GD Lawyers in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia | Lawyer & law firm
GD Lawyers
Locality: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Phone: +61 7 3423 3555
Address: 8a/2902 Logan Road 4119 Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Website: http://www.gdlawyers.com.au/
Likes: 175
Reviews
to load big map
14.01.2022 Common Law. We've all heard the term but what does it mean? My approach is to say that it's "The law that's common to us all". Where did it come from? Medieval England where Magistrates used to go from town to town and preside in local courts. They would make decisions based on local community expectations (each local village had different expectations and standards) whilst being consistent with legal principles based on mutual understandings of the intent of the Magna C...arta ( the first piece of "legislation" known to the Common Law world). Initially there was no legislation other than the Magna Carta; only the court records (case law precedents which is still relied on today) thereafter. The system became so overloaded and dysfunctional that it caused rules to be drafted so as to unify court decisions; hence legislation was born and community expectations and standards were joined to make rules that were, in essence, "common". See more
12.01.2022 Section 754 of the Criminal Code makes the penalty for evading police a minimum of 50 penalty units (currently $6,750.00) or 50 days in jail with the maximum being 200 penalty units or 200 days in jail. A recent decision of the District Court of Appeal upheld a Magistrate's decision to impose 2 years probation.
09.01.2022 We hear it time and time again. They get charged with possessing an unlawful item, e.g.:- 1. A dangerous drug. 2. Utensil (e.g. for smoking cannabis). 2. Suspected stolen property. 3. Tainted property.... And other like things etc. They want to argue that, because they don't "own" the item, then they shouldn't be charged. Sometimes a mate says he/she will tell the cops they own the 'thing'. The key word in these charges is "possession"; not ownership. It's not relevant as to who owns the item. If the unlawful object is in your possession then the charge is made out.
09.01.2022 I was recently asked to comment on the following hypothetical case: MA resides in other country C and files a civil action against MB who resides in country D. Both men are within jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. MA comes to country D and plants himself outside premises of MB. An assault ensues against an associate of MA by an associate of MB. ... Your legal opinion please because I am literally batting my head against a brick wall here trying to convey the result I see due to antagonism. It should be stated MA claims an extreme fear of MB. Response: Every country is considered to be separate from any other and all countries have their own laws which cannot be interfered with by any other country. This is known as sovereignty. Being a commonwealth country doesn't change this. e.g. Australia is not bound by the laws of the U.K. On 24/10/1648 the Treaty of Westphalia was signed thus ending the 30 Years War in Europe which in turn established sovereignty throughout the world, has been followed ever since and is endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Thus, when anyone enters a country they become subject only to the laws of that country. The law in the country from which they came no longer applies to them whilst they remain in the country they are visiting. Assuming this incident was in Australia all of the parties are only bound by Australian law and, as you know, an assault is a criminal offence. There would also be another offence committed by placing himself outside the other's place which is known as 'stalking'. The dictionary definition of antagonism is to "actively express opposition or hostility". To antagonize may be construed as breaching the peace but you would want to know more facts so as to determine which offence has occurred in this regard. Sometimes an antagonistic action may not attract an offence punishable by law. In relation to this matter it appears the parties are known to each other thus the action of placing himself outside the place of the other would be considered antagonistic; that is to say a detriment has been caused to the party being offended. There is no Australian law that says antagonism (the word literally standing alone) is an offence punishable by law.
06.01.2022 Some of the things you should know about drafting your Will and settling your estate when you have passed on When you draft your Will you will need to nominate at least one person to be your Executor (the person/s who be responsible for settling (finalizing) your estate according to the terms of your Will). There is no legislative format for drafting Wills; they are a creature of common law so the terms should be consistent with current legislation and case law and written ...in plain English. If you have a Will that is drafted in a way that appears to be ‘ancient’ then you may find that it is not compliant because the law is always constantly changing and evolving hence these old precedents can be seriously flawed. In Queensland it is not mandatory to obtain a Grant of Probate from the Supreme Court before commencing to settle an estate. However, most financial institutions (e.g. banks) will usually not release any of the deceased’s funds that exceed $40-50,000.00 until the Executor has Probate (this is their usual policy; it’s not a legislative requirement). Where an estate is not of any substantial value (e.g. it consists only of say a motor vehicle and personal items) then it is not considered to be financially conducive to obtain Probate. Your Executor will actually have three titles (wear three ‘hats’):- 1. Executor - pursuant to the Succession Act - responsibilities:- (a) Distribute your estate according to the terms of your Will. 2. Trustee - pursuant to the Trusts Act - responsibilities:- (a) Bound by the legal obligations imposed upon a Trustee that encompass the management of all assets and liabilities. (b) All financial responsibilities - engross all monies and pay all debts (liabilities) before distributing any funds to the beneficiaries. (c) Issue a trust statement to all of the beneficiaries once the estate is finalized. 3. Personal Representative - pursuant to the Property Law Act and the Land Titles Act - responsibilities:- (a) Distribute any real property you may have. (b) Notes:- (i) Only a living person can execute a Contract of Sale; therefore (ii) The Executor must apply to the Titles Office to have any of the deceased’s property registered in his/her name/s before they can distribute/sell any property even if they are also a beneficiary; i.e. if they are to inherit either the whole or a part of the property they have to transfer their entitlement into their own name. (iii) If you ever come across a Contract of Sale where the seller’s name has ‘PR’ written after their name this will indicate that the seller is acting for a deceased’s estate. (iv) Probate provides for the least expensive and most efficient method to manage property with the Titles Office and, as such, is highly recommended. See more
02.01.2022 The defendant has submitted, An nteresting day today. I've blown out 2 tyres in 3 months. Same wheel both times. It turns out you're supposed to check tyre pressure weekly... Guy at shop tells me it blew out because I'm driving long distances on fairly flattish tyres... How am I only learning the general rules of car maintenance now??? I think my sons all need to move back home because they did all this crazy car stuff. Analogy: I'm being somewhat sarcastic in a humorous wa...y. I don't want to be critical because to do so is to suggest that your responsibility is you should have known or ought to have known. You know as well as I do what that means. That is to say It may be argued that if you own and drive a motor vehicle then you should know or to have known the consequences of not maintaining your vehicle as you owe the vehicle a duty of care and also the general public the same duty of care so as to avoid placing the public in harms way. Apply the "but for test". However, you may have a defense in terms of a "mistake of fact" being that the fact that, as someone else was attending to the duty of care, the fact is there isn't any evidence to suggest that this other person's adopted and executed responsibility automatically transferred to you once they had vacated your premises. See more
