The world is abuzz with the joyous news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's engagement! As we celebrate their union, this high-profile engagement serves as a timely reminder for all couples, regardless of their celebrity status, about the importance of proactive financial planning and asset protection. What is a Binding Financial Agreement? A Binding Financial Agreement (BFA), often referred to as a prenuptial agreement (or "prenup"), is a legally binding contract made by two people who are in a de facto relationship, contemplating marriage, or already married. It outlines how assets, liabilities, and financial resources will be divided in the event of a separation or divorce. While some may view BFAs negatively, they are, in fact, a sensible and strategic tool for financial clarity and peace of mind. Why Consider a BFA? Asset Protection: For individuals who bring significant assets into a relationship, such as inheritances, businesses, or properties, a BFA can protect these assets from being divided in ways they didn't intend. Debt Protection: BFAs can also clarify how existing debts, or debts incurred during the relationship, will be managed, safeguarding one partner from the other's financial liabilities. Clarity and Certainty: It provides a clear framework for financial matters, reducing potential disputes and emotional stress should the relationship end. Estate Planning: A BFA can complement your estate planning, ensuring that your wishes for your assets are respected even after marriage. Future Business Ventures: For entrepreneurs, a BFA can protect business interests and ensure continuity, regardless of marital status. Beyond the Headlines: A Universal Need While the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce engagement highlights the need for BFAs among high-net-worth individuals, the principles of asset protection apply to everyone. Marriage is a significant legal and financial commitment. Taking the time to discuss and formalize financial arrangements can strengthen a relationship by fostering open communication and mutual understanding. How Hammond Nguyen Turnbull Can Help At Hammond Nguyen Turnbull, our experienced family law team understands the sensitive nature of financial agreements. We provide compassionate, confidential, and expert legal advice to help you:  Understand the implications of a BFA for your specific circumstances. Draft a comprehensive and legally sound agreement that reflects your intentions. Negotiate terms fairly and respectfully with your partner. Ensure compliance with all legal requirements. Just as Taylor and Travis are building a life together, you too can build a secure financial future. Contact Hammond Nguyen Turnbull today to discuss how a Binding Financial Agreement can provide you with confidence and peace of mind.

It’s a common and dangerous misconception: that because Australian corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue for defamation, they are powerless against false statements that damage their reputation and bottom line. As of August 2025, in an era of instant digital outrage, this belief leaves many businesses feeling exposed. The reality is far different. While the front door of defamation law may be closed, the law provides several powerful side doors for large corporations to protect their brand, revenue, and reputation. Understanding these alternative legal weapons is critical for any major Australian business. The Defamation Rule: A Quick Recap The law preventing large companies from suing for defamation was designed to foster public debate, ensuring powerful entities couldn't use their resources to silence critics. However, the law never intended to provide a free-for-all for anyone to publish damaging falsehoods without consequence. If your business is facing a reputational attack, here are the primary legal avenues you can and should consider. 1. Injurious Falsehood: The Business Reputation Tort Think of injurious falsehood (also known as malicious falsehood) as the business-focused cousin of defamation. It is specifically designed to compensate for economic loss suffered due to false statements made about a business. To succeed in an action for injurious falsehood, a business must prove four things: A False Statement: A false statement was made about the company’s goods, services, or business practices. Publication: The statement was published to a third party. Malice: The publisher acted with malice. This is the key difference from defamation. You must prove the person who made the statement knew it was false or was recklessly indifferent to the truth. Actual Damage: The false statement caused actual financial loss. This could be cancelled contracts, a measurable drop in sales, or costs incurred to mitigate the damage. While the requirement to prove malice and actual damage makes it a higher bar than defamation, it is a powerful tool against deliberate and malicious attacks. 2. Misleading or Deceptive Conduct: The ACL Powerhouse Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is arguably the most potent and versatile weapon in a large corporation's arsenal. It states that a person must not, in trade or commerce , engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. How does this apply to reputational attacks? Competitor Statements: If a competitor makes false or misleading comparisons, or publishes false negative information about your products or services to gain a commercial advantage, this is a clear breach of the ACL. False Online Reviews for Commercial Gain: If a person or rival business creates fake negative reviews to harm your business and promote another, this falls squarely within "trade or commerce." Media & Bloggers: Even some media publications or influential bloggers who operate on a commercial basis could be captured if they publish misleading statements without proper verification. The remedies under the ACL are significant and include: Injunctions to immediately stop the conduct. Damages to compensate for any loss suffered. Orders for Corrective Advertising , forcing the offender to publicly retract their statements. 3. Protecting Your People: Individual Defamation Claims An attack on a business is often executed through an attack on its leaders. While your corporation may not be able to sue for defamation, its directors, CEO, or other executives can sue as individuals if they are identified and their personal and professional reputations are harmed. This can be a highly effective strategy. A false statement that a company is "corrupt" is also a statement that its directors are "corrupt," providing them with a direct path to file a defamation claim to protect their own reputations and, by extension, vindicate the business. A Proactive Strategy is Your Best Defence Knowing your legal options is only half the battle. A large business must have a clear and immediate action plan: Document Meticulously: Preserve all evidence of the false statements. Screenshot websites, social media posts, and online reviews. Note the date, time, and URL. Quantify the Damage: Immediately begin tracking financial impact. Collate data on sales drops, customer enquiries mentioning the false statement, and lost contracts. This is vital evidence for any claim. Issue a Precise Cease and Desist Letter: Instead of a defamation "Concerns Notice," your lawyers will draft a robust Cease and Desist letter. This notice will allege breaches of the Australian Consumer Law and/or injurious falsehood, demand a retraction, and put the publisher on notice of a potential claim for damages. Leverage Platform Power: Report the false statements to the host platforms (Google, Meta, X, etc.), citing breaches of their terms of service and potentially the ACL. Medium to large businesses are not defenceless. By understanding the powerful legal tools available beyond defamation, you can effectively fight back against false and damaging statements, protecting your brand, your employees, and your bottom line.  If your corporation is the subject of a reputational attack, it is crucial to seek expert legal advice immediately. Contact us to discuss a strategic response to protect your commercial interests.

Same-sex couples in Australia have the same rights and obligations under family law as heterosexual couples, including the right to marry and divorce. As family lawyers, we assist same-sex couples in navigating the legal landscape of divorce, ensuring they understand the process and their entitlements. The grounds for divorce are the same for same-sex couples as they are for heterosexual couples: the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, evidenced by a 12-month separation period. The process for filing for divorce and obtaining a divorce order is also the same. However, there may be some unique considerations for same-sex couples, particularly those who were in a de facto relationship before same-sex marriage was legalised in Australia. Property and financial matters may need to be addressed for the period of the de facto relationship as well as the marriage. As family lawyers, we provide tailored advice to same-sex couples, taking into account their specific circumstances and needs. We guide them through the divorce process, assist with property and financial matters, and advocate for their rights in court if necessary. The legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia was a significant step forward for equality. We’re proud to play a role in supporting same-sex couples through the legal process of divorce, ensuring they are treated with dignity and respect and receive a fair and just outcome.

In the Australian court system, parties have the right to represent the mselves — known as being a self-represented litigant (SRL). While this might seem like a way to save money, the reality is that navigating the law without professional guidance can have serious consequences for the outcome of your matter. The recent New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in May v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178 is a timely reminder of these risks — and they apply not just to family law, but across all areas of litigation: commercial disputes, property law, wills and estates, construction law, and beyond. The Case: A Warning About the Dangers of Going It Alone In May v Costaras, the respondent chose to represent herself in a complex property dispute. She also candidly told the Court she had relied on an artificial intelligence program to prepare her written submissions and visual aids for her oral address. The Court noted: “…a large number of authorities were referred to by the respondent. Most had little, if anything, to do with the issues in this case. One authority, at least, was an hallucination.” The judges went on to explain that the submissions: “…travelled well outside the issues raised by the appeal and addressed, for example, claims that… should have been made by cross-appeal. It would be unfair to the appellant to act upon claims forming no part of the appeal.” The result? The Court found the submissions were: “…of no real assistance to the Court… a cogent demonstration that the use of artificial intelligence by non-legally trained users is likely to add to the cost and complexity of legal proceedings without appreciable benefit.” This is a sobering example of how well-intentioned self-representation can lead to wasted opportunities, increased costs, and potentially worse outcomes. Why Self-Representation is So Risky Self-represented litigants face challenges in all types of legal proceedings, including: Understanding the law and procedure — Court rules, filing deadlines, evidentiary requirements, and jurisdictional issues are complex and unforgiving. Identifying relevant legal arguments — Without training, it’s easy to focus on irrelevant points or miss the strongest arguments altogether. Presenting evidence properly — Even strong facts can be lost if evidence is not presented in a legally admissible form. Managing procedural fairness — Judges cannot give legal advice, and procedural missteps may limit what the court can consider. Avoiding unintended costs — Missteps can lead to adverse costs orders, wasted time, and in some cases, additional proceedings. The May v Costaras decision shows how, even outside family law, courts can become frustrated when SRLs introduce irrelevant, incorrect, or procedurally improper material. The Value of Professional Legal Assistance Engaging a lawyer means you have: A trained advocate who understands the law, the rules, and the best strategy for your case. An objective perspective to focus on legally relevant issues rather than personal grievances. Procedural compliance to ensure deadlines, forms, and evidence rules are followed. Risk management to avoid costly mistakes or unintended consequences. In complex matters — whether it’s an appeal in the Court of Appeal, a building dispute in the Supreme Court, or a contested estate in the Probate List — professional representation is not just helpful; it can be the difference between winning and losing. Final Takeaway The judges in May v Costaras summed it up bluntly: “…the use of artificial intelligence by non-legally trained users is likely to add to the cost and complexity of legal proceedings without appreciable benefit… More intrusive case management techniques may be needed in future to prevent self-represented litigants from unfairly increasing costs and complexity.” If you are considering representing yourself, think carefully. The court process is not designed to be navigated without legal expertise. What may seem like a cost-saving decision can end up costing you far more — in time, money, and outcome. If you are involved in a legal dispute, seek advice early. Our team has experience guiding clients through complex litigation and appeals, ensuring your arguments are relevant, evidence is properly presented, and your rights are protected at every stage.

In today's economy, a business's most valuable asset isn't listed on its balance sheet. It's its reputation. A strong reputation, built over years of hard work, can be shattered in minutes by a false online review, a misleading social media post, or a malicious article. As of August 2025, the speed at which information—and misinformation—spreads has never been faster. For Australian businesses, understanding how to protect your reputation from false and damaging statements is not just a legal issue; it's a commercial necessity. This is where the law of defamation comes in. What is Defamation in Australia? Defamation is the publication of a statement that harms the reputation of an individual or, in some cases, a business. To prove defamation, you generally need to establish three key things: Publication: The false statement was communicated to at least one other person. This includes everything from a conversation to a newspaper article, a Google review, or a comment on Facebook. Identification: The statement clearly identifies your business, either directly by name or indirectly through details that would lead a reasonable person to know it's about you. Defamatory Meaning: The statement would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to think less of your business. It must have damaged, or be likely to damage, your good name and reputation. For a business to sue, there's an additional, crucial hurdle: you must prove the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious financial harm . A Critical Note: Can Your Business Sue? The Defamation Act places limits on which corporations can sue. In Australia, a company can only take legal action for defamation if it is: A not-for-profit organisation; OR A small business with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees. Larger companies (with 10 or more employees) cannot sue for defamation. However, individuals within that company, such as directors or senior managers, may be able to sue personally if their own reputations have been harmed. Furthermore, larger companies may have other legal avenues, such as an action for injurious falsehood. The Digital Battlefield: Online Reviews and Social Media The most common threats to a business's reputation today are online. Anonymous reviews, disgruntled ex-employees, or competitors can post false and misleading claims on platforms like Google, Trustpilot, and social media. The permanence and reach of these posts make them particularly dangerous. A single one-star review based on a lie can deter countless potential customers. Your Strategic Defence Plan: Steps to Protect Your Reputation If your business is the target of a false and damaging statement, acting quickly and strategically is vital. Panic is not a strategy. Step 1: Don't Engage Emotionally. Document Everything. Your first instinct might be to fire back a defensive reply online. Resist this urge. Instead, your immediate priority is to preserve evidence. Take high-quality screenshots of the defamatory comments, including the date, the URL, the author's username, and any replies. This evidence is crucial for any future action. Step 2: Assess the "Serious Harm." Is the statement a minor annoyance or is it causing genuine, serious harm to your business? Are customers mentioning it? Can you see a drop in enquiries or sales that correlates with the publication? Assessing the real-world impact will guide your next steps. Step 3: Issue a Concerns Notice. Before you can commence defamation proceedings in court, you must issue a formal "Concerns Notice" to the person who published the statement. This legal document outlines: Where the statement was published. The specific false claims being made. The harm it has caused your business. What you want the publisher to do (e.g., retract the statement, issue an apology, pay compensation). Often, a professionally drafted Concerns Notice from a law firm is enough to resolve the matter without needing to go to court. Step 4: Escalate if Necessary. If the publisher ignores the Concerns Notice or refuses to cooperate, your next step is to consider legal proceedings. This is a significant decision that requires careful consideration of the costs, evidence, and potential outcomes. You Don't Have to Fight Alone Your business's reputation is the foundation of its success. Protecting it requires a calm, methodical, and legally sound approach. Understanding your rights under defamation law is the first step in defending your hard-earned good name against false attacks.  If your business reputation is under threat from false or misleading statements, you are not powerless. Contact us today for a confidential discussion on how we can help you protect your most valuable asset.

International child abduction is a distressing situation where a child is wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence by a parent or other person without consent. As family lawyers, we understand the immense emotional and legal challenges faced by parents in these cases and work tirelessly to secure the child's safe return. Australia is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which provides a framework for resolving these cases and ensuring the prompt return of abducted children. The Convention applies to children under 16 years old and aims to deter abduction by providing a mechanism for their swift return to their country of habitual residence. As family lawyers specialising in international child abduction cases, we guide clients through the complex legal process, which involves liaising with the Central Authority, preparing applications, and representing them in court. Time is of the essence in these cases, as the chances of a successful return diminish the longer the child remains in the foreign country. The legal process can be intricate, involving issues of jurisdiction, evidence, and cultural differences. We have the expertise to navigate these complexities and advocate for my client's rights under the Hague Convention. We also work closely with international legal partners to ensure a coordinated and effective approach to securing the child's return.  International child abduction cases are emotionally draining and legally challenging. We provide compassionate support and expert guidance to parents during this difficult time. By acting swiftly and decisively, and utilising all available legal avenues, we strive to reunite families and protect the rights of abducted children.

The loss of a family member is a deeply emotional time. When disagreements arise over their Will and the distribution of their estate, it can amplify the grief and create lasting rifts between loved ones. An estate dispute, often called a "contested Will," occurs when a family member or other potential beneficiary challenges the terms of a deceased person's Will or how the estate is being managed. At Hammond Nguyen Turnbull, we understand that this is one of the most stressful situations a family can face. If you feel you have been unfairly left out of a Will or have concerns about its validity, it’s important to know that you have legal rights and options. This guide outlines the main grounds for disputing an estate in New South Wales and the steps you can take. Grounds for Disputing an Estate In NSW, there are generally two primary ways to challenge a Will: making a "Family Provision Claim" or challenging the "Validity of the Will" itself. 1. Family Provision Claims: Being Unfairly Left Out This is the most common form of estate dispute. It isn’t about whether the Will is legal, but whether it is fair . The Succession Act 2006 (NSW) recognises that a Will-maker has a moral duty to provide for certain people in their life. If they fail to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life for an "eligible person," that person can apply to the Supreme Court of NSW for a share, or a larger share, of the estate. Who is an "eligible person"? The law strictly defines who can make a Family Provision Claim. This includes: The spouse or de facto partner of the deceased. A child of the deceased. A former spouse of the deceased. A person who was, at any particular time, wholly or partly dependent on the deceased and who is a grandchild of the deceased or was a member of the deceased's household. A person living in a close personal relationship with the deceased at the time of their death. What does the Court consider? The Court will examine a wide range of factors, including the financial needs of the applicant, their relationship with the deceased, the size of the estate, and the financial needs of the other beneficiaries named in the Will. The goal is to determine if "adequate provision" was made, not just to rewrite the Will based on what seems fair. Important Time Limit: A Family Provision Claim must be filed with the Court within 12 months of the deceased's date of death. It is crucial to seek legal advice well before this deadline expires. 2. Challenging the Validity of the Will This type of challenge argues that the Will itself is not a legally binding document. If successful, the Court will set the Will aside. The estate would then be distributed according to the deceased’s previous valid Will or, if there is no other Will, according to the rules of intestacy. Common grounds for challenging a Will's validity include: Lack of Testamentary Capacity: The person making the Will (the testator) must have understood the nature of the document they were signing, been aware of the extent of their assets, and comprehended who had a reasonable claim on their estate. Conditions like advanced dementia could impact this capacity. Undue Influence or Coercion: This occurs when the testator was pressured, threatened, or manipulated into making or changing their Will in a way that did not reflect their true wishes. Proving undue influence can be difficult and requires substantial evidence. Fraud or Forgery: The challenge is based on the claim that the Will is a forgery or that the testator was tricked into signing it through fraudulent means. Invalid Formalities: A Will must be executed according to the strict legal requirements in NSW. This generally means it must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by two independent adults who are present at the same time. Any failure in this process could render the Will invalid. Your Legal Options: The Path Forward If you believe you have grounds to dispute an estate, it's essential to act methodically. Seek Specialist Legal Advice Immediately: This is the most critical step. An experienced estate litigation solicitor can assess the merits of your claim, explain your rights, and advise you on the strict time limits that apply. They will give you a realistic understanding of your chances of success and the potential costs involved. Attempt to Negotiate: Court proceedings should always be a last resort. They are expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining. In many cases, a resolution can be reached through informal negotiations between the parties' lawyers. A well-argued letter of demand outlining your claim can often open the door to a settlement. Participate in Mediation: Mediation is a structured negotiation process where an independent, neutral mediator helps the parties try to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. It is a confidential and less adversarial alternative to a court hearing. The Supreme Court of NSW requires parties to attempt mediation before a final hearing in almost all estate disputes. Commence Court Proceedings: If negotiations and mediation fail, the final option is to have the matter determined by a judge in the Supreme Court. This involves filing formal court documents, gathering evidence (such as financial records and medical reports), and presenting your case at a hearing. Don't Face a Dispute Alone Being involved in an estate dispute is challenging, but you don't have to navigate it by yourself. The decisions you make early on can significantly impact the outcome. The experienced and compassionate estate litigation team at Hammond Nguyen Turnbull is here to protect your rights and guide you toward the best possible resolution. We can provide clear, strategic advice and strong representation, whether at the negotiation table, in mediation, or in Court.  If you have been left out of a Will or are concerned about its validity, contact us today for a confidential consultation to discuss your legal options.

Introduction The recent legislative decision by the Tasmanian government to ban greyhound racing marks a pivotal moment in Australian animal welfare law and regulatory policy. This ban, a response to growing public and political pressure regarding animal welfare concerns within the industry, sets a new precedent for other jurisdictions and raises profound legal questions. This article from Hammond Nguyen Turnbull explores the multifaceted legal implications of this ban, offering insights for affected stakeholders and the broader community. Legal Framework and Justification The ban is enacted under new amendments to existing animal welfare legislation, specifically targeting the operation and participation in greyhound racing events. The legal justification for this ban rests on principles of animal welfare, public interest, and the government's perceived duty to legislate against practices deemed ethically unacceptable. Key legal considerations include: Animal Welfare Legislation: The ban strengthens the existing Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting activities previously allowed under a regulated framework. This represents a shift towards more protective measures for animals used in sports. Governmental Powers: The decision affirms the state's power to regulate, and if necessary, prohibit industries on grounds of public policy and morality, even if it impacts economic interests. Consultation and Due Process: The legislative process involved public consultation and parliamentary debate, ensuring that the decision, while contentious, followed established democratic procedures. Impact on Stakeholders The ban will have significant legal and economic consequences for various stakeholders, including: Greyhound Racing Participants: Breeders, trainers, owners, and track operators face the cessation of their livelihoods. Legal issues may arise concerning property rights, investment losses, and the transition of animals. Associated Businesses: Industries reliant on greyhound racing, such as veterinary services, feed suppliers, and wagering companies, will experience direct impacts on their business models and profitability. Animal Welfare Organisations: These groups will likely assume increased responsibilities for the rehoming and welfare of displaced greyhounds, requiring significant resources and legal coordination. Potential Legal Challenges and Remedies The ban may trigger various legal challenges, including: Compensation Claims: Stakeholders may pursue legal action for compensation due to economic losses, arguing that the ban constitutes an acquisition of property without just terms or an unreasonable regulatory taking. Contractual Disputes: Existing contracts related to racing, breeding, or sponsorship will need to be terminated or renegotiated, potentially leading to disputes. Judicial Review: There could be challenges to the legality or procedural fairness of the government's decision-making process. Our Legal Services At Hammond Nguyen Turnbull, we are uniquely positioned to assist clients in navigating the complex legal landscape created by the Tasmanian greyhound racing ban. Our services include: Regulatory Compliance: Advising individuals and businesses on their obligations under the new legislation and ensuring adherence to the ban. Dispute Resolution: Representing clients in negotiations or litigation concerning compensation claims, contractual disputes, or other legal challenges arising from the ban. Business Transition: Providing legal support for businesses needing to pivot operations or dissolve in light of the ban, including employment law and corporate restructuring advice. Animal Law Advocacy: Offering expert legal counsel on animal welfare matters and the broader implications of legislative changes in this area. Conclusion Tasmania's greyhound racing ban is a landmark legal event with far-reaching implications. It underscores the growing importance of animal welfare in legislative policy and serves as a critical case study for regulatory reform. Hammond Nguyen Turnbull is committed to providing comprehensive legal advice and representation to all affected parties, ensuring their rights are protected and they can navigate these changes effectively. For more information or to schedule a consultation, please contact us on (02) 9687 6880 or visit our website for additional resources.

For years, the line between casual and permanent employment in Australia has been a complex and often contentious issue. Recent legislative changes have redrawn this line, introducing a new "employee choice" framework that every employer must understand and implement. These changes are not just administrative tweaks; they fundamentally alter the rights and obligations of both employers and casual employees, particularly concerning an employee's ability to choose to become a permanent employee. The Old vs. The New: A Shift in Power Previously, the pathway from casual to permanent employment was primarily driven by the employer. A casual employee who had worked a regular pattern of hours for at least 12 months had to be offered the option to convert to permanent employment by their employer. Now, the power has shifted. The new laws, effective from late 2024/early 2025 , introduce a new definition of "casual employee" and empower the employee to initiate the conversion process. Key Change 1: The New Definition of a Casual Employee The first critical change is the new definition of a casual employee. A person is a casual employee only if: There is an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. The employee is entitled to a casual loading or a specific rate of pay for casuals. This definition focuses on the practical reality of the working relationship, rather than just the terms of the employment contract at the start. Key Change 2: Employee Choice - How Casuals Can Request to Become Permanent The most significant change is the introduction of "employee choice." Here’s how it works: Eligibility: A casual employee can request to become a permanent employee if they have been employed for at least six months (or 12 months for small business employers). Regular Pattern of Hours: The employee must have worked a regular pattern of hours for the last six months. The Request: The employee makes a written request to their employer. Employer's Obligation: The employer must grant the request unless there are "fair and reasonable operational grounds" to refuse it. What are "Fair and Reasonable Operational Grounds" to Refuse a Request? An employer isn't obligated to say yes automatically. Legitimate reasons for refusal include: The employee's position will not exist in the next 12 months. The employee's hours of work will be significantly reduced. There will be a significant change in the days or times of work that the employee cannot accommodate. Granting the request would not comply with a recruitment or selection process required by law. It's crucial to note that simply preferring a flexible workforce is not a valid reason for refusal. Employers must have solid business grounds to deny an employee's choice. What Your Business Needs to Do Now Review Your Workforce: Identify all employees currently engaged as casuals. Assess Employment Patterns: Determine which of your casual employees have worked a regular pattern of hours for six months or more. Update Your Contracts: Ensure your casual employment agreements are updated to reflect the new definition and the employee choice provisions. Provide Information: You must provide all new casual employees with the Casual Employment Information Statement (CEIS) before, or as soon as possible after, they start work. Prepare for Requests: Have a clear, fair, and documented process for receiving and responding to employee requests to convert to permanent employment. This includes understanding the valid grounds for refusal. The Bottom Line: Proactive Management is Key These changes are designed to provide greater security and certainty for long-term casual employees. For employers, they demand a more proactive and transparent approach to managing your workforce. Failing to comply with these new obligations can lead to disputes and penalties. It is essential to understand your responsibilities and ensure your practices are up-to-date.  If you are unsure about your obligations or need assistance navigating these new casual employment laws, contact us for expert legal advice.