The past: selling information
We all know the image: pale, male, stale lawyer sitting behind an antique table with some beautiful leather-bound books arranged neatly in the background. The message is clear. “I know what is in these books. It is the knowledge you need. I will provide it to you, for a fee.”
The business model was pretty simple. We lawyers were the repositories of specialised knowledge. If we were paid the right price, we would deliver up our knowledge.
The present: selling access
I say: that’s all changed.
In the bad old days, our knowledge was all we thought we had. We had to keep our barriers up to make sure knowledge was scarce so that when we provided it, it was valuable.
Then the internet came to have its say.
Initially, sporadic blog posts from forward-thinking firms, and perhaps an email newsletter here or there were the first steps lawyers took in sharing their knowledge.
Then, access to online resources like AUSTLII democratised and “search engine-ified” every piece of law affecting your client base. Any average Joe with a smartphone could quickly put their hands on almost everything in those leatherbound books.
And so if the model of selling information has beendisrupted,what is the new zeitgeist? What are we now selling?
I say the answer is: access. Access to us as legal experts and professionals? Sure. Access to us as personal and commercial consultants? Possibly. Access to us as living breathing people? Just maybe.
Because if the sharing of information has now been democratised, and we can no longer sell the information we keep in those leatherbound books, it is incumbent upon us all to build relationships with those we serve.
Selling access: building a brand
If we accept that we are now in the business of selling access, then the next question that arises is: how?
The answer is: leveraging the internet to build a brand.
And not necessarily a “personal brand” in the sense of a beautiful, young person who might sell you weight loss tea on Instagram. Or a brand that might require hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment in consultants. Rather, a brand or, if you prefer, “reputation” ie what people think about you when you’re not around.
Brand is, as the wonderful Ian Whitworth taught us in his bookUndisruptable, the only thing that saves us from having to be the cheapest of six quotes. It is – I say – the key to success for a profession that can no longer sell information.
But, again, how to build brand? The answer – happily – is quite literally at our fingertips. Reach into our back pockets, or under our couch cushions, and we will each find a supercomputer giving us access to every single potential client and possible referral source we could imagine.
We simply need reach out to them in order to start selling access.
Building a brand that enables you to reach your potential client and referrer base is the path I propose.
Where can I build the brand?
Each of the locations on the contemporary internet grants us an opportunity to build a brand, and so build lasting relationships.
Whether that is finding someone in a related industry with a finely honed Linkedin search, joining a vibrant conversation about law reform on Twitter, or making sure your aesthetics are just right for the Pinterest crowd – there are people out there for you to form relationships with.
The question then becomes: are you ready and willing to form those relationships with them?
Taking the leap…
This is perhaps the greatest challenge. It takes a bit of gumption to turn your phone camera around on yourself, share what you know about a topic and hope that someone, somewhere out there likes it.
But – hey – now that you’re no longer in the business of selling information, what choice do you really have?
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Chamberlains and talk to our dispute resolution team today.
Chamberlains announces another addition to the Perth division as Senior Associate Stirling Owen joins the firm. With Stirling’s appointment, Chamberlains also moves to bigger premises and are now welcoming clients to L11 Brookfield Place, 125 St Georges Terrace.
Chamberlains Law Firm has just passed the 1,5-year mark since the opening of its Perth division as further expansions are announced. As of Monday, 9 August, Chamberlains officially welcomes Senior Associate Stirling Owen to the firm.
Stirling has been practising for over 8 years and has appeared as Counsel in both the Magistrate, District and Supreme Court. Stirling’s primary focus has and continues to be Commercial Litigation in WA and NSW, but he has also appeared on matters in QLD, ACT, TAS and VIC.
Stirling expresses great enthusiasm about the appointment: “Being entrusted to represent and expand Chamberlains in Perth is a great challenge that I’m excited to rise to. Our Perth based clients will have the benefit of personalised service backed by the resources of a national firm. It’s a model that allows us to tailor our services to the differing needs of our clients. We want to be accessible to all people and businesses when they need legal advice and representation.”
Stirling is a familiar face for Chamberlains staff as he used to practice at Sydney based firm Shaw McDonald in 2018, a firm that later merged with Chamberlains in early 2019. Stirling moved to WA right before the merge but is grateful to be back working with many of the lawyers he knows from Shaw McDonald, now as part of Chamberlains.
Managing Director Stipe Vuleta comments on the new appointment and expresses his delight in having Stirling return to the team:
“I am beyond excited to see Chamberlains continue its expansion in WA. Tihana Nevjestic has done an incredible job heading the division these 1,5 years, but Stirling presents a welcomed addition as our clientele continues to grow. Given his depth of experience in the commercial litigation space, there is no doubt he will be a valuable asset to the Insurance Team.”
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Chamberlains and talk to one of our insurance law experts today.
The Federal Court of Australia has handed down its decision in Tregidga v Pasma Holdings Pty Limited [2021] FCA 721. This decision only reaffirms the difficulties that can be faced in proving a breach in an individual’s or corporation’s duty of care where causation cannot be established.
This case sets down the proper procedures in relation to the required standard that ought to be followed if a duty of care is owed by a particular person or organisation. In order for the Court to make a finding that a duty of care has been breached, the Court must consider whether that particular individual or organisation had done, or omitted to do, anything in performing work which constituted a breach of what is referred to as the standard duty of care.
Background
In around June 2016, a yacht otherwise known as the MV Miss Angel, owned by the Plaintiff, sustained extensive damage from a fire which ignited in the engine room of the yacht. During the day of the fire, an employee of the Defendant, Pasma Holdings Pty Ltd, Mr Benjamin Tilton, was undertaking work on the yacht’s electrical system.
In these proceedings, the Plaintiff claimed damages against the Defendant alleging that a fire was caused by the Defendant’s breach under a contract or, alternatively, negligence for which the Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Tilton.
There was a lack of evidence on the Plaintiff’s part to the work that was performed by the Defendant and as it follows, there was no evidence to substantiate whether the work performed by the Defendant was indeed what had caused the fire. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was liable for the damage occasioned to the Yacht due to an omission on part of the Defendant, an omission that the Defendant did not de-energise the Vessel and turn off the shore power prior to leaving the yacht.
As the Plaintiff was unable to determine that the work completed by the Defendant caused the fire on the yacht, the issue before the Court, inter alia, was whether the duty owed by the Defendant extends to a duty to prevent injury or harm in circumstances where the alleged wrongdoer is not responsible.
Judgment
In considering this principle and what the extent of the Defendant’s duty of care really is, the Court provided that the duty of care on part of the Defendant is to exercise reasonable care and skill in carrying out works so as to ensure that the works carried out do not cause injury or harm to the vessel. However, the Court noted that this duty does not extend the scope to require the Defendant to take action to prevent injury or harm to the vessel.
The Court considered the facts before it and expert evidence which formed part of the Defendant’s evidence, and it was determined that the fire would not have started if Mr Tilton had disconnected the volt shore power, isolated the electrical system and switchboard, closed and sealed the switchboard, and isolated and disconnected the battery power. In these circumstances, the Court considered that the scope of the Defendant’s duty of care did not extend to placing a requirement on the Defendant to take action of the aforementioned tasks to prevent the yacht from sustaining injury or harm.
The Court simply said that the duty of the Defendant did not extend so far to prevent the yacht from sustaining injury or harm.
Implications of this decision
In this regard, the Court made a finding that the Defendant was not liable and simply because an electrician was on the yacht at the time of the fire does not mean that he had a more extensive duty to prevent harm or injury to the yacht.
This case shows the difficulties that can be faced by individuals or organisations in claiming that a duty of care was breached by an omission, and accord must be had to whether there is a causative link between the omission itself and the duty to act.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Chamberlains and talk to one of our insurance law experts today.
Background
Following the Hayne Royal Commission, the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Act 2020 (Cth) (Act) was passed. Previously, providers did not need to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) to handle claims in the insurance sector.
One of the significant reforms under the Act is the amendment to handling and settling of claims relating to insurance. Anyone providing financial services after 30 June 2021 must have applied for a new or varied AFSL with ASIC, but the authorisation requirements are effective from 31 December 2021.
Authorised Representatives
Under the AFSL, you can provide financial services either directly or through an authorised representative (AR).
An AR is an external provider that would typically require an AFSL in order to handle claims; however, they can be formally appointed on behalf of the insurer. For example, an insurer that appoints a broker to arrange contracts of insurance and provides claim-handling services can become an authorised representative on behalf of the insurer.
Obligations
Under the Act, an insurer and/or AR have to:
- act efficiently, honestly, and fairly when handling claims;
- ensure that they have adequate systems in place to manage conflicts of interest;
- comply with AFSL conditions and appropriate laws;
- ensure that their staff are adequately trained and competent in handling claims;
- establish an internal dispute resolution process and become a member of Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA); and,
- provide relevant disclosures to retail clients.
ASIC has the right to take enforcement action against any providers that fail to comply with their obligations as an AFS licensee.
Exclusions
Some professions are excluded in the Act from holding an AFSL; they are:
- mortgage brokers;
- insurance brokers;
- accountants;
- veterinarians;
- travel agents;
- financial advisers;
- property managers;
- estate managers; and
- public trustees.
The above professions are excluded under the Act because handling claims is not typically a part of their core business service. However, if the provider does engage in providing and/or recommending insurance products, they should consider obtaining an AFSL.
Implications for You
After 30 June 2021, insurers and/or service providers can provide claim handling and settling services if a complete application and/or variation for AFSL has been submitted with ASIC before 30 June 2021. The above requirements will come into effect from 31 December 2021.
Do not hesitate to contact Chamberlains and talk to one of our insurance law experts if you need help with applying for AFSL, preparing policies and procedures in line with the Act or if you would like advice regarding your potential obligations under the Act.
The Federal Court of Australia upholds expert opinion and provides an insight into what factors are relevant when considering whether the right expert has been appointed to give evidence about a particular matter.
In ASIC v Big Star Energy Limited (No3) [2020] FCA 1442, ASIC alleged that Big Star Energy Ltd (formerly known as Antares Energy Limited (Antares), had breached its ongoing disclosure requirements under s 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
A dispute arose when Antares entered into two contracts to sell resources assets located in Texas, in the United States of America.
Antares then announced this to the market but did not include the name of the prospective acquisition and several other details of the purchaser’s financial status. The prospective purchaser did not yet have the relevant financial approval for the acquisition of the assets, and the company did not disclose the purchaser’s capacity to complete the purchase.
In light of the above, ASIC alleged that Antares’ failure to disclose these details amounted to a failure to share information vital to potential investors’ decision-making. This contravened the continuing disclosure required under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
ASIC engaged a mining equities expert (Mr B) to present his opinions on the importance of the identity of purchasers and their capacity/approvals for the acquisitions. Mr B had significant experience in trading in the resource sector, including mining equity analysis, corporate advice, and mining sales research.
Mr B found that both of the above factors would have a material effect on the price or value of the Antares shares.
Various concerns were raised concerning Mr B’s evidence, and these were whether his evidence was adequately based on his expertise and whether he was an appropriate witness for materiality issues.
Incorrect Area of Expertise
It was submitted that because Mr B was an equities analyst, he could comment on the materiality of the relevant factors for investors. The Court took the opportunity to clarify its position on previous cases with respect to materiality that an expert did not have practical experience in trading stocks. Therefore, the fact that Mr B had not personally bought and sold stocks did not undermine his credibility in giving evidence on market behaviour which he gained through his work as an advisor and analyst.
Opinion Not Based on Expertise
It was also put to the Court that Mr B’s opinion was “not wholly or substantially based on [his] specialist knowledge” as required by section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). In particular, Mr B had included a detailed index of all the possible factors that he considered would affect investors’ decision-making. It was argued that his report contained an unrealistic and complex analysis of stock trading behaviour and that investors would not apply such a technical approach.
The Court noted that in his evidence, Mr B pointed out that such detail in the stock analysis was widespread amongst resource investors, and it was necessary to consider numerous approaches and backgrounds of the investors.
Therefore, it was found that Mr B’s evidence was based on his expertise and his reasoning reflected those who traded the relevant and similar stocks that were subject of these proceedings.
The case highlights the importance of experts expressing the basis upon which they have formed their opinion and including the necessary detail to express this based on their training, study or experience. It is also clear that on the issue of materiality, an expert does not need to have a practical understanding of the activity they have been sought to comment on, and it is sufficient to have direct interaction with the relevant group of people and within the industry at large.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Chamberlains and talk to one of our insurance law experts today.
Interested in Insurance Law?
Click on our articles below to find out more:
Don’t get caught out … An important message for insurance claim handlers
Has your insurance claim been refused? Here is what you can do
Update from the Insurance Council of Australia: Greater Sydney Lockdown and the Impact on the Building and Insurance Industry
Breaking news today, as the High Court of Australia today (4 August 2021) has unanimously overturned the previous decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in WorkPac v Rossato concerning the definition of and entitlements that casual employees are eligible for.
The Federal Court had previously found that casual employees engaged on a regular and permanent basis could claim entitlements reserved for permanent employees, namely annual, sick and other leave entitlements. The fallout of this decision was estimated to expose Australian businesses to up to $39 billion in potential claims.
Background
Mr Rossato, who had been employed on a casual basis by labour hire company, WorkPac, for three and a half years, commenced proceedings claiming that he was eligible for entitlements reserved for permanent employees under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) and the WorkPac Pty Ltd Mining (Coal) Industry Enterprise Agreement 2012 (EA).
In reaching the earlier decision the Federal Court considered the definition of ‘casual’ and the typical characteristics of casual employees, namely that casual employees are employed in the absence of a ‘firm advance commitment’.
In the end, the Court ruled that employees engaged on a regular and permanent basis could claim permanent employee entitlements, regardless of their classification as casual.
Chamberlains wrote an article on WorkPac v Rossato and the reasoning of the Full Court of the Federal Court shortly after the decision was reached last year. Click here to read more.
Decision of the High Court
The High Court held in their judgement handed down today that Mr Rossato was a casual employee. In doing so, the Court asserted that casual employees have no firm advance commitments from their employer about the duration of their employment or their days or hours of work, and that the employee provides no such commitment to their employer in return.
Key Takeaways
This decision handed clarifies the meaning of ‘casual employee’ and determines that where an employer and employee have entered into an employment relationship in a written contract, and have adhered to that contract, the employment relationship will be determined by how the employee is classified in the contract (i.e. casual, part-time or full time).
In this case, Mr Rossato was defined as a casual employee in his contract and was paid as such throughout his employment.
The initial decision of the Federal Court created much anxiety and uncertainty among employers, so hopefully this definitive ruling of the High Court will provide greater certainty and prevent any costly double-dipping claims.
Amendments to the Act inserted earlier this year, however, have created a casual conversion requirement for employers. Under this new requirement, casual employees must be offered the opportunity to become permanent if they have been employed by the same employer for 12 months and worked regular hours and patterns for the last 6 months.
Contact the Workplace Law Team at Chamberlains Law Firm for any questions and concerns.
Insurance is there to protect our assets when things go wrong. However, unfortunately, there are a range of reasons why your insurance claim may be refused. If your claim is refused, you should understand your rights to have the decision internally and externally reviewed.
Most insurers have adopted the General Insurance Code of Practice, which provides a framework for insurers as to how they must conduct their services. If your insurer has adopted the Code, they must abide by the Code when assessing your claim and allow a decision to be reviewed if you disagree with it. For more information about the Code, please read our article NSW update on the General Insurance Code of Practice.
Common reasons for refusal
There are a range of reasons as to why your insurance claim could have been refused. We have found that the most common reasons are:
- Pre-existing damage or conditions
If your insurer can provide expert opinion establishing that your property was already damaged or defected prior to the event you are claiming over, then your claim may be reduced or refused.
- Non-disclosure
Your policy will likely require you to disclose things such as all prior insurance claims, criminal offences, and existing damage or conditions. If you fail to disclose certain information required under your policy, your claim could be refused.
- Conditions and exclusion clauses
Your policy may outline a number of conditions and/or exclusions which may affect your claim. An example of this is the ‘business interruption’ exclusion clause related to businesses impacted by COVID-19. You should be aware that your insurer cannot use this exclusion clause as a reason to refuse your claim relating to COVID-19 business interruption. Read our article about the recent High Court decision here: https://chamberlains.com.au/insurers-unsuccessful-in-having-first-covid-19-business-interruption-test-case-appealed-to-the-high-court/
- Fraud
If your insurer suspects your claim is fraudulent, they may refuse your claim and/or void your policy. To establish fraud, they must prove that you intended to deceive the insurer or acted with reckless indifference as to whether or not your insurer was deceived.
- Policy cancellation
If you fail to pay the premiums for your policy, your policy may be cancelled, and you will be unable to make a claim. Your insurer must give you written notice at least 14 days prior to cancellation for non-payment.
Internal review
The first step you should take once you find out your claim has been refused is to ask your insurer to provide you with their reasons for the decision. Carefully review the reasons and your insurance policy for any inconsistencies or interpretations you don’t understand or disagree with.
Once you know the reasons for the decision, you can ask your insurer to conduct an internal review of their decision. When doing so, outline your arguments for disputing the decision and provide as much evidence as you can to support your claim.
External review
If your complaint has gone through the internal review process and you are still unsatisfied, you may seek assistance from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). AFCA is an independent dispute resolution authority which can assist you in resolving a dispute with your insurer. AFCA will attempt to resolve the dispute by agreement of both parties; however they may also conduct investigations, issue recommendations or make determinations.
Seek Legal Advice
Should you wish to refute the decision made under the external review process through AFCA, you may wish to commence legal proceedings against your insurer. If you are considering this step, contact Chamberlains and talk to one of our insurance law experts today.
What you need to know about making a Family Provisions Claim
When a family member or loved one has passed away is always a very difficult time, but this is can be made even more difficult if you have been left out of their Will or not adequately provided for. In these circumstances you may be able to make a family provision claim against their estate.
What is a family provision claim?
A Family Provision Claim is an application to the Supreme Court seeking a share of the deceased’s estate. You may have been excluded completely from someone’s Will or have been gifted a lesser share than other beneficiaries and you then seek additional provision.
Who can make a family provision claim?
In order to make a Family Provision Claim you must be an eligible under relevant State legislation, such as the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) or the Family Provision Claim Act 1969 (ACT). An eligible person includes:
| New South Wales |
ACT |
- Surviving husband or wife of the deceased person;
- A person who was living in a de-facto relationship with the deceased person;
- A child of a deceased person, including an adopted child;
- A former divorced husband or wife of the deceased;
- A person who was:
- Wholly or partly dependent on the deceased person; or
- A member of the household of the deceased person.
- A person who was in a close relationship with the deceased person.
|
- a partner of the deceased person;
- a person (other than a partner of the deceased person) who was in a domestic relationship with the deceased person for 2 or more years continuously at any time;
- a child of the deceased person;
- a stepchild of the deceased person;
- a grandchild of the deceased person;
- a parent of the deceased person.
|
There are some criteria and limits to certain groups of eligible people and we recommend discussing your circumstances with an experienced lawyer to advise whether you are able to make a family provision claim.
On what ground can you make a claim?
If you meet the criteria of an eligible person you may then make a claim against the estate on the basis that:
- you were dependent on the deceased person;
- the share you received its not adequate for your maintenance and support;
- you relationship with the deceased began after the Will was made
- the Will is grossly unfair.
What does the Court consider when assessing a family provision claim?
After you make a claim the matter may be settled out of Court but if it proceeds to hearing the Supreme Court will take into account the following factors when determining your claim:
- the relationship between the applicant and the deceased person
- any obligations or responsibilities owed by the deceased person to the applicant
- the value and location of the deceased person’s estate
- the financial circumstances or lack thereof the applicant, including their current and future financial needs
- whether the applicant is financially supported by another person
- whether the applicant has any physical, intellectual or mental disabilities
- the applicant’s age
- any contribution made by the applicant to increase the value of the estate
- whether the deceased person has already provided for the applicant during their lifetime or from the estate
- whether the deceased person provided maintenance, support or assistance to the applicant
- whether any other person is responsible to support the applicant
- the applicant’s character
What time limits apply?
In NSW you have 12 months from the date of death to lodge a claim against the estate, whereas in ACT and VIC you have 6 months from the date of the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration.
How Chamberlains can help
If you have been left out of a will or have not been adequately provided for there are limits than apply and can affect to access to entitlements. It is important to speak to us as soon as possible so we can help you on the way.
We understand that this is a difficult time and we are committed to guiding you through the entire process. Contact our wills and estate planning lawyers today to discuss the options for your claim.
On 21 December 2020, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Lorna Jane Pty Ltd ACN 065 384 616 (Lorna Jane) and Ms Lorna Jane Clarkson. The ACCC alleged that those two entities had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, made false or misleading representations, and engaged in conduct that was liable to mislead the public.
Between 2 July 2020 and 23 July 2020, Lorna Jane made a number of representations in its stores, marketing materials, and social media regarding a line of products promoted as ‘Anti-Virus Activewear’ which had been treated with a substance dubbed ‘LJ Shield’. These representations include, amongst other things:
- “LJ Shield – Protecting you with ANTI-VIRUS ACTIVEWEAR“;
- “Infectious diseases like COVID-19 and bacteria can remain on hard surfaces for up to 96 hours, but with our new fabric treatment, LJ SHIELD, they cannot be transferred to your Activewear“;
- “it [LJ Shield] is anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-mould, anti-fungus“;
- Describing LJ Shield as a “technology’, “revolutionary” and “not a gimmick“; and
- “With Lorna Jane Shield on our garments it meant that we were completely eliminating the possibility of spreading any deadly viruses“;
What is Misleading and Deceptive Conduct?
Under section 18 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), known as the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
Whether conduct is misleading or deceptive must be considered by reference to a hypothetical individual who would have been a member of the class of consumer affected by the conduct. The question of whether particular conduct is misleading or deceptive is a question of fact to be answered in the context of the relevant surrounding facts and circumstances.
If a person has acted in reliance on someone’s misleading and deceptive conduct and suffered damages as a result, they are able to recover these damages from the representor under section 236 of the ACL. Additionally, the ACCC as regulator may seek that a person who engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct pay a pecuniary penalty pursuant to section 224 of the ACL.
Outcome
Lorna Jane and Ms Clarkson cooperated with the ACCC and made admissions regarding the allegations. The Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision on 23 July 2021, finding that Lorna Jane had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and otherwise made false or misleading representations and engaged in conduct liable to mislead the public, by making the Representations. The Court ordered, by consent, that:
- The proceedings against Ms Clarkson be dismissed;
- Lorna Jane pay pecuniary penalties to the Commonwealth of Australia totalling $5,000,000;
- Lorna Jane be restrained from using the words “anti-virus” in relation to their marketing materials for a period of three years;
- Lorna Jane publish a corrective notice with respect to the Representations; and
- Lorna Jane establish a program for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the ACL.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Chamberlains and talk to our litigation & dispute resolution team today.
New rules for the construction industry in light of the extension of the COVID-19 lockdown in Greater Sydney as at 28 July 2021.
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has confirmed that emergency make-safe works and similar critical building repairs are able to proceed in Sydney’s current lockdown.
ICA have maintained that urgent maintenance works are to be undertaken to ensure properties are habitable, there is a mitigation of risk of further damage to property and to ensure business premises are safe and secure for employees.
The ICA has also noted that repairs to motor vehicles during the present lockdown is necessary to maintain support for essential workers as well as essential travel.
In light of this, insurers have been advised that motor repairs are allowed to continue under the lockdown orders and that employees of these businesses within the eight critical LGA’s are authorised to leave their homes to undertake this essential work.
Insurers are presently working with repairers and suppliers to ensure they are able to continue to provide assistance and process claims whilst still complying with the NSW Public Health Orders.
LATEST COVID UPDATE
The ICA has continued to provide updates on essential insurance works being undertaken as the nation seeks to contain the COVID outbreak placing NSW into its harshest lockdown since the pandemic broke out last year.
The NSW government has confirmed that the present lockdown will continue for at least another four weeks as the state reported 239 new cases today. Nonetheless, some movement on the present restrictions for the construction industry were made in yesterday’s announcement adding $500 million to New South Wales economy per week.
Eight Local Government Areas (LGAs) are now under hard lockdown, including the Fairfield, Canterbury-Bankstown, Liverpool, Blacktown and Cumberland, Parramatta, Campbelltown and Georges River areas
Construction will now be able to resume in non-occupied dwellings outside the eight LGAs. The New South Wales Premier has confirmed that contactless tradies will also be allowed to work outside those eight LGAs. Tradies living in the eight LGAs will still be banned from leaving the council boundaries.
Businesses in the eight LGAs that form part of the construction supply chain will be permitted to continue operation and its workers will be added to the authorised works list to leave their respective LGA’s for work. This is subject to meeting COVID-19 testing requirements and includes workers in manufacturing of construction materials, plant and components.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Chamberlains and talk to one of our insurance law experts today.