Welcome back to our series on the Security of Payment Act (SOPA). In our first instalment, we introduced the core purpose of SOPA: to ensure cash flows through the construction industry by establishing a fast-tracked system for payment. Now, we move from the "why" to the "how." The entire SOPA process is triggered by a single, critical document: the Payment Claim . This is not just another invoice. It is a formal request for payment that carries significant legal weight under the Act. Getting this document right is the essential first step to unlocking your statutory right to payment and accessing the rapid adjudication process if a dispute arises. What is a Payment Claim? A payment claim is a statutory demand for a progress payment for construction work carried out or for related goods and services supplied. It serves as the foundation for every subsequent step under SOPA. If the payment claim is invalid, you will not be able to rely on the Act to recover payment. While it can look like a regular invoice, a valid payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) must meet three mandatory requirements: It must identify the construction work (or related goods and services) to which the progress payment relates. It must indicate the amount of the progress payment that the claimant claims to be due. It must state that it is a payment claim made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999. This last point is absolutely crucial and is often where claimants make a mistake. The recipient must be put on notice that this is not just an ordinary invoice, but a formal claim under the Act that carries specific legal obligations. This is often referred to as the "magic words." A simple statement such as, “This is a payment claim made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW),” prominently displayed on the document, is sufficient. The Crucial Concept of the "Reference Date" You cannot simply issue a payment claim whenever you feel like it. A claim can only be made on and from a specific "reference date." The reference date is a point in time that triggers your right to make a claim. So, how is the reference date determined? If your contract specifies dates for making progress claims: These dates are your reference dates. For example, if the contract states you can claim on the 25th day of each month, then the 25th of each month is your reference date. If your contract does not specify a date: The reference date will be the last day of the month in which you first carried out the work and the last day of each subsequent month. A payment claim cannot be served before the reference date has arisen. Understanding your reference dates is fundamental, as issuing a claim prematurely can render it invalid. A contract will typically only allow for one payment claim per reference date. Timing and Service of a Payment Claim Once a reference date has passed, you must serve your payment claim within the period specified in the contract or within 12 months after the construction work to which the claim relates was last carried out, whichever is the later. Serving the claim correctly is just as important as drafting it correctly. The claim must be served on the person or company who, under the contract, is liable to make the payment. This can be done by: Delivering it in person. Lodging it during normal office hours at their ordinary place of business. Sending it by post to their ordinary place of business. Sending it via fax or email to a number or address specified in the contract for service of notices. It is always best practice to serve the claim in a way that provides you with proof of delivery, such as by email with a read receipt or by registered post. Why Getting the Payment Claim Right Matters A valid payment claim puts the recipient on the clock. It triggers a strict, non-negotiable timeframe for them to either pay the claimed amount in full or to respond with a "Payment Schedule" detailing why they are paying less. If your payment claim is invalid—perhaps because it lacks the "magic words" or was served before a reference date—the recipient has no obligation to respond under the Act. This means you lose your right to pursue the rapid adjudication process and are pushed back into the slow and expensive traditional routes of recovering payment. The payment claim is your key to the entire SOPA regime. Taking the time to ensure it is drafted and served correctly is the most important investment you can make in protecting your cash flow. Coming Up in Part 3: The other side of the coin. What happens once a payment claim is received? We will break down the requirements for a Payment Schedule and the serious consequences of failing to provide one in time.

"Grey divorce," the phenomenon of couples divorcing later in life, presents unique legal and financial considerations. As family lawyers, we recognise that these divorces often involve complex asset division, including retirement savings, pensions, and inheritances. Additionally, spousal maintenance may be a significant factor, as older individuals may have limited earning capacity or health concerns. One of the key challenges in grey divorce is the emotional toll it can take on individuals who have been married for many years. The decision to divorce later in life can be accompanied by feelings of loss, regret, and uncertainty about the future. As family lawyers, we provide not only legal guidance but also emotional support to clients navigating this difficult transition. From a legal perspective, grey divorce requires careful consideration of the parties' financial circumstances and future needs. This may involve engaging financial experts to value assets, assess future income streams, and develop strategies for dividing property and ensuring both parties' financial security. Additionally, health concerns and estate planning considerations may need to be addressed. This could involve updating wills, powers of attorney, and advance care directives to reflect the changed circumstances. Grey divorce can be a complex and emotionally challenging process. By seeking legal advice and support, individuals can navigate the legal and financial complexities and achieve a fair and equitable outcome that allows them to move forward with dignity and security.

The Australian dream of owning prop erty is as diverse as the country itself. For many, that dream involves moving, investing, or relocating across state lines. While buying or selling property is an exciting milestone, it becomes significantly more complex when you’re dealing with different jurisdictions. The rules, regulations, and procedures can change dramatically the moment you cross a border. That’s where we come in. At Hammond Nguyen Turnbull, we are proud to offer comprehensive, expert conveyancing services not just in one state, but across the majority of Australia. We are your single point of contact for seamless property transactions in: New South Wales (NSW) Victoria (VIC) Queensland (QLD) South Australia (SA) Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Western Australia (WA) The Challenge of Interstate Conveyancing Why is handling a property transaction in another state so complicated? Each state and territory operates under its own unique legislative framework. This means that the process you are familiar with in Sydney might be completely different for a property in Melbourne or Brisbane. Key differences can include: Contractual Terms: The standard terms and conditions within a contract of sale can vary significantly. Cooling-Off Periods: The time you have to reconsider a purchase differs. For example, NSW has a 5-business-day cooling-off period, which differs from Victoria's 3 business days and South Australia's 2 business days. In Western Australia, there is no mandatory cooling-off period unless one is specifically written into the contract. Disclosure Obligations: What a seller is legally required to disclose to a buyer changes from state to state. Taxes and Duties: Stamp duty (now often called transfer duty) calculations, concessions for first-home buyers, and land tax obligations are all state-specific. Property Searches: The types of government and authority searches required to ensure a property is free from issues vary widely. Navigating these differences without expert guidance can be risky, leading to costly delays or unforeseen liabilities. The Hammond Nguyen Turnbull Solution: National Expertise, Local Knowledge Whether you are a seasoned investor diversifying your portfolio or a family making an interstate move, our team provides the certainty and peace of mind you need. We have dedicated experience in the specific property laws of each jurisdiction we serve. This means we can: Advise you accurately on the specific rights and obligations you have in that state or territory. Prepare and review contracts that are compliant with local laws and protect your interests. Manage simultaneous settlements , allowing you to sell your home in one state and buy in another with confidence. Provide a consistent, high-quality service through a single, trusted legal partner, no matter where your property is located. We combine our deep legal knowledge with the efficiency of modern technology, using national platforms like PEXA (Property Exchange Australia) to ensure your settlement is completed electronically, securely, and on time. Your Partner in Property, Wherever You Are Don't let state borders become barriers to your property goals. With Hammond Nguyen Turnbull, you have a dedicated partner ready to manage the legal complexities for you. Our national conveyancing service is designed to make your interstate property transaction a smooth and successful experience.  Planning to buy or sell property in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the ACT, or Western Australia? Contact our expert legal team today to discuss how we can assist you.

Welcome to the first instalment of our six-part series on the Security of Payment Act (SOPA). For anyone involved in the construction industry, from subcontractors to head contractors and developers, understanding this legislation is not just beneficial—it's fundamental to financial survival. The construction industry is the lifeblood of our economy, but for decades, it was plagued by a chronic illness: poor cash flow. It was a world where "the cheque's in the mail" was a common refrain, and smaller contractors were often starved of cash, waiting months for payment from parties higher up the contractual chain. This imbalance of power could, and often did, lead to insolvency, project delays, and immense financial distress. In response to this crisis, the New South Wales Parliament enacted the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 ( SOPA ). This powerful legislation fundamentally changed the landscape of construction payments. This series will break down the Act, and in this first part, we introduce its core purpose and principles. What is the Security of Payment Act? At its heart, SOPA is a statutory scheme designed to ensure that any person who carries out construction work, or supplies related goods and services, gets paid promptly. It creates a fast-tracked, interim dispute resolution process that operates alongside, and often much faster than, traditional court proceedings or arbitration. The Act is underpinned by a simple but revolutionary philosophy: "pay now, argue later." This principle is designed to ensure that money flows down the contractual chain without being held up by lengthy and expensive legal disputes about the final value of the work. The goal is to keep cash circulating, allowing contractors to pay their suppliers, employees, and overheads, and to keep the project moving forward. It provides a mechanism for a quick, interim decision on payment, which can then be argued in more detail later if necessary, but only after the money has been paid. What is the Purpose of SOPA? The primary objective of SOPA is to remedy the cash flow problems that have historically afflicted the construction sector. It achieves this by: Creating Statutory Rights to Payment: It grants a person who has carried out construction work a legal right to receive progress payments, regardless of whether the contract they signed provides for it. Establishing a Rapid Adjudication Process: It sets up a quick and informal dispute resolution process called "adjudication," where an independent adjudicator makes a binding interim decision on the amount of a progress payment. Prohibiting "Pay When Paid" Provisions: The Act makes it illegal for a contract to make payment to a subcontractor conditional on the head contractor first being paid by the principal. Essentially, SOPA provides a powerful tool for contractors to enforce their right to payment without getting bogged down in costly and time-consuming litigation. Who and What Does SOPA Cover? SOPA has a very broad reach. It applies to virtually any construction contract, whether written or oral, for work carried out in New South Wales. This includes contracts for: The erection, alteration, repair, or demolition of buildings and structures. Roadworks, power lines, and pipelines. Electrical, plumbing, and air-conditioning installation. Architectural, design, and surveying services. The supply of materials related to construction work. This means that everyone from head contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers to consultants like engineers and architects can rely on the Act to secure payment. The main exception is for contracts with a person who resides in or proposes to reside in the premises where the work is done (i.e., residential home building contracts with the homeowner). Coming Up in the Series… We have now covered the "what" and the "why" of SOPA. But how does it work in practice? How do you make a claim, and what happens if someone refuses to pay? Key Takeaways By the end of this series, you will have a comprehensive understanding of this critical piece of legislation and how you can use it to protect your business.

As family lawyers, we recognise that court litigation can be a stressful, expensive, and time-consuming process for families experiencing separation or divorce. That's why we often advocate for amicable alternatives to court, such as mediation and collaborative law. These approaches prioritise cooperation and communication, aiming to reach mutually agreeable solutions without the need for a judge's decision. Mediation involves a neutral third party, the mediator, who facilitates discussions between the parties, helping them identify their interests, explore options, and reach a compromise. The mediator does not make decisions but guides the process and encourages constructive dialogue. Collaborative law, on the other hand, involves each party being represented by a lawyer who is specifically trained in collaborative practice. The parties and their lawyers work together in a series of meetings to negotiate and reach a settlement. If the collaborative process fails, the lawyers must withdraw, and the parties must find new representation for court proceedings. Both mediation and collaborative law offer several advantages over court litigation. They can be less adversarial, allowing parties to maintain a more amicable relationship, which is particularly important when children are involved. They can also be more cost-effective and time-efficient, as they avoid the delays and expenses associated with court proceedings. Additionally, they give parties more control over the outcome, as they are actively involved in shaping the agreement.  However, it's important to note that mediation and collaborative law are not suitable for all cases. They require a willingness from both parties to engage in good faith negotiations and compromise. In cases involving family violence or power imbalance, court intervention may be necessary to protect the safety and rights of the parties. As lawyers, we carefully assess each client's situation and advise on the most appropriate approach. By exploring amicable alternatives to court, we can often achieve better outcomes for families, minimizing conflict and promoting a more positive post-separation experience.

Inheriting property can be a significant life event, but it often comes with complexities, especially in New South Wales (NSW). Understanding how property ownership interacts with inheritance laws is crucial for both those planning their estate and those who stand to inherit. How is Property Owned in NSW? In NSW, the way property is owned dictates how it can be inherited. There are two primary ways: Sole Ownership: The property is owned by one person. They have the exclusive right to control and transfer the property. Co-ownership: Two or more people own the property. There are two types of co-ownership: Joint Tenancy: Owners have an equal share of the property and the 'right of survivorship'. If one owner dies, their share automatically passes to the surviving owner(s), regardless of what a Will states. Tenancy in Common: Owners can have equal or unequal shares of the property. There is no automatic right of survivorship. Each owner can sell, gift, or bequeath their share in their Will. What Happens to Property When Someone Dies? When someone dies in NSW, their property is dealt with according to their legal Will or, if they don't have a Will, according to the laws of intestacy. With a Will: The deceased's assets, including property, are distributed to the beneficiaries as specified in the Will. The executor of the Will is responsible for administering the estate. Without a Will (Intestacy): If a person dies without a valid Will, their estate is distributed according to a statutory formula set out in NSW legislation. This formula dictates the order in which relatives inherit, with spouses and children typically taking precedence. Property and Inheritance: Key Considerations The Family Home: The family home often holds significant emotional and financial value. How it's owned can have major implications for inheritance. For example, if a couple owns their home as joint tenants, the surviving spouse automatically inherits the entire property. If they own it as tenants in common, the deceased's share will pass according to their Will or the laws of intestacy. Jointly Owned Property: As mentioned, joint tenancy has a right of survivorship. This means that if you own a property as a joint tenant with someone else, you can't leave your share to someone else in your Will. It will automatically go to the surviving joint tenant(s). Wills and Property: A Will is crucial for directing how your property is distributed, especially if you own it as a tenant in common or have specific wishes about who should inherit your assets. Intestacy Rules: If you die without a Will, the intestacy rules in NSW can be complex and may not align with your wishes. For instance, a spouse may not automatically inherit the entire estate if there are also children. Challenges to a Will: In NSW, certain people can challenge a Will if they believe they haven't been adequately provided for. This is known as a family provision claim. Legal Advice: Given the complexities of property ownership and inheritance, seeking legal advice is highly recommended. A solicitor can help you understand your rights and obligations, draft a valid Will, and navigate the inheritance process.  In Conclusion Understanding the intricacies of property ownership and inheritance in NSW is essential for effective estate planning and ensuring your assets pass to your intended beneficiaries. Whether you're planning your estate or dealing with an inheritance, seeking professional legal advice can provide clarity and peace of mind.

For many of us, reality TV offers a glimpse into lives far removed from our own, often filled with drama, romance, and sometimes, unexpected legal entanglements. Remember Ryan and Jacqui from Married At First Sight (MAFS) Season 5? Their tumultuous relationship, which began with high hopes and ended in a bitter public feud, highlighted a lesser-known but significant aspect of Australian law: the private Apprehended Violence Order (AVO). While AVOs are often associated with police involvement in domestic violence situations, the MAFS saga brought to light that individuals can apply for an AVO themselves – a "private AVO." This can happen when someone fears another person will commit a personal violence offence against them, or against someone they have a domestic relationship with (e.g., a child). What is a Private AVO? An Apprehended Violence Order is a court order designed to protect a person from another person. It prohibits the defendant (the person against whom the order is made) from certain behaviours, such as: Assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing, or intimidating the protected person. Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging any property belonging to the protected person. Approaching the protected person within a certain distance (e.g., 50 meters). Contacting the protected person by any means. Residing with the protected person. The "private" aspect simply means the application for the AVO is made directly by the person seeking protection, rather than by the police. The Ryan and Jacqui Connection While we won't delve into the specifics of their personal dispute, the MAFS narrative saw Ryan subsequently apply for a private AVO against Jacqui. This publicised event served as a stark reminder that even in the absence of police intervention, individuals can, and do, seek legal protection through the court system. The MAFS case illustrated several key points about private AVOs: Accessibility: Anyone who meets the legal criteria can apply for a private AVO. You don't need police involvement to initiate the process. Seriousness: Regardless of how the application begins, an AVO is a serious legal matter with significant consequences if breached. A breach of an AVO is a criminal offence. Complexity: Navigating the court system to obtain or defend against an AVO can be complex. It involves presenting evidence, understanding legal procedures, and often, dealing with highly emotional circumstances. When Might You Need to Consider a Private AVO? While police-initiated AVOs are crucial in many domestic violence situations, a private AVO might be appropriate if: You are experiencing fear for your safety or the safety of someone you have a domestic relationship with, but the police are not involved or you prefer to seek legal recourse independently. You are experiencing harassment, stalking, or threats from someone who is not a domestic partner but still poses a risk. You have concerns about your safety in a situation that doesn't necessarily involve physical violence but still causes you significant fear or distress. Are You Facing an AVO Application, or Considering One? The Ryan and Jacqui saga underscores that private AVOs are a real and often necessary legal tool. However, whether you are the person seeking protection or the person against whom an AVO is being sought, understanding your rights and obligations is paramount. The legal process can be daunting, and the implications of an AVO – whether granted or dismissed – can be far-reaching. If you are concerned about your safety, considering applying for a private AVO, or have been served with an AVO application, it is crucial to seek expert legal advice. Our experienced team can guide you through the process, explain your options, and represent your interests to ensure the best possible outcome. Don't navigate these complex waters alone. Contact us today for a confidential consultation.

On 25 June 2025, the Federal Court delivered a high-profile ruling in Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corp oration (No 2) [2025] FCA 669, finding that the ABC unlawfully terminated journalist Antoinette Lattouf’s employment in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA). Background Antoinette Lattouf, a prominent freelance journalist and broadcaster, was engaged by the ABC to host Sydney’s Mornings radio program for five days in December 2023. During this period, the Israel–Gaza war dominated global headlines and sparked polarised public debate in Australia. Ms Lattouf had used social media to criticise the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza, reposting content from Human Rights Watch alleging Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war. Though this post mirrored reporting already broadcast by ABC News, it triggered a wave of public complaints, many from coordinated lobbying campaigns accusing her of anti-Semitism and bias. Within hours of ABC management learning of Ms Lattouf’s repost, a decision was made to remove her from the remaining shifts. She was told to leave the premises and not return to air. Key Issues in the Case Ms Lattouf sued the ABC in the Federal Court, arguing her termination breached: Section 772(1)(f) of the FWA, which prohibits termination for reasons including political opinion, race or national extraction. Section 50 of the FWA, by breaching terms of the ABC Enterprise Agreement requiring procedural fairness in misconduct allegations. The ABC denied it had terminated Ms Lattouf’s employment, claiming instead it simply changed her roster (which ended naturally at week’s end) and was entitled to stand her down from remaining shifts. It also argued any decision was based on her alleged breach of social media guidelines and loss of trust, not her political views or racial background. The Court’s Findings Justice Rangiah found: Termination occurred: The ABC’s decision to take Ms Lattouf off air and end her engagement early was a termination of employment within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. Political opinion was a substantial and operative reason: The ABC’s decision-makers were substantially motivated by Ms Lattouf’s political opinion—specifically, her opposition to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Procedural fairness was denied: The ABC failed to follow its Enterprise Agreement obligations by not advising her of the specific allegations or giving her a chance to respond before dismissal. The Court rejected the ABC’s argument that removing Ms Lattouf was justified solely by breaches of its social media policy or failure to maintain impartiality. It found these explanations were pretexts or at least insufficient to displace the legal presumption (under s 783 of the FWA) that the termination was for a prohibited reason. The Outcome Justice Rangiah declared that the ABC: Contravened s 772(1) of the FWA by terminating Ms Lattouf’s employment for her political opinion. Breached s 50 of the FWA by failing to comply with its Enterprise Agreement. The Court ordered the ABC to pay Ms Lattouf $70,000 in compensation for non-economic loss (such as distress and reputational harm) and set the matter down for a further hearing to consider any additional pecuniary penalties. Why This Case Matters This decision is a significant reminder for employers—especially those with public broadcasting or journalistic functions—about the importance of: Respecting employee rights to hold and express political opinions, even when controversial or unpopular. Avoiding knee-jerk disciplinary responses to coordinated public pressure campaigns. Strictly complying with enterprise agreements’ requirements for procedural fairness in misconduct investigations. It also clarifies that “political opinion” under s 772(1) FWA includes not only holding views, but expressing them publicly—even on contentious global conflicts. For employers and HR professionals, this case reinforces that: Dismissal decisions must be carefully considered and documented. A genuine, policy-based rationale must be consistently and transparently applied. Breaches of workplace procedure can turn even a defensible concern (like reputational risk) into an unlawful termination. How We Can Help Our employment law team is experienced in advising employers on compliance with the Fair Work Act, managing reputational risk, and ensuring sound, defensible disciplinary processes. We also assist employees who believe they have been unlawfully terminated on the basis of political opinion, race, or other protected attributes. If you’d like to discuss what this decision might mean for your business or your rights as an employee, please contact us.

Losing a job is a stressful and often confronting experience. The Fair Work Act 2009 provides a safety net for employees who believe they have been dismissed in a way that is harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. This is known as an unfair dismissal claim. Navigating this process can be daunting, especially when faced with strict deadlines and legal complexities. This post will guide you through the essentials of unfair dismissal claims, the process at the Fair Work Commission, and the critical timeframes you need to know. What is Unfair Dismissal? An unfair dismissal occurs when the Fair Work Commission finds that: You were dismissed, and The dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and The dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy, and If you worked for a small business, the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. Harsh refers to the disproportionate consequences of the dismissal on your personal and economic situation. Unjust means you were not guilty of the alleged misconduct or that the employer's reasoning was unfounded. Unreasonable suggests the employer acted without a sufficient evidentiary basis for their decision. To be eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim, you must have completed a minimum period of employment: Six months for businesses with 15 or more employees. 12 months for small businesses with fewer than 15 employees. Additionally, you must be covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement, or your annual earnings must be below the high-income threshold (which is updated annually). The Clock is Ticking: The 21-Day Rule This is the most critical aspect of an unfair dismissal claim. You have 21 calendar days from the date your dismissal took effect to lodge an application with the Fair Work Commission. The day your employment ends is day zero. This deadline is strictly enforced. While the Commission can grant an extension in "exceptional circumstances" (such as a serious illness or a delay caused by your representative), these are rarely granted. It is vital to act immediately if you believe you have been unfairly dismissed. The Unfair Dismissal Process: A Step-by-Step Guide Once you lodge your application (Form F2) with the Fair Work Commission, a structured process begins: Step 1: Application and Employer Response After you file your application and pay the required fee, the Commission will send a copy to your former employer. The employer then has 7 days to lodge a response, which may include objections to your claim (for example, that you were not an employee or that you filed out of time). Step 2: Conciliation In most cases, the next step is a conciliation conference, which is typically held via telephone between three to five weeks after the application is lodged. This is an informal process where an independent conciliator from the Commission facilitates a confidential discussion between you and your former employer. The goal of conciliation is to help both parties reach a mutually agreeable settlement without needing a formal hearing. A settlement could include financial compensation, a statement of service, or an agreement for the dismissal to be recorded as a resignation or all of the above. Anything said during conciliation is "without prejudice," meaning it cannot be used against you if the matter proceeds to a hearing. Most cases settle at conciliation. Step 3: Hearing or Conference If the matter is not resolved at conciliation, it will proceed to a more formal stage. This could be a conference or a hearing before a Commission Member. At this stage, both you and your former employer will need to present evidence and witness testimony to support your respective cases. The Commission will then make a formal decision based on the merits of the arguments presented. Remedies for Unfair Dismissal If the Fair Work Commission finds that you have been unfairly dismissed, it can order one of two primary remedies: Reinstatement: This is considered the primary remedy, where you are given your job back with no loss of continuity of service. Compensation: If reinstatement is not appropriate (for example, if the employment relationship has completely broken down), the Commission can order compensation. This is capped at the lesser of 26 weeks' pay or half the high-income threshold. A Note for Small Businesses The Fair Work Act has special provisions for small businesses. If a small business employer follows the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, the dismissal will be deemed fair. The Code requires employers to have a valid reason for dismissal based on capacity or conduct and to provide warnings (unless the dismissal is for serious misconduct). This provides a clearer framework for small businesses to follow to ensure they are acting fairly. If you have been dismissed and believe it was unfair, it is crucial to seek legal advice as soon as possible to understand your rights and ensure you do not miss the strict 21-day deadline.