McKillop Legal

Road Rules Awareness – Top 10 misunderstood road rules

Here is a guide to the Top 10 misunderstood Road Rules which provides simple answers to many road rule questions, including using roundabouts, when you can and can’t use high-beam and fog lights, and when it is permitted to make a u-turn.

Top 10 Misunderstood Road Rules

Below are some short videos on each topic in the top 10.

Roundabouts

Giving way to pedestrians when turning

Mobile phones

Merging

Keeping left

Using headlights and foglights

U-turns

Safe following distances

School zones

Yellow traffic lights

Road Rules Awareness Week provides an annual opportunity for drivers to refresh their knowledge of road rules. It also allows pedestrians, motorcyclists, passengers and bicycle riders to better understand the rules and improve their safety on or near the road.

 

 

in Criminal Law / General  by 01 Oct 2025 0 comments

Smart glasses and recording without consent

Smartphones are everywhere – they are light, portable and small and often used to record events – and now we have smart glasses, but how does their ease and regularity of use sit with an individual’s right to privacy? Hod do you really know if they are recording?

The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) regulates the use of listening devices.  That Act also covers the use of data surveillance, optical surveillance devices and tracking devices. Breaches of the Act can lead to criminal charges.

What is a listening device?

The Act defines a listening device as:

“any device capable of being used to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a conversation or words spoken to or by any person in conversation, but does not include a hearing aid or similar device used by a person with impaired hearing to overcome the impairment and permit that person to hear only sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear”

so it clearly includes mobile phones, GoPros and video cameras… and yes, smart glasses!

It is an offence under s.7 to knowingly install, use or cause to be used or maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party or to record a private conversation to which the person is a party.

There are some exceptions to this however, such as if:

  • all principal parties to the private conversation expressly or impliedly consent to its use, or

  • you are a principal party to the private conversation and:
    • it is reasonably necessary to protect your lawful interests; or

    • you do not intend to communicate or publish what was recorded or a report of it to anyone who was not party to the private conversation

The onus of proof for establishing an exception lies on the party seeking to establish the exception, and that onus is on the balance of probabilities.

Law enforcement officials can use listening devices in a range of circumstances including where they have a warrant from a Judge or Magistrate; if they don’t have a warrant but there is a serious or urgent matter requiring its use but not enough time to get a warrant; or where a police officer wearing a visible body worn video device etc.

Even if in Court proceedings, the exception to the rule is not found to apply, it might still (but in certain circumstances only) be possible to have the recording, or evidence based on it such as a transcript of what was said, admitted into evidence under the improperly obtained evidence rules in s.138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

What is a private conversation?

A private conversation is conversation where it can be reasonably assumed that those involved in the conversation do not want the conversation to be overheard by others, that is, it is more informal or not public. A private conversation is not private if the people in the conversation can reasonably expect the conversation to be overheard by others…. so be careful when in public as you may be recorded.

Penalties

The best course is generally not to record a private conversation without consent unless it is absolutely necessary.

The penalty for individuals for a serious breach of the Act is an $11,000 fine or up to 5 years in prison.

A person who intentionally or recklessly communicates or publishes the contents of a private conversation which could endanger the health or safety of someone, or prejudice an investigation, faces a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison.

For corporations, offences under the Act attract a maximum fine of up to $55,000.

FURTHER INFORMATION

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice.

For more information, please contact McKillop Legal on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au to discuss your needs.

Stay up to date – LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter

in Criminal Law / General / Risk management  by 02 Sep 2025 0 comments

All employers now subject to employee “right to disconnect”

Whilst it isn’t news that, under amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) and consequent amendments to Modern Awards, from 26 August 2024 employees of larger employers have the new ‘right to disconnect’ outside of work hours… what many small businesses employers don’t realise is that this law will also apply to them from 26 August 2025.

What is a “small business employer”?

A small business employer is an employer with fewer than 15 employees at a particular time.

When counting the number of employees, employees of associated entities of the employer are also included. Casual employees are not included in this headcount unless they are engaged on a regular and systematic basis (but they also have the right to disconnect).

So what is the “right to disconnect”?

Employees have the right to refuse contact outside their working hours unless that refusal is unreasonable. This right means an employee can refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact from an employer or a third party (such as customers, clients, suppliers and related businesses) outside of an employee’s working hours.

Contact is broad and can include in person contact, calls, emails, texts, WhatsApp chats or through other Apps etc.

The right to disconnect is a protected right all employees have under the FW Act. An employee can’t be punished or adversely treated for enforcing a workplace right. Employees are protected from any disciplinary action for reasonably ignoring such emails.

What is “unreasonable”?

When working out whether an employee’s refusal is “unreasonable” other matters may also be considered but the following factors must be considered:

  • the reason for the contact
  • how the contact is made and how disruptive it is to the employee
  • how much the employee is compensated or paid extra for:
    • being available to perform work during the period they’re contacted, or
    • working additional hours outside their ordinary hours of work
  • the employee’s role in the business and level of responsibility
  • the employee’s personal circumstances, including family or caring responsibilities.

It will be unreasonable for an employee to refuse to read, monitor or respond if the contact or attempted contact is required by law.

Importantly, employers are not prohibited from initiating contact with employees, but the employee is not obliged to respond unless it is deemed ‘reasonable’ for them to do so.

Senior employees on large salaries will have limited access to this right as their role or remuneration already will likely include ‘reasonable additional hours’. These laws are mainly for the benefit of Award and lower level employees and those who are expected to be available on call without additional compensation.

Disputes

Disputes about an employee’s right to disconnect should first be discussed and resolved at the workplace level (s.333N).

If that isn’t possible, employees or employers can go to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to deal with a dispute (s.333P).

The FWC can:

  • make a stop order
  • deal with the dispute in other ways (for example, by holding a conference to try to resolve the dispute), or
  • both.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information in relation to business succession, estate planning, litigation and dispute resolution or any commercial law matter, contact McKillop Legal on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice. Please contact McKillop Legal to discuss your commercial law needs.

Stay up to date – LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram

in Business / Commercial Law / Dispute Resolution / Employment / General / Litigation / Risk management  by 02 Aug 2025 0 comments

Who gets your Superannuation when you die?

On your death, your superannuation balance will not necessarily be dealt with in accordance with your wishes as stated in your Will. Read that again… slowly, then read on.

Unless you have a valid beneficiary death benefit nomination in place that directs your superannuation fund’s trustee as to who to pay your super balance to, your trustee may have a discretion as to who to pay it to.

The trustees of most retail super funds have a discretion as to who to pay a benefit to. Usually, the fund rules specify the member’s dependents as the class of beneficiaries to be considered first, with the trustee to determine the amounts/proportions but imagine what happens if you are perhaps separated (but not divorced) and you are living with another person (as a de facto) – a dispute could easily arise. What if you have children? What would/should the split be?

To minimise disputes and avoid applications to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal or the Supreme Court, make a nomination. There are generally 2 types: Non-binding and Binding

NON-BINDING NOMINATIONS

A non-binding nomination is an indication to your trustee of your preferences but it is, as it states – non-binding so the trustee can ignore it. This can be a good idea if there are significant changes in circumstances before your death where you haven’t got around to updating your nomination. The trustee’s discretion could prevent it going to your ex spouse or avoid the situation of you accidentally omitting one of your kids from a benefit.

BINDING NOMINATIONS

A binding nomination is exactly that – binding (provided that it is valid as at the date of death). There are 2 sub-categories of binding nomination: lapsing and non-lapsing.

  • LAPSING – Many funds provide for the lapsing type – and unfortunately these need to be renewed every 3 years or the nominations lapse.
  • NON-LAPSING – Most Self-Managed Super Funds (SMSFs) and some retails funds allow in their deeds for nominations that never lapse (unless you update it). Older SMSF Deeds and their Rules do not allow for the non-lapsing type and may need to be updated.

There are requirements for making any nomination legally valid, witnesses etc.

Speak to us about your estate planning and ensure your wishes are properly documented.

FURTHER INFORMATION

If you would like any further information in relation to Wills, estate planning, superannuation death benefit nominations or updating SMSF deeds , please contact us on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au

in Commercial Law / Estate Planning / General / Litigation / Probate / Superannuation / Tax Planning  by 01 Aug 2025 0 comments

How digital assets are dealt with on your death

In the digital world we live in, the majority of our time is spent online, so we build up a substantial base of assets that exist online or in the “cloud”. These assets include:

  • Email accounts
  • Cloud bases storage systems like DropBox, Google Drive, OneDrive and Apple iCloud
  • Cryptocurrency wallets
  • Social media accounts (like FaceBook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok… and the stupid SnapChat
  • Streaming services like Netflix, Prime Video, Paramount Plus and Disney
  • Domain names, websites and blogs… and even gaming accounts
  • Photos/videos and music libraries
  • other intellectual property

The problem with each of these things is that there is no single way to transfer or deal with them on your death, in your Will or otherwise.

The Terms of Services of social media accounts don’t usually allow transfer of ownership but often do have an in memoriam type mode that can be put in place through the platforms on someone’s death but they often need to be pre-arranged by the deceased before their death (for example setting a ‘legacy contact’ or equivalent).

Many, such as the streaming services, operate on a personal license basis and thus do not allow transfers of accounts, so more of a practical matter intaking control of them (login and password) rather than transferring ownership in a legal sense.

Another problem is that many of the organisations that own and control these platforms are in different countries that may not recognise an Australian grant of probate.

Wishes in relation to digital assets can be expressed in a Will in much the same way as other tangible assets like houses and cars, but consideration needs to be given to the relevant terms of use and licensing agreements and the practical matters involved. Often the wish is to have accounts closed or deleted.

One major practical step to take control of these digital assets that executors and administrators should consider is not cancelling the deceased persons mobile phone as this is often used to get reset codes and other authentications.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information in relation to Wills and estate planning, contact McKillop Legal on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au.

in Estate Planning / General / Intellectual Property / Online Issues  by 01 Jul 2025 0 comments

What is an Injunction?

An injunction is a Court order directing a person or entity to do a specific thing or not to do a something.

Most injunctions are temporary and are often made pending the outcome of a full hearing (known as an “interlocutory injunction“). An example may be to restrain a former employee from doing work for former clients where they have agreed to post-employment restraints pending a hearing on whether the restraint is lawful or to prohibit the publication of a potentially defamatory article in a newspaper or television program.

A Court will not grant an interlocutory injunction unless:

  • the Plaintiff has made out a “prima facie” case – a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial – or established that there is a serious question to be heard;
  • the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction; and
  • the Plaintiff provides “the usual undertaking as to damages” (that they will pay any damages the restrained party suffers if at a final hearing the Court determines that the injunction wasn’t justified).

A Court has discretion as to whether to make such an order and will consider thongs like whether or not you have asked the other party to do/not do the relevant thing, whether damages would be an appropriate remedy, if you have waited too long to seek the order etc.

Where an injunction is sought from a Court without the affected party being notified, this is known as an “ex-parte injunction” as it is made in the absence of a party. They are for that reason only temporary and the Court requires the applicant to disclose all relevant facts to the case, including those that may lead to refusal of the application, not just those in favour of the injunction as there is no respondent in Court to oppose it. Examples can be “freezing orders” that stop the sale of assets or to freeze a bank account to preserve them pending the Court’s further orders.

Mandatory injunctions can be obtained where for example a party to a contract refuses to comply with their lawful obligations under it. An example of this is a party to a Contract for the Sale of Land that unlawfully refuses to sign a Transfer in registrable form. Such an injunction imposes a positive obligation on the affected party to do something, not just stopping them from doing something.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information in relation to business succession, estate planning, litigation and dispute resolution or any commercial law matter, contact McKillop Legal on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice. Please contact McKillop Legal to discuss your commercial law needs.

Stay up to date – LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram

in Business / Commercial Law / Debt Recovery / Dispute Resolution / Employment / General / Insolvency & Bankruptcy / Intellectual Property / Litigation / Property  by 01 Jun 2025 0 comments

Why updating ASIC records is critical

Under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), among other methods, any document may be served on a company by:

(a) leaving it at, or posting it to, the company’s registered office; or

(b) delivering a copy of the document personally to a director.

This means that ASIC, the ATO, other government authorities or any other creditor can serve important papers on a company at its former place of business (where that address has not been updated at ASIC) even if they have since moved.

Documents that could be served on a company can include:

  • Court proceedings such as an Originating Process / Statement of Claim / Summons

As these important documents can be served on a company even though they may not actually come to the attention of the company or its directors, demonstrates why updating ASIC records is critical.

Similarly, if the ATO was to serve a Director Penalty Notice (DPN) on a director, note that:

  • DPNs are sent via ordinary mail to the Director’s last recorded residential address on ASIC’s database
  • notice is given on the day the DPN is issued, not when it is or is likely to have been received
  • actual non-receipt of a DPN is not a defence.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information, please contact McKillop Legal on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au 

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice. Please contact McKillop Legal to discuss your needs.

in Business / Commercial Law / Dispute Resolution / General / Insolvency & Bankruptcy / Litigation / Risk management  by 01 May 2025 0 comments

Order for Security for Costs

An Order for security for costs is to help ensure that unsuccessful proceedings commenced by a Plaintiff do not disadvantage the Defendant. Such applications are more usually made in relation to an appeal rather than an original matter.

A security for costs order generally requires a Plaintiff to pay a certain amount of money into Court (or a solicitor’s trust account) before their proceedings can continue – that is the proceedings are in effect stayed pending the security being provided.

The Court has several sources of power to make an order for security for costs, including:

  • the Court’s inherent power to stay proceedings to ensure the proper and effective administration of justice
  • the relevant Court rules (eg, Rule 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005);
  • s.1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Due to the weight an order for security for costs may carry, Courts must weigh the rights and interests of all parties to the proceedings. The Court has a broad discretion as to whether to grant such an order and will usually look to factors including (in no specific order):

  • the inherent legal right of a Plaintiff to bring legal proceedings;
  • the strengths and bona fides of the Plaintiff’s case
  • where the Plaintiff ordinarily is resident;
  • the financial standing and asset position of the Plaintiff in the jurisdiction in which the claim has been commenced (including where the Plaintiff may have divested itself of assets);
  • whether there is reason to believe that the Plaintiff can satisfy an order for costs not only from its own resources, but from other resources including those who will benefit from the litigation; the public importance of the case;
  • delay of bringing the application for the order;
  • if the Plaintiff hasn’t disclosed an address or has moved and not updated it, particularly if there is reason to believe that it was done to to avoid the consequences of the proceedings;
  • whether such an order will frustrate the litigation;
  • the justice of the case.

It is uncommon for such an order to be made against an individual Plaintiff (as opposed to a company, partnership or trustee) but not impossible, depending in the circumstances of the particular case and Plaintiff.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information, please contact McKillop Legal on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au 

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice. Please contact McKillop Legal to discuss your needs.

in Asset Protection / Business / Commercial Law / Debt Recovery / Dispute Resolution / General / Insolvency & Bankruptcy / Litigation / Risk management  by 01 Apr 2025 0 comments

New statutory tort – Serious Invasion of Privacy

Following the passage of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 by the Commonwealth Parliament on 29 November 2024, which amended the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and other Acts, a new statutory tort for a serious invasion of privacy will soon enter Australian law.

This new tort will commence on 10 June 2025 and confers on an individual a cause of action for serious invasions of privacy.

Elements to be proven

The tort allows individuals to take action against those:

  • who invade their privacy, either by:
    • intruding upon their seclusion; or
    • misusing their information;
  • in circumstances where the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy;
  • where the invasion is serious and either:
    • intentional; or
    • reckless; and
  • where the public interest in the plaintiff’s privacy outweighs any countervailing public interest.

The public interest considerations include the freedom of expression, freedom of the media, the proper administration of government, open justice, public health and safety, national security and the prevention of crime.

Remedies

The tort is actionable without proof of damage however, where the elements are established, a Court will be able to award damages to the plaintiff, as well as other remedies (such as injunctions, apologies, destruction or delivery of materials, accounting for profits etc) if appropriate.

Damages are capped at the greater of:

  • $478,550; or
  • the maximum award for general damages in defamation,

but there are no aggravated damages available.

Exemptions

There are exemptions for invasions of privacy by a State Authority or its staff if the invasion of privacy occurs in good faith, in the performance or purported performance of a function or exercise of power of the Authority, or in the exercise or purported exercise of a power of the authority and for law enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies. Persons under 18 are also exempt.

Limitation periods

The cause of action must be actioned within 1 year of the person first becoming aware of the invasion of privacy however if the plaintiff is unaware of the invasion, 3 years from the day the invasion occurred or if the plaintiff was under 18 when it occurred, before the plaintiff turns 21.

The introduction of this new tort marks a significant change in Australian law because until now, there has been no generally recognized right to privacy.

New crimes

Note that the Criminal Code was also amended to create new crimes for “doxxing” in sections 474.17C (criminalizing the release of personal data using a carriage service (ie, internet or telecommunications services) in a manner that a ‘reasonable person’ would regard as menacing or harassing) and section 474.17D (which focuses on such dissemination targeting individuals or groups based on their protected attributes, such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, or ethnic origin).

These new offences maximum sentences of 6 and 7 years imprisonment respectively.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information, please contact McKillop Legal on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au 

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice. Please contact McKillop Legal to discuss your needs.

in Criminal Law / General / Litigation / Risk management  by 04 Mar 2025 0 comments

Why you should have a Shareholders Agreement

CONSIDER THESE COMMON ISSUES

What would happen to your company if you or your business partner became so ill that one of you could no longer work – or worse still, died?

Would you still be paying dividends or making distributions of profit to that person even through he or she is not around, or to their spouse or family?

If they died and left their spouse everything in their Will (including their shares in your company), would you want to be in business with his or her spouse?

What if your business partner sold his or her shares in your company to a complete stranger or a competitor following an argument?

How are your shares to be valued and over what period will the purchase payments be made to your family? Or is there an insurance policy to fund the payment in a lump sum?

HOW CAN A SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT HELP?

A Shareholders Agreement can cover these not uncommon scenarios and tailor the rights and obligations of the shareholders of a company to fit your personal circumstances and your particular business to help avoid some of these potential problems for everyone’s ultimate benefit.

You may have a Will, but you may not have certainty in relation to what will happen to your family or your business in the event of your death or serious illness unless these matters are clearly dealt with in a Shareholders Agreement.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information in relation to business succession, estate planning, litigation and dispute resolution or any commercial law matter, contact McKillop Legal on (02) 9521 2455 or email help@mckilloplegal.com.au

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice. Please contact McKillop Legal to discuss your commercial law needs.

Stay up to date – LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram

in Business / Commercial Law / Dispute Resolution / General / Risk management  by 10 Feb 2025 0 comments