A lot of business owners, employees and the public are understandably concerned about the prevalence of sexual harassment in society and what measures workplaces are taking to prevent it from occurring and deal with complaints when they arise.
Part of the problem is identifying the kind of behaviours that can constitute “sexual harassment” in the workplace. Conduct that might once have been considered acceptable or common practice in the workplace, may now be perceived as unacceptable behaviour.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), section 28A provides:
(1) [A] person sexually harasses another person (the person harassed) if:
(a) the person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to the person harassed; or
(b) engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the person harassed;
in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated the possibility that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.
Section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) also provides that sexual harassment is misconduct for the purpose of considering whether there has been a valid reason for dismissing an employee, as well as whether the Fair Work Commission can make an order preventing workplace sexual harassment.
In Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Raphael [2021] NSWCATOD 44 the Court found that a senior barrister had sexually harassed a female solicitor by making an unwelcome joke about the solicitor’s husband getting jealous, as “[they] are spending so much time together” upon entering a private conference room. In giving the judgement, the Court quoted an earlier case of O’Callaghan v Loder [1983] 3 NSWLR 89 and said:
“The sexual conduct of the employer can vary, on the one hand, from attempts at sexual intercourse or some other overt sexual connection, through the whole range of sexual contact, including kissing, touching or pinching, and can include purely verbal approaches such as sexual propositions, or gender based insults or taunting.”
The second element of the test is an objective test of whether a reasonable person would consider the conduct likely to offend, intimidate or humiliate the person harassed. Crucially, it doesn’t matter whether the person making the comment or conduct intended it to be a harmless joke, or expected that the person harassed would see the humour in it; the only thing that matters is that there was an objective likelihood that the conduct would offend, humiliate or intimidate.
The question then becomes – what is acceptable in the workplace? An abundance of caution is the best way forward. Adequate training and a healthy workplace culture of respect also feed into this. In general, any kind of humour that might be offensive or sexual should be avoided, even if you think that the person hearing the joke might find it funny and not offensive.
Employers have an obligation to maintain a safe working environment for their employees, and that includes one that is free from sexual harassment. It is a sad truth that this issue continues to arise, frequently because people are careless about the kinds of comments they make, but also in relation to their actions. A friendly hug, if unwelcome, might constitute sexual harassment, as equally would a lewd comment.
Employers should be making sure their staff understand and are aware of appropriate behaviours. Better yet, employers should implement a policy and training as necessary to ensure that they are protecting themselves, as well as their employees, from inappropriate behaviour. Implementing proper complaints handling procedures will also provide employees with comfort to know that there are actions they can take if they do experience sexual harassment in the workplace. This will in turn, result in creating a culture within the workplace which does not tolerate sexual harassment and helps the employees to feel safe.
If your workplace requires assistance with preparing and implementing suitable policies and procedures to manage sexual harassment in the workplace, contact our Workplace Law team for further assistance.
The ‘Ellis Defence’’ was commonly used by those associated with historical child abuse claims, but what does it mean?
The Ellis Defence arose in the case of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney v Ellis & Anor [2007] NSWCA 117 (“the Ellis Case”).
In this case, Mr Ellis brought a claim against the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney (“the Diocese”) on the basis that he had suffered historic sexual abuse.
The Diocese argued that while all the property of the Church was held by the trustees in each diocese, who were incorporated under 1936 NSW legislation, those trustees were not responsible for the conduct of the clergy and there was no legal entity available to be sued in respect of the misconduct of the clergy themselves.
The Court upheld the Diocese’s argument and Mr Ellis was ultimately denied the opportunity to have his case determined on its merits as it was found there was no proper defendant to sue.
Mr Ellis’ case was scrutinised in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
In 2018, law reform was made across Australia to protect the victims of institutionalised child sexual abuse. Legislation was enacted that forced unincorporated organisations—including religious institutions—to nominate a legal entity with sufficient assets for child abuse survivors to sue.
In passing legislation of this nature in Victoria, Daniel Andrews noted at the time that the legislation was designed to:
“Quash an unfair loophole preventing child abuse survivors from suing some organisations for their abuse.”
The demise of the Ellis defence saw a significant step in offering greater protection to the most vulnerable people in Australia and meant the Church were no longer allowed to hide behind the law.
If you or someone you know has been affected by historic sexual abuse, please reach out to Chamberlains Law Firm for abuse compensation claims.
A matter has recently been filed in the Victorian Supreme Court against the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and George Pell for psychological injuries suffered by a father (“the Plaintiff”) whose son (“AAA”) was allegedly sexually abused by George Pell.
As a result of the alleged sexual abuse, AAA commenced using illicit drugs at the age of 14 and used drugs consistently until he died in 2014 from a heroin overdose caused by the psychological impact of the abuse. The proceedings were commenced on the basis that upon learning about the abuse of AAA, the Plaintiff suffered nervous shock.
The First Defendant in the proceedings brought an application stating that it was not able to be sued as the Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018 (“the Act”) did not extend to it in these proceedings. A decision was handed down in relation to this argument on 24 August 2022 in RWQ v the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne & Ors [2022] VSC 483.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne sought to rely on the ‘Ellis Defence’ to defend the proceedings brought against them in the matter of RWQ v the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne & Ors [2022] VSC 483.
The ‘Ellis Defence’ was known as the defence arising from the case of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney v Ellis & Anor [2007] NSWCA 117 in which the Diocese successfully argued that the trustees in each diocese were not responsible for the conduct of the clergy and there was no legal entity available to be sued in respect of the misconduct of the clergy themselves. This defence was scrutinised by the Royal Commission into Institutional responses to Child sexual abuse and shortly afterwards the Act was enacted to abolish this legal loophole in historic sexual abuse cases.
In the current case, the Court considered the purpose of the Act and ultimately concluded that it was to be interpreted by its plain meaning, which meant the inclusion of a claim for nervous shock brought by a parent of a child who had allegedly been sexually abused.
This decision marks another significant milestone in ensuring victims of historic sexual abuse are afforded redress. It accepts the enacted legislation is not only to protect those that endured institutionalised sexual abuse, but also their loved ones that have developed significant psychological injuries as a result of the sexual abuse.
If you or someone you know has been affected by historic sexual abuse, please reach out to Chamberlains Law Firm to help you with abuse compensation claims.
A recent decision was made in the NSW District Court. Wilson SC DCJ found that a person has 3 years from the date of diagnosis of an injury to bring about a claim for damages.
In Wilden v Jennings (no 1) [2021] NSWDC 705, a civil claim was brought by Ms Wilden against her former husband Paramatta Eels NRL star Michael Jennings for four instances of rape during the relationship. The abuse was said to have occurred from approximately October 2014 to May 2016. Ms Jennings under the Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) ordinarily had 3 years from the date of injury with which to bring a civil claim against Mr Jennings; meaning she would have until May 2019 to bring a claim for damages against Mr Jennings.
Dr Roberts prepared a report dated 21 February 2020 which diagnosed Ms Wilden as having a Panic Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder, caused by the sexual abuse suffered from Mr Jennings. The judge found this report and other treating evidence to be credible and determined that as a result of the abuse Ms Wilden had suffered a psychological injury. Mr Jennings submitted, among other arguments, that the limitation period had expired and that the case was not maintainable. Wilson SC DCJ rejected this argument stating that Ms Wilden did not know nor ought to have known that she had a cause of action against Mr Jennings until she was diagnosed with the psychiatric injury in February 2020.
The judge also found that Ms Wilden was unaware that the condition from which she suffered was sufficiently serious as to justify the bringing of a claim. The judge found that the statute of limitations did not start running until she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in February 2020. It was found that the claim must be brought within 3 years of the discovery of the injury, giving her a limitation date of 20 February 2023.
Mr Jennings was found to be on the balance of probabilities liable for the psychological injuries suffered by Ms Wilden. Ms Wilden was awarded the following damages:
Summary of Assessment of Damages
| Head of Damages | Amount |
| General Damages | $200,000.00 |
| Interest on General damages | $10,000.00 |
| Aggravated Damages | $50,000.00 |
| Interest on Aggravated Damages | $2,500.00 |
| Exemplary Damages | $75,000.00 |
| Out of Pocket Expenses | $1,341.05 |
| Future Treatment Expenses | $51,250.00 |
| Economic Loss | $100,000.00 |
| Total | $490,091.05 |
Mr Jennings was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
If you, or anyone you know has been subjected to sexual abuse within a relationship please contact Rufus Thomas-Webb of our Personal Injury Team to see if we may be able to assist. Email rufus.thomas-webb@chamberlains.com.au or call 02 6188 3600. Let us help you with abuse compensation claims.
The Bankruptcy Amendment (Service of Documents) Regulations 2022 (New Regulations) came into effect on 6 April 2022, altering the requirements for the service of bankruptcy notices electronically.
Historically, the service of bankruptcy notices was governed by the Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) (1996 Regulations). Regulation 16.01 of the 1996 Regulations stated that the methods of service included personal delivery, posting, courier or document exchange, or electronic mail. However, the 1996 Regulations were replaced by the Bankruptcy Regulations 2021 (Cth) (2021 Regulations) which whilst providing welcome amendments to sections of the legislation, made the process of distilling the correct procedural avenue for service an extremely convoluted one.
The 2021 Regulations required the reader to trawl through several pieces of legislation before finding the regulations governing electronic service. First, Section 102 of the 2021 Regulations stated that service may either be effected by courier or document exchange if the recipient uses one. It made no reference to service by any other means. A note directs the reader to section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).
Section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) sets out that personal delivery and sending documents via pre-paid post to the person’s residence or place of business can be used for service. It also then directs the reader to the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth). Under this Act, it is a requirement that electronic service would be consented to by the recipient before it could be considered effective service.
In addition to burying the requirements in a figurative babushka doll of legislation, the actual requirement itself of requiring consent from the recipient for electronic service is a problematic one. Many recipients are not going to want to have bankruptcy notices served upon them, effectively eliminating email as a method of service.
In the recent case of Pegios in his own capacity and as trustee for Pegios Superannuation Fund v Arambasic [2022] FedCFamC2G 17 it was held that service had not been properly effected because the recipient had not consented to service by email.
Furthermore, even if the recipient consents to the service retroactively, this is still inadequate to satisfy the service requirements. In Re Robert Henry Hanlin Ex Parte: South Properties Development Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 447, it was held that the need for strict compliance cannot be waived by the debtor. This is the case even though no damage or injustice may have resulted from the notice being served in this fashion.
Bankruptcy notices have always been the subject of rigorous adherence to strict rules. In Ciftci, M v Colquhoun A.J.G [1994] FCA 756, Einfield J said:
“[in] many ways such a finding brings about a very unjust result, but the law relating to bankruptcy has always been susceptible not only to a degree of technicality, but to a high degree of strict application.… [the] duty [is] to act in accordance with the law as presently understood, and this would not be the first case in which an apparently unjust result flowed from the application of the appropriate rules.”
The need for strict compliance of service regulations is understandable given the gravity of bankruptcy proceedings. However the requirement for consent for electronic service is one that presents a significant administrative hurdle, particularly when you consider the ever increasing digitalisation of society. The New Regulations however now provide the welcome change that prior consent of the recipient is not required for electronic service. It should be noted that where service is effected electronically, the 21 day compliance period is usually calculated from the time of transmission rather than of actual receipt.
The New Regulations come into effect alongside the Insolvency Practice (Bankruptcy) Amendment Rules 2022 which make trustee registration requirements more flexible, introduce more efficiencies, transparency and certainty to creditor meetings and streamline provisions so they are consistent with similar in the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Chamberlains and talk to one of our insolvency lawyers today.
You should consider the possibility of placing a company into provisional liquidation if there is a risk that a company’s assets will be dissipated to the detriment of that company and a creditor or member of a company, a party can consider putting the company into liquidation in this scenario.
The power of a Court to appoint a provisional liquidator to a company stems from section 472(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
Pursuant to section 472(2) of the Act, a provisional liquidator of a company has either powers:
The grounds on which a provisional liquidator may be appointed to a company are infinite and all that really has to be shown is that there is a bona fide ground for making an order for the appointment of a provisional liquidator. See Re New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Holdings Ltd [1999] NSWSC 536 [23].
The appointment of a provisional liquidator to a company, is an extremely serious step and will not be taken lightly by the Court, it is incumbent upon any person seeking to appoint a provisional liquidator to show that there is a real and present threat to a companies assets were the status quo to continue. See Australian Securities Commission v Solomon (1996) 19 ACSR 73 at [80].
In general terms, the following criteria is important in a Court’s consideration of whether to appoint a provisional liquidator:
An alternative to appointing a provisional liquidator to a company, could be seeking undertaking that would preserve that assets of the company or otherwise prevent conduct that would form the basis for an application to appoint a provisional liquidator. In the matter of Therma Truck Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 266 at [21].
If you have any legal questions about commercial and property law, reach out to our team of qualified corporate and commercial lawyers at Chamberlains Law Firm!
A workplace policy defines the business’s expectations of employees’ performance and behaviour. Workplace policies also help to protect the business when employees are in breach, and the business needs to act. A procedure outlines the steps involved in implementing the policy, and together they provide a clear guideline for the business’s employees.
We have listed the most common workplace policies and procedures. At a first glance, the sheer number of documents can seem dauting; however, different business’s require different policies and procedures depending on their business structure, services/products, nature of work undertaken, work conditions, etc.
Understanding what policies and procedures your business needs is important. We recommend you speak to a professional to determine which policies and procedural documents are suitable for your business so they can be tailored to your business’s needs. This can also include a current risk-assessment of your business. Chamberlains’ specialist workplace lawyers have extensive experience in this field and offer an initial 15-minute consultation free of charge.
Our team also assists with drafting policies and procedures, and we pride ourselves on providing documents in clear, simple language to mitigate the chances of complex and costly disputes arising.
Click here to book your initial 15-minute consultation: Book a Consultation – Chamberlains Law Firm
Human Resources/Employment
| 1. | Behavioural Management Policy |
| 2. | Behavioural Management Procedure |
| 3. | CCTV & Device Monitoring Policy |
| 4. | Change Management Procedure |
| 5. | Code of Conduct Policy |
| 6. | Competency, Training and Awareness Policy |
| 7. | Competency, Training and Awareness Procedure |
| 8. | Complaints and Allegations Policy |
| 9. | Complaints and Allegations Procedure |
| 10. | Conflict of Interest Policy |
| 11. | Conflict of Interest Procedure |
| 12. | Data Entry Policy |
| 13. | Disciplinary Warning Policy |
| 14. | Disciplinary Warning Procedure |
| 15. | Document Control Policy |
| 16. | Drug and Alcohol Policy |
| 17. | Drug and Alcohol Procedure |
| 18. | Evaluation of Compliance |
| 19. | Fitness for Work Policy |
| 20. | Fitness for Work Procedure |
| 21. | Grievance and Issue Resolution Policy |
| 22. | Grievance and Issue Resolution Procedure |
| 23. | Information and Communication Policy |
| 24. | Internet and Email Policy |
| 25. | Intake Assessment and Review Policy |
| 26. | Management Review Procedure |
| 27. | Monitoring and Measuring Policy |
| 28. | Monitoring Procedure |
| 29. | Monitoring, Measurement and Evaluation Procedure |
| 30. | Motor Vehicle Policy Motor Vehicle Procedure |
| 31. | Operational Planning and Control Policy |
| 32. | Operational Planning and Control Procedure Change Management Policy |
| 33. | Participant Children & Young Persons Protection Policy |
| 34. | Participant Children & Young Persons Protection Procedure |
| 35. | Performance Evaluation Policy |
| 36. | Privacy Policy |
| 37. | Quality Management Procedure |
| 38. | Records Management Procedure |
| 39. | Records Policy |
| 40. | Recruitment Policy |
| 41. | Recruitment Procedure |
| 42. | Reportable Conduct Policy |
| 43. | Reportable Conduct Procedure |
| 44. | Restrictive Practices Policy |
| 45. | Restrictive Practices Procedure |
| 46. | Return to Work Policy |
| 47. | Return to Work Procedure |
| 48. | Sexual Harassment & Anti-Discrimination Policy |
| 49. | Social Media Policy Privacy Policy |
| 50. | Standard Operating Procedures Policy |
| 51. | Support Policy |
| 52. | Working from home Policy |
| 53. | Working with Children Check Policy |
| 54. | Working with Children Check Procedure |
| 55. | Workplace Bullying Policy |
| 56. | Workplace Bullying Procedure |
Work Health & Safety
| 1. | Audit Plan |
| 2. | Audit Procedure |
| 3. | Compliance Obligations Policy |
| 4. | Compliance Obligations Procedure |
| 5. | Contractor Management Policy |
| 6. | Contractor Management Procedure |
| 7. | Electrical Safety Policy |
| 8. | Electrical Safety Procedure |
| 9. | External Audit Procedure Management Review Policy |
| 10. | External Control Type and Extent Procedure WHS Procurement Policy |
| 11. | Facilities Management Policy |
| 12. | Facilities Management Procedure |
| 13. | Falls Prevention Policy |
| 14. | Falls Prevention Procedure |
| 15. | Fatigue Management Plan |
| 16. | Fatigue Management Policy |
| 17. | First Aid Policy |
| 18. | First Aid Procedure |
| 19. | Hazard and Risk Identification Policy |
| 20. | Hazard and Risk Identification Procedure |
| 21. | Hazardous Chemicals, Substance and Dangerous Goods Procedure Health Surveillance Policy |
| 22. | Hazardous Chemicals, Substances and Dangerous Goods Policy |
| 23. | Hazardous Manual Tasks Policy |
| 24. | Hazardous Manual Tasks Procedure |
| 25. | Health Surveillance Procedure |
| 26. | Hierarchy of Controls Policy |
| 27. | Hygiene Policy |
| 28. | Incident Reporting Policy Incident Reporting Procedure |
| 29. | Internal Audits Policy |
| 30. | Issue Resolution Policy |
| 31. | Issue Resolution Procedure |
| 32. | Objectives and Targets Policy |
| 33. | Organisational Roles, Responsibilities, Accountabilities and Authorities Policy |
| 34. | Organisational Roles, Responsibilities, Accountabilities and Authorities Procedure |
| 35. | Participation and Consultation Policy |
| 36. | Participation and Consultation Procedure |
| 37. | Personal Protective Equipment Policy |
| 38. | Personal Protective Equipment Procedure Remote and Isolated Work Policy |
| 39. | Plant Equipment and Infrastructure Policy |
| 40. | Plant Equipment and Infrastructure Procedure |
| 41. | Plant Lock-out/Tag-out Policy |
| 42. | Plant Lock-out/Tag-out Procedure |
| 43. | Remote and Isolated Work Procedure |
| 44. | Smoke Free Workplace Policy |
| 45. | WHS Emergency Preparedness and Response Policy |
| 46. | WHS Emergency Preparedness and Response Procedure |
| 47. | WHS Leadership and Commitment Policy |
| 48. | WHS Procurement Procedure |
| 49. | WHSMS Improvement Policy |
| 50. | WHSMS Objectives and Targets Procedure |
| 51. | Work Health and Safety (WHS) Policy |
There is a plethora of cases where unit owners have made successful claims for compensation against the owners corporation in circumstances where there were defects in the common property of the unit block, which subsequently caused water damage to the owners’ units.
In the case of Trevallyn-Jones v Owners Strata Plan No 50358 [2009] NSWSC 694, it was held by the Court that the statutory duties owed by an owners corporation could not be discharged as this was an absolute duty owed. Here, Ms Trevallyn-Jones alleged that the owners corporation was in breach of its statutory duty as it failed to properly maintain and repair the balcony floor and walls so as to prevent rainwater from penetrating into the interior of her unit, and the owners corporation failed to repair damage to the parquetry floor of the unit which had resulted from water penetration.
Ms Trevallyn-Jones sought rent which could have been obtained had the unit been leased, as well as an order pursuant to section 229 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW) that any damages or costs payable by the owners corporation pursuant to any order in the proceedings (and any interest thereon) be paid from contributions levied only in relation to lots in the strata plan other than Ms Trevallyn-Jones’ lot. The defendant argued a causation/mitigation argument, stating that the actions of Ms Trevallyn-Jones contributed materially to the extent of the damage incurred due to her hindrance in failing to provide workmen access to her apartment, failure to approve works to be carried out, and criticism and harassment of tradesmen.
It was found that it was not unreasonable for Ms Trevallyn-Jones to wish to have reasonable notice so that she could arrange for herself or a representative to be present in the unit during the works. The Court found that the fact that Ms Trevallyn-Jones commented in detail in correspondence as to the works carried out (and even on occasion foreshadowed or threatened litigation or made demands in relation to the works) did not lead to a conclusion that she “harassed” the workmen or prevented the works being carried out.
With regards to access to the apartment it was held that Ms Trevallyn-Jones did not cause the difficulties in relation to access. Specifically:
i. She was not asked for access on specific days.
ii. On the occasions when Ms Trevallyn-Jones received a request for access on a specific date (other than when she asked to reschedule the May 2005 access for family illness reasons), she complied with that request.
iii. There were numerous pieces of correspondence where she proffered her mobile number/contact details to assist in arranging access.
iv. Insofar as there were complaints as to difficulties in co-ordinating start dates or seeking access, some of those seemed referable to miscommunication.
Ultimately, Ms Trevallyn-Jones was awarded damages of approximately $50,000 for foregone rent over the relevant period as well as for the costs of experts’ reports and the damages to property/cleaning costs. Orders were also made that the damages and costs payable by the defendant as a result of the proceedings (including the defendant’s costs) had to be paid from contributions levied only in relation to lots in Strata Plan No 50358 other than the plaintiff’s lot.
In summary, if your property has been affected by your owners corporation’s failure to maintain and keep in good repair the common property of your building, you may be entitled to be paid compensation for financial losses.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Chamberlains and talk to one of our insolvency and restructuring lawyers today.
Followed by a period of intense advocacy coupled with rounds of consultation, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has recently announced their historic decision to increase family and domestic violence leave to ten (10) paid days per year for part-time and full-time employees, in addition to paid personal leave and annual leave entitlements.
Modern Awards currently provide for an employee entitlement of five (5) unpaid days per year. In a bid to address a workplace issue that has become increasingly prevalent during the Covid-19 pandemic, the FWC ruled that paid leave will ensure that affected employees maintain their employment and financial security whilst navigating family and domestic violence.
The adverse workplace-related impacts that the paid entitlement attempts to alleviate includes:
The current unpaid regime does not incentivise employees to use the unpaid leave to relocate, attend court proceedings, obtain medical treatment or other forms of treatment, which may inhibit them from leaving violent relationships.
With one-third of recent enterprise agreements including a provision for paid family and domestic violence entitlements, the Federal Labour Government will legislate and amend the National Employment Standards to mandate this entitlement for all employees across the nation.
Casual employees will not be entitled to paid leave and the entitlement will not be available when the violence is perpetrated by a member of the employee’s household who is not related to the employee.
The National Employment Standards form the baseline entitlements which cannot be varied, reduced or contracted out of for all employees, regardless of Modern Award coverage. With the FWC anticipating widespread amendments to Modern Awards, there is no better time to conduct an employment contract audit.
Generally, employment contracts should include malleable provisions that reflect the National Employment Standards and applicable Modern Awards ‘as amended from time to time’. In the absence of well-drafted clauses, your employment contracts may be severed due to statutory illegality.
The FWC is yet to advise when the decision will be in effect. Follow Chamberlains Law Firm for regular updates in the employment space.
Book now with Jasmin Mantoufeh from the Workplace Law Team for an initial free consultation to review and discuss your current employment contracts.
First principles: A parent is required to obtain the consent of the other parent to take a child outside Australia unless there are Orders of the Court permitting that travel.
The Family Law Watchlist is designed for situations where a child is at risk of being taken from Australia without the consent of the other parent. The Australian Federal Police maintains a register of names of children to be prevented from being unlawfully removed from the Commonwealth of Australia. Where a parent or other 3rd party attempts to remove a child on the family law registered from Australia, the AFP will be alerted and may take steps to prevent that child leaving Australia. The list operates at all ports and airports in Australia.
If there is a risk a child may be removed from Australia without consent of the other parent, that parent can apply to the Court for any or all of the following Orders:
A Child Alert Request can also be made directly to the Australian Passport Office without an Order of the Court but this will only remain valid of 12 months, whereas an Order will remain in force until discharged or when the child turns 18.
How to put a child on the family law watchlist: A Step by Step Guide
Cautions:
The Court takes a negative view of parents who apply to have a child put on the watchlist without genuine motives (i.e. a genuine concern that a child will not be returned, will be unsafe or otherwise at risk by virtue of being taken outside Australia).
A child will remain on the watchlist unless and until they are removed from the Watchlist. If the period of time has elapsed or litigation has been finalised, a parent proposing to travel should seek confirmation from the AFP if the child remains on the list or not. It takes time to have a child removed from the watchlist and the process for removing the child depends on how the child was first placed on the watchlist. This should not be left until the date of travel or shortly before lest a parent be prevented from leaving the country with a child even where the other parent consents.
Chamberlains Law Firm has a team of Family Law experts that can assist you with the legal questions arising out of your relationship.