has the effect that consumers and small businesses (currently businesses with less than 20 employees) can seek to avoid unfair terms in contracts. A term of a standard contract is potentially unfair if it: (a) causes a significant imbalance between the rights of the parties; (b) is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party; and (c) would cause financial or other detriment if it was relied upon. Under amendments recently passed, the 20 employee threshold is to be increased to 100 employees and the monetary thresholds done away with. Furthermore, courts will have the power to impose penalties on persons attempting to impose unfair contract terms, rather than simply declaring the term void. Unfair contract terms are still very common in business to business standard form contracts. Businesses using standard form contracts should assess what provisions are necessary, and take advice on their contracts. For advice on business matters and dealings, please contact Peter Muller peterm@qbmlaw.com.au or Megan Hanneman meganh@qbmlaw.com.au

The Fair Work Commission has determined an unfair dismissal application made against Deliveroo having regard to recent High Court guidance in respect of the question of whether a person is an employee or contractor. The test now focuses more on the terms of the written contract in question, but retains the ever important factors of the extent of control by the alleged employer over the activities of the alleged employee, whether the alleged employee is supplied equipment, and the ability of the contractor to delegate without consent. More than ever the terms of the written contract will be critical to the determination of the capacity of the contracting party. The decision can be found here https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwcfb156.htm For questions concerning employment and services contracts, please contact Gul-e-Raana Rizvi or Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au

Reported locally under the particularly adventurous headline “Premier keeps Dick in the Dark”, the amendments to Queensland’s land tax laws proposed by treasurer Cameron Dick have been shelved, at least for the time being. Those amendments would have seen the value of interstate landholdings included when calculating the overall land holdings of an owner, resulting in an added liability many owners.

A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court considered whether Beatrice Lane in Brisbane City is public or private land. While delving into matters concerning rights of way and easements often involves looking into the history of the land, this matter was unusual in that the relevant facts started from when the subject land was first offered for sale in 1851 – before Queensland was a colony in its own right (December 1859), and when it was still part of the colony of New South Wales, no doubt seen by many Queenslanders as Something Of Which We Do Not Speak. That of itself wasn’t of any real significance in the matter, but the decision does have a fascinating (for some) explanation of the various historical dealings with the property and 19th century land law. https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2022/QSC22-190.pdf QBM Lawyers advise in relation to land dealings and interests, including the obtaining and extinguishment of easements and rights of way. For any enquiries about those matters, contact Peter Muller peterm@qbmlaw.com.au