Author: admin

Pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts (ie clauses that forbid an employee from sharing information about their pay or terms, or asking any other employee about their pay or terms) are unlawful in any new written employment agreement as and from 7 June 2023.  If the employment contract was made between 7 December 2022 and 6 June 2023, the pay secrecy terms cannot be enforced. For employment contracts made before 7 December 2022, the pay secrecy terms will continue until the agreement is changed. These rights and obligations arise under section 333B, C and D of the Fair Work Act and are intended to prevent the restriction on employees discussing the terms of their employment, so as to promote fairness in the workplace. Of course, there is no obligation on an employee to respond to enquiries from other employees about those terms. For questions in relation to employment, please contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au or Megan Hanneman at meganh@qbmlaw.com.au

In good news to landlords with CPI review mechanisms in their leases, the June CPI figures have been published here https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/consumer-price-index-australia/latest-release For Brisbane the annual change is approximately 6.3%, although the index figures should be used under most CPI formulae.

In February 2023 the Property Law Bill 2023 was introduced to Parliament. It is intended that the bill – when it becomes an Act – will replace the Property Law Act of 1974. For a sneak preview, see https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/bill.first/bill-2019-078 While much of the new act will simply restate the existing provisions of the Property Law Act 1974, there are a number of new concepts and provisions, including disclosure by sellers in conveyancing. As such, one can expect litigation going to the determination of these concepts. For advice on property related matters, contact our property and commercial team – Peter Muller, Jessica Murray, and Megan Hanneman.

In yet another home made Will disaster, the Supreme Court on 27 June ordered that probate be granted of an informal Will.  As tends to be typical of these sorts of matters, the Will maker used a Will kit, and completed it himself.  In this case, while the Will maker had filled out the Will form, he did not sign it.  It was signed by two witnesses, but for whatever reason, the Will maker did not get around to signing it himself.  The court was satisfied that the document complied with the requirements of section 18 of the Succession Act in that it: The decision was made in respect of a relatively small estate – an estate so small that usually probate would not be required and the expense of it could be avoided. Because of the deficiencies in the home made Will, a court application has become necessary supported by six affidavits and submissions.  Fortunately, the cost of a formal hearing was avoided, saving perhaps something in excess of $5000 but regardless the episode is likely to have unnecessarily cost the estate (and its beneficiaries) well over $5,000. The circumstances of the matter reinforce yet again the dangers of home made Wills or for that matter, not having a Will properly executed.  In effect, the estate will be diminished by costs of several thousand dollars at least, when the cost of preparing the Will would almost certainly have been less than $1000.  For advice on wills and estates, please contact Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com.au or Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au