A recent Federal Court of Australia decision on restraint clauses in the employment context has been added to the By Lawyers Employment Law publication.

Whether a restraint clause in an employment agreement or a general commercial agreement is reasonable depends on two related considerations: the identification of a legitimate protectable interest, and whether the restraint is no more than reasonable for the legitimate protection of that interest. Restraint clauses are generally treated more harshly in the employment context, as it is against public policy to prevent individuals from plying their trade.

In Moroney v TM Insight Operations Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1337 the court considered:

• restraints in a shareholders' agreement and an employment agreement;
• cascading provisions in relation to the restraint duration and restraint area;
• whether the restraints were void for uncertainty; and 
• whether the restraints were reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests.

The case involved the operation of the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) which impacts on the validity of restraints in NSW. Section 4 provides that a restraint of trade is valid to the extent to which it is not against public policy, whether or not it is expressed in severable terms.

In the other states, the enforceability of a restraint obligation will be determined by common law principles, although the fundamental considerations remain the same.

In Moroney, the court noted, at [28], that:

At common law, the onus is on the respondents, as the parties seeking to rely upon the restraints, to demonstrate that there was a legitimate protectable interest and that the restraints were reasonable to protect those interests. However, the onus shifts to Mr Moroney if he seeks to establish invalidity on the basis that the restraints are contrary to public policy: Peck at [36] (Beach and Ferguson JJA and Riordan AJA); Liberty Financial Pty Ltd v Jugovic [2021] FCA 607 at [194] (Beach J).

The court ruled some of the restraint clauses in the applicant’s employment agreement invalid because they went further than was reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers 101 Employment Law Answers reference manual has been updated with references and links to this case. 

The precedent Employment agreements on the matter plan in the By Lawyers Employment Law guide include restraint clauses. The Full Commentary in the guide explains their use and effect and provides tips on drafting them.

A fixed-term contract of employment is one that terminates at the end of an identifiable period, such as on a set date or at the end of a season.

Fixed Term Contract Information Statement

When an employee is engaged on a fixed-term contract, the employer must give them a copy of the Fair Work Ombudsman's Fixed Term Contract Information Statement. It explains how fixed-term employment operates, including the rules governing when these contracts are allowed.

With recent changes to the exemptions to the limitations on fixed-term contracts, the FWO has released an updated version of the Fixed Term Contract Information Statement.

Limitations on fixed-term contracts

Limitations apply to fixed-term or maximum-term contracts. Fixed-term contracts cannot be used:

• for more than 2 years for the same role; or
• by extending or renewing a fixed-term contract for a role that would otherwise be ongoing, full-time or part-time, even if the total period is under 2 years.

Only one extension is allowable.

Exceptions to limitations on fixed-term contracts

Some employment sectors are not necessarily subject to the usual limitations applicable to fixed-term contracts. These rules are known as additional exceptions.

Changes to the additional exceptions

From 1 November 2025, the additional exceptions have changed to:

• end exceptions for higher education and public hospitals on 1 November 2026;
• make temporary exceptions for organised sport participants and high-performance sports administrators;
• extend temporary exceptions for charities, not-for-profits, and the medical or health research sector to 1 November 2026, with additional requirements.

Publication updates

The Full Commentary in the By Lawyers Employment Law guide has been updated in line with these changes. Hyperlinks to the Fixed Term Contract Information Statement and relevant Fair Work Ombudsman web pages have been updated both in the commentary and on the matter plan.

Applications for the Help to Buy Scheme are now open. This shared equity scheme allows eligible participants to co-purchase an eligible property with the federal government. Ten thousand places will be available across Australia each year over 4 years, starting from the 2025-26 financial year.

Housing Australia administers the scheme on behalf of the federal government.

Summary

Participants are required to contribute a minimum deposit, which can be as low as 2%, and obtain a home loan from a participating lender.

Participants are required to contribute as much as reasonably possible towards the deposit, taking into account their personal circumstances and financial capacity. The scheme limits the size of the government’s equity contribution when the participant has clear capacity to provide a larger deposit.

The federal government will contribute up to 30% of the purchase price for existing homes, or 40% for newly built homes, and will proportionally share any gains or losses made on the sale of the home or when a participant buys back the government’s equity share.

A list of participating lenders is available on the Australian Government Help to Buy Scheme Participating Lenders page on the Australian Government First Home Buyers website. The lender assesses eligibility and submits the application on behalf of the participant. Conditional approvals remain in place for up to 90 days.

Once a purchase contract has been signed, a conveyancer representing Housing Australia will contact the participant before settlement to arrange the signing of the required documents, including a second mortgage to Housing Australia.

The scheme is designed to help low- and middle-income households purchase a home, but it is not intended to be a lifelong arrangement. Participants are encouraged to take steps to exit the scheme within a reasonable timeframe by making additional incremental repayments to increase their share over time, either through savings or additional lending, or by selling the property.

Western Australia and Tasmania have not yet passed enabling legislation to participate in the scheme.

Eligible homes

New homes supported under the scheme include off-the-plan dwellings, house and land packages, land and separate contracts to build, knock down rebuilds, and residential houses that have never been lived in.

Existing homes supported under the scheme include residential houses, apartments, and townhouses that have been previously occupied. Examples of existing properties that are not eligible include caravans in caravan parks and accommodation in retirement villages.

Price caps

Participating states and territories have their own property price caps, set out on the Help to Buy Property Price Caps page on the Australian Government First Home Buyers website.

Eligibility requirements

See the eligibility tool on the Help to Buy Eligibility Tool page on the Australian Government First Home Buyers website.

To be eligible for participation in the scheme, the following requirements apply:

• For a single participant, an income threshold of $100,000 applies. For joint participants and single parents, an income threshold of $160,000 applies. There are no relationship requirements to be met for joint applications. These thresholds are indexed on 1 July of each financial year. Applications are assessed on the taxable income shown on the participant’s ATO Notice of Assessment for the previous financial year.
• Participants must:
  • Be Australian citizens.
  • Be at least 18 years of age.
  • Not currently own any other land or property in Australia or overseas. Previous ownership is not disqualifying. There are exceptions for single parents who own property jointly with someone else and want to buy out the other person's share or intend to sell their existing ownership.
  • Not also be receiving a federal home-buyer guarantee, a shared equity scheme, or a state or territory loan or guarantee to support home ownership. Home buyer assistance programs, such as first home owner grants or tax concessions, or the First Home Super Saver scheme, can be used in conjunction with the Help to Buy Scheme.
  • Treat the property as their principal place of residence, subject to limited exceptions.

Obligations during participation in the scheme

The following are some of the ongoing obligations during participation in the scheme:

• Housing Australia will monitor participant compliance with the scheme and will conduct a review of each arrangement every 5 years to ensure participation requirements continue to be met.
• Participants are required to keep the property adequately insured over the life of the scheme and provide evidence to Housing Australia of their insurance arrangements each year.
• Housing Australia is required to ensure that the participant maintains the property to an adequate standard.

Exiting the scheme

Participants can exit the scheme by making additional incremental repayments to increase their share over time, either through savings or additional lending, or by selling the property.

Participants can sell the property at any time, subject to specific conditions, which include:

• the participant providing Housing Australia with notice of the proposed sale within 3 months of the intended settlement date;
• Housing Australia being satisfied that the contract has been entered into on an arm’s length basis; and
• the participant paying the costs of obtaining a valuation and all other costs associated with the sale, including real estate agent fees and commission.

Further information

For more information, see the Help to Buy General Terms on the Australian Government First Home Buyers website.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Conveyancing publications have been updated to provide all the information needed for practitioners to advise clients on the scheme

From 22 November 2025, the Local Court of NSW introduced a single, unified procedure for all first-instance bail applications in the Bail Division. The new Practice Note – Bail Proceedings applies uniformly to matters heard on weekdays, weekends, and public holidays. 

As part of this change, Weekend Bail Courts have been incorporated into the Bail Division, removing the former separation between weekday and weekend processes.

The new practice note revokes 2 previous Practice Notes – Bail Division Proceedings (7 July 2025) and Bail Proceedings – Weekend Centralised Bail Courts (26 October 2024). It governs all first-instance bail applications for adult applicants who have been refused police bail, as well as bail matters arising from proceedings under s 19 of the Mental Health (CIFP) Act. 

The new practice note is to be read with Practice Notes Crim 1 and Domestic and Personal Violence where relevant.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Local Court – Criminal (NSW) and Traffic Offences (NSW) guides have been updated with links and references to the new practice note and procedure.

The Supreme Court of Queensland has issued a new Practice Direction Number 5 of 2025 – Accuracy of References in Submissions addressing the risks associated with the use of generative artificial intelligence tools when drafting submissions to the court.

These risks are said to include the potential to:

• mislead the court and the other parties;
• cause delay and wasted costs;
• undermine the integrity of the court’s processes, and
• harm public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Practice Direction requires the identification of the person responsible for the submissions by name to ensure that they are properly checked for accuracy.

It is not sufficient that a law firm is named; an individual legal practitioner must take responsibility for the document.

The direction imposes an obligation on the responsible person to:

• verify the accuracy and relevance of any references to legislation, authorities, or other sources relied on in submissions; and
• ensure that the submissions reflect their judgment of the proper discharge of their professional and ethical obligations.

By placing their name on the document or by making oral submissions, the legal practitioner confirms to the court that they have performed this obligation.

Submissions that cite non-existent cases, legislation, or other material may lead to the legal practitioner who is responsible being referred to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation, or being required to show cause why a personal costs order should not be made against them.

The By Lawyers Supreme Court Civil (QLD) publication has been updated accordingly.

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has shown that family members can counter a deceased person’s express post mortem wishes.

The question of what happens to the body after death is one many people never consider, but also one that some people feel very strongly about. It can become highly contentious, especially when cultural and religious issues are in play.

At common law, a direction in a will about the deceased's funeral, burial, or cremation is considered declaratory only. In the absence of legislation, such as that which prohibits cremation against the deceased's wishes, the executor and ultimately the court, if necessary, decide how the body is treated. It might come as a surprise that the deceased's wishes are not necessarily the determining factor.

Concerned family members can challenge the executor's actions and seek to counter the deceased's express wishes. In Mackie v Tedesco [2025] NSWSC 1345 the court ordered that the deceased's granddaughter have an opportunity to spend time in the presence of the deceased's body to view her in an open casket, despite finding it was contrary to the deceased's previously expressed wishes. Meek J stated, at paragraph 57]:

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙'𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 [𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙧], 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩, 𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚, 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧.

The Supreme Court also provided practical guidance on the evidence required to support applications concerning interment arrangements in Chipizubov v Elias [2025] NSWSC 326 at paragraphs 12–13.

Publication updates

Both of these recent cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW) publication under Burials, cremations, and funerals.

Changes effective from 1 January 2026 impact domestic violence, evidence, sentencing, and weapons legislation. Perhaps most significantly, a police protection direction can be issued on the spot without a court order.

The Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 includes amendments to the following Acts with effect from 1 January 2026:

• Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012
• Evidence Act 1977
• Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
• Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000
• Weapons Act 1990

Protection directions

Police can issue protection directions without first seeking court orders. Directions are valid for 12 months and can have the same conditions as protection orders, including prohibiting contact and preventing someone from residing at a property.

The power to issue directions is limited if they seek to name a child, and if a family law order, protection order, or care agreement under the Child Protection Act 1999 is already in place. 

Internal police review processes are available to all affected parties.

Evidence

Video-recorded evidence-in-chief can be used for all summary and committal proceedings for domestic violence offences.

Sentencing

When a court assesses an offender’s character for sentencing, police protection directions can be considered in addition to court-issued domestic violence orders, police protection notices, and interstate domestic violence orders.

Weapons

A police protection direction disqualifies a person from holding a firearms or weapons licence while the direction is current and for 5 years after. If they have a licence at the time the direction is made, it may be revoked or suspended.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Domestic Violence Order (QLD) publication has been updated to reflect the new laws.

Changes to committal procedure in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria have effect from 28 December 2025 under the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Act 2025, which amends key provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

The traditional committal test under which magistrates determined if there was evidence of sufficient weight to support a conviction before sending a matter to a higher court is abolished from 28 December 2026.

The Magistrates’ Court will instead adopt a case-management approach, with an emphasis on parties resolving charges if possible, or narrowing the issues, and the prosecution providing disclosure, so the case is ready for trial if necessary.

Indictable matters will now be committed either on the hand-up brief after a committal mention and committal conference, or after a committal hearing if leave is granted for the defence to cross-examine witnesses.

Leave to cross-examine witnesses at committal

It will be harder to obtain leave to cross-examine witnesses. The test for doing so is more stringent, and under an expanded s 123 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 leave cannot be granted in cases involving sexual offences, family violence, stalking, or homicide.

Under amendments to s 119 of the Act, Form 32 Case Direction Notices will now require that an applicant for leave to cross-examine a witness at a committal hearing set out why cross-examination on a specific issue is directly and substantially relevant to that issue and is also in the interests of justice, and why the accused believes that the reasons given are substantial reasons.

For some serious indictable offences, there will be no committal process, and cases will be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.

Increased prosecution disclosure obligations

An amendment to s 41 of the Act also increases the statutory obligation on the prosecution to disclose all relevant material, including anything that might reasonably be expected to undermine the prosecution's case or assist the accused's case.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Magistrates’ Court – Criminal (VIC) guide has been updated with these changes.

Under this scheme, part of an eligible first home buyer’s home loan from a participating lender is guaranteed by Housing Australia. This enables first home buyers to purchase a home with a deposit of as little as 5% of the sale price while avoiding lenders' mortgage insurance.

Purchasers need to fund the purchase costs, including transfer duty and conveyancing fees, in addition to the deposit.

The scheme is available through over 30 participating lenders across Australia. Lenders submit applications to Housing Australia from eligible borrowers as part of the pre-approval process.

October 2025 changes

From 1 October 2025, limits on application numbers and applicant income have been removed, and property price caps have been increased. This means there will be no waiting list or quotas, and first home buyers are eligible regardless of their income level.

New property price caps from 1 October

The By Lawyers Purchase of Real Property guides in all jurisdictions have been updated accordingly.

From 1 September 2025, new rules apply to general federal law and migration proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). These rules do not apply to family law and child support proceedings.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 are aligned with the Federal Court Rules 2011 to provide consistency across the two courts with concurrent jurisdiction.

The rules are divided into four chapters:

• Chapter 1 applies to all federal law proceedings and contains introductory matters. The rules are substantially similar to their predecessor but include structural changes, including a consolidated definition section, electronic filing, and expanded powers of registrars;
• Chapter 2 applies to all general federal law proceedings and deals with procedure generally, including freezing orders, search orders, and subpoenas;
• Chapter 3 applies to special classes of proceedings, such as immigration, judicial review, small claims under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, intellectual property, and fair work;
• Chapter 4 deals with costs, enforcement, and contempt. 

Schedule 2 of the new rules deals with costs in general federal law proceedings. 

All relevant By Lawyers publications have been updated in line with the new rules.

The final tranche of provisions under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 have effect from 29 September.

New order available

Serious domestic abuse prevention orders (SDAPOs) are a new and more serious type of order intended to complement the existing apprehended domestic violence orders (ADVO) regime. They will enable greater police supervision and monitoring of repeat offenders. SDAPOs are modelled on serious crime prevention orders used to combat organised crime. Only the Commissioner of Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions can apply for a SDAPO.

Grounds for an SDAPO

Orders can be sought against adults based on convictions or charges within the past 10 years, which occurred when they were at least 16 years of age.

If the application is based on convictions, it is made in the Local Court and the person against whom the order is sought needs to have had 2 or more convictions for domestic violence offences with a maximum penalty of 7 years or more.

If the application is based on charges, it is made to the Supreme Court, and the eligibility threshold requires that the person against whom the order is sought has been charged with a serious domestic violence offence as defined in the Act, regardless of whether they have been tried, acquitted, or convicted, and including if a conviction is quashed or set aside.

In either case, the court must be satisfied that making the order would protect former, current, or potential intimate partners of the person, or anyone in a domestic relationship with such an intimate partner, or the person’s family members, by preventing the person from engaging in domestic abuse as defined in the Act.

The new provisions require the court to consider the views of relevant people connected to the person against whom the order is sought, including their family members, former or current intimate partners, or persons in a domestic relationship with such partners, if their views are available to the court. This can mean these individuals attend court to give evidence or provide written statements.

Difference between an SDAPO and an ADVO

The court can impose any condition it considers appropriate under a SDAPO to prevent the offender from engaging in domestic abuse. This might include positive obligations, whereas ADVOs are limited to restrictions or prohibitions. The second reading speech for the amending Act offers examples of conditions that might be sought under a SDAPO, such as requirements to report to police, notify the police if the offender changes address or commences an intimate relationship, or allow police access to data by providing a password or PIN to unlock a digital device.

Unlike ADVOs, the new provisions do not include standard or mandatory conditions that will be part of every order. The intention is for SDAPOs to be specific to high‑risk offenders and their behaviour patterns.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Apprehended Violence Orders (NSW) publication has been updated to include practical guidance on navigating SDAPOs, and all the forms and precedents required to complete SDAPO matters.

The Supreme Court Equity Division has issued a revised practice note governing the Revenue List and a new practice note establishing an Applications List, effective from 25 September 2025.

Revenue List

Practice note PN SC Eq 10 issued 25 September 2025 replaces the previous version issued on 10 August 2012.

The list operates on Thursdays from 9:30 am for matters involving:

• the Commissioner of Taxation or the equivalent in a jurisdiction outside Australia;
• the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue or the equivalent outside NSW; or
• issues concerning a law under which any of these bodies exercises a function.

Appearances are required in person, unless a judge orders otherwise.

The new version of the practice notes includes:

• stronger encouragement for single and court-appointed experts and the use of concurrent evidence;
• a requirement for parties to consider mediation before filing and to report on this at the first return date;
• clarification of the appeal process, with tighter timelines and content requirements;
• a new template summons and a revised Usual Order for Hearing, requiring an indexed electronic Court Book, both of which are annexed to the Practice Note.

Applications List

An Applications List operates on Fridays from 9.30 am in the Equity Division under the Court’s practice note PN Eq 15.

The Registrar can list a motion in the Applications List or refer it to the List Judge at any time.

The List Judge will hear motions with an agreed estimate of 2 hours or less. The Registrar will list longer matters for hearing by other judges.

Appearances are required in person, unless the List Judge orders otherwise or the parties lodge complying consent orders with the court by the day before the hearing.

If matters are to be heard, parties must provide all material they intend to rely on to the court the day before the hearing.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Supreme Court Civil (NSW) – Equity Division – Acting for the Plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant guides have been updated accordingly.

Various amendments for compensation indexation have been applied to the By Lawyers Injuries publications in New South Wales.

Each year on 1 October the various statutory compensation schemes and legislative caps have indexation applied to the maximum amounts recoverable by injured persons. For 2025, these changes are contained in the following pieces of subordinate legislation:

• Civil Liability (Non-economic Loss) Amendment Order 2025
• Motor Accidents Compensation (Determination of Loss) Order 2025
• Motor Accident Injuries (Indexation) Order (No 2) 2025
• Workers Compensation (Indexation) Order (No 3) 2025

Wherever applicable, the commentary and precedents – particularly the Retainer instructions precedents – have been updated for these changes in the following By Lawyers publications:

• Motor Vehicle Accidents (NSW) - Accidents prior to 1 December 2017
• Motor Vehicle Accidents (NSW) - Accidents from 1 December 2017
• Personal Injury (NSW) - Acting for the plaintiff
• Personal Injury (NSW) - Acting for the defendant
• Workers Compensation (NSW)

By Lawyers publications are always updated for statutory indexing. This typically occurs in most jurisdictions on 1 January, 1 March, 1 July, and, as in the case of NSW injuries legislation, 1 October each year.

The State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) regularly reviews and updates the Motor Accident Guidelines (MAG) that support the objectives of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

Version 10 of the MAG has effect from 15 September 2025. Amendments include:

• Insertion of a new clause 4.129A, in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Atwal v Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWSC 143. The clause provides that where an insurer is in possession of a medical report indicating that a claimant’s whole person impairment is greater than 10%, and the insurer considers that further information is required before conceding the claimant’s entitlement to non-economic loss, the insurer must actively request the relevant information.
• Amendments to clauses 4.61–4.63 to clarify the procedural requirements that must be satisfied before the suspension of weekly benefits.
• Amendments to clauses 4.34–4.35 to clarify the requirements for issuing a liability decision notice.
• Amendment to clause 4.45 to provide for notices regarding the calculation of pre-accident weekly earnings.
• Insertion of a new clause 4.9A to provide for situations where the direct communication of distressing content may pose a serious threat to someone’s health or safety.

A table summarising the changes has been added to the SIRA website, and the By Lawyers Motor Vehicle Accidents from 1 December 2017 (NSW) guide has been updated accordingly.

Two recent cases have considered when it is appropriate for a court to exercise its discretion to allow steps in a proceeding after extensive delay, or to dismiss a proceeding for want of prosecution.

Under Rule 389 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, if nothing has happened in a proceeding for 2 years, a court order is required before any party can take any step.

Section 22 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 notes that the Supreme Court has inherent power to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution and grants the same power to the District and Magistrates Courts.

Courts will not lightly grant leave to proceed after extensive delay. Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd & Ors [2000] QCA 178 listed 12 factors the court will consider in determining whether the interests of justice require a case to be dismissed or a costs sanction to be imposed

Those factors were considered and applied recently by a single judge in William Doolan v Hugh William Blennerhassett [2025] QSC 208, which also considered what constitutes a step in a proceeding, and by the Court of Appeal in Lu v Fenson Legal Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 165, which described them as both helpful and potentially competing.

The By Lawyers Queensland litigation guides—Supreme Court, District Court, and Magistrates Court—have been updated with commentary and links to these cases.

The Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2025 came into effect on 1 September 2025, replacing the 2014 regulation.

Amendments include:

• consolidating the particulars required for a notice of claim;
• setting out all the documents that must be provided with a notice of claim;
• clarifying that certain particulars are not required for an abuse claim, healthcare claim, or dependency claim;
• allowing a claimant to provide an image of the scene of the incident;
• authorising the Motor Accident Insurance Commission to release records relevant to the claim; and
• introducing a process for providing a notice of claim to the respondent by electronic communication for urgent proceedings.

The By Lawyers Personal Injury (QLD) publication has been updated accordingly.

New forms also came into effect on 1 September 2025, links to which have been added to the matter plan. The Claimant's Certificate now includes a provision in accordance with regulation 7 for the claimant to certify that they have not been involved with claim farmers.

By Lawyers has published a new guide to assist practitioners with enforcing judgments in South Australia. The new Enforcement (SA) guide is available in the Magistrates Court Civil (SA) publication.

The Enforcement guide consists of a matter plan, full commentary, precedents, and the relevant court forms. It is focused mainly on lawyers acting for a judgment creditor.

Helpful initial precedents include:

• Retainer instructions;
• To Do list; and
• Initial letter to the client enclosing a costs agreement.

There are also precedent letters to the judgment debtor, a process server, a garnishee, and the Sheriff. The commentary covers all available enforcement options for all levels of courts, including:

• investigation hearing, which is a compulsory first step if the judgment debtor is a natural person, and the debt is less than $12,000 and not incurred in carrying on a business;
• payment order;
• examination hearing;
• garnishee order;
• warrant of seizure and sale of property;
• warrant for possession of personal property;
• warrant for possession of real property;
• charging order;
• appointment of receiver; and
• warrant of apprehension.

Bankruptcy and liquidation are covered only briefly. Subscribers can reference the separate By Lawyers Insolvency guides for more information on those topics.

The commentary includes links to the most recent versions of the Enforcement of Judgments Act 1991 and the Uniform Civil Rules 2020.

The Magistrates Court Civil (SA) publication is available to all LEAP users with the By Lawyers companion product as part of their existing arrangements, and to non-LEAP firms by subscription on the By Lawyers website.

Another tranche of the Bail Further Amendment Act 2025 commenced on 1 October 2025. It inserts a new provision in the Bail Act affecting the application of the test for whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused will commit further offences if granted bail.

Existing sections 4D and 4E of the Bail Act respectively set out when the unacceptable risk test applies, and provide that bail must be refused if there is an unacceptable risk.

A new s 4F applies if the accused is charged with, and already on bail for, any of the following indictable offences under the following sections of the Crimes Act 1958:

• armed robbery: s 75A;
• aggravated burglary: s 77;
• home invasion: s 77A;
• aggravated home invasion: s 77B;
• carjacking: s 79; and
• aggravated carjacking: s 79A.

If so, the court must be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the person will not commit further offences. As with s 4E, the prosecution bears the burden of satisfying the court that a risk is unacceptable.

The By Lawyers Magistrates’ Court – Criminal guide has been updated accordingly.

The Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 apply from 8 September 2025. They replace the 2015 Rules, but there are no substantive changes; the overall structure and approach are much the same.

Key changes to the Rules

These are the key changes impacting practitioners:

Filing and documents:

• All documents must be filed electronically through RedCrest (Trial Division) or as directed in the Court of Appeal.
• Documents need to be in a searchable PDF format, with proper page numbering.
• Headings no longer need to state where the case was started.
• Forms have been tidied up to suit e-filing.

Service addresses:

• Parties appearing in person no longer need to provide a physical Victorian address for service; an electronic address for service is sufficient.

Associate Judges and Judicial Registrars:

• Their powers have been broadened. Associate Judges can now deal with a wider range of matters under statutes including the Administration and Probate Act 1958, the Wills Act 1997, and the Property Law Act 1958.
• Judicial Registrars also have expanded authority, including appointing litigation guardians and dealing with discovery and interrogatories.

Costs Registrars:

• They can now authenticate their own orders, streamlining costs matters.

Plain English:

• Plain English notes have been added to replace some old Latin terms.

Publication updates

All By Lawyers Victorian publications that include these Rules have been updated. This includes commentary, forms, and precedents on more than 20 By Lawyers matter plans.

The Supreme Court of Victoria has issued a Notice to the Profession, introducing a new Short/Expedited Cases List for the hearing and determination of urgent matters and shorter trials.

Matters suitable for the Short Cases List are those arising out of business transactions between commercial parties that require a trial of 3 days or less, including closing submissions, but which do not qualify as an expedited matter.

An expedited matter requires an urgent hearing that will take longer than 2 hours and is ready or needs to be listed for trial immediately.

Short cases

Matters can be entered in the list as a Short Case in one of three ways:

• the principal judge can allocate the case after the defendant has filed their notice of appearance;
• on application by one or both of the parties prior to the first directions hearing; or
• on referral by a judicial officer.

Direct filing into the list is not permitted.

If the principal judge allocates a matter to the list, the parties will be notified. They must have agreed on directions and a trial plan and briefed counsel before the first directions hearing. If they disagree , the parties must send a joint communication to the chambers of the principal judge, attaching documents that identify the parties' differences.

At the first directions hearing, the judge will determine whether the matter is suitable for the list and, if so, it will be set down for trial within 6 weeks.

One or both parties can seek to have the matter entered in the list by applying by email to commercialcourturgents@supcourt.vic.gov.au by 12.00 pm on the Tuesday prior to the first directions hearing. The prescribed application form is attached to the Notice to Profession. The applicant will be expected to enclose draft minutes of order, a draft trial plan and trial availability with the application, either by consent or highlighting the parties’ differences. A notice of opposition in the form attached to the Notice to Profession must be filed if a party wishes to oppose the application. The judge will decide the matter either in a directions hearing or in chambers.

A managing judicial officer can refer a matter to the list in consultation with the principal judge. The parties may need to comply with the application requirements contained in the notice.

Expedited cases

Matters can be entered into the list as an Expedited Case in one of two ways:

• on application by one or both parties, and approval by the principal judge; or
• by referral from the duty judge in consultation with the principal judge.

Applications must be made to the Civil Registry, Commercial Court at commercialcourturgents@supcourt.vic.gov.au. The email must attach a completed application in the prescribed form, supported by an affidavit that addresses the matters listed in the notice, including substantive evidence justifying the need for expedition.

The principal judge will usually determine an application for expedition in chambers unless exceptional circumstances warrant a hearing. 

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Supreme Court Civil VIC publication has been updated accordingly.

A recent High Court case considered the issue of whether a redundancy was genuine.

Under s 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009, redundancy occurs when an employer no longer needs a particular job performed and eliminates the role. For a redundancy to be considered genuine, s 389(2) requires that it was not reasonable to redeploy the employee to another role.

Employees who have been dismissed due to a genuine redundancy cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim.

In Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2025] HCA 29 the High Court examined the scope of the inquiry mandated by s 389(2).

The Court held that establishing a genuine redundancy requires more than simply showing that no job is available for the redundant employee. Employers must actively consider and take steps to make changes within their enterprise that would allow for the employee's redeployment, if it is reasonable in all the circumstances. This may involve terminating contractor agreements and insourcing the work, depending on the specific facts of each case.

The By Lawyers Employment Law guide and 101 Employment Law Answers have been updated accordingly.

The Conveyancing and Real Property Amendment Act 2025 makes minor changes to various legislation, including the Conveyancing Act 1919 and the Real Property Act 1900, some of which have commenced and some of which await proclamation.

The most significant amendments:

• resolve uncertainty around vendor disclosure and cooling off provisions in relation to put options in property transactions; and
• provide for additional positive covenants and restrictions that can be released by a s 88B instrument lodged with a plan.

Options – Cooling off, warranties, and vendor disclosure

The amendments resolve uncertainty around the legislation's application to put options, which was highlighted in BP7 Pty Ltd v Gavancorp Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 265. The vendor disclosure requirements and cooling off provisions that apply to an option to purchase residential property now also apply to put options, with a new definition of option included in s 66P(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919.

Section 66T(d) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 applies so that contracts made in consequence of the exercise of an option, both to purchase and to compel the purchase, have no cooling off period. This aligns with an exemption under s 17(3) of the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2022.

Amendments to Division 9 of Part 4 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 confirm that cooling off rights, along with the terms, conditions, and warranties prescribed by the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2022 apply to options as defined in s 66P(1).

The change to the definition of option required minor changes to the prescribed form of cooling off notice set out in Schedule 5 to the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2022, not only for option contracts but for all contracts for the sale of residential property.

The By Lawyers Contract for the Sale of Land and precedent Option agreements have been updated accordingly.

These amendments have effect from 15 August 2025. Transitional provisions apply so that a contract or option can include either the old or new form of cooling off notice up until 31 May 2026. Contracts exchanged on and from 1 June 2026 must include the prescribed cooling off notice as amended by the Conveyancing and Real Property Amendment Act 2025.

Additional interests that can be released by way of s 88B instrument

The following positive covenants and restrictions will be able to be released by way of an instrument under s 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 lodged with a plan:

• a positive covenant for maintenance or repair created under s 88BA;
• a restriction on the use of land imposed by a prescribed authority under s 88D or s 88E; and
• a public positive covenant.

These amendments will commence on proclamation. The necessary updates will be made to the relevant By Lawyers guides in due course.

The By Lawyers Conveyancing (NSW) publication has been updated, including the Sale of Real Property and Purchase of Real Property commentaries, 1001 Conveyancing Answers (NSW), and the By Lawyers Contract for the sale of land.

Amendments to the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) have narrowed the Local Court's jurisdiction so that it now excludes privacy proceedings.

The Local Court’s jurisdiction is derived from s 9 of the Act, and from any other statute that grants the court jurisdiction.

The Act sets the Local Court's monetary limit in civil proceedings of $100,000 and also lists the following areas in which the Court does not have jurisdiction:

1. in proceedings relating to wills or settlements: s 33(1)(a) of the Local Court Act 2007;
2. in actions for passing-off, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution, defamation: s 33(1)(b);
3. in infringement of letters patent or copyright: s 33(1)(c);
4. in proceedings in which the title to land is in question: s 33(1)(e), other than proceedings in which the question of title to land is merely incidental;
5. to make declarations; or
6. to grant injunctions.

Added to those exclusions under the new s 33(1)(d) of the Act are proceedings for invasion of privacy or other privacy conventions, including proceedings for administrative review under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.

Privacy proceedings that were already on foot in the Local Court before the amendments commenced on 15 August 2025 can continue.

The By Lawyers Local Court Civil (NSW) – Acting for the Plaintiff and Local Court Civil (NSW) – Acting for the Defendant guides have been updated accordingly and include detailed information on the court’s jurisdiction.

The recent case of Rezai v Build Tech Corp Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 861.

Citing Commissioner for Railways v Small [1938] NSWStRp 29 at [574], the court confirmed that subpoenas are not a substitute for discovery in civil proceedings and a subpoena cannot require a party to, in effect, give discovery.

The court noted that discovery under Part 21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) requires the court's leave, which is sought by a Notice of Motion and Affidavit in support. The applicant is required to show special reasons why the order should be granted. This is intended to limit the circumstances in which discovery will be available.

There is no such requirement for the issue of a subpoena. However, there is the requirement that a subpoena have a legitimate forensic purpose, such as seeking documents relevant to a fact in issue in the proceedings.

The court noted that what distinguishes a subpoena from discovery is that a subpoena cannot require the recipient to assess whether documents are relevant to a fact in issue. In contrast, the discovery process requires the producing party to determine relevance based on the classes of documents identified in the order. A subpoena must specify the documents to be produced with reasonable particularity, and it is up to the recipient to interpret the subpoena in a broad, commonsense way so as to comply.

In the context of a personal injury case, the court noted that, while issuing a subpoena might not be the cheapest or most efficient way to address alleged non-compliance with the UCPR rules that require the service of particulars and documents, it is not prohibited – unlike issuing a subpoena as a substitute for discovery.

For more information about legitimate forensic purpose and the production of documents, see 101 Subpoena Answers in the reference Materials folder of all By Lawyers litigation guides, to which Rezai has been added.

A recent Supreme Court case on civil procedure and summary dismissal has been added to the By Lawyers Supreme Court Civil (NSW) publication.

Under r 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, if a plaintiff or defendant does not prosecute the proceedings with due despatch, the court may order that the proceedings be dismissed or the defence be struck out, either in whole or in part, or make such other order as the court thinks fit.

In SNS Petro Pty Ltd v Goel [2025] NSWSC 798 the plaintiffs' repeated failure to comply with practice directions, court orders, and the requirements of the UCPR, including by filing an Amended Statement of Claim in the proper form, grounded a successful application under r 12.7, albeit after the plaintiffs were given one final chance to show they were diligently prosecuting the proceedings in good faith by lodging security for costs, which they failed to do.

This case has been added to the commentaries in the Supreme Court (NSW) Acting for the plaintiff and Acting for the defendant guides, under Dismissal of proceedings.

Amendments to the uniform defamation law have effect in the Northern Territory from 11 August 2025.

The Defamation Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NT) introduces reforms agreed nationally in 2024 that have already commenced in other jurisdictions, except Queensland and WA.

The amendments include:

Exemption from liability in defamation as publishers for digital intermediaries

The legislation now provides an exemption from liability in defamation for digital intermediaries providing caching, conduit, or storage services, provided the intermediary did not:

1. initiate the steps required to publish the matter;
2. select any of the recipients of the matter;
3. encourage the poster of the defamatory material to publish the matter;
4. edit the content of the matter whether before or after it was published; or
5. promote the matter whether before or after it was published.

The section applies regardless of whether the digital intermediary knew or ought reasonably to have known the digital material was defamatory.

Exemption from liability under defamation law for search engine providers

Like digital intermediaries, search engine providers are not liable for defamatory material comprising search results if the provider’s role is limited to providing an automated process for the search engine user to generate search results or hyperlinks, provided the search results or hyperlinks are not promoted or prioritised by the search engine provider receiving a payment or another benefit by or on behalf of a third party.

The provision applies regardless of whether the search engine provider knew or ought reasonably to have known the digital matter was defamatory.

Early determination of digital intermediary exemptions

The court must determine whether a defendant has a digital intermediary exemption and whether the exemption is established as soon as practicable before the trial commences unless there are good reasons to postpone the determination. In doing so, the court can make any orders it considers appropriate, including dismissing the proceedings, if satisfied the digital intermediary exemption is established.

Content of offer to make amends

The digital intermediary exemptions from liability as publishers include changes to offers to make amends, in that an offer in the case of digital matter may include an offer to prevent access to the defamatory material, instead of, or in addition to, other offers to make amends.

Orders for preliminary discovery in defamation cases about posters of digital matter

Defamation litigants can take advantage of pre-litigation or preliminary discovery to assist in identifying the poster of defamatory material or the physical or digital address of the poster, to allow concerns notices and court proceedings to be served.

Defence for publications involving digital intermediaries

This new defence is available if a digital intermediary has provided an accessible complaints mechanism for an aggrieved person to use and they use it to make a complaint.

The digital intermediary must have taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the defamatory material, either before the complaint was received, or within 7 days of the complaint.

The complaints mechanism must be an easily accessible address, location or other mechanism available for the plaintiff to use to complain to the defendant about the publication of the digital matter concerned.

Defence available to content moderators

The defence of digital intermediary is available to defendants who moderate content by taking steps to detect or identify and remove, block, disable, or otherwise prevent access to content that may be defamatory, or that breaches the terms or conditions of the online service.

Orders against non-party digital intermediaries

If a plaintiff secures judgment or an injunction against a defendant in proceedings, the court may order a non-party digital intermediary to take access prevention steps, or other steps the court considers necessary to prevent or limit the continued publication or re-publication of the matter complained of.

Such an order may require access prevention steps to be taken in relation to all or only some of the users of an online service.

The new section does not limit other powers of the court to grant injunctions or make other orders for access prevention.

Service of notices and other documents

The amendments expand the existing options for serving notices and documents to include messaging or other electronic communication to an electronic address or location indicated by the recipient.

Extension of the defence of absolute privilege under uniform defamation law

Concerns were raised in the Stage 2 review of the uniform defamation law about liability in defamation for someone reporting a person to the police for suspected wrongdoing, and then being sued by that person in defamation if the police dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence or absence of culpability on the part of the person reported.

These concerns were addressed by amending the absolute defence provisions of the uniform defamation law to provide that defamatory matter published to a police officer while the officer is acting in an official capacity is covered by the defence of absolute privilege.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Defamation and Protecting Reputation publication has been updated accordingly.

The By Lawyers publications Powers of Attorney and Advance Care Directives (VIC), 101 Succession Answers (VIC), and 1001 Conveyancing Answers (VIC) have all been updated for amendments under the Powers of Attorney Regulations 2025 that commenced on 10 August 2025.

All the forms for enduring powers of attorney, supportive attorney, and revocation of those appointments have been revised for plain language, accessibility, and gender-neutral drafting. These forms are available on the Powers of Attorney and Advance Care Directives (VIC) matter plan.

The revised forms include space for details relevant to electronic document execution and remote witnessing in accordance with s 9 and s 12 respectively of the Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000. See the Electronic Signing and Witnessing guide in the Reference materials folder at the top of every By Lawyers matter plan for more information.

The prescribed information for supportive attorneys in the revised forms has updated descriptions of supportive attorneys' roles and limitations, aimed at preventing misuse and clarifying legal effect.

Revocation forms now more clearly link the revocation to the original instrument and prompt for attorneys to be notified of the revocation.

Applications to the Magistrates' Court of Victoria for variation, revocation, and extension of intervention orders can now be made online.

Applicants and affected family members can apply to have an intervention order changed through the court's dedicated online portal.  

Respondents who require leave to vary or revoke an order can apply via a dedicated online portal.

Applications can still also be made by completing the hard copy form and submitting it at the relevant court.

Applicants must complete a declaration of truth in support of an application. 

The By Lawyers Intervention Orders (VIC) publication has been updated accordingly.

The Family Court of Western Australia is a state court of record governed by the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

A recent WA Court of Appeal decision has confirmed that appeals from the Family Court of Western Australia exercising state jurisdiction, such as for de facto couples, go to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia rather than to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division1).

Dunne (A Pseudonym) v Lloyd (A Pseudonym) [2025] WASCA 119 was an appeal from a single judge of the Family Court of Western Australia concerning parenting orders under the Family Court Act 1997 (WA), not the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), because the mother and child resided in WA and the parties were not married.

The court found that the appeal was correctly brought to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia because the Family Court of Western Australia was exercising state jurisdiction.

The Appeals section of Appendix 1 - The Family Court of Western Australia that appears at the end of all By Lawyers Family Law commentaries has been updated accordingly.

In Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126 the concept of adding back assets that the parties have disposed of as notional property to be divided as part of the pool was definitively rejected. The court reviewed the concept of add backs in the light of the approach to property division mandated by s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 after the significant amendments to it that commenced in 2025.

In AJO & GRO [2005] FamCA 195 (Omicini & Omicini), the court identified that add backs fell into 3 categories:

1. a party has expended money on legal fees;
2. there has been a premature distribution of property; or

3. there has been wastage of property.

The judgment in Shinohara traces, at [96]– [101], the evolution of the approach to add backs, revealing a movement away from their use, before determining that:

[125] …s 79 now directs that the categories identified in Omacini pre-amendment that were notionally added back are to be considered in ensuring a just and equitable outcome, either by way of historical contributions, or by way of their relationship to and impact upon the current and future circumstances at the s 79(5) stage...

[126] The holistic approach in assessing and determining contributions and adjustments thereto (Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898…; Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25…) remains applicable. Each of the considerations, by either s 79(4) or s 79(5), requires engagement with the circumstances of the disposal of property, the value it achieved, and its use and application being considered and weighed to achieve the mandate of justice and equity that permeates s 79 of the Act.

[127] As notional property does not exist, it cannot be identified to form part of the balance sheet recording the current items of the parties’ property.

On that basis, the court removed the added-back items from the parties' agreed balance sheet and considered them instead in the context of the overall contributions and adjustments.

The commentary in the By Lawyers Property Settlement guide and the Property section of 101 Family Law Answers have been updated accordingly.

A new centralised Bail Division has been introduced in the Local Court of NSW to hear weekday adult bail matters from across the State. All matters will be heard by audio visual link.

Practice Note – Bail Division Proceedings has effect from 7 July 2025 and sets out the practice and procedure in the Bail Division, in conjunction with Practice Note – Criminal Crim 1 and Practice Note – Domestic Violence Matters – 2/2012.

All applications will be conducted in open court subject to any orders for restricted access.

The Bail Division will only hear first instance applications for bail by adult applicants who have been refused police bail.

Only applications received by the court before 12 noon will be heard on the day. Any accused who fails to make the deadline will have priority in the next day’s Bail Division list at 9.30 am.

Any documents relied on in support of a bail application must be filed electronically with the registry and sent to the prosecution before the hearing.

Oral submissions are limited to 10 minutes per application for both sides, unless the court allows further time. If a matter is not reached by 4 pm it will be stood over to the next available court day.

When a bail application is made, the court must complete a Summary of Reasons for Bail Decision of Court Form, which is annexed to the Practice Note – Bail Division Proceedings.

For bail applications made on weekends in Centralised Bail Courts, Practice Note – Bail Proceedings (Weekend Centralised Bail Courts) sets out the practice and procedure to be adopted in the proceedings, in conjunction with Practice Note – Criminal Crim 1.

A new Practice Note – Court Closure AVL Proceedings (Downing Centre) provides that unless an order has been made to bring the defendant before the court in person, all hearings scheduled before the Local Court Downing Centre for persons in custody must be conducted by way of audio visual link if it is reasonably practical and the accused or their legal representative consent.

The By Lawyers Local Court Criminal guide has been updated accordingly.

The following AI prompts have been added to the Leases (NSW) guide:

• AI prompt for letter to client with advice on retail lease;
• AI prompt for letter to client with advice on commercial and industrial lease;
• AI prompt for letter to client with advice on rural lease.

These AI prompts will assist practitioners advising clients on lease documentation for the various types of properties.

AI prompts are transforming legal document drafting. Technical precision in prompting artificial intelligence can significantly improve the utility and credibility of its output, especially when the AI draws exclusively from data contained in client matters and not from outside sources.

A well-drafted AI prompt acts like a clear direction from a senior lawyer to a junior about how to prepare a document. It sets precise parameters for the task, identifies the required information and where it must be drawn from, specifies the document’s form and any legal or procedural rules with which it must comply, and forbids the use of external or unauthorised sources, including invention – or in AI’s case, hallucination.

The outcome of using an AI prompt in a matter that contains sufficient reliable data is a competent first draft of a document that the lawyer can then refine and perfect, either with or without further input from AI.

Even if sufficient data is not available in the matter to satisfy the prompt’s requirements for the document, the AI will identify the missing data the lawyer needs to obtain via instructions or other means.

By Lawyers is pleased to introduce AI prompts to our publications, helping our subscribers harness the power of LEAP’s Matter AI.

The Property Law Act 2023 has effect from 1 August 2025.

The new Act repeals the Property Law Act 1974 and replaces it with a new legislative scheme drafted broadly in accordance with the recommendations of the 2018 Property Law Review Final Report: Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) prepared by the Commercial and Property Law Research Centre at the Queensland University of Technology.

New versions of the REIQ standard contracts have also been released, effective 1 August 2025, incorporating the legislative amendments:

• REIQ Contract for Sale and Purchase of Residential Real Estate (1st Edition); and
• REIQ Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Commercial Real Estate (1st Edition)

The REIQ Contract for Sale and Purchase of Residential Real Estate (1st Edition) consolidates the previous Contract for Houses and Residential Land (19th edition) and Contract for Residential Lots in a Community Titles Scheme (15th edition).

Key provisions of the new Act include:

Conveyancing

• mandatory seller disclosure, which:
• requires a seller to give a buyer a disclosure statement in the approved form and copies of relevant prescribed certificates before a contract is signed;
• gives a buyer the right to terminate a contract for breach of the disclosure requirements;
• a requirement for a buyer to actively elect for a contract to be treated as an instalment contract;
• confirmation that covenants in registered easements are binding on successors in title unless the covenant is expressed to be personal;
• extensions of time for delay of settlements due to certain adverse events, such as computer system failure at a bank or land registry;
• repeal of outdated or unnecessary provisions, including those dealing with unregistered or old system land; and
• an updated framework to reflect electronic dealings in property and electronic signing and service of documents.

Mortgages

• clarification of the powers of mortgagees and protections for mortgagors under mortgages;

Leases

• lessees and guarantors no longer being liable for breaches committed by subsequent assignees under leases;
• implied terms for all commercial leases, with the ability for parties to exclude them;
• a procedure for a lessee obtaining a lessor’s consent to assign, sublease, or share the leased premises, change the permitted use, mortgage their interest under the lease, or make alterations or carry out work to the leased premises;
• protection of lessees and third parties from unreasonable refusals by the lessor;

Trusts

• abolition of the common law rule against perpetuities and introduction of a statutory perpetuity period of 125 years;

Deeds

• reduction of the limitation period to sue on a deed from 12 years to 6 years.

Publication updates

These changes impact many areas of Queensland legal practice.

The following By Lawyers publications have been updated accordingly:

• Sale of Real Property (QLD)
• Purchase of Real Property (QLD)
• Leases (QLD)
• Mortgages (QLD)
• Retirement Villages (QLD)
• Powers of Attorney and Advance Health Directives (QLD)
• 1001 Conveyancing Answers (QLD)
• Neighbourhood Disputes (QLD)
• Trusts (FED)
• Deeds and Agreements (Separate commentary in the Reference Materials folder for all guides)
• Electronic Signing and Witnessing (Separate commentary in the Reference Materials folder for all guides)

The updated Queensland Government forms have been added to the relevant matter plans, including the Seller Disclosure Statement.