Welcome To The Sandpit
I love a good argument so please leave a comment
Please support the Sandpit
Do you feel lucky?
Recent comments
Top Posts & Pages
Blogroll
Play Chess online
check out the source of these clever cartoons by clicking the image
My Car Blog
Just personal and not that political
Sweet as, in Sydney
likes a drink
the name says it all
Cafes life and food
Life in London
Living and love
Amusing and witty Canadian
Photography NZ style
Gender Issues
No to feminist oppression
Good sense on Domestic violence issues
No Misandry here
Environment and global warming
String theory and debunking AGW from a physicist's point of view
Jo does it for me
Anthony debunks "Global Warming" with wit and style
AGW Scepticism NZ style
Steve knows his sums
Jennifer rocks!
definitely not futile
mainly the other side
Decaffeinated Soy Latte Sipper
libertarian central
Legal Eagle and Scepticlawyer
The good lefty
knowledgeable on Islam
Conservatives
a wise head on young shoulders
he rides true
Bing Bing
Feisty Carrot top blogger
Good stuff here!!!
Mild Colonial Boy
more than legal tender
Hated by leftards because he cuts them to shreds
Good sense on mid-east questions
from her bunker in Londonstan
Witty, amusing and hated by leftards
Has the right attitude to cyclists
Mark Richardson
High Court upholds freedom to contract casually
The High Court has upheld the casual nature of the employment of a labour hire worker by looking to the terms of the contracts of employment.
Robert Rossato was employed by WorkPac, a labour-hire company pursuant to a series of six contracts, or “assignments” between 28 July 2014 and 9 April 2018, when he retired. During that time, WorkPac provided his services to Glencore at one or other of the Collinsville and Newlands mines. Each contract was entitled “Notice of Offer of Casual Employment – Flat Rate” except for the third contract, which was entitled “Notice of Offer of Casual Employment”. At all relevant times, WorkPac treated Mr Rossato as a casual employee.
On 2 October 2018, in reliance on the decision in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131, Mr Rossato wrote to WorkPac claiming that he had not worked for it as a casual employee, and claiming that he was entitled to be paid for untaken annual leave, public holidays, and periods of personal leave and compassionate leave taken by him during his employment. These entitlements were said to be due under the Act and the WorkPac Pty Ltd Mining (Coal) Industry Enterprise Agreement 2012 (“the Enterprise Agreement”), which governed Mr Rossato’s employment.
WorkPac denied Mr Rossato’s claims, and promptly filed an originating application in the Federal Court of Australia seeking declarations that throughout his employment Mr Rossato had been a casual employee for the purposes of the Fair Work Act and the Enterprise Agreement.
Read full story:
https://sterlinglawqld.com/high-court-upholds-freedom-to-contract-casually/
Time to sue: The law of limitation periods
Limitation periods in the law impose time limits within which types of civil proceedings should ordinarily be commenced. In commercial litigation, statutes of limitations impose most of the limitation periods. In Queensland, the statute of limitations is the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.
Barring the remedy only
It is commonly thought that limitation periods prohibit a person from suing out of time, however this is inaccurate.
Limitation periods are not a mandatory prohibition on suing that bar the Court from having jurisdiction (power) to hear the claim. They instead provide a defence available for defendants when proceedings are brought out of time, which must be specifically pleaded to be upheld. Unless a plaintiff can show that an exception would overcome the limitation period hurdle, the defence, once pleaded, must defeat the parts of the claim brought out of time.
When the cause of action arises
Time starts to run for the purposes of the limitation period once the cause of action arises/accrues.
The cause of action ordinarily arises as soon as a plaintiff is entitled to sue. Usually, this means when the plaintiff has suffered actual loss, because the wrongful acts or omissions said to have caused the loss must have occurred before the loss was suffered. From that moment, the relevant limitation period starts to run.
Common limitation periods in Queensland
The Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) imposes the following limitation periods in Queensland:
· 6 years for an action founded on simple contract or quasi-contract or on tort where the damages claimed by the plaintiff do not consist of or include damages in respect of personal injury to any person
· 6 years to enforce an award or recognisance
· 6 years for an account or a specialty
· 12 years to enforce a judgment
· 2 years to recover a penalty or forfeiture, or a sum by way of a penalty or forfeiture
· 1 year for defamation actions
· 3 years for personal injury, save for cases of a dust-related condition or child abuse
· 12 years to recover land
· 2 years for action for contribution under the Law Reform Act 1995 or 4 years after the limitation period for the principal action, whichever is the earliest.
In Brisbane City Council v Amos [2019] HCA 27, the High Court unanimously held that where a cause of action is subject to two or more limitation periods, a Defendant is entitled to plead and rely on the shorter limitation period.
In some circumstances, the limitation period will be or can be extended.
Read full article here: https://sterlinglawqld.com/the-law-of-limitation-periods
Types of appeals in Queensland and the Federal Courts
Not all types of appeals in the law are the same.
Different rules and principles in how they are conducted and decided apply, depending on the nature of the appeal in question.
Appeals in the law are creatures of statute: Attorney-General v Sillem [1864] EngR 352; (1864) 10 HLC 704 at 720-721, Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35, Deane J at [4], R v Ferguson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 227 at [20]. In other words, they never existed at common law, but were instead…
Types of appeals in Queensland and the Federal Courts — Sterling Law QLD
How you can save on legal fees — Sterling Law QLD
This post discussed why legal fees tend to be so high. The good news is that as a client there are a number of ways you can reduce your legal fees, as the rest of this article will show. Be proactive Most clients only come to see a lawyer when they are in legal trouble. Unfortunately, by…
How you can save on legal fees — Sterling Law QLD
Christian Porter withdraws defamation case against the ABC — Sterling Law QLD
Former Attorney-General Christian Porter has agreed to discontinue his claim for damages against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) after the national broadcaster published a number of articles and programs about allegations he had raped a member of his debating team in the late 1980s. The outcome comes days after after Porter lost high…
Christian Porter withdraws defamation case against the ABC — Sterling Law QLD
Sue Chrysanthou SC restrained from representing Christian Porter — Sterling Law QLD
Defamation specialist Sue Chrysanthou SC has been restrained by a Federal Court judge from representing former Attorney General Christian Porter in his defamation suit against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and its star reporter Louise Milligan. This is a blow for Porter, who had engaged Sue Chrysanthou SC after the ABC aired allegations that he…
Sue Chrysanthou SC restrained from representing Christian Porter — Sterling Law QLD
Jarryd Hayne sentenced to five years and nine months imprisonment for sexual assault — Sterling Law QLD
Rugby league star Jarryd Hayne was found guilty of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. Hayne had pleaded not guilty and denied sexually assaulting the then 26-year-old woman at her home at Fletcher, on Newcastle’s outskirts, in September 2018. THE TRIALS His first trial in Newcastle last year ended in a hung jury, however…
Jarryd Hayne sentenced to five years and nine months imprisonment for sexual assault — Sterling Law QLD
Treatment Authorities under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) — Sterling Law QLD
What is a treatment authority? A treatment authority is an order made by an authorised doctor for the treatment of a person with a mental illness without that person’s consent. A treatment authority order can authorise the involuntary detention of the person receiving treatment at a mental health facility, or community-based treatment.
Treatment authorities in Queensland are made under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld)
Treatment Authorities under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) — Sterling Law QLD
