AVA Dispute Resolution in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia | Lawyer & law firm

AVA Dispute Resolution

Locality: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Phone: +61 416 585 913

Address: 450 St Kilda Road 3004 Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Website: https://www.avadisputeresolution.com/

Likes: 60

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Lawyer & law firm

24.01.2022 A property purchase is normally one of the biggest contracts ever signed by a person, so it’s normal to feel apprehensive about it. Accordingly, a very normal reaction is to use one’s favourite internet browser and/or social media to quench the need for responses. As there are a lot of articles, guidance, and FAQ’s, it is quite probable that the anxiety will recede with some very valid answers. But, it is important to remember that property laws vary from Australian state to ...Continue reading

24.01.2022 Earlier this month the Full Federal Court provided very useful guidance on the understanding of unconscionable conduct in the course of trade or commerce. The Court has made absolutely clear that the existence of unconscionable conduct should be assessed not by reference to the vulnerability of the person subject to it. Instead, the analysis of unconscionable conduct is to be referred to the actions of the person or business engaging in that sort of activity. In the decision ...of the Court, the following examples were given: 1) taking advantage of its superior bargaining position; 2) letters in which deliberately false representations were made; 3) not disclosing commercial associations; 4) unilaterally imposing the accreditation guidelines; Australian Consumer Law is frequently oversight by businesses and persons engaged in trade or commerce, but provides an essential legal framework, even when not dealing with consumers. https://www.accc.gov.au//full-federal-court-ruling-provide

22.01.2022 https://www.avadisputeresolution.com/blog/on-the-road-again #ConsumerRights #Warranty #consumerlaw #mechanic

20.01.2022 A very damming report related to the practices of the Public Trustee of Queensland has been published by the state's Public Advocate. The report made 32 recommendations, which are reported to have been accepted "on principle" (not sure if this means accepted "on its merits" or accepted "in principle"). Yet, it is unclear when the measures will be implemented and it does appear that the office of the Public Trustee of Queensland has a different view about the real state of aff...airs. Just a couple of examples of the recommendations: "Recommendation 11: Do not profit from administration clients unless expressly permitted by law" "Recommendation 20: Review the practice of only investing in Public Trustee investment products". These recommendations need to be put in context: A trustee develops a position of trust, i.e. someone that has been commended to develop a role in good faith. Profiting is not allowed; remuneration is. Therefore, a recommendation that there should be no profit unless authorised by law is quite telling. Another big no-no for trustees is conflict of interest. Yet, if there is a practice to invest in one's products, then it may be in breach of that fundamental obligation. The biggest issue about this situation is that most people whose assets are administered by the Public Trustee are vulnerable. Therefore, their likelihood (and ability) to challenge the management of their affairs is limited. Additionally, even when dealing with non-vulnerable people, there is an assumption that the Public Trustee must be operating within the law. It is, after all, a public institution. The report should be taken as an opportunity to review the role and practice of Public Trustees, not only in Queensland but elsewhere in Australia. See more

17.01.2022 Scott Pape, aka the Barefoot investor, has made headlines again for his comments about eToro, a (according to their website) "social trading platform". We make no assumptions of any kind about the validity of the discussion and arguments put forward. This post attempts to give a better understanding of what is the discussion about. When a person makes a misleading statement in a non-financial context, their action may be in breach of Australian Consumer Law. However, in a fin...ancial context, it is necessary to obtain a licence from ASIC and be subject to strict controls. In the same way that Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading statements, section 1041F of the Corporations Act prohibits statements that are misleading, false or deceptive. Other sections go into greater detail about this kind of conduct and its consequences. The whole purpose of the statement is to induce people to deal in financial products. Now, one could say that financial companies always insert a disclaimer that the person should get independent financial advice and that you may have a loss as a result of their financial product. Maybe so, but the important thing is: have the actions of the person accused of misleading induced the person to act? Disclaimers put people on notice, but they cannot be above the law. For example, the High Court of Australia considered only last week that personal financial product advice was being given when the person receiving the advice understood that his/her personal objectives were being considered. That was despite a disclaimer given to the recipients of the advice. That is, in very general terms, the gist of the discussion. https://au.finance.yahoo.com//barefoot-etoro-013626786.html See more

15.01.2022 Social media is great for many things. But it is also a source of scams and opportunistic fraudsters. In less than a week, we have received a few offers to become rich or to make thousands of dollars, from home, and doing little more than clicking on the indicated link. As we are cautious by nature, we have given those offers a miss. On a less obvious scale, there are job offers that could appear legitimate, but that may have a sting in their tail. Everyone has encountered a ...job offer too good to be true or the very same job offer posted weekly by the same recruitment agency. It may well be that those offers are legitimate; well, the one response on Facebook saying that the author, on impending death, was just looking for someone to bequeath her assets to and that maybe we would be interested is quite likely a scam. Beyond blocking the person or ignoring the offer, it is important to remember that Australian Consumer Law does prohibit, and sanction, that kind of behaviour. When it comes to job offers, section 31 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading conduct in relation to employment. The conduct may amount to a criminal offence: under s 153 ACL and can be sanctioned quite significantly. If the offer is about business activity, sections 37 and 159 prohibit making representations regarding, amongst others, the profitability of a business venture. Incidentally, this is quite crucial for those dealing with franchises and selling businesses. The penalties attached are also quite significant. Now, someone might say that some of the offerors are not based in Australia. However, the sanctions can be imposed on those based outside of Australia for their action and activities in Australia. It has happened before and it will happen in the future. Of course, some of the scammers may not be deterred by this; ultimately, it's a numbers game. But their gambling may prove too expensive for their own good. See more

13.01.2022 Can you, as social media Group Admin, be held liable as the publisher in a defamation case? Although the courts have not responded to that question conclusively (to the best of our knowledge), there are elements to consider that it is quite possible. Imagine the situation: you manage a social media group as Group Admin and a member of that group vents and goes wild in the comments made against a company or a person. (Even if corporations of more than 10 full-time employees ca...nnot sue for defamation, someone associated with the company can in relation to their personal reputation). The latest defamation cases, but in particular Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2020] NSWCA 102 and Trkulja v Google LLC (2018) 263 CLR 149, could indicate that Group Admins can be considered publishers and may be liable. We explain why below: Firstly, take into account that a publisher is someone who disseminates content, whether created by the publisher or not. In Trkulja v Google, Google was considered a publisher of the content that it makes available to others. Therefore the rule is perfectly applicable to a Group Admin that makes it possible for others to comment and discuss with others. Secondly, in Voller, the court held that the admins of a Facebook page exercise control over the comments posted and have the ability to remove them. The same could be said of a Group Admin. Now, in Voller it was considered that Page Admins could object that the dissemination of defamatory content was innocent. For that, the Admin will have to prove that he or she was unaware of the defamatory nature of the content and that there was no negligence on the part of the Admin to that extent. This would mean that the Admin would not have liability, even if it was found to be a publisher. As said above, to the best of our knowledge this has not been tried before. But a good practice would be to: 1. Make clear rules about comments on the Group page; and 2. Monitor comments that could be defamatory. It is important to remember that not all defamatory comments are going to be obviously so to everyone.

10.01.2022 https://www.avadisputeresolution.com/blog-/in-the-dog-house #licencelending #licenseleasing #registeredbuilder #qualifiedbuilder

07.01.2022 A few days ago (19 February 2021) the County Court (so, a case of first instance and therefore appealable) reminded us that a Construction Management Contract IS a domestic building contract for the purposes of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic). Moreover, the Court also dealt with the issue of progress payments and the consequences of retaining money by the builders. Incidentally, it also mentioned in passing the question of payments made to third parties by the ...builder. So, although strictly speaking the case would not create a precedent, the truth of the matter is that the decision is reminding us of legal principles already established. Put it differently, it is a case to pay attention to. The case is: Cameron v Stephens [2021] VCC 127 and can be read in full here: https://jade.io/viewArticle.html. The important takeaways, in brief: A Construction Management Contract for a domestic building (and note that the definition is fairly broad) is subject to the Domestic Building Contract Act. So, someone who arranges the carrying of domestic building work is subject to that legislation. This is not something new, otherwise, but clearly something to be borne in mind. Sometimes the parties (the builder, normally), will prefer to negotiate progress payments with the owner. This is acceptable, but then the parties will need to agree in writing using the specific forms (annexed to the Regulations). Failure to do this means that the owner would be entitled to pay only the maximum set out in the law and the owner would be entitled to recover any excess paid to the builder. Another timely reminder is that the contract price includes payments to third parties, but the amounts payable to those third parties are held on trust on their behalf. So, it is not possible to ask those third parties to recover their amounts from the owner. The alternative to this would be the creation of a construction account for payment of third parties and to have those third parties contracting with the owners directly. But this would need to be carefully managed from the outset. Every case is different, but the decision is a timely reminder that the Domestic Building Contracts Act intends to provide a consumer protection character (as stated in the judgment) to the owners.

05.01.2022 Rebecca owns a property (land with a house) with her siblings. They are tenants in common. She wants to transfer her share and finds that the other siblings are not interested in neither buying it nor having her sell her share it to a third party. The possible scenarios for her would be: 1) transfer her share to a third party: very difficult option since a third party would need to buy and share the property with unknown co-owners; 2) force the sale of the property or apply f...or a redistribution of ownership. The way to go ahead with the different options varies from state to state in Australia. But I will only consider the second one. For example, in NSW, for example, the consequence of such application to the court will mean that the court will appoint a trustee. The matter is then taken out of the hands of the co-owners and the trustee will have the duty to sell the property or act for the benefit of the owners. This system reflects the traditional approach in England and Wales. In Western Australia, the application to the court would request that the property would be sold, but the court may also arrange an internal transfer. In Victoria, the VCAT will be able to deal with the request of the parties, whether it is to sell or to divide ownership in a different manner. The systems vary, but the outcome is the same: a co-owner in a tenancy in common cannot be forced to maintain that ownership. That said, it is important to note that there may be restrictive covenants affecting the disposal of property. That will also need to be considered.

04.01.2022 Uno para nuestra comunidad hispanohablante en Australia. Entrevista policial... con sugerencias para evitar un mal trago. https://www.avadisputeresolution.com/bl/entrevista-policial #entrevistapolicial #interrogatorio #testigo #interprete

02.01.2022 https://www.avadisputeresolution.com/bl/mi-pequeno-corvette #carro #ACCIDENTE_DE_TRÁNSITO #daños #SinSeguro

02.01.2022 https://www.sydney.edu.au//push-for-change-to-elder-abuse-

01.01.2022 https://www.avadisputeresolution.com//another-brick-in-the #renovation #renovating #builders #licensedbuilder #buildinginsurance