Call UsBook Now

Media Matters: Did You See Us on the News?

Media Matters: Did You See Us on the News?

Wow, where did October go? It’s only two months until Christmas and for the team here Strategic Lawyers the year has really flown by.

This past month has been huge for the firm with the launch of our radio jingle, as well as several media appearances – which we’ve linked to below.

Firstly our Principal Lawyer Justin Ireland appeared on Channel 7 to offer a legal opinion on whether or not a resort will be able to go ahead on Hinchinbrook Island.

You can view the story here on Facebook.

Then we spoke in newspapers right across the state about police fining cyclists for talking on their mobile phones.

You can read the coverage of that story here in the Sunshine Coast Daily, or in the Queensland Times here.

Grant Broadcasters which runs radio right across the state also picked up the story and they wrote it up in an editorial.

Later in the month we spoke to Channel 7 again, this time to talk about one of our client’s cases.

Ron Smith is locked in a battle with a boat broker after a yacht he bought broke down shortly after it was purchased.

You can see Justin explaining the case here on Channel 7, or read a story on the case from Grant Broadcasters here.

How Domestic Violence Orders Impact Access to Children

How Domestic Violence Orders Impact Access to Children

OVER the course of the 2017-18 financial year more than 45,000 people fronted the Queensland courts over a domestic violence order (DVO).

In fact, according to the most recent data from the Queensland Police Service more breaches of DVOs are being reported each year, than assaults.

Once a protection order is taken out in the Magistrates Court any parenting plan the Family Courts approve must be consistent with the protection order.

Further the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) states any party to a family law proceedings must inform the courts if a protection order is in place, so, your solicitor and those acting for the other side need to tell the Family Court judge about the matter.

 

Get in touch now to book an appointment with one of our lawyers

 

What a Protection Order Means in terms of Access to Children

Australia’s family law places a great deal of emphasis of ensuring children have access to and spend time with both of their parents.

And only in very extreme circumstances is a long-term order which denies a parent any time at all with their child, put in place.

That said, in cases where a protection order is put in place the Magistrate who issued the order has found that on the balance of probabilities some form of domestic violence has occurred.

This doesn’t mean criminal charges have been laid in relation to that domestic violence – a lot of clients find the fact they have been accused of domestic violence but not charged with a criminal offence difficult to reconcile.

It just means the Magistrate was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that domestic violence occurred.

 

Check out these other posts from our blog:

>>How Child Support is Really Calculated

>>Don’t find out too late you and your partner are de facto

 

In contrast in criminal matters the courts must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal offence took place.

While it’s a Magistrate that has found in favour of a protection order being put in place, a Judge from the Family Court will decide upon any parenting order and the two interact with each other.

For example, under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the courts have to apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child to have equal or shared time with both of their parents.

However, that presumption is rebutted if there has been abuse or family violence.

And any protection order may be used as evidence to argue it would not be in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal or shared responsibility.

So, while a protection order does not definitively mean someone will lose access to their children it can, and often will, have an impact on the parenting orders the Family Court puts in place.

Knowing this simple legal fact could save you thousands

Knowing this simple legal fact could save you thousands

Every couple of days Strategic Lawyers is contacted by someone who has purchased an expensive item online only to find out it didn’t live up to their expectations.

In the vast majority of these cases the person involved has purchased the item – often a boat, or a car, or an expensive home-appliance – after seeing it on Facebook Marketplace, Ebay or Gumtree.

They have the contacted the seller, discussed its condition, gone over to have a look and paid for it.

Only later do the hidden defects emerge, requiring thousands of dollars-worth of repair bills, or meaning the item is completely useless.

>>Scroll to the end of this post to see our solution

>>Get in touch with one of our lawyers now

The buyer goes back to the seller who just says: “buyer beware” or in many cases something beginning with the letter F and a lot less polite.

And then, panic stricken the buyer starts picking over their messages and all-too-often they find the seller has cleverly declined to comment on the defects, or in some cases just outright lied.

At this point we get called.

And the simple legal fact we wish everyone knew is this: the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) does not apply to private sales.

The ACL only applies to cases where the seller is engaged in trade or commerce, that is to say when you buy the item from a business not, from an individual.

This means the consumer guarantees you get when you buy something from a shop, or a dealer like:

  • Goods must be fit for any disclosed purpose
  • Goods must correspond to the description of said goods
  • Any express warranty must be complied with

Do not apply when you buy something via a private sale.

> North Queensland man beats DUI charge with surprising defence

>How a small debt could legally end your company

That is unless the contract you have with the seller states the item you bought works, or is in good condition.

A lot of the time people think a contract needs to be a written document, but in fact, when there is no written contract the verbal agreement between the two people becomes the contract.

If someone has told you the boat, or the car, or the television works and it does not, that is in many cases grounds for rescission – i.e you give the item back and you get your money back.

However, proving exactly what was said, how it was said and when – all of which are legally important facts – can be very difficult.

And many of the sales we are seeing are for items costing close to $20,000.

Our Solution

Don’t be one of those left holding the bag when someone sets out to rip you off.

Come in, see our team of lawyers and for $550 we will draft you a contract for the sale setting out any known defects and ensuring the seller states it will work.

This means both sides have peace of mind – the seller knows you won’t come back making unreasonable demands and you know they’ve attested to the condition of the goods.

This gives you peace of mind and redress should your new purchase not be what you paid for.

How Child Support is Really Calculated

How Child Support is Really Calculated

For most couples with children separating will mean the Federal Department of Human Services undertakes a child support assessment and later orders for money to be paid.

The amount of child support that needs to be paid is calculated using the formula we have set out below.

The basic formula is:

  1. The self-support amount – the amount the government says people need to live off- is subtracted from both parent’s incomes for the most recent financial year.
  2. Those adjusted incomes are added together and the percentage of the income pool each parent earns is then calculated.
  3. The amount of time the children spend with each parent is calculated as a percentage.
  4. If one parent earns more but has the children for less time, the percentage of the time they have the children for is subtracted from the percentage share they have of the income pool. This is because they are viewed as paying for the children’s needs when they’re in their care but owing their share of the children’s upkeep when they’re not.
  5. We then take the government assigned figure for the cost of raising children and multiply it by the percentage calculated in step four to get the amount of child support payable.

Read other articles from our blog

>Crazy Way Your Ex Can Come After Your Assets

>How to Take the Financial Stress Out of Your Relationship Breakdown

>The 11 Things You Should Know Before Getting a Divorce

Working Formula

STEP 1: For example, let’s assume we have a couple that has one child who is two years old and one half of the relationship earned $50,000 over the course of the past financial year and the other $100,000.

We then need to subtract the amount the government says they need to live-off – which for 2018 is $24,535. For the first parent this makes their adjusted income $25,465 and for the second $75,465.

STEP 2: This means the total assessable income pool of the former couple is $100,930 a year and the person whose assessable income is $25,465 brought-in 25.3% of that income pool, while the other person brought-in 74.7%.

STEP 3: The next part to work out is how much time the children spend with each person.

For example, a relatively common parenting arrangement for separated couples may be that one half has the children for three nights every fortnight and half of the school holidays (in Queensland half of the school holidays is about 38 nights a year).

This is equal to 166 nights a year. To work out the percentage of the year that is equal to we simply divide 166 by 365 (the number of days in a year) and multiply by 100.

This means the children spend 31.78% of the time with one parent and 68.22% with the other.

>>Book an Appointment with one of our Lawyers

STEP 4: Essentially what child support does is equalise any gap between how much one person earns and how much of the time they spend caring for the kid/s.

Let’s assume the parent who earns $100,000 is the parent who has the children for 31.78% of the time.

In that case we would subtract the amount of time that parent has the child for (31.68%) from their share of the income (74.7%) – which gives us a figure of 43.02%.

So, that parent would have to compensate the other parent for 43.02% of the cost of raising the children.

STEP 5: The dollar value the Department assigns to the cost of raising children is worked out using the following table – which you can view here:

http://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide/2/4/2#coststable

So, in our scenario we would go to the Cost of the Children Table for 2018.

We then use the assessable income we worked out in Step 1 to look up the relevant category.

Our couple falls into the category of $73,606-$110,409 of assessable income per year, which means the cost of looking after the child is calculated at $11,777 plus 12 cents for every dollar earned over $73,606.

In this case this is equal to: ($75,465 – $73,607) x 0.12 = $222.96.

So, the Department would assess the cost of raising this child to be $11,999.96 for 2018.

We then use the percentage we calculated above – for the parent earning $100,000 a year – to calculate the fraction of the cost of raising the child that is outstanding.

In this case that is $11,999.96 divided by 100 x 43.02 = $5,162.38

This means the person earning $100,000 a year, who has their two year-old child for 166 nights a year would pay $5,162.38 a year in child support.

Townsville Police hit 44 people with little known fine

Townsville Police hit 44 people with little known fine

TOWNSVILLE Police have fined 44 cyclists for talking on their phone while riding their bicycle, over the past four years.

The most recent data from the Queensland Government shows the fines – which are valued at $391 – are being issued with surprising regularity.

A report about a man in Loganholme in south Brisbane copping the unusual infringement notice made national headlines this week.

Check out these other stories on our blog:

>Why are Townsville Police fining people for not locking their car?

>North Queensland man beats DUI charge with surprising defence

State government data reveals this was far from an isolated incident with Townsville Police issuing 15 fines for talking on a mobile while cycling, in 2016-17, one in 2015-16, 19 in 2015-14 and nine in 2013-14.

Strategic Lawyers’ Principal Lawyer Justin Ireland said his firm is offering free case appraisals for people fined over this issue.

“Under Section 15 of Queensland’s Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 both cars and bicycles are defined as vehicles,” Mr Ireland said.  

“This means if someone is riding a bicycle on the road many of the same road rules apply to them as apply to cars.

“Under Section 300 of the same regulations it states the driver of a vehicle (which includes bicycles in this case) must not use a mobile phone if the vehicle is moving, or stationary but not parked.

Get in touch with one of our lawyers now

“The maximum penalty is surprisingly high at $2611 – it’s unclear why the government has done this but there is an exception for police and emergency vehicles.”

Last month it was revealed the same maximum fine is in place for drivers who fail to lock their car, it is unclear why the maximum fine is so high for these offences.

“I personally think that should be reduced to the $391 fine presently used by police and the parliament should have to be accountable for an increase and pass an amendment,” Mr Ireland said.

“My personal opinion is that it shouldn’t be an offence for a person riding away from the road to talk on their phone, but it should be illegal to do this if you’re on the road.

“There could be an amendment to create an exception for off-road push bike riders in these circumstances, and also for bicycle riders not to have to wear helmets unless they’re on the road, which I think would be appropriate.

“On the V8 weekend in Townsville I personally saw police drive off the road to a footpath and stop and fine a young kid on Queens Rd for not wearing a helmet, surely they have better things to do?”