Friday, May 25, 2018
Hello, good people of the internet. It is time, once again, to meet the Angry Reader of the Week, spotlighting you, the very special readers of this website. Over the years, I've been able to connect with a lot of cool folks, and this is a way of showing some appreciation and attention to the people who help make this blog what it is. This week's Angry Reader is Maurene Goo.
Read more »
Friday, May 18, 2018
Hello, good readers of this website. It is time again to meet the Angry Reader of the Week, spotlighting you, the very special readers of this website. Over the years, I've been able to connect with a lot of cool folks, and this is a way of showing some appreciation and attention to the people who help make this blog what it is. This week's Angry Reader is Jun Stinson.
Read more »
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
What are your rights at school when there's a custody dispute going on?
You may be afraid of any number of things, but the idea that your child's other parent might try to abduct your child may never be far from your mind. Parental abductions are an unfortunate reality when parents have trouble adjusting to the limitations courts sometimes set on their custody and visitation.
In order to protect your child at preschool or primary school, you need to be aware that the other parent has a right to your child's school records even if his or her custody and visitation is restricted.
The only way to prevent that access is to ask the judge in your case to specifically restrict it. Otherwise, the other parent can easily keep track of your child's schedule, field trips and other important information that he or she may use to plan an abduction. Judges will generally prevent a parent from having access if there's a credible threat of abduction or a history of abuse.
You need to review the permissions on the school's records and remove the name of anyone that you feel may be a threat. For example, if you're concerned that your child's mother may abduct your child, review the list for old "pick up" permissions given to her best friend, parents or siblings.
Make certain that the school has copies of your court-ordered custody arrangement. Take a copy for the file and for your child's instructor. Never assume that the correct information will be relayed through channels if there's an issue that has you concerned. It may even be necessary to request a staff meeting so that you're sure the people who watch the playground and the office staff are all informed.
Even when a noncustodial parent has no intention of harming the child, custodial interference is a serious problem that can disrupt lives and sever the important ties to your children. If you're concerned about the possibility, don't hesitate to take steps to ensure your child's safety at school.
Source: Campus Safety Magazine, "How Schools Should Protect Students from Child Custody Disputes," Amy Rock, accessed May 15, 2018
Friday, May 11, 2018
Hello, internet friends! It is time, once again, to meet the Angry Reader of the Week, spotlighting you, the very special readers of this website. Over the years, I've been able to connect with a lot of cool folks, and this is a way of showing some appreciation and attention to the people who help make this blog what it is. This week's Angry Reader is Sheetal Sheth.
Read more »
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
In April 2017, the Full Court of the Supreme Court heard an appeal from TAFE, South Australia’s largest vocational education and training provider, after the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal overturned a workers compensation claim rejection by TAFE.
While reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court considered the question of when employment is a significant contributing cause of an injury. The Return to Work Act 2014 requires that the Act only applies to an injury if it arises from employment. An injury arises from employment if the employment was a significant contributing cause of an injury.
What does it mean for employment to be a significant contributing cause of an injury? We review the recent appeal and decision of the State of South Australia vs Roberts in the Supreme Court to explore what it means when an injury arises from employment.
Mrs Roberts was a full-time lecturer and hairdresser employed by TAFE. In October 2015 as part of her employment, Mrs Roberts volunteered to teach hairdressing to Aboriginal women at Oodnadatta. Her accommodation was authorised and paid for by TAFE. The accommodation was unsatisfactory as it was not mosquito proof. Mrs Roberts was bitten by mosquitos that carried a virus which caused the contraction of inflammatory polyarthritis. This virus is not common and not all mosquitos carry the virus which caused the inflammation.
A claim for workers compensation lodged by Mrs Roberts for the aggravation of the inflammatory polyarthritis was rejected by TAFE. Deputy President Judge Calligeros of the South Australian Employment Tribunal overturned the rejection and ordered that Mrs Roberts’ claim be accepted. TAFE appealed to the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal and the Full Bench upheld the decision of Deputy President Judge Calligeros. TAFE appealed to the full Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Decision
On 17 April 2017, the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by TAFE.
The Court found that being required to live in the accommodation in Oodnadatta was in the course of Mrs Roberts’ employment.
The Court also had to consider whether the employment was a significant contributing cause and ruled:
- The illness was caused by mosquito bites.
- The mosquito bites occurred in unsatisfactory accommodation in a remote location.
- The accommodation was arranged or paid for by TAFE.
- Mrs Roberts was present at the remote location for the sole purpose of carrying out her duties.
The Court concluded that employment was a significant contributing cause of the injury.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court ruled that employment will be a significant cause of an injury if it is an important or influential cause.
Importance of the Decision
This is the first decision by the highest court in South Australia on the meaning of the new test for whether work injuries are compensable. This was described by the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Honourable John Rau MP, in his speech to parliament to introduce the Return To Work Act 2014 as:
“The gateway provision, which is the provision that gives a person the right to participate in the scheme beyond that point.”
In my view, this decision is a victory for common sense.
Each case will have to be considered on its own facts but if employment can be seen as one of the important or influential causes of physical injury, the claim should be accepted.
We will be watching to see how this decision is applied to psychological injury cases where the test is that employment must be “the significant contributing cause” rather than “a significant contributing cause”.
For further information on this decision or an evaluation of your case or any aspect of workers compensation law, please contact Duncan Basheer Hannon.
The post State of South Australia vs Roberts: When an injury arises in the course of employment appeared first on Duncan Basheer Hannon Lawyers.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Divorce is painful but it doesn’t have to be destructive. When it comes to divorce and separation, there are many ways of resolving your family law matter without going through the costly, stressful and exhausting Family Law Court process. Mediation is an excellent alternative to the traditional court-based approach to family law disputes, allowing both parties to reach an agreement they both own quickly, with less tension, and often with lower legal costs.
A Collaborative Approach To Divorce & Separation
There are several sorts of mediation in family dispute resolution. With one type of divorce mediation, the parties see a mediator or, if there are children, a counsellor and the mediator who guide them through the process. It is always best to have legal advice about your likely best and worse outcomes and how to effectively present what you want at mediation before entering the mediation process.
Another very helpful style of mediation is a collaborative approach. With a collaborative divorce, lawyers assist you in negotiating and resolving your family law dispute in a positive and civilised way. With this model:
- Most contact is face-to-face so productive negotiations can happen quite quickly, with you, your partner and your two lawyers present (although you may choose to negotiate by letter). Occasionally, a counsellor or financial expert may help guide the meetings.
- You, your partner and both of your lawyers sign a binding agreement that outlines the scope and purpose of the lawyer’s representation: to help both of you reach a negotiated agreement with good outcomes that meet the needs of both parties.
- You and your partner will agree not to take the matter to court or to make threats along those lines.
- Your respective lawyers will also agree not to act for you both in court should you be unable to reach an agreement.
Benefits of Collaborative Divorce
With a collaborative divorce, everything is on the table for both parties to see. This team approach is best for people who want to act in good faith, who want a good result for both sides, and who are willing to be transparent with their assets.
There are significant benefits to choosing a collaborative divorce over a traditional court-based approach:
1. No winners or losers
In litigation, the focus is on winning but with a collaborative divorce, there are no winners or losers. Instead, the focus is on the preservation of family relationships, and you and your partner work together to come to a solution that is both beneficial to your children and mutually acceptable to both of you.
2. Faster agreements and fewer legal costs
The collaborative process is all managed outside of the courtroom, eliminating the need for expensive and time-consuming hearings. While litigated cases can last from six months to several years, a collaborative divorce can be done far quicker and typically at a much lower cost.
3. Less stress and anxiety
A collaborative divorce or separation is private and focused on helping you and your partner communicate effectively with one another, as opposed to attacking each other. Your lawyers will work with you to address legal, financial, emotional and parenting aspects of divorce in a healthy way, saving you and your family a lot of grief and stress.
4. You both own the agreement
Not only will you and your partner have more control over the outcomes of the process, but you’ll decide on the terms of your agreement and settle issues based on compromise and fair play, rather than having a judge pass down the final decision.
How can DBH help with your divorce or separation?
Duncan Basheer Hannon’s team of experienced family lawyers can help you through all stages of the mediation process. We can advise you about the process and which approach is best for you. We can also assist you with strategies going into mediation, advice during the mediation process, and with recording the agreements reached at mediation in a legally binding way.
If you’re frustrated with the idea of lawyers negotiating through letters without a chance to move things forward by meeting with your spouse, collaborative mediation may be an excellent option to help you resolve your matter.
A collaborative mediation process allows you to own your agreement and build better communication as separated parents or partners to move forward productively.
Schedule a free initial consultation with a DBH family lawyer for a no-obligation chat to discuss your options to resolve children and property matters using a collaborative process.
The post Let’s Work This Out: The Collaborative Family Law Process appeared first on Duncan Basheer Hannon Lawyers.
DBH Consultant Max Basheer will celebrate his 91st birthday on 9th May 2018. The longest serving former SANFL President continues to work five days a week with the DBH Commercial Law team because “it’s good to keep the mind active”.
Max was born on the day that Canberra became the capital of Australia, 9th May 1927. His parents, Archie & Labeebee Basheer were of Lebanese descent, living in Kalangadoo South Australia.
“My mother was a magnificent woman. A smart business person. She saved for me to go to college.”
Labeebee, along with her husband and six children ran the Kalangadoo Hotel although Max admits his duties were kept to a minimum.
When Max was 16 years old he moved to Adelaide and attended boarding school where his good memory allowed him to coast through study while sport took centre stage.
“I was not a good student. I concentrated on sport. Football, cricket, tennis… I was named ‘best man on the ground’ playing football for the Intercollegiate side against St Peter’s College at Adelaide Oval. I was presented with the match football at morning assembly in front of the whole school… the biggest thrill of my life that one…”
In 1947 Max began a law degree at the University of Adelaide and worked part-time at Povey & Waterhouse.
“I was quite intrigued by law cases. Even at boarding school, I had a hankering that I wanted to do law. My parents wanted me to study medicine… Law was a very small profession in Adelaide in the 50s.”
Max played football for North Adelaide but retired when the club would not grant him permission to be cleared for the Sturt Football Club. His inability play for Sturt prompted Max to end his career.
“In 1997, for my 70th birthday, I had a big party at home and invited all the people from the league clubs and North Adelaide came along. Their chairman presented me with a plaque… it was a clearance from North Adelaide to Sturt. Brought the house down.”
In 1954 Max began representing players that were reported in matches and was later appointed the South Australian Amateur Football League’s honorary solicitor.
Eight years later Max became the President of the SANFL, ultimately serving a record term of 25 years. During this time Max worked tirelessly to ensure that decisions about our local clubs were carefully considered.
“It was a very traumatic time in the league, I’d done a lot of work to establish Football Park with no help from the government. I had to fight very hard for every football match in South Australia to be played at Football Park so that the future of the sport in our state was assured… I always had the interests of the South Australian National Football League at heart… to secure its future so it could not be taken over by another state.”
In 1990 Max negotiated the first AFL license for an SA team, the Adelaide Crows and later, The Port Adelaide Power. He was committed to ensuring that the timing and conditions were right for South Australia to join the national league.
It is not surprising that Max was awarded a Member of The Order of Australia in 1988 for services to the game of Australian football although it is clear Max always put South Australia first.
Like Max, DBH remains proudly and firmly South Australian. An invaluable trait in a world, where the local has been flooded by the global.
Max enjoys his work as a Commercial Law Consultant because it allows him to continue to serve others. He is known for being clever and kind with a winning personality, a story up every sleeve.
He asked me to ensure that I did not write anything ‘flowery or overly complimentary’ to which I replied:
“That may be difficult Max”.
Portrait (left) by Matt Loxton.