SafeWork NSW has sought to remind employers that they must provide clean and safe toilet facilities for all staff onsite in accordance with clause 41 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW). The reminder follows a recent finding by SafeWork SA where the regulator determined that the majority of toilets provided for a construction site where so filthy and unhygienic that workers were exposed to risk of disease.
SafeWork NSW has released a factsheet on workplace toilet facilities which outlines that toilets, whether portable or not, must not be:
As a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU), systems must be implemented to ensure that:
A portable toilet that is plumbed into a sewerage system and connected to running water is preferred. If this cannot be achieved, workers must be consulted with regarding the most suitable type of portable toilet.
For employers who have 10 or less staff in the workplace or there are two or less workers of one gender, one unisex toilet can be provided.
Male workers:
Female workers:
When selecting a location for the toilet, regard must be had to the following:
If a SafeWork NSW inspector attends the worksite and finds that there are not adequate toilet facilities, it will result in a finding that the workplace is not suitable for operation unit the issues are rectified.
If you are concerned about the Work Health and Safety of your workplace as a PCBU or an employee, reach out to the Workplace team at Chamberlains Law Firm for assistance.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Challita Tahhan
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has emphasised the importance of clear evidence alongside clear policies in finding that an employee was unfairly dismissed as the employer did not have sufficient evidence to justify his termination by way of breaching the employer’s drugs and alcohol policy.
In Baydon Johnson v Faulkner Farming Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1052, Faulkner Farming Pty Ltd (Faulkner) elected to terminate Mr Johnson, a manager, who showed up to work after having consumed 12-15 standard drinks the night before his shift. Faulkner purported that Mr Johnson’s dismissal was on the basis that he had attended the farm whilst under the influence of alcohol which was in breach of Faulkner’s drug and alcohol policy (a policy which Mr Johnson had signed a declaration of understanding in respect of).
Mr Johnson maintained that he was not under the influence of alcohol.
The FWC did not accept that email or hearsay evidence could be used to establish Mr Johnson’s impairment. The FWC went further, highlighting that it cannot be assumed that Mr Johnson ‘must have been impaired’ based on how much alcohol he had consumed the day prior. It was also noted that Faulkner had failed to call the supervisor who sent Mr Johnson home from work as a witness, and it was found to be relevant that Mr Johnson was allowed to drive himself home.
The FWC held that had the influence of alcohol been established successfully ‘it is highly unlikely I would have found his dismissal was unfair’. However, due to the failure of Faulkner in proving that Mr Johnson was impaired, and the absence of supplementary evidence (such as breathalyser tests or detailed file notes) it was ultimately found that the dismissal was unfair.
Accordingly, the FWC made orders for Faulkner to pay the Mr Johnson approximately $5,000 in compensation.
This case serves as a reminder to managers that sufficient evidence is needed when looking to terminate employees who have breached respective drugs and alcohol policies. Whilst it is imperative to have clear policies in place, one cannot simply rely on those policies in the absence of clear supporting evidence.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Challita Tahhan*
Payment of the wages to employees is a crucial aspect of the employment relationship. All employees have a right at law to be paid minimum wages and entitlements and getting this wrong can have serious consequences for employers.
In a recent case, a HR Coordinator of the popular restaurant chain Din Tai Fung (DTF) at its World Square location has been fined $105,084 for the role she played in underpaying 17 staff members. The underpayment totalled $157,025 and the associated total penalties in this matter totalled $4 million.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) stated that the contravention of the law by DTF moved past a mere deliberate wrongdoing, but it was a ‘deceitful and unscrupulous’ arrangement. It was a scheme calculated and designed to underpay employees. The FWC found that the HR Coordinator went further than being a mere conduit for the underpayment but rather she specifically contravened the law.
In an attempt to conceal their wage theft practices, DTF hired visa holders as opposed to Australian citizens in order to reduce the risk of the underpayment being brought to the attention of the authorities. The FWC highlighted that it ‘is a notorious fact that foreign workers are particularly susceptible to exploitation’.
The payroll staff of DTF kept two copies of records relating to hours worked by staff. One copy of the records was the actual hours worked, whereas the other copy was augmented. The augmented records saw false rates of pay and understated hours of work documented.
It was discovered that, full time employees were to be paid 76 hours per fortnight, regardless of any additional hours being worked, cash payments were not to be included in payslips, and casual employees were made to look like they had worked less than they had actually worked.
The FWC stated that DTF’s conduct was ‘extremely serious’ with many of its breaches amounting to serious contraventions pursuant to section 557A of the Fair Work Act.
This case serves as a stern warning to human resource managers and coordinators as to the implications that their actions can have not only on the business, but to themselves as well.
Fair Work Ombudsman v DTF World Square Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2023] FCA 201 (15 March 2023)
Fair Work Ombudsman v DTF World Square Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 4) [2023] FCA 341 (9 April 2024)
This article was prepared with the assistance of Challita Tahhan*
As we step into the new financial year, there are various changes that are impacting employers in Australia. Keep reading to find out everything you need to know about the changes to the employment law landscape this financial year.
National Minimum Wage
On Monday 3 June 2024, the Fair Work Commission handed down its Annual Wage Review, announcing a 3.75% increase to minimum wages prescribed by Modern Awards. This decision increases the National Minimum Wage (NMW) to $24.10 per hour.
The NMW is the base rate of pay for ordinary hours worked by adult employees who are not covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement, and it applies to businesses who are in the national system. If your employees are covered by an applicable award or enterprise agreement, the national minimum wage does not apply to them, rather, the applicable rates are prescribed by the relevant award or enterprise agreement.
The new base rate of $24.10 is utilised to calculate and will raise the special national minimum wage. The special national minimum wage applies to employees who are apprentices/trainees, have disabilities or are under 21 years of age.
In the event that a business is a National System Employer, they have a statutory obligation to comply with the National Employment Standards and any applicable industrial instruments such as any applicably award.
Superannuation Increase
Employers must also note that on 1 July 2024 the superannuation guarantee will increase to 11.5%. This increases the superannuation contributions made by employers into superannuation funds on behalf of employees by 0.5% and is based on a percentage of an employee’s earnings.
What does this mean for employers?
Following the Closing Loopholes Amendments, where underpayments and wage theft were criminalised, employers need to be vigilant in ensuring that employee renumeration meets the new minimums. If employers fail to make the necessary adjustments, they risk underpaying their employees and as a result they leave themselves exposed to severe criminal and financial penalties. Click here for more information about the new amendments: It takes two: Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 – Chamberlains Law Firm
Employers can prepare for the wage increase in the following ways:
Employers are advised to exercise due diligence and as a matter of priority, take all possible steps to ensure their payroll operations are compliant and prepared for the change.
High Income Threshold
For dismissals which occur after 1 July 2024, the threshold for high income earners has been raised to $175,000. The compensation available to be claimed has also been raised to a new limit for $87,500.
Industrial Manslaughter
From 1 July 2024, a new criminal offence for industrial manslaughter and significant penalty increases will be introduced into the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) (WHS Act) following the Closing Loopholes Amendment.
The industrial manslaughter offence will attract the following penalties:
The penalty increases for Category 1 offences are:
Additionally, there will be a 39.03% increase to all other penalties in the WHS Act.
Casual Employment
From 26 August 2024, casual employees will be defined differently under the Fair Work Act. The new definition will only allow employees to be deemed as casual if:
These changes will not affect employees who were employed as casuals before 26 August 2024.
A new casual conversion process will also be introduced.
From 26 August 2024, employees who are employed for at least 6 months (or 12 months if employed by a small business) will be able to notify their employer of their intention to change to permanent employment. These employees may also request casual conversion if they believe they no longer meet the requirements of the new casual employee definition.
Employers must note that employees cannot request to become a permanent employee if they:
Employers in response to a request for casual conversion must:
The Casual Employment Information Statement must be provided to the following:
The Right to Disconnect
For all non-small business employers, the right to disconnect will come into effect on 26 August 2024. For small businesses, this will change will come into effect on 26 August 2025.
Employers must note awards will be changing as all modern awards will be required to include a ‘right to disconnect term’ by 26 August 2024.
Please see the following article to see how this change will affect your business. The Right to Disconnect… What Does it Mean? – Chamberlains Law Firm
Independent Contractor Changes
From 26 August 2024, to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, considerations must be had to:
Contractors will be able to apply to the FWC if they believe that their service contract contains an unfair term.
The FWC will be able to:
The new laws will only apply where there is a ‘constitutional connection’.
Contractors earning over the “contractor high income threshold” however, will not be able to apply for an unfair contract remedy with the FWC. The contractor high income threshold has not yet been set; however, it is anticipated that it will be determined by the Fair Work Commission shortly.
Contractors can apply to a court for a review of their services contract under the rules of the Independent Contractors Act 2006 if they think the contract is harsh or unfair. This provides different pathways for review for contractors at different income levels.
A New Framework to Protect Independent Contractors who are Employee-like Workers or are in the Road Transport Industry.
From 26 August 2024 a new framework will be set up to protect independent contractors who:
Independent contractors who perform digital platform work in the gig economy are called ‘employee-like workers’.
A contractor will only be an employee-like worker if they meet the new definition. This includes that the contractor satisfies 2 or more of the following:
Independent contractors in the road transport industry who meet a set criterion are known as ‘regulated road transport contractors’.
Workplace Delegates
From 26 August 2024, workplace delegates will be afforded new rights and protections.
A workplace delegate will include a person appointed or elected under the rules of an employee organisation to represent members of the organisation who perform work:
Workplace delegates will be entitled to represent the industrial interests of union members, current or prospective. Workplace delegates will also be entitled to reasonable communication with regulated workers and access to workplace facilities for the purpose of representing those workers industrial interests.
Want to learn more?
At Chamberlains Law Firm we can help you navigate these changes and assist you with solving any complications arise. Additionally, Chamberlains HR offers a way for us to provide ongoing support to your business. Reach out to find out more about how Chamberlains HR can benefit your business in a meaningful way or follow the link to find out more: Do you need professional HR services? Chamberlains HR can help you.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Challita Tahhan*
Under the Fair Work Act, it is unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against an employee for a protected reason.
An interesting feature of the general protections provisions is the ‘presumption’ that the adverse action was taken for a protected reason unless proven otherwise. Accordingly, there is a ‘reverse onus of proof’ which means that the employer bears the onus of establishing or disproving that the action was taken for an unlawful reason.
Ultimately, the practical application of the reverse onus of proof means that the employer is required to lead evidence from the ‘decision maker’ to establish what was in the decision makers mind at the time the action was taken.
A recent case before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has served as an important reminder that if an employer fails to lead direct evidence from the decision marker, it is extremely difficult to discharge the reverse onus of proof.
The Court has recently found that an employer took adverse action in dismissing an employee because the employee exercised a workplace right and failed to discharge the reverse onus of proof as required by s 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in the case of Guthrie v Mondiale VGL Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 384 (23 May 2024).
The Facts
In the case of Guthrie v Mondiale VGL Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 384, Mr Guthrie lodged a general protections claim against his previous employer Mondiale alleging that he was dismissed as a result of him exercising the following workplace rights:
Mr Guthrie had requested, due to his familial obligations, to alter his working hours to start later. He specifically requested afternoon/night shifts. Mondiale informed him that he would be priority for the next available role. Time passed and Mondiale formed Mr Guthrie that it overlooked him for a night shift position as they needed to fill the role immediately and Mr Guthrie would have required to have been trained for the role. Following this, Mondiale informed Mr Guthrie that he would remain as a priority for the next available role and that they would create a hybrid position for him with a later start time. This hybrid role never eventuated.
As a result, Mr Guthrie brought his flexible working request to the Fair Work Commission who advised him that he would need to undertake dispute resolution as per clause 10 of the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2010. Mondiale agreed to undertake dispute resolution and Mr Guthrie dropped his claim. However, no such dispute resolution unfolded.
Additionally, Mr Guthrie believed he was being underpaid and engaged in over 6 weeks of email exchanges with Mondiale’s HR Manager. The email exchanges boiled over when Mr Guthrie stated that he would discuss the alleged underpayments with the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Following these communications, the HR manager met with a partner at Mondiale, and she recommended Mr Guthrie’s dismissal. Following this discussion, on 9 December 2019 Mr Guthrie was dismissed. His dismissal letter stated the reason for dismissal was due to “nonprofessional work behaviours displayed in the workplace which contravene the company Code of Conduct and our Health and Safety HSEQ Administrative Three Strike Policy”.
Findings of the Court
The Court has found that the dismissal of Mr Guthrie was not based on the reasons stated in the dismissal letter, but rather because the HR Manager viewed his queries about pay and flexible working conditions as “badgering” and “harassment”.
After a review of the correspondence, the Court found that nearly all of the emails between the employee and the HR manager were “respectful in their approach” and only one email on the 18 November may be considered to border disrespect.
Accordingly, the Court found that Mondiale failed to discharge the reverse onus of proof. It was held that there was no evidence put before the Court that the decision makers of Mr Guthrie’s termination had excluded his workplace rights in determining his termination. As a result, the Court was “satisfied that adverse action was taken again Mr Guthrie by Mondiale by dismissing him from his employment because of the exercise of the workplace rights asserted”.
As a result, the Court found that s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act had been breached as adverse action was taken against the employee for exercising his right to request flexible working conditions and querying his pay slip.
Key Takeaways
For employers, this case serves as a reminder that to successfully defend a general protections claim, the reverse onus of proof must be discharged with sufficient evidence. Further, it draws attention to the fact that when the termination process is conducted inappropriately, it can leave your business exposed to legal action. Employers must exercise extreme caution when dismissing employees, especially if it is in connection to the employee exercising an alleged workplace right.
Employees are to note that if they believe that they have been terminated for exercising a right in the workplace, they are able to bring a general protections claim before the Court.
If you are thinking about lodging a general protections claim, reach out to the Workplace Team at Chamberlains for bespoke advice. Alternatively, if you are an employer and are facing a general protections claim, reach out to the team for guidance and assistance.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Challita Tahhan*
Our heroine was a young girl (we will call her Pam) who suffered terrible abuse in the early 1990’s by her uncle when she was a child of 6 or 7. After suffering the final humiliation by her abuser forcing his penis in her throat causing her to choke and laughing at her, Pam finally raised the alarm with her parents and alerted the police. This ended the abuse she endured at the hands of her abuser however it was only the beginning of a life of suffering and survival where the trajectory of her life was changed indelibly and forever.
In 2021, Pam filed a claim for battery and damages for psychiatric injury against her abuser. He failed to respond and made no effort to defend the claim against him despite having the opportunity to do so. A default judgment was made by Judge Palmer of the District Court of WA and the facts of Pam’s claim were deemed admitted. However, it was not the end of the matter, her abuser’s failure to challenge simply meant that her abuser was liable to her but not liable for the amount of damages as this had to be assessed by the judge.
It was up to learned Judge Palmer to decide whether he believed Pam’s story. He tested her evidence and found that Pam gave a truthful and reliable account of the harrowing events of the sexual abuse recognising her distress and overwhelm as she gave her evidence most bravely at the trial.
He was ultimately persuaded to the requisite standard that the sexual abuse occurred as Pam had described.
Judge Palmer also accepted the medical evidence of her long time GP Dr Gary Wilson who had treated her in her teenage years and psychiatrist, Dr Felicity Sewell, both confirming the uncle’s abuse had caused the psychiatric injuries Pam suffered which detrimentally impacted on her life.
Pam experienced difficulties at school, turned to substance abuse, experienced difficulties with intimacy in her marriage, difficulties forming meaningful friendships and trusting people. She felt worthless. The abuse affected her ability to mentally and physically cope with working and caused her to permanently cease working.
Our Judge accepted the evidence of the financial accountant who assessed her loss of earnings. He formed the conclusion that Pam did suffer a loss of earning capacity as a result of the abuse and said abuse was responsible for her incapacity for work in the past and for the remainder of her life.
Judge Palmer was required to make the difficult assessment of deciding hypothetically what would have been Pam’s earning capabilities had she not been sexually abused; an assessment that depended on all manner of possibilities (Malec v Hutton). His enquiry made more difficult as the abuse had occurred when Pam was a child so there was no career or established work history before the abuse occurred that might otherwise provided clearer guidance.
While he questioned some of the enquiries made by the financial accountant with respect to calculating the earnings of a qualified teacher our judge accepted the alternative scenario that it was appropriate to assess Pam’s damages on the basis that if it were not for the abuse she would have at least completed high school to Year 12. Further, she would have maintained stable employment like her sisters, who were both teachers, and earned average earnings for a person who left high school at Year 12.
Judge Palmer referred to Lawrence and Cable and interstate cases to help him decide what damages Pam should receive for her injuries and loss of amenities in life. He ultimately determined an award of $300,000 as appropriate.
Although exemplary damages was claimed Judge Palmer noted it was rarely allowed and considered that exemplary damages focused on the wrong doings of the perpetrator, not the wronged individual; it was to make an example, to punish and deter however since Pam’s abuser had already served a custodial sentence for abusing Pam there was no occasion to award it. Equally, aggravated damages which are compensatory in nature was claimed for injury to Pam’s feelings caused by insult, humiliation and the like however this was accounted for in the general damages award.
Finally, Judge Palmer considered Pam was entitled to interest on her past loss of earnings and past lost superannuation in line with the approach by Herron DCJ in Lawrence (Court of Appeal) applying a refinement on the rough and ready approach and calculating a half rate during the period for which her loss was accruing (3%) and then at the full rate after the loss had ceased to accrue (6%). Judge Palmer considered that Pam’s loss has continued to accrue and therefore a 3% interest was applied annually for 21 years and 6% on her future loss of earning capacity over a period of 27 years (until retirement age).
Pam, our courageous survivor received a little over $2.4 million in damages for her pain and suffering, her past and future loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses.
While she would have received some comfort in this win it could never restore her sense of wellbeing and safety in the world and we can only hope that such courage and bravery can be inspired in others to come forward.
At Chamberlains Law firm we give our client’s the opportunity to explore what their claim might be worth. Our aim is to achieve an acknowledgement of the wrongs committed against our survivors and financial settlement through civil abuse action in the courts that meets our client’s individual circumstances. There is no perfect settlement and there are never guarantees in litigation but we will fight hard to ensure we get the best outcome we can for you so that you get to be the hero or heroine in your story.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Keziah Holdsworth*
Banksia Hill Juvenile Detention Centre has had its fair share of negative press over recent years with dire staff shortages, rolling lock downs, violent incidents, detainees being isolated in their cells for extended periods of time and self harm incidents. The most recent tragic events in late 2023 saw 16 year old aboriginal boy, Cleveland Dodd unresponsive in his cell after cries for help went unattended.
It was another terrible indictment on WA’s juvenile detention system, making this the first juvenile death in custody in WA since modern records began. Mr Dodd was found in his cell in Unit 18, by now a unit with a notorious reputation, located in a separate wing attached to the adult Casuarina Prison. Unit 18 houses juvenile detainees with the most complex problems including substance abuse issues, behavioural and learning difficulties.
The WA government has announced that it will build a new facility close to Banksia Hill that will provide therapeutic care and intervention to the most challenging juvenile detainees and will look to close Unit 18.
The issues that persist in the juvenile detention system are seemingly a vicious cycle. The abuses experienced in juvenile detention facilities in WA and around Australia were recognised in the Royal commission in 2017. Like Rangeview Remand Centre before it, Banksia Hill is sadly, no exception.
If you have been a victim of sexual abuse at a juvenile detention facility at Banksia Hill or any other juvenile detention facility in Australia and would like support with your claim, we can help. At Chamberlains Law firm we give our client’s the opportunity to explore what their claim might be worth. Our aim is to achieve an acknowledgement of the wrongs committed against our survivors and financial settlement through civil abuse action in the courts that meets our client’s individual circumstances. There is no perfect settlement and there are never guarantees in litigation but we will fight hard to ensure we get the best outcome we can for you.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Keziah Holdsworth*
The Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in Darwin, NT was notoriously featured in a Four Corners report sometime in 2015. Following that report the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the NT was launched and in 2017 released its findings. The Royal Commission report found systemic failures of the NT child detention system to rehabilitate their youth and failed to protect their human rights. Overall it is considered the detention centre was not suitable to house the NT’s most vulnerable youth. The report revealed evidence of child detainees spending long hours isolated in their cells due to staff shortages and rolling lockdowns amongst other abuses.
The facility was recommended to be closed following the Royal Commission report however that has not occurred yet and the NT’s most vulnerable children continue to be housed in the detention centre. It is expected that the facility will finally be replaced sometime in 2024. In the meantime, tougher recent bail laws in the NT have seen increases in the number of children being housed in Don Dale as a result of these changes. A class action settled with the NT government in recent years saw a number of ex-child detainees of Don Dale receive compensation for mistreatment in juvenile detention (between 2006 and 2017). The mistreatment included unnecessary strip searches, excessive force and numerous hours of isolation. It is understood that this class action did not cover institutional child sexual abuse in those juvenile detention settings.
At Chamberlains we represent a number of individuals who experienced child sexual abuse at Don Dale and numerous other juvenile detention facilities around Australia. If you have a claim and wish to explore your rights further, we can help.
If you have been a victim of sexual abuse at Don Dale Youth Detention Centre or other juvenile detention facility the team at Chamberlains can help. At Chamberlains Law firm we give our client’s the opportunity to explore what their claim might be worth. Our aim is to achieve an acknowledgement of the wrongs committed against our survivors and financial settlement through civil abuse action in the courts that meets our client’s individual circumstances. There is no perfect settlement and there are never guarantees in litigation but we will fight hard to ensure we get the best outcome we can for you.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Keziah Holdsworth*
The Ashley Youth Detention Centre has been labelled many ugly things and there has been no shortage of stories of abuse and hopelessness coming out of Tasmania’s only youth detention centre.
One only has to google the centre to discover its reputation. Originally opened as a boys home in 1922 it evolved into a youth detention centre in 1999 and is targeted to be shut down by end of 2024.
Over the years stories have been told of verbal and physical abuse, beatings, invasive strip searches and sexual abuse. There were also allegations of staff covering up reports of abuse and destroying evidence. These are some of the allegations that came out of the “Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual abuse in Institutional Settings”, an inquiry set up by the Tasmanian State government in November 2020.
The Commissions’ recent findings recommended the detention centre be shut down as soon as possible as there was a real and present risk of ongoing abuse of the detainees.
A class action has been launched in Tasmania however there are risks of class actions in historical sexual abuse matters and those are outlined in our previous article ‘The problems with class actions for historic sexual abuse matters’.
If you have been a victim of sexual and physical abuse at Ashley Youth Detention Centre the team at Chamberlains can help. At Chamberlains Law firm we give our client’s the opportunity to explore what their claim might be worth. Our aim is to achieve an acknowledgement of the wrongs committed against our survivors and financial settlement through civil abuse action in the courts that meets our client’s individual circumstances. There is no perfect settlement and there are never guarantees in litigation but we will fight hard to ensure we get the best outcome we can for you.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Keziah Holdsworth*
1. Get independent legal advice
If you have made an application to the National Redress Scheme for child sexual abuse suffered while in an insitution and an offer of payment has been made, it is essential to get legal advice. A lawyer will advise you on your particular circumstances and whether it is worth considering other legal pathways to obtain compensation for the abuse you suffered as a child in an institution.
2. The amount of compensation
The average offer of payment made by the National Redress Scheme is around $85,000. The most you can get from National Redress is $150,000 to $155,000. Your personal circumstances will often dictate whether you accept the offer or not however it is most important to be aware that if you accept the offer and payment is made to you, you will lose the right to pursue any further compensation through an abuse action in the courts.
3. Time frames
If an offer is made to you from National Redress you will have 6 months to decide whether you should accept the offer. You can seek an extension of time from National Redress if you need more than 6 months to decide what you want to do. While you are thinking about whether to accept or not, you should seek independent legal advice. Further, the National Redress Scheme ends on 30 June 2028.
If you decide you want to explore an abuse action through the courts, you can do so at any time. There is no timeframe or limitation date to commence an abuse action.
As noted above however, if you accept a National Redress offer, you lose the right to explore an abuse action through the courts.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Keziah Holdsworth*