• Level 5, Evandale Place, 142 Bundall Road, Bundall, QLD, Australia

Author: admin

Got a land tax bill on your home?

Well there is a lot of that getting around in Queensland, with the recent increases in property values. Even where property is owned by an individual, land tax is assessed on its unimproved value insofar as it exceeds $599,999, so this year there have been a number of people receiving bills for land tax because the unimproved values of their home (or their home and investment property) are $600,000 or more. But there is an exemption from land tax for your home, you only have to apply for it. That applies also in some cases where the property is owned by a trust. To apply for the exemption, go here https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/support-assistance/qro-online/how-to-guides/land-tax-exemption Whether an exemption applies to a property owned by a trust, and establishing the right to it, can be a little fussy. Our property lawyers can help – contact Megan Hanneman meganh@qbmlawyers.com.au.

Residential Tenancies changes – ending month to month tenancy

From 1 October, 2022, Queensland’s residential tenancy law (contained in the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008) has been amended in various ways, one of which significantly restricts the ability to terminate month to month tenancies. Previously, a month to month tenancy (called a periodic tenancy – which can either be a tenancy which has no fixed term, or arises when a fixed term tenancy expires) could be ended by the landlord giving two months notice without giving any reason. This was called a Notice to Leave without ground. Since 1 October, 2022, the without ground basis has been ended, so a notice to end a month to month tenancy has to state a ground. There are a number of grounds – eg unremedied breach (sec 281), agreement frustrated (sec 284), premises sold or being prepared for sale (sec 286), serious breach (sec 290A), planned demolition or redevelopment (sec 290C) or significant repair or renovations (sec 290D), or owner to occupy (sec 290G) [this list is not exhaustive] however the point is that there has to be a reason. Contrast this with the fixed term agreement coming to an end, in which case the owner can give two months notice to leave regardless, but that right is lost when the periodic tenancy starts. There are offence provisions if certain notices are false or misleading (sec 365A) and restrictions on letting the premises out within 6 months if the notice is for the property being sold, changing use, or for owner occupation (secs 365B – D). More than ever residential tenancies are becoming a difficult area to navigate, now with further offence provision. For advice on property law, contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au

What if both the plaintiff and the defendant win something?

From time to time in litigation, the Plaintiff will succeed to some extent on its claim and the defendant will succeed to some extent on its counterclaim. When that happens, who bears the costs? The answer depends on a number of issues including the conduct of the parties, the extent of success enjoyed by the respective parties, and in particular whether offers were made. As a result, it is critical in litigation to make sensible offers so as to give yourself the best protection as to costs. As an example, the recent outcome of a building dispute litigated in the District Court was that the plaintiff builder (who had sued for over $600,000) succeeded on its claim to the extent of under $60,000 plus interest, and the defendant (who had counterclaimed for about $550,000) succeeded to the extent of about $65,000. The matter involved both senior and junior counsel for both sides, with the hearing occupying in excess of 15 days. As a result, the costs of each party are likely to be very significant. In this matter a decision as to costs is yet to be made, however the Court has indicated that an order that each party bear their own costs may be appropriate, and has invited submissions as to costs. If one of the parties had made a strong offer that they have bettered in the decision – eg if the plaintiff had offered to pay the defendant $20,000 and its costs, or the defendant had made an offer to pay the plaintiff a small amount or to walk away and bear its costs – then depending on the terms of the offer and who made it (there are different rules for plaintiffs’ offers and defendants’ offers, also some offers are made outside of the rules), they could be awarded costs and the amount of those costs might exceed $200,000. Regardless, ultimately the costs decision will be enormously significant for the parties, who are likely to have invested substantial sums into the litigation. The decision can be found here https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2022/QDC22-224.pdf For advice in relation to building disputes, please contact Justin Mathews who is an accredited specialist in commercial litigation and a registered adjudicator for building disputes, justinm@qbmlaw.com.au

High Court guidance on question of employee vs contractor applied

The Fair Work Commission has determined an unfair dismissal application made against Deliveroo having regard to recent High Court guidance in respect of the question of whether a person is an employee or contractor. The test now focuses more on the terms of the written contract in question, but retains the ever important factors of the extent of control by the alleged employer over the activities of the alleged employee, whether the alleged employee is supplied equipment, and the ability of the contractor to delegate without consent. More than ever the terms of the written contract will be critical to the determination of the capacity of the contracting party. The decision can be found here https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwcfb156.htm For questions concerning employment and services contracts, please contact Gul-e-Raana Rizvi or Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au