The Institute of Family Studies has been requested by the Federal Attorney General to review the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act, sometimes called the shared care amendments.
[Barry Nilsson] I am confident that the Institute can cut through the self-interested anecdotal based lobbying to reach a sensible conclusion. Anecdotes are typically boring and irrelevant. One outcome should be to recommend simplification of the convoluted provisions in the Act.
Tony Abbott’s reported suggestion to allow couples to opt into a fault based system are not likely to live long in the public mind. [Barry Nilsson]
For more information, please contact Don Leembruggen or visit Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Income disparity
The Australian Institute of Studies has released a study confirming the long held view that divorce has lasting impacts on women’s income levels compared with their male partners. [Barry Nilsson] The information collected to reach this conclusion was compiled since 2001. There has, of course, been major legislative change in the form of the `shared care’ amendments during the study time. It is my experience that the `shared care’ regime and greater flexibility by employers has enabled mothers to re-enter the workforce far sooner. [Barry Nilsson] I suspect the reported gap will close somewhat over the near time.
Legal advisers should always be aware of spouse maintenance entitlements. I am sure many women have been `short changed’ by their advisers by not recommending the pursuit of this entitlement.
For more information, please contact Don Leembruggen or visit Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.
Legal advisers should always be aware of spouse maintenance entitlements. I am sure many women have been `short changed’ by their advisers by not recommending the pursuit of this entitlement.
For more information, please contact Don Leembruggen or visit Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Sharon Templeton - Promotion to Partnership
We are pleased to announce the promotion of Sharon Templeton to partnership. Sharon commenced with the firm as a Senior Associate in 2001 and has over 10 years experience in construction litigation and insurance law. She acts for insurers, self-insureds and underwriters with respect to complex public liability, product liability and property damage claims. Sharon also advises on risk management and coverage issues frequently linked to these matters. [Barry Nilsson] One of her specialisations is defending local authorities in relation to claims involving flooding, subsidence, town planning and road maintenance issues. Sharon also has a broad range of experience advising on liability for claims arising out of major building and construction projects, including contractual claims and dual insurance.
Insurance Law Review - 2009
Our seventh Annual Insurance Law Review titled “Weathering the Storm” will be held in Brisbane and Sydney in September 2009.
Dr Andries Terblanché, Chairman of Financial Services for KPMG, will discuss the global financial crisis in an insurance context.
For more information click here to register your interest.
Check out the latest articles form Barry Nilsson.
Dr Andries Terblanché, Chairman of Financial Services for KPMG, will discuss the global financial crisis in an insurance context.
For more information click here to register your interest.
Check out the latest articles form Barry Nilsson.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Court of Appeal declares that "ratchet" rent review clauses in retail shop leases are ok
Connor Hunter v Keencrest Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 156
The Queensland Court of Appeal has today declared that ‘ratchet’ rent review clauses in a lease are permitted by the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (“Act”). Ratchet rent review clauses do not allow CPI or market rent reviews to decrease the rent.
Section 36(e) of the Act provides that a rent review clause in a lease is void if it provides for the rent to change in accordance with whichever of two or more methods of calculating rent will result in the highest amount.
The tenant in this case (Keencrest Pty Ltd) successfully argued at first instance that the ratchet rent review clause was void because it stopped the rent from decreasing. [Barry & Nilsson] However, the Court of Appeal by a 2 to 1 majority, has today overturned that decision.
The Court of Appeal considered the wording of section 36(e) of the Act and noted that it refers to methods of calculating a ‘change’ in the rent. By requiring the rent to remain the same if there was to be no increase, the Court concluded that the ratchet rent review clauses did not fall foul of section 36(e) because if rent remained the same then there would be no change in the rent.
The Court found that the wording of section 36(e) was clear and so it considered that it was not entitled to have regard to the explanatory memorandum for the Act and the Minister’s second reading speech from 1994, [Barry & Nilsson] despite that fact that these sources made it clear that it was the Parliament’s intention to prohibit ratchet rent reviews.
After nearly 15 years, this decision overturns the previously held belief that ratchet rent review clauses in retail shop leases are void. In light of the express intention of Parliament to discourage these types of clauses, it is likely that we can expect further amendments to the Act to reverse this decision in the near future.
We recommend that you do nothing for future leases. It would be a brave landlord who re-tests the intent of Parliament.
For further information on this topic, please contact Cameron Graham, Clive Nichol or Sonia Whitehouse at Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.
The Queensland Court of Appeal has today declared that ‘ratchet’ rent review clauses in a lease are permitted by the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (“Act”). Ratchet rent review clauses do not allow CPI or market rent reviews to decrease the rent.
Section 36(e) of the Act provides that a rent review clause in a lease is void if it provides for the rent to change in accordance with whichever of two or more methods of calculating rent will result in the highest amount.
The tenant in this case (Keencrest Pty Ltd) successfully argued at first instance that the ratchet rent review clause was void because it stopped the rent from decreasing. [Barry & Nilsson] However, the Court of Appeal by a 2 to 1 majority, has today overturned that decision.
The Court of Appeal considered the wording of section 36(e) of the Act and noted that it refers to methods of calculating a ‘change’ in the rent. By requiring the rent to remain the same if there was to be no increase, the Court concluded that the ratchet rent review clauses did not fall foul of section 36(e) because if rent remained the same then there would be no change in the rent.
The Court found that the wording of section 36(e) was clear and so it considered that it was not entitled to have regard to the explanatory memorandum for the Act and the Minister’s second reading speech from 1994, [Barry & Nilsson] despite that fact that these sources made it clear that it was the Parliament’s intention to prohibit ratchet rent reviews.
After nearly 15 years, this decision overturns the previously held belief that ratchet rent review clauses in retail shop leases are void. In light of the express intention of Parliament to discourage these types of clauses, it is likely that we can expect further amendments to the Act to reverse this decision in the near future.
We recommend that you do nothing for future leases. It would be a brave landlord who re-tests the intent of Parliament.
For further information on this topic, please contact Cameron Graham, Clive Nichol or Sonia Whitehouse at Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Barry and Nilsson - Financial agreements and property settlements - the pitfalls
It is increasingly the policy of our governments that parties to an ended marriage or de facto relationship should be able to resolve their differences by way of agreement, rather than litigation.
It is also the case that newly committed couples are encouraged to enter into agreements to spare themselves further heartache upon the foreseeable, [Barry and Nilsson] yet unwanted, demise of their relationship.
Of the latter variety, there is still some resistance, particularly from young couples, who see the negotiation and existence of such an agreement as unromantic and contrary to the very nature of their new commitment. And before we laugh at their naivete, it must be remembered that it was not too long ago that such agreements were deemed void in Australian law as a imposition upon the sacred institution of marriage. There is some small hypocrisy in making a vow “for life” and at the same time negotiating to break that vow.
But, now we have them, and they ought to be used. Our preferred form of advice to unwilling couples is to think of the agreement a little like a will. No-one plans to die, certainly not in the short term future, and yet a will provides for that eventuality.
It is also our experience that agreements made at the start of a relationship can disfavour women. Even couples willing to enter into agreements generally negotiate it on the basis that what each party brings in to the relationship is theirs and they will split what they acquire during the relationship equally. It seems fair, but it’s usually not. [Barry and Nilsson] The reason being is that inevitably during a lengthy relationship, the dynamics of the relationship change. One party, usually the man, acquires the greater financial control. One party, usually the woman, sacrifices career and money for the primary care of children. Inevitably couples do not consider the “future needs factors” the courts must consider in property settlements in Queensland – for both married and de facto couples.
There are mechanisms to counter this – sunset clauses, contingency clauses and the like. All are acceptable. But even sophisticated couples will be reticent to find out they might have to do this unromantic thing again, perhaps at a time when the relationship is at its zenith – at the birth of a child.
Further still, our governments have decided that if the agreements don’t “tick all the boxes” the relevant legislation requires, then the parties may well have not bothered. If a de facto couple does not have a “recognised separation agreement” as opposed to an “agreement,” or if a married couple does not have a “binding financial agreement” as opposed to an “agreement,” then the agreement is almost of no value whatsoever.
What does this all mean?
Unfortunately, and perhaps in spite of the governments’ policies, it is simply impossible for these agreements, if they are to be just, equitable and binding, unless each party consults upon a family lawyer. If you, or someone you know, is about to start living with someone else, get married, or is dealing with the death throes of a relationship, encourage them to enter into an agreement and to seek the appropriate advise to make the agreement work.
For further information on this topic, please contact Barry and Nilsson Lawyers.
It is also the case that newly committed couples are encouraged to enter into agreements to spare themselves further heartache upon the foreseeable, [Barry and Nilsson] yet unwanted, demise of their relationship.
Of the latter variety, there is still some resistance, particularly from young couples, who see the negotiation and existence of such an agreement as unromantic and contrary to the very nature of their new commitment. And before we laugh at their naivete, it must be remembered that it was not too long ago that such agreements were deemed void in Australian law as a imposition upon the sacred institution of marriage. There is some small hypocrisy in making a vow “for life” and at the same time negotiating to break that vow.
But, now we have them, and they ought to be used. Our preferred form of advice to unwilling couples is to think of the agreement a little like a will. No-one plans to die, certainly not in the short term future, and yet a will provides for that eventuality.
It is also our experience that agreements made at the start of a relationship can disfavour women. Even couples willing to enter into agreements generally negotiate it on the basis that what each party brings in to the relationship is theirs and they will split what they acquire during the relationship equally. It seems fair, but it’s usually not. [Barry and Nilsson] The reason being is that inevitably during a lengthy relationship, the dynamics of the relationship change. One party, usually the man, acquires the greater financial control. One party, usually the woman, sacrifices career and money for the primary care of children. Inevitably couples do not consider the “future needs factors” the courts must consider in property settlements in Queensland – for both married and de facto couples.
There are mechanisms to counter this – sunset clauses, contingency clauses and the like. All are acceptable. But even sophisticated couples will be reticent to find out they might have to do this unromantic thing again, perhaps at a time when the relationship is at its zenith – at the birth of a child.
Further still, our governments have decided that if the agreements don’t “tick all the boxes” the relevant legislation requires, then the parties may well have not bothered. If a de facto couple does not have a “recognised separation agreement” as opposed to an “agreement,” or if a married couple does not have a “binding financial agreement” as opposed to an “agreement,” then the agreement is almost of no value whatsoever.
What does this all mean?
Unfortunately, and perhaps in spite of the governments’ policies, it is simply impossible for these agreements, if they are to be just, equitable and binding, unless each party consults upon a family lawyer. If you, or someone you know, is about to start living with someone else, get married, or is dealing with the death throes of a relationship, encourage them to enter into an agreement and to seek the appropriate advise to make the agreement work.
For further information on this topic, please contact Barry and Nilsson Lawyers.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
De facto financial disputes come to the Federal Courts
The latest update from Barry & Nilsson lawyers:
On 25 June 2008 the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial and Other Measures) Bill 2008 (the Bill) was introduced to the federal parliament. If passed, the Bill will introduce a number of landmark changes to the Family Law Act 1975 (the Act).
Most notably, the Bill will signal the end of the bifurcated [Barry & Nilsson] system that requires de facto couples to resolve financial disputes in state and territory courts, notwithstanding their ability to [Barry & Nilsson] settle parenting matters in the federal court system.
Participating jurisdictions
New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria have all passed legislation referring power to the Commonwealth. Existing constitutional power enables the Commonwealth to legislate in relation to the Northern Territory and the ACT.
Currently South Australia and Western Australia are not participating jurisdictions, but are in discussions with the Commonwealth regarding their position in relation to the Bill.
Jurisdiction
The legislation will not apply to parties to a de facto relationship that breaks down prior to the commencement of the new provisions. This might mean parties either try and break up earlier or later, depending [Barry & Nilsson] upon the benefits of the change of the legislation. It may also mean that the end point of a relationship may well be a litigation point, depending upon the benefits. It’s important to note in this regard that NSW’s present de facto legislation does not provide for “section 75(2) factor” considerations (unlike Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974).
Applications for maintenance, declarations of property interests or property settlement must be made within two years of the breakdown of the relationship.
There are also threshold tests similar to those in present de facto legislation going to the status of the relationship.
Substantive Provisions
The law is designed to mirror existing financial provisions for married couples. As a result, all relationship [Barry & Nilsson] property settlements will be determined is much the same way and the old distinctions as to the status of a relationship (or the parties to them i.e. same sex couples) are designed to be eliminated. Lawyers will be able to provide greater certainty to clients given that all property settlements will be dealt with by either the Family Court or the FMC, courts specifically tasked with that jurisdiction.
For more information contact Barry & Nilsson
On 25 June 2008 the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial and Other Measures) Bill 2008 (the Bill) was introduced to the federal parliament. If passed, the Bill will introduce a number of landmark changes to the Family Law Act 1975 (the Act).
Most notably, the Bill will signal the end of the bifurcated [Barry & Nilsson] system that requires de facto couples to resolve financial disputes in state and territory courts, notwithstanding their ability to [Barry & Nilsson] settle parenting matters in the federal court system.
Participating jurisdictions
New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria have all passed legislation referring power to the Commonwealth. Existing constitutional power enables the Commonwealth to legislate in relation to the Northern Territory and the ACT.
Currently South Australia and Western Australia are not participating jurisdictions, but are in discussions with the Commonwealth regarding their position in relation to the Bill.
Jurisdiction
The legislation will not apply to parties to a de facto relationship that breaks down prior to the commencement of the new provisions. This might mean parties either try and break up earlier or later, depending [Barry & Nilsson] upon the benefits of the change of the legislation. It may also mean that the end point of a relationship may well be a litigation point, depending upon the benefits. It’s important to note in this regard that NSW’s present de facto legislation does not provide for “section 75(2) factor” considerations (unlike Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974).
Applications for maintenance, declarations of property interests or property settlement must be made within two years of the breakdown of the relationship.
There are also threshold tests similar to those in present de facto legislation going to the status of the relationship.
Substantive Provisions
The law is designed to mirror existing financial provisions for married couples. As a result, all relationship [Barry & Nilsson] property settlements will be determined is much the same way and the old distinctions as to the status of a relationship (or the parties to them i.e. same sex couples) are designed to be eliminated. Lawyers will be able to provide greater certainty to clients given that all property settlements will be dealt with by either the Family Court or the FMC, courts specifically tasked with that jurisdiction.
For more information contact Barry & Nilsson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
