Australian Paralegal Foundation

  • 204

The Australian Paralegal Foundation is a registered Charity Organisation with the ACNC which fosters a better understanding of the law in the Community.   

Friends
My Discussions
Beginners Guide to the Australian Paralegal Foundation Network 1.  Getting Started After you hav…
by Australian Paralegal Foundation
1
A quiet Australia Policy - Brought to you by the Australian Government.  
by Australian Paralegal Foundation
1
This case involved a mandatory cancellation of a 866 Protection Visa pursuant to s 501(3A).   Se…
by Australian Paralegal Foundation
1
The term "cuckoo smurfing" is used to describe a certain type of #moneylaundering. Cuckoo refers to …
by Australian Paralegal Foundation
1
Nicely found Jane Glover .  Yes on one perspective the original post here just examined the question…
by Danny Jovica
3
Profile Feed

The increasing prevalence of drone technology has resulted in a greater focus on how this technology ought to be regulated.  We’ve set out below a summary of what is currently happening in Australia and around the world. 

Drone Recap

Drone use in Australia is regulated under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASA Regulations). These Regulations are enforced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and regulate the licensing and operation of drone use.  While the CASA Regulations regulate matters such as minimum distances from people and places, prohibited flight areas and time of day licensing, CASA does not have jurisdiction over noise issues (managing complaints about drone noise is currently the remit of Air Services).

Earlier this year, we wrote about Wing Aviation’s commercial drone delivery service following a trial undertaken in Canberra. The Canberra trial was met by complaints from local residents, largely concerned with the noise generated by the drones. These complaints led to inquiry by the ACT Government (the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Tourism) (the ACT Inquiry) whose recommendations included:

  • the Australian Information Privacy Commissioner work with the ACT Government in considering placing restrictions on commercial delivery drones on the collection of the personal information of non-users in order to address privacy concerns; and
  • the ACT Government proactively engage with the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (the Department), in the Department’s review of drone noise regulation, drawing on the experience of the ACT community in drone delivery trials.

Changes in Drone Regulation

Following the concerns of Canberra residents and the ACT Inquiry, the Department has:

  • re-examined the applicability of the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018 (the Air Navigation Regulations) and concluded that a range of commercial and recreational drone operations within Australia require approvals under the Air Navigation Regulations (until recently the Department was of the view that the Air Navigation Regulations did not apply to drone operations).   Approval can be denied if the aircraft in question has had, and is likely to continue to have, a significant noise impact on the public; and
  • initiated a review of aircraft noise: Review of the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018 – Remotely Piloted Aircraft. The review intends to consider the continued appropriate scope and breadth of drone noise regulation. The review will address a range of noise-related issues, including jurisdictional issues, the relevance of the existing Air Navigation Regulations and the role of Air Services, community acceptance, and state, territory and local government noise standards. Submissions for the Review closed on 22 November 2019.

In addition, the Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Remotely Piloted Aircraft and Model Aircraft—Registration and Accreditation) Regulations 2019 introduced amendments to the CASA Regulations. The amendments, which are expected to fully come into force by mid-2020, introduce greater restrictions on drone use, including on licensing. The amendments impose the following restrictions:

  • people flying drones over 250 grams (or a drone of any weight for commercial purposes) must hold a remote pilot licence (RePL) (as before) and complete an online safety quiz to achieve accreditation. Accreditation must be renewed every 3 years;
  • all recreational drones over 250 grams and all commercial drones regardless of weight must be registered with CASA. Registration must be renewed every year;
  • a minimum age of 18 years for drone ownership (Individuals over 16 years can operate drones if supervised by a licensed drone operator over the age of 18); and
  • compliance with the new manual of standards incorporating regulatory guidelines on drone use.

Operating a drone without the required accreditation or an RePL will attract fines of up to $10,500.  Fines of up to $10,500 will also be applicable for a failure to comply with the requirement to register a drone.

Update on regulatory changes in other jurisdictions

The experiences in Australia parallel regulatory reforms occurring in other jurisdictions. Countries around the world are considering how best to regulate drones, given the rapidly evolving technology as well as the potential benefits it may bring. 

  • In the United Kingdom, the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons recently released a report entitled “Commercial and Recreational Drone Use in the UK”, calling for greater drone regulations, including registration, drone ID transmission and geofencing around sensitive locations.
  • The European Commission has adopted EU rules to apply to both professional operators and recreational users in EU member states, which replace member states’ national laws. As of 2020, drone operators will be required to register with national authorities. The common European rules on drones, published in June this year – Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 – are designed to replace the currently fragmented regulatory framework with coherent guidelines. Stakeholders will discuss the new rules and regulatory proposal at the High Level Conference on Drones taking place at Amsterdam Drone Week on 5-6 December. 
  • In Taiwan, the Unmanned Vehicles Technology Innovation Experimentation Act entered into force on 1 June 2019, and a new regulation for drone use under the latest amendment to the Civil Aviation Act will take effect on 31 March 2020. Under the new act, drone operators in Taiwan will need to register with and pass an exam conducted by the Civil Aeronautics Administration to obtain a licence to operate drones.
  • The South Korean government also recently unveiled a roadmap for regulatory reform to enable growth of the drone industry. The South Korean government has projected that drone operations will be fully autonomous by 2025, and that drones will be able to carry passengers and fly in heavily populated areas by this date. The government intends to develop a drone traffic control system and designate drone space that is different from that which currently applies for aircraft.
  • In Canada, Drone Delivery Canada Corporation recently announced that it entered into a commercial agreement with the Edmonton Regional Airports Authority, to establish the world's first airport drone delivery hub at Edmonton International Airport.

These kinds of regulatory reforms reflect an acceptance that commercial drone delivery will be with us in the near future, and the need to ensure appropriate controls are in place as this technology develops. While noise concerns have taken primacy in the Australian context, other concerns such as privacy still remain largely unaddressed. The regulatory contexts both locally and internationally are set to change in coming years and will be an interesting space to watch.

Source : GTLAW

The common law tort of deceit is committed where someone fraudulently makes a false representation that you rely upon which ultimately causes you loss.

The elements of the tort are:

  1. The defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff
  2. The defendant made the representation fraudulently (in a way that intends to deceive by doing something dishonest)
  3. The defendant intended the plaintiff to believe in and rely on the representation
  4. The plaintiff did act in reliance on the representation, and
  5. The plaintiff suffered damage.

    (Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551 [59], [114])




From  the 17th of December 2019, Australian citizens wanting to travel to Chile will need to apply for and have a consular tourist visa.

If visiting Chile you will need to request the visa from the Chilean consulate in Melbourne, Syndey or the A.C.T, prior to arrival in Chile.

The visa allows a maximum stay of 90 days.

Labor MP Julian Hill is pushing for a plan to get Australia to ditch the British monarchy and become a republic without a referendum.

The Labor backbencher for Bruce, Victoria, is proposing a plan to get state and federal MPs to vote to change royal succession laws.

Mr Hill claims the Australian public should not be responsible for changing the laws but rather it should be up to members of parliament.
If the proposal is accepted parliament could change the law which would see Queen Elizabeth be Australia's last ever monarch

  • 1

South Australian Police announce that stoning wombats to death is fine, so long as you do so according to traditional customs and eat it afterwards, with the Director of Prosecutions stating there was "no reasonable prospect of a conviction",  its a quasi licence to kill wombats by stoning, in fact you can even enjoy it as much as this police officer in the video.

Internship or Exploitation?

A talented young footballer who played soccer for a professional club for almost four months without being paid has taken legal action in a case that could set a precedent on the legality of unpaid work, trials and internships in Australia.

Unpaid work is increasingly common, particularly for young people, and is happening "all over the labour market right now," according to workplace law expert Professor Andrew Stewart.

Mr Moric is now pursuing Federal Circuit Court action for more than $60,000 in unpaid wages and damages against the Mariners and their manager Alen Stajcic, saying the unpaid work left him "deeply depressed" and doubting his future in the game.

A Mariners spokesman said the club was "surprised" by the nature of the claim and said they "believe it to be without merit". The club would "strongly defend" itself.

Rugby Australia and Israel Folau reach settlement, both apologise 'for any hurt or harm caused'

In defamation proceedings this is how you kiss and make up.

Rugby Australia has avoided a costly and potentially embarrassing legal trial after reaching a settlement agreement with sacked Wallaby Israel Folau.

After 14 hours of negotiations, RA apologised to Folau and his family, saying "while it was not Rugby Australia's intention, Rugby Australia acknowledges and apologises for any hurt or harm caused to the Folaus".

"Similarly, Mr Folau did not intend to hurt or harm the game of rugby and acknowledges and apologises for any hurt or harm caused," the two parties said in a joint statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.

The parties released a joint statement, saying:

"The Social Media Post reflected Mr Folau’s genuinely held religious beliefs, and Mr Folau did not intend to harm or offend any person when he uploaded the Social Media Post.

"Mr Folau wants all Australians to know that he does not condone discrimination of any kind against any person on the grounds of their sexuality and that he shares Rugby Australia’s commitment to inclusiveness and diversity.

 

Paralympian not entitled to damages for quadriplegic injuries
sustained during camp drafting competition

The people running the training camp avoided liability for quadriplegia injuries sustained by the Paralympian during a camp drafting competition by successfully arguing that the injuries were due to an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, despite numerous falls having occurred in the hour prior to the incident and doubts regarding the safety of the grounds.

In Issue

  • Whether riding a horse during a camp drafting competition could be considered a dangerous recreational activity.
  • Whether injuries suffered as a result of falling from a horse during a camp drafting competition could be considered an obvious risk.

The Background

The Paralympian  was a young female who was rendered quadriplegic when she fell from her horse while participating in a camp draft competition, an activity where horse mounted participants muster cattle at high speed around a course with the aim of showing their control over both the horse and the cattle.

A number of riders had fallen in the hour prior to the Paralympian’s accident, and queries had been made about the safety of the ground, and whether the competition should continue. Prior to competing in this competition, the Paralympian was required to sign a waiver.

The Decision at Trial

Although the existence of a duty of care was found, the trial judge found in favour of the people running the camp. He considered that the camp drafting activity was a dangerous recreational activity, and that although falls at camp drafting events were rare, the potential harm could be catastrophic, as in this case. The Paralympian accepted that she knew that there was a risk of serious injury, and the waiver she had signed was to this effect.

In considering whether the risk was an obvious risk, it was not necessary to consider the circumstances of the ground on the day – rather, the risk could be classified as the risk of falling from the horse and suffering an injury while competing in a camp drafting competition, given the risks/complexities inherent in that activity. This risk was obvious, and the Paralympian's accident was a materialisation of that obvious risk.

Implications for you

The Court considered both the question of whether the recreational activity was dangerous, and whether the injury was a manifestation of an obvious risk of that activity in a broad sense, by considering the risk of horse riding as a whole, rather than the specific areas of risk which eventuated (i.e. attributable to the ground surface). This is reflective of an increasing trend in NSW, where the Courts take a broad approach when considering defences under section 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). It remains to be seen whether an appeal will be lodged.

Tapp v Australian Bushmen’s Campdraft & Rodeo Association Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1506

EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE BEEN CHEATING EMPLOYEES ON SUPER GIVEN AMNESTY TO PAY UP


There has been an increase in publicity around the underpayment of employees. Employers will soon be able to take advantage of the government’s proposed amnesty and correct any failure in the period from 1 July 1992 to 31 March 2018 to fully comply with their Superannuation Guarantee (SG) obligations and avoid fees, penalties and taxes that would otherwise be payable. Following the amnesty, employers who have not complied with their SG obligations in this period will face a penalty of at least 100% of the SG charge.

Good Behaviour Bond and a fine for assaulting a police officer?
This was the second time Eleanor Gurney-Pigot, 25 was convicted for assaulting a police officer.

 

'She said ''I don't give a f**k who you are''. She struck out at me with her left arm to my right shoulder,' Sgt Sadler told the court,   Gurney-Pigot then kicked Sgt Sadler in the left side of her head.

In a police interview after the assault, Gurney-Pigot said she should have kicked the officer harder after being advised of Sgt Sadler's injuries, the court heard.  

Gurney-Pigot added she would 'kill the s**t' next time.

Eleanor Gurney-Pigot, 25, was charged with assaulting police causing actual bodily harm and resisting police after kicking Sergeant Catherine Sadler outside Northies, in Cronulla, on April 28, 2019.

In 2013, Gurney-Pigot was handed an 18 month good behaviour bond after being found guilty of assaulting and resisting police.

Magistrate  Love ordered her to pay $1200 and she is required to serve an 18- month Community Corrections Order. 

 

 




Info
Organization Name:
Australian Paralegal Foundation
Category:
Membership

Administrator

Administrators
My Posts
SSL Certificates