Brad Wright in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia | Legal service

Brad Wright

Locality: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Phone: +61 7 3007 1777

Address: Bennett Chambers, Level 6 Inns of Court, 107 North Quay 4000 Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Website: http://bradwright.legal

Likes: 120

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Lawyer & law firm
• Legal service

20.01.2022 Solicitors drafting contracts for health practitioners need to be aware of the risks for principals in some contracts. Moffet v Dental Corporation Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 344 A decision was handed down in this case on 15th March 2019. Interested persons can read the entirety of the judgement from the Federal Court of Australia website. It runs to some 36 pages.... Without an in-depth digestion of the case it is probably sufficient to say the majority of the relevant case law going back some years in Australia is undisturbed. Dr Moffet pursued a claim for unpaid leave and superannuation from Dental Corporation. However an important distinction is made in the case between a dentist who is a worker for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee Act and a dentist who is a worker for the purposes of the Fair Work Act and the Long Service leave Act (different in each state). Put simply as is well known- each of the three jurisdictions has very different definitions and applications in terms of worker, and employment. The Court ordered that superannuation be paid to Dr Moffet but not any leave pursuant to the Long Service Leave Act and the Fair Work Act. At [93] CONCLUSIONS 1 The claims for relief under the Fair Work Act fail. Dr Moffet was retained by Dental Corporation as an independent contractor and not as an employee. 2 The claim for relief founded upon the Long Service Leave Act also fails. Dr Moffet was not a worker within the meaning of that Act. 3 The claim founded upon the Superannuation Guarantee Act is accepted. Dr Moffet, it has been concluded, fell within the extended definition of employee in s 12(3) of the Act. 4 Pursuant to s 570 of the Fair Work Act, there should be no order as to costs. Employers and the principles and practices need to be aware that what is important is not the terms of the agreement so much is the way in which the parties conduct themselves. This is not new law. Finally it should be noted that no costs were awarded because the Fair Work Act generally in the all of its jurisdictions is a default no costs jurisdiction and the court decided not to impose a costs order.

19.01.2022 Since 2010, health practitioners who are charged with indictable offences have an obligation to inform the regulator. As counsel practising in the health law jurisdiction, I regularly am asked by health practitioners who have been charged or convicted when they advert to the need to inform the regulator - often too late. Often even experienced criminal solicitors and counsel do not advert to this important requirement which of course relates to candour. ... Practitioners can be and have been prosecuted for not fulfilling their responsibilities under the legislation in this regard. Because of the legislation has been in place for some nine years it is critical that criminal legal practitioners advert to the need to advise their health practitioner clients to be aware of their duties under section 130 of the health Practitioner Regulation National Law as operating in each state and territory. The relevant form to be completed and provided to AHPRA within seven days is the NOCE-00 on the AHPRA website. Brad Wright www.bradwright.legal

13.01.2022 Never Happens.....

04.01.2022 I think ‘Rake’ jumped the shark. It’s terrible.