Uncategorised

Online reviews are a great resource for businesses.  Customers tend to trust online reviews and online review sites. The problem arises however that a business might have hundreds of content customers who do not leave online reviews, but unhappy customers have a lot of motivation to post online reviews, as a result of which the review site may leave a bad impression of the business. Some review sites have a process to attempt to correct unfair reviews.  That said significant damage can be done and it can be done in a short amount of time.  In some circumstances the business can have remedies against the reviewer. There can be issues with this in identifying the reviewer (some individuals are motivated enough to create fake profiles and target a business repeatedly), however if that can be done, there are possibilities for the business to take action in respect of a negative review if certain criteria are met.  First, if the business is operated by individuals, then it is possible for action to be taken in defamation, provided that the publication is materially untrue, or at least the imputations that come from the publication are untrue.  Furthermore, the defence of truth might avoid the consequences of a defamation proceeding if the review is obviously one of opinion, in certain circumstances.  Corporations generally have no action for defamation unless they are “excluded corporations” under the defamation legislation in Australia.  There are a few categories of excluded corporations, the most significant test is that it employs fewer than 10 persons (or slightly more in the case that some are part time), however there are qualifications to that.  It would be correct to say that many small businesses operated by corporations with less than 10 employees would have the right to bring an action in defamation.  If an action in defamation is not available (for example if a company has more than 10 employees), there are some other causes of action that might be available.  One is in a case where (for example) a competitor has caused the adverse review to be made.  In that case, the competitor may have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to the Australian Consumer Law.  Another is what is known as the tort of injurious falsehood.  This is similar to defamation, however more difficult to establish because: The statement must be false; It must be motivated by malice – this can be difficult to prove because it has to be shown that the reviewer intended to cause harm to the business; and That actual loss has to have been suffered.  This third aspect means that there is a higher test of showing that – not only is it likely that the business will suffer, but that it has in fact suffered.  If you believe that your business has been adversely impacted by a negative review, please contact Justin Mathews at justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au

At the moment – on the Gold and Sunshine Coasts at least – the property market is booming (February 2021). Properties are selling quickly and sometimes sight unseen to interstate buyers. Some agents are having trouble finding stock, some people who have sold with a view to renting and then buying later are having trouble finding places to rent. So with a rising market comes a few issues for buyers. Sellers might look to terminate contracts for the failure of conditions (such as finance) so that they can sell to someone else for a higher price. Sellers might not proceed with contracts if the buyer is wanting the contract to be conditional on various things. A buyer might be negotiating away only to find out that the property has been sold to someone else. So what is the minimum needed to have an agreement that can be enforced? well in Queensland, section 59 of the Property Law Act requires contracts to be in writing and signed. The requirement for signing can be overcome in some cases of email communications by the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001. As a result it is possible that an exchange of emails which sufficiently identify the terms of the arrangement such as the property, the price, any special conditions, and settlement date, as well as identifying the standard form contract applicable, will be sufficient to bind the seller and buyer, even if the emails express that the arrangement is “subject to contract”. These matters do turn on their individual facts, but it is worth taking advice if you feel that you have arrived at an agreement and are then told that the seller has shifted their position. For advice in relation to contracts and commercial matters, please contact Peter Muller, Jessica Murray, and Megan Hanneman at QBM Lawyers.

Claims by disappointed children or partners to a share – or a greater share – of a deceased estate are becoming more common. These claims (known as family provision claims) have a significant impact upon the estate because of the costs involved, the delay in administering the estate because of litigation, and the potential adjustment by making further provision for the claimant. But is it possible that an unsuccessful claimant will have to pay the costs of the estate in defending the claim? The answer is yes, in some cases. The general position in litigation is that “costs follow the event”. That means that usually, a successful party will have their costs paid, an unsuccessful party will have to pay their own costs and those of the other party. A typical family provision application in the District Court, running to trial for 2 days with barristers, might result in the incurring of costs of somewhere between about $60,000 to $80,000 for each side, though in some cases it might be much more depending on what is in dispute. Not all of those costs would be recoverable on the usual basis of orders (that “standard basis”), a successful party would potentially recover about 60% of their costs on the standard basis and 80% on the indemnity basis, though in some instances the rate of recovery might be a lot less because of the arrangements of the party with their lawyer, perhaps where there is a “no win no fee” type of arrangement with a much higher rate of fees than the court scale. In family provisions however it is not uncommon for the courts to order – where the applicant failed and usually would have to pay the estate’s costs – that each party bear their own costs. This means that in many cases the estate will have to bear its own costs of the dispute, meaning that there is now (say) $80,000 less available for distribution to beneficiaries. This sort of order is dependent on the facts of the matter and the conduct of the litigation, including whether the case was borderline (i.e. it could have gone either way, which would tell against costs being awarded against the unsuccessful applicant) or poor or adventurous (which would suggest that costs should be ordered against the unsuccessful applicant). Also of relevance is the financial position of the applicant (would they suffer significantly if costs were ordered against them) and whether the estate had made a reasonable offer of settlement. These factors were considered in the decision of Dawson v. Joiner (No.2) [2011] QSC 403, with a very handy discussion of the state of the law in respect of the costs of these applications. If you are considering making a claim against an estate, or intend to oppose one, please do not hesitate to contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au

From our offices at the corner of Bundall Road and Karp Court, Bundall, we have been watching the development of the Gold Coast City cultural precinct with interest. The HOTA building in particular has generated very strong opinion, count me a bit of a fan. Bundall is a good location for a law firm, nice and central and in a business hub. We have been in this building for 20 years, and in these offices for almost all of that. Our position in Karp Court in particular has access to parking and other facilities that makes it easy for clients to visit.