On 26 March 2026, the Australian Government introduced an Arrival Control Determination under new federal legislation, banning Iranians who hold visitor visas from travelling to Australia.

The current determination is in force for six months from 26 March 2026. The Government has indicated it will continue to monitor the situation closely and may adjust settings if circumstances change.

This determination will only apply to people outside Australia who have a Visitor (Subclass 600) visa linked to an Iranian passport. Iranians already travelling in Australia, or in transit, will be exempt from the restrictions, along with spouses or dependent children of Australian citizens and permanent visa holders. Iranians holding any visa other than a Visitor visa (for example, skilled, student or partner visas) are not affected by this determination.

In limited and compassionate circumstances, a person may be allowed to travel if they are issued a Permitted Travel Certificate. These certificates are considered case by case, are expected to be issued only in a small number of situations and may be granted more readily where parents of Australian citizens are involved.

We’re here to help

Migration law can change quickly during times of international conflict, and the consequences of misunderstanding the rules can be serious.

If you or your family are affected by the Iran‑related travel restrictions — or if you are unsure how these changes apply to your situation — Dobson Mitchell Allport’s Migration Team can assist.

We can help you understand:

• whether you are affected by the new determination
• whether an exemption or Permitted Travel Certificate may be available
• alternative visa options
• how these changes may impact longer‑term migration plans

Please contact our Migration Team if you would like advice tailored to your circumstances.

The post New Australian Travel Restrictions Affect Iranian Visitor Visas appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania has clarified the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (TASCAT) authority to extend the time for objecting to a bill of costs under the workers compensation scheme. The Court’s decision also provides important guidance regarding the scope of this power.

The Case: Walker v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd [2026] TASSC 6

In this matter, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether TASCAT could extend a 14-day time limit stipulated in regulation 16 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Regulations 2021 (Tas). This regulation provides that, if no objection is filed within the prescribed period, a bill of costs is deemed to be admitted.

The Arguments

The worker had contended that regulation 16 was mandatory and left no room for an extension. However, TASCAT found that it possessed the power to extend the time limit under rule 11 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2021 (Tas), which allows the Tribunal to extend or abridge time limits. The worker appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Tasmania, arguing that TASCAT was wrong to decide that it had thepower to extend time.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

On appeal, Chief Justice Shanahan confirmed TASCAT’s decision. His Honour held that rule 11, made under section 115 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (Tas), grants TASCAT a broad discretionary power to extend time limits imposed by a “relevant Act”, including the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), even if the statutory period has expired. Regulation 16 deals with steps taken within ongoing proceedings before TASCAT and therefore falls within the Tribunal’s power to extend time.

Nature of Regulation 16 and the Power to Extend

The Court confirmed that regulation 16 remains a mandatory, deeming provision as had been found in prior cases. However, this does not preclude the availability of discretionary relief in suitable cases. The power to extend time, when properly interpreted, does not compromise the efficiency of the workers compensation scheme.

Distinction Between Types of Time Limits

Addressing concerns raised by the worker about the impact of the extension power on the efficient operation of the workers compensation scheme, Chief Justice Shanahan drew an important distinction between:

• time limits governing the commencement of proceedings, and
• time limits governing acts taken in relation to existing proceedings.

It was held that rule 11 applies only to the latter category. Rule 11 does not provide TASCAT with the power to extend time limits that govern the making of compensation claims or the commencement of proceedings in TASCAT.

Significance of the Decision

This decision provides valuable guidance for parties involved in workers compensation disputes. It confirms that strict procedural time limits continue to apply but that there is scope for extensions of time in relation to certain time limits within TASCAT proceedings so that unjust outcomes can be avoided.

The post TASCAT and Time Extensions in Costs Disputes appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The worker had been continuously certified as incapacitated since making a workers compensation claim in May 2022. He later resigned from his employment and was paid out approximately 16 weeks of accrued annual leave as a lump sum. Following this, the employer’s insurer wrote to the worker advising that he could not receive workers compensation payments and annual leave at the same time, and weekly payments were stopped. The worker applied to the Tribunal for the resumption of weekly payments.

Both parties relied on an earlier decision of the former Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, commonly referred to as the Ausdoc case. In that decision, the Chief Commissioner determined that a lump sum payment of annual leave could be set off against a worker’s entitlement to weekly payments.

In this case, the employer relied on section 84(2) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) as the basis for suspending payments. Relevantly, that section provides that a worker is not entitled to weekly compensation payments while taking annual recreational leave or long service leave during a period of incapacity, where that leave is taken in accordance with section 84(1)(b).

Section 84(1)(b) allows a worker and employer, by agreement, to take annual leave during a period of incapacity for which workers compensation is payable. The key issue for the Tribunal was whether the worker had “taken” annual leave in accordance with that provision.

The Tribunal found that he had not. It held that the worker was no longer an employee at the time the annual leave was paid out and, as a result, could not have taken annual leave by agreement with the employer for the purposes of section 84(1)(b). The Tribunal drew a clear distinction between taking annual leave during employment and the payment of accrued leave as a lump sum on termination. Only the former has the effect of suspending an entitlement to weekly compensation payments.

The Tribunal therefore ordered that the worker’s weekly payments be resumed.

The Tribunal’s decision highlights a clear distinction between taking annual leave during employment and the payment of accrued leave on termination, with only the former capable of affecting a worker’s entitlement to weekly compensation payments.

The post Annual Leave Payouts and Weekly Workers’ Compensation appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The issue was whether an employer should be given full access to pre-injury medical records produced under a summons, or whether access should be restricted where a worker objects to certain documents on the basis that they are not relevant to the claim.

Background

In this case, the worker issued a summons to two medical practices they had attended. The medical records were provided to the Tribunal and reviewed by the worker, who objected to parts of the records being released to the employer. The worker argued that some documents were not relevant because they did not relate to the specific injury for which compensation was being claimed.

The Tribunal’s decision

The Tribunal confirmed that the test for relevance is a low threshold. Documents will generally be open to inspection where they have an “apparent relevance”, meaning they may reasonably “throw light” on an issue in dispute.

An objection based on relevance will not succeed if there is a reasonable basis to think that the documents:

• could be used as evidence, or
• may be put to a witness in cross‑examination,

and could affect the outcome of the proceedings in a way that is not fanciful or speculative.

In this case, the worker’s claim involved a degenerative condition. The Tribunal found there was a real possibility that the medical records sought could assist in understanding the issues in dispute and may be relevant to how the claim should be resolved. Because the documents might reasonably be used in cross‑examination, they were considered to be apparently relevant.  The Tribunal accepted that there was a possibility that the documents returned may ultimately not turn out to be relevant, but this did not preclude the employer from inspecting them.

As a result, the Tribunal allowed the employer to inspect the pre-injury records without restriction.

Key implications

• This case suggests that in the context of workers compensation disputes TASCAT will generally allow access to prior medical history where the documents may assist in determining the issues in dispute or could reasonably be used in cross‑examination.

The post Access to Pre‑Injury Medical Records in Workers Compensation Claims appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

Some couples who separate may not feel the need to get divorced. However, remaining legally married to your former spouse can have consequences later, even if you have re-partnered.

Estate Planning

If you do not amend your will post‑separation to exclude your former spouse and you remain legally married, your estate may still pass to your former spouse in accordance with the terms of your last valid will. Any new will that you make post-separation but prior to divorce should be made in contemplation of your divorce as to not revoke your will once that divorce is finalised.

If you pass away without a valid will in place and you remain legally married, the laws of intestacy will apply. This means your estate may be distributed between your former spouse and any children you have. If you do not have children, your former spouse may be entitled to your estate in full.

Superannuation

If you have made a binding death benefit nomination with your superannuation fund, you will need to make a new nomination.

As noted above, if you were to pass away, your former spouse may be entitled to receive your superannuation entitlements as a nominated beneficiary.

You can change your nominated beneficiary by contacting your superannuation fund and completing the required paperwork.

Marriage

You cannot re‑marry until you are legally divorced from your former spouse.

It can take several months for a divorce application to be prepared, served (if required), and heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (“the Court”).

Importantly, a divorce is not finalised until one month and one day after it is granted by the Court.

I want to get a divorce, but I need help!

The Family & Relationship Law team at Dobson Mitchell Allport offers a fixed‑fee divorce service, giving you certainty and peace of mind when it comes to divorce‑related legal fees.

Our fixed‑fee divorce service includes:

• An initial consultation
• Preparation of your Application for Divorce
• Meeting with you to sign the documents
• Serving your spouse or their solicitor (if a process server is not required)
• Filing your Application with the Court
• Attendance at the Court hearing and reporting the outcome to you
• If your divorce is granted, emailing or posting a copy of your Divorce Order to you

If this is something you are navigating, our experienced team of Family Lawyers can help. To find out more, contact our team at familylaw@doma.com.au.

Our services are complemented by our experienced team of Wills & Estates Lawyers.

The post Thinking about getting a divorce? Here is what you need to know. appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has clarified how section 86(1)(b) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 operates. The case involved a worker whose weekly payments were permanently terminated after earning above their compensation rate for several weeks while on suitable duties.

In the past, a common approach to s86(1)(b) was that once a worker earned above their weekly compensation rate, weekly payments could be permanently ceased. To resume payments, the worker typically had to lodge a section 42 referral and prove ongoing entitlement before the Tribunal.

However, in this case the Tribunal held that section 86(1)(b) only allows an employer to reduce or stop weekly payments for the period in which the worker’s earnings exceed the weekly payment figure. It does not permit a permanent termination. If the worker’s earnings later fall below that figure and medical certification continues, weekly payments must resume without a new claim or referral.

The Tribunal ordered reinstatement of weekly payments from the date they were ceased.

Key implications:

• Weekly payments fluctuate with earnings. A temporary increase in earnings affects that week only.
• Employers cannot rely on section 86(1)(b) to permanently end weekly payments.
• If employers wish to terminate a worker’s entitlement to weekly payments they will need to use section 86(1)(c) or seek a review under section 88.
• Cases in which s86(1)(b) has been relied upon to terminate a worker’s entitlement to weekly payments of compensation will need to be reviewed.

The post Recent Tribunal Decision on Section 86(1)(b) appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

For world-class athletes, this visa offers a unique opportunity to settle in Australia and contribute to its vibrant sporting culture. However, the application process is rigorous, requiring applicants to meet a series of legal criteria that reflect both their personal accomplishments and their potential value to the Australian community.

To begin with, the athlete must demonstrate an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in their sport. This means their accomplishments must be assessed against both Australian and global standards. Participation in elite international competitions such as the FIFA World Cup, the Olympic Games, or even major national sporting competitions such as the Indian Premier League (IPL) for cricket, may serve as strong indicators of this level of recognition.

But recognition alone is not enough. The applicant must also be currently prominent in their sport. While there is no strict timeframe for achievements, they must be recent enough to confirm the athlete’s continued relevance. Evidence such as recent awards, the latest media coverage, and ongoing participation in international events can help establish this prominence.

Another key requirement is that the athlete must be considered an asset to the Australian community. This goes beyond benefiting a single employer or local club – it must be shown that their presence will positively impact the nation as a whole. In the sporting context, this could mean enhancing Australia’s international reputation and standings, mentoring emerging talent, or contributing to national teams and development programs.

Economic independence is also a critical factor. The visa requires that the applicant will be able to secure employment or establish themselves independently in Australia, specifically within their area of expertise. For athletes, this might involve signing with a professional team, securing sponsorships, or taking on coaching roles in the future. Importantly, applicants cannot rely solely on personal savings or assets – they must demonstrate a viable path to self-sufficiency through their sporting career.

Finally, the application must be supported by a nominator with a national reputation in the sport. This could be an individual or organisation – such as a national sporting body or a prominent coach – who is recognised within Australia for their leadership or innovation in the field. The nominator must complete Form 1000, outlining the athlete’s achievements and explaining why they would be a valuable addition to Australia.

The credibility of the nominator also plays a significant role in the success of the application. Their own track record, contributions to the sport, and standing within the professional community are all considered when assessing the nomination. Think of scenarios like the NRL recruiting international players – the nominating body must be seen as a legitimate authority in the sport.

In conclusion, while the National Innovation Visa presents a promising pathway for elite athletes to gain permanent residency in Australia, it demands a high level of preparation and evidence. Both the applicant and the nominator must convincingly demonstrate their credentials and the broader value they will bring to the country. Given the complexity of the process, seeking expert legal advice is strongly recommended to ensure the best chance of success.

The post The National Innovation Visa for World Class Athletes appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

At Dobson Mitchell Allport, we welcome this reform and recognise its significance for international students, Tasmanian employers, and the broader community. Our migration law team is well-equipped to help graduates, businesses, and education providers navigate these changes and unlock new opportunities.

UTAS Vice-Chancellor Professor Rufus Black said the policy change would strengthen Tasmania’s competitiveness in international education, especially in sectors facing critical workforce shortages such as engineering, agriculture, health, and ICT. “This is fantastic news for Tasmania – making our state an even more attractive place to study, live and work,” said Federal Member for Franklin, Minister Julie Collins. – Not sure if we need to include this bit though

With over 6,000 international students already in Tasmania and UTAS generating nearly half a billion dollars annually in export revenue from international education, this reform is a strategic win for the state.

At DMA, we understand the complexities of migration law and the importance of timely, strategic advice. Whether you are a graduate looking to extend your stay, a business seeking skilled workers, or an education provider supporting international students, our migration team is here to guide you.

Contact us today to learn how we can support your migration journey.

The post International student visa changes for Tasmania appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

A number of employees brought unfair dismissal claims against Helensburgh in the Fair Work Commission, claiming that their dismissals were not cases of “genuine redundancy” arguing they could have performed work which was done by contractors. Helensburgh objected to the applications on the basis that the terminations were cases of “genuine redundancy”.

The High Court found that the Full Federal Court last year correctly determined the matter when they found that when considering a redundancy situation, the employer had an obligation to assess whether the employees could perform the roles of contractors at its mine, prior to making redundancies.

The High Court has unanimously held that the Fair Work Commission is permitted to inquire whether an employer could have made changes to how it uses its workforce when determining whether a dismissal is a “genuine redundancy”.

The difficult facts for this employer included that while it was appropriate to decrease the size of their workforce due to COVID-19 impacts at that time, the employer had ongoing work that could be performed by the former employees, rather than contractors who were supplied by two companies on a “as-needs” basis.

The case is the 5th decision relating to this matter, and while the facts are not usual, it provides an interesting insight into the test for a “genuine redundancy”.

If you require further information about potential redundancies, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Workplace Relations team.

The post High Court Rules Employer Must Consider Employee Redeployment Before Redundancy appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

What is Surrogacy?

Surrogacy refers to an agreement in which a birth mother consents to carry a child on behalf of another individual or couple (known as the commissioning parent), with the intention of transferring custody of the child to them immediately or shortly after birth. While it is not legally required for the birth mother to be genetically related to the child, in many cases, including the one under discussion, the birth mother shares a biological connection with the child.

Commercial surrogacy arrangements are prohibited under Australian law. However, altruistic surrogacy, including the reimbursement of prescribed and verifiable costs incurred, is permitted. Each state and territory has its own legislation governing surrogacy, which may affect the recognition of parentage and the enforceability of surrogacy agreements.

Overseas Surrogacy Arrangements

While Australian migration law recognizes certain children born under surrogacy arrangements prescribed under Australian state or territory law, there is no automatic recognition of overseas surrogacy arrangements. Consequently, for migration purposes, surrogacy arrangements undertaken outside of Australia are assessed differently. The key consideration is whether there is a biological link between the child and the commissioning parent.

The laws of the country where a surrogate child was born determine who the child’s legal parents are and what is written on the birth certificate. Therefore, migration matters based on surrogacy arrangements are assessed on a case-by-case basis. Officers cannot usually take the presence of a commissioning parent on the child’s birth certificate as conclusive evidence of a legal parent-child relationship for migration law purposes.

It is also important to determine under local law who has parental responsibility for the surrogate child. This may depend on whether or not the birth mother is married. Although this will not affect the assessment of the child-parent relationship, it will be of particular importance in relation to meeting the parental responsibility public interest criteria 4015 and 4017.

Assessing the Biological Link

A biological link between the child and the commissioning parent is required for surrogacy cases. This is usually demonstrated by a DNA test or through advice from the specialist doctor who undertook the surrogacy procedure. If documentary medical evidence of a biological link cannot be provided, officers may request a DNA test.

DNA testing is particularly important in family stream cases in regions where there is a high incidence of document fraud or in countries where official documentation is unreliable. For instance, in all surrogacy cases in India, it is a mandatory requirement to have a DNA test to confirm biological parentage.

Migration Pathways for Surrogate Children

Where there is a direct biological link between a child born through an overseas surrogacy arrangement and a parent who is either an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen, commissioning parents have two main pathways to seek permanent migration for the child to Australia:

• An application for Australian citizenship by descent (available only to children of Australian citizens).
• An application for a Child visa (subclass 101).

Child Visa (Subclass 101)

If the commissioning parent is not an Australian citizen, the only available option is to apply for a Child visa (subclass 101). This visa can take over two years to process. The application must include Form 40CH by the sponsoring parent and Form 47CH on behalf of the child, along with supporting documentation such as evidence of biological parentage, identity and travel documents, proof of parental responsibility, and medical reports.

The application must be submitted by post or courier to the Child and other Family Processing Centre in Perth. Online lodgment is not currently available. Given the lengthy processing times, commissioning parents are advised to prepare early and anticipate additional requests for information.

Australian Citizenship by Descent

Children born outside Australia may be eligible for Australian citizenship by descent if at least one parent was an Australian citizen at the time of their birth. This pathway is not available if the parent acquired citizenship after the child’s birth. The application is made online using Form 118 and must include proof of the parent’s citizenship, the child’s birth certificate, identity documents.

Once approved, the child receives a citizenship certificate, enabling them to apply for an Australian passport. Unlike naturalization, this process does not require a citizenship test or ceremony.

Conclusion

Surrogacy arrangements, particularly those undertaken overseas, present complex legal and procedural challenges for commissioning parents seeking to bring a child to Australia. The requirement to establish a biological link, the variability of foreign legal systems, and the strict requirements of Australian migration law necessitate careful planning and documentation. Commissioning parents are strongly advised to seek legal guidance and begin the application process well in advance to ensure a lawful and timely resolution.

The post Migration law and surrogacy appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.