Peta Jones

Manager ordered to pay $500,000.00 for breach of contract. Case Reference: AEI Insurance Group Pty Ltd v Martin (No 4) [2024] FCA 1110. In a recent Federal Court ruling, AEI Insurance Group Pty Ltd v Martin (No 4) [2024] FCA 1110, an account manager was ordered to pay $500,000 to his former employer for soliciting clients in breach of his contract. The case underscores the importance of protecting client relationships and highlights the legal consequences of contract breaches. AEI Insurance Group took action against the manager, who had been the face of its Queensland business, after 21 clients followed him to competitor MA Brokers. Despite obtaining an injunction to stop further solicitation, another 25 clients moved to MA Brokers before the injunction was lifted. The court relied on circumstantial evidence to determine the manager’s wrongdoing. This included diary notes, client communications, and the manager's own admissions about contacting clients using his work phone. Efforts to recover evidence were hampered by the suspicious destruction of two of the manager’s phones—one immersed in water and another run over by a lawnmower. Justice Thomas Thawley found that the manager had tampered with evidence and had likely solicited 16 clients directly, playing a role in the migration of 29 more. The judge emphasised the legitimacy of AEI’s interest in protecting its customer connections and determined that a 12-month restraint period was reasonable. AEI was awarded $500,000 in damages, reflecting the financial loss caused by the breach, while accounting for clients who may have left regardless of solicitation. At Saines Legal, we are experts in employment law, offering customised advice on how to safeguard your business from contractual breaches and protect your valuable client connections. Whether you need assistance drafting contracts or navigating complex disputes, our team is here to support your business. Contact us today for tailored legal solutions that meet your needs. (07) 3324 1055 [email protected] www.saineslegal.com.au #employmentlaw #fairwork #employeeRights #workplacedisputes

1

The ACMA has requested Australian internet service providers block more websites after investigations found the services to be operating in breach of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Website blocking is one of a range of enforcement options to protect Australians against illegal online gambling. This action can be taken if a service is: • providing prohibited interactive gambling services to customers in Australia (such as online casinos, online slot machines and services that allow in-play online sports betting) • providing an unlicensed regulated interactive gambling service to customers in Australia (such as online betting services that don’t have a valid Australian licence) • publishing ads for prohibited interactive gambling services or unlicensed regulated interactive gambling services in Australia. Since the ACMA made its first blocking request, 1,011 illegal gambling and affiliate websites have been blocked. Over 220 illegal services have also pulled out of the Australian market since the ACMA started enforcing new illegal offshore gambling rules in 2017. Find out more information at https://lnkd.in/gfi4YG4B

2

Very interesting developments announced by the Australian Government regarding the draft legislation that implements the Scams Prevention Framework. 👉 The framework is an economy‑wide reform to protect the Australian community from scams. 👉 The framework takes a whole‑of‑ecosystem approach to reduce gaps which scammers can exploit. 👉 The framework drives action against scams through strong obligations. It includes: a) tough penalties for non‑compliance and b) dispute resolution pathways for consumers to seek redress. 👉 Participants in the sectors must have measures to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams. 👉 he framework will first apply to a) banks, b) telecommunications and digital platform service providers (beginning with: social media, paid search engine advertising and direct messaging services). A couple of own thoughts on this matter: ◾ The Scam Prevention Framework represents a significant escalation in Australia's fight against the surge of online fraud and scams. ◾ Except for imposing hefty fines for non-compliance, the key innovation is the fact that the Framework extends accountability to key players in the digital economy incl. banks, telcos and social media platforms. ◾ This move gives a strong signal on how responsibility for fraud prevention is distributed across industries that have long been considered as facilitators of scams, rather than combatants. ◾ By enforcing a broader liability framework the Scam Prevention Framework puts on the spotlight industries that benefit from the digital economy but sidestep the responsibility for losses caused by scams on their platforms. ◾ The provision of victim compensation is indeed a stark change. ◾ The Scam Prevention Framework recognizes that the voluntary Australian Online Scams code and other similar measures remain insufficient; the code's mandatory code puts emphasis on the collective responsibility across actors. ◾ The Scam Prevention Framework allows for the creation of a more integrated and accountable digital economy especially leveraging the real-time intelligence sharing among industries. ◾ It is critical to note that the Scam Prevention Framework's effectiveness will heavily depend on the enforcement mechanisms, the commitment from industries to comply and the willingness to heavily invest on anti-scam and fraud prevention capabilities. ◾ What the Scam Prevention Framework should also include is mandatory public education, especially financial and digital literacy, to empower consumers to identify scams before they occur. #scams #fraud #scamsprevention #scampreventionframework #scamsaustralia #antiscamaustralia #fraudprevention #fraudpreventionaustralia #fintechinsights

9

I have attended a total of 4 meetings today on: * Foundational supports * Provider Registration * Issues with sole traders, needing to have business findings, and meeting business compliance under work health and safety, Australian consumer law, and a few others. * Every Australian count's webinar Only one of those meetings had a clear plan. Anything specific to the new legislation, including what the changes are coming and when they will properly take effect, was as clear as mud, and that is no reflection on the presenters or organisers. There is a discussion that some things may end up being back in parliament for further legislation changes, and given what we have just been for, that is something I think is going to add to stress and anxiety. Right now, we are seeing: * Participants running out of funding * Providers face lengthy payment blocks, which result in their business having to stop functioning, still not getting paid at the end, and effectively having to start over again. * Many sole traders have nothing in place and wonder why they are facing work health and safety fines and having their payments declined. That is just the beginning. Whilst change is one thing and is a challenge for many of us, what is making it even harder is announcements of changes without a clear definition of what they mean and timeframes. To say SIL and Support coordinators are to be registered. It will be going into consultation on what that looks like in October, and no timeframe for the businesses to be registered is creating panic amongst everyone. Sure, there is the current registration system, but if it is going to change, why not change it and then say okay: "We are starting with SIL and Support coordinators in the new registration process; here it is and start applying now!" To add to the stress, many support coordinators cannot meet the audit prices. Then there is the whole. A new list of NDIS support is coming on the 3rd of October, but that is a draft list, and then it's unclear how it is all implemented. I really do appreciate the people putting these information sessions together. They have each done a great job, and I am grateful to be part of working committees. However, today, I am exhausted. I am doing my best to make sense of it all, and I have read the legislation multiple times. At the end of the day... full implementation of the new legislation could be years away; who knows? Please take care of yourself and take your time to have some fun and rest; we are all going to need our energy in the coming months. I am sending out hugs to anyone who is struggling right now. I know it is a virtual hug, but it is something. I am exhausted from it all and will have an evening to myself!

19

7 Comments

In pre-election mode, the Australian government is progressing a range of legislative reforms that they want to see enacted by Parliament by the end of the year. One of these is a scam prevention framework, designed to target banks, telcos and digital platform operators (at first). Exposure draft legislation has been published, with submissions due by 4 October. This looks like a significant reform. Breaches of the legislation would attract significant penalties if enforced by a regulator (for example, A$50 million), but there would also be rights for consumers and small businesses to recover damages if they can prove that they suffered loss or damage as a result of a contravention of the new law by a regulated entity. The Australian government's scamwatch initiative reports that there have been losses of approx $160m from approx 164K scams in 2024. Together with my colleagues Kate Jackson-Maynes, Peta Stevenson, Amanda Engels and Hal Bolitho, we've published an overview of the proposal and set out some thoughts on issues likely to arise if the draft bill was enacted. https://lnkd.in/g8Gy9h2T

29

1 Comment

The ACMA has requested Australian internet service providers block more websites to protect Australians against illegal online gambling services. ACMA investigations found the services to be operating in breach of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. This action can be taken if a service is: • providing prohibited interactive gambling services to customers in Australia (such as online casinos, online slot machines and services that allow in-play online sports betting) • providing an unlicensed regulated interactive gambling service to customers in Australia (such as online betting services that don’t have a valid Australian licence) • publishing ads for prohibited interactive gambling services or unlicensed regulated interactive gambling services in Australia. Since the ACMA made its first blocking request, 975 illegal gambling and affiliate websites have been blocked. Over 220 illegal services have pulled out of the Australian market since the ACMA started enforcing new illegal offshore gambling rules in 2017. Find out more: https://lnkd.in/gCBJpyd2

6

Here is part one of an abridged set of key messages covers the DPO Coalition meeting in September 2024. A link to the full document will be in DPA's next info exchange. The DPO Coalition acknowledged the passing of Kiingi Tuuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII. We welcome the news of the new Kuini, Nga Wai Hono I te Po. LJ Apaipo (Mana Pasefika) was present at the events at Turangawaewae. The Coalition met with the Electoral Commission Community Engagement team. We talked about increasing disabled people’s participation in voting, starting with increasing the number of disabled people enrolled to vote. The Electoral Commission team shared some ideas for increasing disabled people’s participation in elections. We also talked about the importance of having accessible information in alternate formats, so that disabled people are able to participate in elections. The Coalition met with a team from the Donald Beasley Institute to talk about their progress report for the Disabled Person-Led Monitoring of the UNCRPD in Aotearoa New Zealand. We discussed how this research is important to the disability community given the recent government changes and reviews of Whaikaha | Ministry of Disabled People, Disability Support Services and Enabling Good Lives. We will work with the Donald Beasley Institute to release these reports once they are completed. The Reserve Bank has a survey about digital cash out for the disability community to respond to. We encourage disabled people and whānau to fill out the survey. https://lnkd.in/g7mySPUk It closes on 30 September 2024. A link to the survey is here: https://lnkd.in/gHgC8Kh6 The Coalition met with Whaikaha The Ministry of Disabled People. We communicated our disappointment with Whaikaha’s recent changes. We also discussed disabled people’s concerns about disability support services moving to MSD. This included people concerned about disabled people’s needs not being met through the reduction in support services and limited funding for equipment. The conversation focused on ‘where to next’ and we will continue to work with Whaikaha - The Ministry of Disabled People to make sure that disabled people’s voices are included as it is re-designed. We will also work with MSD and other agencies to make sure that disabled people’s concerns about cuts to services and support are heard.  

1

Ahead of tomorrow’s Melbourne Cup, a trade mark law case about QUADDIE COVER seems appropriate. Large sports betting agency, Entain Group Pty Ltd, sought to register the trade mark QUADDIE COVER in Australia for betting services. Its trade mark application was initially accepted for registration, but acceptance was revoked under s.41(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). This section provides for rejection if a mark has limited adaptation to distinguish. The examiner’s view was that: "A QUADDIE (quadrella) bet is a type of bet aimed at picking the winners of four nominated races. A COVER bet allows betters to get their stake back (or a similar promotional offering, such as a free bet) if their selection doesn't win but meets certain other criteria. Therefore, as a whole, your trade mark indicates that the claimed services are, or are conducted in relation to, a COVER bet for QUADDIES (quadrellas)." Entain took the matter to a hearing before the Trade Marks Office. In its submissions, it relied on previous decisions involving marks of another betting agency, Sportsbet Pty Ltd. In those cases, the Hearing Officer found the marks EXOTIC RESCUE, FIRST4 RESCUE, QUINELLA RESCUE and TOTE RESCUE were inherently adapted to distinguish and qualified for registration. The first words EXOTIC/FIRST4/QUINELLA/TOTE were found to be commonly understood by a significant proportion of Australian consumers with an interest in betting as indicating a particular type of bet. The second word ‘rescue’ meant to save. The Hearing Officer considered that the ordinary signification of each marks therefore was to indicate a product/service that will 'save' or 'rescue' an exotic/first4/quinella/tote bet. However, in the case of a mark such as FIRST4RESCUE, whilst it indicated that a customer’s bet was not lost if one or more of the horses failed to place as predicted, it couldn't be ascertained from the mark if a customer received a cashback or bonus credit if the bet meet the criteria for the promotion. Therefore, the marks were found to convey only a 'covert and skilful allusion' to betting services. This logic applied to QUADDIE COVER. Whilst it was possible to ascertain that the ordinary signification of QUADDIE COVER was to indicate a product/service that permitted punters to get their stake (or other promotional offering) back if their selection didn't win, it wasn't apparent what the term meant. This was because the stake back received depended on what was on offer and could change depending on the promotional offer. It was, the Hearing Officer determined, a 'covert and skilful' allusion to betting services and therefore, was accepted for registration. My Melbourne Cup tip: Okita Soushi with Jamie Kah to continue her winning form from Saturday's Penfolds Victoria Derby. 

8

1 Comment

We have released our latest #licensing and professional registration update to assist current and prospective Australian financial services and credit licensees to understand the licensing regime. The report provides the latest information on registration and licence applications from the 2023–24 financial year and key changes to licensing processes. It also discusses current and emerging licensing issues including in relation to digital (#crypto) assets, buy now pay later (#BNPL) services, and payments systems. We exceeded our ASIC Service Charter targets for finalising AFS licence applications within 150 days, with: 🔷 1,531 licensing and registration applications received 🔷 1,246 applications for new and varied licences finalised 🔷 280 new AFS licenses and 143 new credit licenses granted. ‘ASIC’s licensing and professional registration function plays a key gatekeeping role by ensuring new licensees and registered professionals meet the necessary thresholds,’ ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said. ‘This year we are continuing to improve ASIC’s licensing processes and systems through our stakeholder and applicant engagement process.’ Read more https://lnkd.in/gqeCsVkT #regulatory #credit #FinancialServices

67

3 Comments

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus KC MP has indicated that privacy reforms will be brought forward to August 2024. Current privacy legislation provides limited protections for individual privacy, and at present, there is no recourse for individuals where privacy is invaded in circumstances which fall outside the scope of the Privacy Act. Australian common law has not developed a tort of privacy, although the High Court of Australia has left this possibility open (in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] 208 CLR 199 and Smethurst v Commissioner of Police [2020] HCA 14). Against this background, there have been various law reform processes considering whether a tort of privacy should be introduced. In 2014, the Australia Law Reform Commission (ALRC) proposed a particular model for a statutory tort in its report, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era. The ALRC Model is a relatively technical cause of action. It will require a court to assess multiple complex questions of fact and law before liability is established, including: 1. The invasion of privacy must be either by: (a) intrusion into seclusion; or (b) misuse of private information 2. It must be proved that a person in the position of the plaintiff would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in all the circumstances. 3. The invasion must have been committed intentionally or recklessly – mere negligence is not sufficient. 4. the invasion must be "serious" 5. the invasion need not cause actual damage, and damages for emotional distress may be awarded, and 6. it is subject to a "balancing exercise" – the court must be satisfied that the public interest in privacy outweighs any countervailing public interests The 2014 model provides a variety of remedies including damages (including for emotional distress), account of profits, injunctions, correction and apology orders and declarations. On 16 February 2023, the Attorney General's Department conducted a review of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and related privacy issues. Those findings included a recommendation that "individuals have more agency to seek redress for interferences with their privacy through the courts", including by the introduction of a statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy, based on the ALRC Model. In the Government Response: Privacy Act Review published on 28 September 2023, it agreed in principle to introduce the statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. Businesses should take immediate steps to assess whether any business practices are likely to be affected by the introduction of this new law.   

9

1 Comment

The absence of a risk plan can expose a business to significant and varied risks, including:​   1:- Legal Issues: Not having a risk plan means breaking NDIS provider rules, which could lead to legal trouble.​ 2:- Money Problems: Without a plan, businesses might struggle with unexpected costs or economic changes, leading to financial losses.​ 3:- Disruptions: Things like supply chain issues or technology failures can disrupt operations without a plan to handle them, causing lost time and money. ​ 4:- Bad Reputation: Failing to deal with customer complaints or product problems can harm a business's image, making it hard to keep customers.​ 5:- Breaking Laws: Not managing risks properly can break laws or rules, leading to fines or lawsuits.​ 6:- Safety Concerns: Without a plan for safety hazards, businesses risk accidents or injuries to employees and customers.​ 7: Competition Loss: Ignoring changes in the market or new competitors can cause a business to lose customers and fall behind.​ 8: Bad Decision-Making: Not thinking about risks can lead to bad decisions or resource waste, making it hard to succeed.​ ​ In short, not having a risk plan can lead to legal troubles, financial losses, disruptions in operations, a damaged reputation, safety problems, losing to competitors, and making bad decisions. It's crucial for NDIS businesses to have a plan to manage these risks properly.​ .  .​ .​ .​ #ndisprovider #ndisregisteredprovider #vccg #ndiscompliance #riskmanagement #businessrisk #ndis #ndisconsultants #safetyfirst #compliance #reputationmanagement #competitiveadvantage​

1

The ACMA has requested Australian internet service providers block more websites to protect Australians against illegal online gambling and affiliate marketing services. ACMA investigations found the services to be operating in breach of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. This action can be taken if a service is: • providing prohibited interactive gambling services to customers in Australia (such as online casinos, online slot machines and services that allow in-play online sports betting) • providing an unlicensed regulated interactive gambling service to customers in Australia (such as online betting services that don’t have a valid Australian licence) • publishing ads for prohibited interactive gambling services or unlicensed regulated interactive gambling services in Australia. Since the ACMA made its first blocking request, 1,026 illegal gambling and affiliate websites have been blocked. Over 220 illegal services have pulled out of the Australian market since the ACMA started enforcing new illegal offshore gambling rules in 2017. Find out more: https://lnkd.in/gE5dxwd7

6

Tomorrow is shaping up to be a busy one for privacy lawyers... https://lnkd.in/gHVCS6ZD Reach out if you'd like to discuss the likely impacts and compliance requirements for your organisation, as well as how to get ahead of the anticipated second round of changes in 2025.

1

This report on the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) is relevant to the current Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) review of certain ACIC and Australian Federal Police powers. In particular, the report on the ACIC emphasises that the ACIC is as a criminal intelligence agency (recommendation 1) with its surveillance powers to be aligned with this function (recommendation 4) and that ACIC not have a function of undertaking operations that are primarily designed to disrupt criminal activity (recommendation 9). One of the questions for consultation in the recently released INSLM Issues Paper is whether the ACIC should continue to have access to data disruption warrants and account takeover warrants (see 3.21-3.23). https://lnkd.in/etV83-9b

9

Major Compliance Breach: Chatime Australia Fined $222,000 by The Fair Work Ombudsman The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has taken decisive action against Chatime Australia Pty Ltd, issuing a $222,000 penalty for failing to act on multiple contraventions of the Fair Work Act. This is a powerful wake-up call for franchisors and businesses alike to prioritise workplace compliance. What Happened? The FWO’s investigation found that Chatime failed to address serious breaches, including underpayment of workers and non-compliance with workplace laws. Alarmingly, this case highlights systemic issues within franchising networks, where accountability and compliance standards often fall short. Chatime's lack of action not only led to this significant financial penalty but also caused reputational damage—an impact that can linger long after the fines are paid. Key Lessons for Businesses 1️⃣ Accountability is Key: Franchisors can be held liable for non-compliance within their network. This reinforces the importance of setting and monitoring standards across all franchise operations. 2️⃣ Compliance Can’t Be Ignored: Ignorance of breaches or delayed action will not shield businesses from liability. The law is clear: compliance is a shared responsibility. 3️⃣ The Cost of Non-Compliance is High: Beyond penalties, businesses risk losing trust with employees, customers, and stakeholders. Rebuilding that trust is a long and costly process. How Complize Can Help At Complize, we simplify immigration and workforce compliance, offering a solution tailored to businesses operating in complex industries like franchising. Our platform helps ensure: ✅ Full visibility into compliance obligations. ✅ Proactive identification and resolution of potential breaches. ✅ Peace of mind, knowing your workforce remains compliant with Australian laws. The Chatime case is a sobering reminder of the need for robust compliance systems. Don’t let your business be the next headline—invest in compliance today. 📩 Learn more about Complize at https://hubs.la/Q02Zvw8r0 or book a demo to see how we can help protect your business. #FairWorkCompliance #WorkplaceCompliance #ImmigrationCompliance #Franchising #Complize #BusinessSolutions

8

The OAIC's concise statement on its Federal Court proceedings against Medibank was released this week. The Court's decision will provide important guidance on the information security requirements under APP 11.1, and also the penalties (and how they are calculated) for non-compliance. Read our Insights on the concise statement here: #privacylaw #ausprivacy #jws

28

For the victims of the Robodebt scheme, access to the sealed information is crucial for pursuing their own legal remedies. They need to know who was responsible, what actions were taken, & what the Royal Commission found, so they can build their cases or seek compensation. Transparency for Justice: Victims might feel that the withholding of this information denies them justice, as they are unable to hold those responsible accountable through civil suits or other legal actions. Balancing Legal Protections with Victims’ Rights. There is a fundamental conflict between protecting the integrity of the legal process for those who may be prosecuted & ensuring that victims have the information they need to pursue justice. This conflict highlights a gap in the system where the needs of victims may be sidelined to protect future legal proceedings. One approach could be a phased release of information, where victims are provided with enough details to pursue their own claims without fully unsealing the section. Another approach could involve allowing victims' legal representatives access under strict confidentiality agreements. Without access to the sealed section, victims may find it challenging to bring their cases, as they might lack crucial evidence that is necessary to prove their claims. This can lead to frustration and a sense of injustice, particularly when the government or public officials are involved. Victims also feel that they are being unfairly prevented from seeking justice, especially when the perpetrators are in positions of power. This could result in legal challenges or demands for the information to be made public. There is a strong ethical argument that victims have a right to know who was responsible for the harm they suffered, particularly in cases where the state is involved. This information is crucial for both healing and holding those responsible to account. Keeping the information sealed can undermine public trust, not just in the legal system, but in the government as well. Transparency is key to rebuilding trust & ensuring that justice is seen to be done.Conclusion:The protection of legal proceedings is important to ensure that those accused can have a fair trial. However, this should not come at the expense of victims' rights to seek justice. There needs to be a careful balance between these two imperatives. One potential way forward could be to explore mechanisms that allow victims to access the information they need without compromising the legal process, such as limited disclosures to legal representatives or phased releases. This would help ensure that justice is available to all parties, not just those who might be prosecuted. Peter Gregory Marie J. Graham Taylor Mark Sweeney Jarrod Sandell-Hay Rebeccah Van Hemert Samantha Connor Dr George Taleporos (GAICD, PhD) Peter Willcocks https://lnkd.in/gaAhHAwT

11

3 Comments

Australian Privacy Law Amendments - still some work to do? Now released, a link below to the full text of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, that is aimed at 23 of the 89 recommendations in the Privacy Act Review Report. There are a number of very significant reforms: ➡ Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy: Introducing a new cause of action for individuals to seek remedies for serious invasions of privacy ➡ Criminal Offences for Doxxing: Establishing targeted criminal offences to combat the malicious release of personal data online ➡ Broader Enforcement Powers for OAIC ➡ Development of a specific Children's Online Privacy Code ➡ Transparency in Automated Decision-Making ➡ Emergency Data Handling Provisions ➡ Other enhanced privacy protections - including clarification of reasonable security as requiring both organisational and technical measures There's certainly a lot in here to digest, even if it's only a partial response. 💡 One aspect I'm hopeful will be targeted next is how the Archives Act retention obligations should apply in the context of 21st century privacy protections. Obligations to retain Commonwealth Records can be very extensive and one aspect not addressed in these changes is what would be an appropriate balance between record keeping and privacy? ⏭ More to come including briefings from myself and colleagues. Please reach out if you're interested in knowing more. https://lnkd.in/gT89-ZpA Andrew Hilton; Geoff McGrath Leon Franklin #Governance #DigitalLaw #PrivacyLaw #DataPrivacy #Accountability #TechInnovation #PrivacyReforms #doxxing #digital #privacy

12