Blog Archives

TweetIn Daniel Starr v Department of Human Services,1 Mr Starr had been employed by the Department of Human Services (Department) as a frontline Centrelink customer service officer for more than 20 years before his dismissal for posting negative, inappropriate, and derogatory comments about the Department and its customers on social media platforms outside of working […]

For as the High Court has ruled on many occasions, if it were the Intent of Parliament to allow the ABS to use the legislation in this way and create regulations that can affect National Security, National Pride and encroach on Human Rights, then Parliament would have explicitly said so, but that sure as hell can not be an assumed authority the ABS has by default.

If EVERYBODY followed this method, a MASS ACTION which is Co-ordinated, each step of the way the team analyses results from each response, collaborating together in refining each persons unique complaint as a hive. This kind of action is virtually unstoppable.

If you have a Criminal case in a lower Court as low down as the Magistrates Court (VCAT,NCAT, QCAT etc do not apply) AND you raise a Constitutional Matter AND the AG’s either fail to reply or reply in the negative for intervention (thinking your case is too trivial or lacks merit) THEN not only can the Magistrates Court decide the matter but the Prosecution CAN NOT APPEAL it unless granted Special Leave by the High Court.

The decision in Probuild significantly expands the scope for parties to challenge adjudication determinations under the Security of Payment Act.

A South Australian man has received a $7,500 fine and a criminal conviction for knowingly and recklessly using the title “psychologist” in breach of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law as in force in each state and territory (the National Law).

This legislation introduces a number of changes to the regulation of building work in Victoria and aims to enhance consumer protection for domestic building work. Some of these changes will come into effect on 4 July.

Four years later the same parties are back before the same Court on the very same issue now in Bobolas v Waverley Council [2016] NSWCA 139 Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the adoption of the Plain Packaging Measures was foreseeable well before the Claimant’s decision to restructure was taken (let alone implemented).

In light of the foregoing discussion, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the initiation of this arbitration constitutes an abuse of rights.

Following ASIC action, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (Allianz) has compensated 740 Petplan insurance customers over $231,000 and its agent, Petplan Australasia Pty Ltd (Petplan), has corrected its Petplan advertising.

%d bloggers like this: