While the case arose in South Australia, the Court considered provisions of the Civil Liability Act that are similar to the Tasmanian legislation. As a result, the principles discussed in the case are likely to have application in the context of Tasmanian personal injury claims.

Background

The respondent was injured in a motor accident and claimed damages for personal injury. Related family business entities also claimed losses said to flow from the respondent’s reduced capacity to work.

At first instance, damages of approximately $2.2 million were awarded, including substantial sums for alleged business losses and missed commercial opportunities.

The Motor Accident Commission appealed.

The Court’s decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeal substantially reduced the damages award.

The Court confirmed that, where a business claims for the loss of an injured employee’s services (a per quod claim), damages will generally be limited to the cost of replacing that labour at the time the services were lost. Claims for broader losses, including reduced profits, lost opportunities or poor commercial performance, will usually fail unless they can be clearly and directly attributed to the loss of the employee’s services rather than to other operational, financial or strategic factors.

Claims relating to the sale of assets and the loss of future growth or appreciation were rejected because they were characterised as claims for lost commercial opportunities lying beyond the scope of liability for personal injury, rather than losses caused by the injury itself.

The Court also emphasised that compensation under the Civil Liability Act is not unlimited and must be confined by principles governing the scope of liability, even where an injury has serious and long-lasting effects. In addressing the respondent’s substance abuse, the Court found that the alleged causal connection between the accident and that conduct had not been established. The Court further held that, even if causation had been established, the scope of liability did not extend to consequences flowing from the respondent’s deliberate and illegal conduct.

An application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was later refused.

Key implications for Tasmanian claims

The decision is a useful reminder that:

· Business and company claims arising from an injured worker’s incapacity will generally be limited to the replacement cost of labour.

· Losses resulting from an individual’s own illegal or intentional conduct, such as substance abuse, may not be recoverable even where the injury is said to have contributed.

The post Recovering Business Losses After Injury: What the Latest Court Decision Means appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The applicant, Mr Eklom, commenced employment at Storage King as a storage consultant in September 2023 and later assumed responsibilities equivalent to that of a full site manager.

The first respondent, Mr Marshall, initially a customer and later a contractor who assisted with cleaning and maintenance for the company, made repeated homophobic and sexualised comments towards Mr Eklom.

He said the contractor referred to him as the “office boy”, and made comments like “Oh, the gay boy is cleaning again”, “He probably likes it that way”, and “You sure you are not just into blokes?”  Mr Marshall would also engage in “unwanted physical contact”, including by shoving or bumping into Mr Eklom.

The second respondent, Mr Marshall, a significant customer of the business, later became friendly with Mr Marshall, and subsequently joined in making sexualised remarks and harassing the applicant, including suggesting degrading behaviours and making derisive comments.  Mr Eklom said they regularly referred to him as the “gay boy” and “the storage queen”, a play on the business name, the Storage King.

He said that in January 2025, Mr Mitchell said that Mr Eklom had been “Getting tied up and left in a shed” and Mr Marshall replied, “He is probably used to it”, which Mr Eklom believed implied that because of whatever sexual orientation they presumed him to be, he would enjoy “fetish play” that involved being tied up.

During another incident, when Mr Eklom bent over while cleaning, Mr Marshall said he had bent over “to clean the shed like he is practising for something” and Mr Mitchell responded, “Yes, we know you like it that way”.

They also made comments about him “getting pounded” or raped in the shed, and said that if someone followed him into the shed, “It will turn into a sex party”.

The harassment caused Mr Eklom significant emotional distress, resulting in diagnoses of anxiety, stress and depression.  He eventually complained to his employer, but the complaint was dismissed, and applicant was subsequently terminated after taking personal leave.

Mr Eklom filed an application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in July 2025 seeking declarations that there had been a contravention of s 527D the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), by the respondents engaging in sexual harassment of the applicant, who was a worker within a business or undertaking; seeking pecuniary penalties that arose from that contravention and also seeking compensation pursuant to s 545(2)(b).  The original application alleged that his employer had also breached the Fair Work Act because of the activities of the respondents, but that claim was withdrawn once it was made clear that they were never employees.

The respondents did not engage at all in this process.  The hearing was conducted in their absence and Judge Vasta proceeded to make the declarations sought, finding that:

• Section 527D of the Fair Work Act, a relatively new section which prohibits sexual harassment in connection with work, had been breached by the actions of both respondents, which fell squarely within that definition.
• The harassment was deliberate, repeated and degrading, manifesting in a pattern of behaviour that caused significant emotional harm to Mr Eklom.
• The respondents were ordered to pay the sum of $90,000 as compensation for loss suffered by the plaintiff due to their contraventions of section 527D of the Fair Work Act 2009, reflecting the serious nature of the harassment and its detrimental effects on Mr Eklom.  The court determined that the second and third respondents were jointly and severally liable for compensating the plaintiff for the loss.
• The respondents were each ordered to pay a $13,000 pecuniary penalty to Mr Eklom.  The pecuniary penalties were imposed to achieve specific and general deterrence, ensuring the respondents and others were dissuaded from engaging in similar misconduct in the future, in line with principles previously established by the High Court.
• No aggravated damages were awarded as the respondents’ lack of engagement was not considered an aggravating factor.
• The court declined to award aggravated damages, as the respondents’ failure to engage in the process was not deemed to be an unreasonable act causing additional expenses for the plaintiff, nor were costs awarded as the plaintiff would have incurred the same expenses regardless of the respondents’ non-participation

Section 527D, which came into effect in March 2023, was incorporated into the Fair Work Act to expressly prohibit sexual harassment of a worker, prospective worker, or person conducting a business or undertaking.  This decision is one of the first applications of the section, and the first made against contractors and customers external to the employer in connection with work (the first being that of Mejia v Capital City Cafe‑Bar [2026] FedCFamC2G 468 (26 March 2026)).

The decision demonstrates that the new provisions confirm that workplace harassment laws extend beyond traditional employment relationships.  There are now repercussions for all customer-facing environments, including retail, hospitality, health and service settings, where harassment may come from clients, contractors or patrons.

It is also a reminder to employers as to the essentiality of providing a safe work environment and proactively taking all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. 

Stopping at preparing a sexual harassment policy and implementing regular training is unlikely to be sufficient.  Employers should consider:

• Having their sexual harassment policies refer to the obligations of bystanders and state that disciplinary action will be taken against workers who engage in sexual harassment;
• developing a complaints handling procedure for recipients of complaints to follow in the event of sexual harassment; and
• monitoring workplace culture to ensure workers understand and comply with sexual harassment policies and training.

The post New Workplace Risk: Customers and Contractors Liable for Sexual Harassment appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The Facts

The case concerned an Aboriginal child who was aged 10 at the time of the final hearing. The child had spent most of his life living on Country in a remote Northern Territory Aboriginal community. The child was not raised by his biological mother and father. He was raised by his grandmother until around 2022 when the Applicant became his full-time carer. The Applicant and the child relocated to Western Australia in 2022 and were not living in an Aboriginal community.

The Applicant in the proceedings was a non-Aboriginal woman who was not biologically related to the child but had been caring for him at different stages since 2018 and during the proceedings. The Respondent was an Aboriginal woman and the child’s mother’s cousin.

The Applicant sought final orders for sole decision-making responsibility for the child and an order that the child live with her. The Respondent sought final orders for sole decision-making responsibility for the child and an order that the child live with her. Neither party had the financial ability to facilitate a shared care arrangement.

There was an Independent Children’s Lawyer appointed in this case. The ICL sought orders that the child remain living with the Applicant. The Applicant also made allegations that the child had been abused by a person close to the Respondent.

The Issue

The key question for the Court was whether it was in the child’s best interests to remain with the Applicant in a non-Aboriginal community or to be returned to the Respondent to live in an Aboriginal community.

The Role of Culture

Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court must apply the ‘best interests test’ to determine what parenting orders should be made for the child.

If the child is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, then the Court must additionally consider the:

1. child’s right to enjoy their culture;
2. child’s right to connect with and maintain their connection with family, community and Country;
3. child’s right to explore the full extent of their culture;
4. child’s right to develop a positive appreciation of their culture;
5. likely impact of the final parenting orders on those rights; and
6. kinship obligations and child-rearing practices of any people who may exercise parental responsibility.

In this case, the Court acknowledged that caregiving in the child’s community was guided by Aboriginal kinship structures (which value extended family and community members in parenting roles, not just biological parents) and was a persuasive factor in their decision.

Outcome

The Court found that the child’s relocation to a non-Aboriginal community had limited their ability to maintain cultural connections. The Court was not persuaded that the risks associated with returning the child to the Aboriginal Community were outweighed by the benefits.

The Court made final orders for the child to live with the Respondent and be returned to their community and culture in remote Northern Territory.

Key Insight

Whilst safety remains a key concern for the Court in parenting matters, this decision placed significant weight on a child’s Aboriginal identity and connection to community when considering what parenting orders were in the children’s best interests.

The post Parenting Matters: Cultural Identity and the Best Interests Test appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

What is a Heads of Agreement?

A leasing HOA is a preliminary agreement that sets out the key commercial terms proposed to be included in the lease. It ensures the parties are aligned on matters such as the rent, outgoings, term length (including any option terms), the permitted use of the premises and security deposits/bank guarantees so as to avoid unnecessary negotiations during the lease drafting process.

Is your Heads of Agreement Legally Binding?

The principles established in Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 set out three possible arrangements for the binding nature of a HOA:

1. The parties agree to be immediately bound by the agreed terms in the HOA and will enter into a formal lease at a later date;
2. The parties agree to the terms contained in the HOA but the performance of those terms is subject to executing a formal lease; or
3. The HOA contains proposed commercial terms only, and the parties do not intend to be legally bound unless and until a formal lease is executed.

The ruling in Masters v Cameron determined that the first two arrangements are legally binding on the parties as they demonstrate an intention for the parties to be bound.

What does this mean for you?

Although HOAs often appear informal, they can create legally enforceable obligations once signed. This can mislead parties into assuming they are not bound when, in fact, they may be.

It is important to carefully review whether the HOA expressly states that it is binding or non-binding, and which provisions (if any) are intended to have immediate legal effect.

Before you sign a HOA, and before your commercial obligations arise, it is important that you seek legal advice in order to protect yourself from unintended legal consequences.

The post Heads of Agreement in Leasing: What You Need to Know Before Signing appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

These changes should prompt Australians to review their investment structures and estate planning arrangements as the fundamental assumptions underpinning these decisions may have changed.

Broadly the main changes can be grouped into 3 categories:

• Negative gearing
• Capital gains tax
• Trust distributions

Negative gearing

Many investors will be aware of the favourable tax treatment historically available for investment properties. Negative gearing has allowed property investors to deduct an overall rental loss against other taxable income, such as salary and wages. That loss can include deductible rental expenses such as interest on borrowings, rates, repairs, insurance and management fees, but not the principal component of mortgage repayments.

Under the announced Federal Budget changes, residential investment properties held before 7:30 pm AEST on 12 May 2026 will generally continue to be able to be negatively geared under the existing rules. For established residential properties purchased after that time, rental losses may still be deducted under the current rules until 30 June 2027, but from 1 July 2027 those losses will generally only be deductible against residential property income, including relevant capital gains. Excess losses may be carried forward.

The key exception is for eligible new builds. Investors who purchase eligible new build residential properties will continue to be able to negatively gear those properties, including by offsetting rental losses against salary and wages. To qualify, the property must genuinely add to housing supply.

If you are thinking of purchasing an investment property, or you have inherited an investment property, you should consider carefully how the new tax rules may apply before deciding whether to buy, keep, rent or sell the property.

Capital gains tax

Under the current rules, individuals and trusts who sell a CGT asset after holding it for more than 12 months generally only include 50% of the capital gain in their assessable income.

Under the announced Federal Budget changes, from 1 July 2027 the 50% CGT discount will generally be replaced with an inflation-based method. This means that, for gains arising after 1 July 2027, the cost base of the asset will be adjusted for inflation and tax will generally be paid on the real capital gain, rather than the inflationary component.

The Government has also announced a minimum 30% tax rate on relevant capital gains from 1 July 2027. This means that taxpayers who would otherwise pay less than 30% tax on a capital gain may be required to pay tax at a minimum rate of 30% on that gain.

Transitional rules are expected to apply. Gains accrued before 1 July 2027 should generally continue to be dealt with under the existing CGT discount rules, while gains accruing after that date will be dealt with under the new indexation and minimum-tax rules.

As these are announced changes, taxpayers should obtain advice before selling or transferring assets, particularly where assets have been held for a long time, are owned through a trust, or may qualify for small business or main residence concessions.

Discretionary trust distributions

The final pillar of the Government’s proposed tax changes is a minimum tax rate of 30% on the taxable income of discretionary trust distributions. From 1 July 2028, ttrustees of discretionary trusts will be required to pay tax at a minimum rate of 30% of the trust’s taxable income.

Beneficiaries will still need to include their trust distributions in their own tax returns. However, beneficiaries other than corporate beneficiaries will receive a non-refundable tax credit for the tax payable by the trustee. This recognises the tax already paid at the trust level, while ensuring that the income distributed through discretionary trusts is generally not taxed below 30%.

The Government’s announcement specifically excludes corporate beneficiaries from receiving non-refundable tax credits. This is intended to prevent corporate beneficiaries from effectively converting that credit into franking credits (i.e. refundable credits for corporate income tax paid that can be passed on to shareholders), thereby circumventing the minimum tax. However, denial of the credit for corporate beneficiaries could also lead to double taxation of the same income at both the trust level and the company level. Unless this issue is addressed in the legislation, the measure may significantly reduce the attractiveness of corporate beneficiaries and could effectively bring to an end the use of so-called “bucket companies”.

The changes do not come into effect until 1 July 2028, giving businesses and investors time to adjust. Expanded rollover relief is also proposed for three years from 1 July 2027 to assist taxpayers who restructure out of discretionary trusts into companies or fixed trusts.

The minimum tax will not apply to certain categories of income, including primary production income, certain income relating to vulnerable minors, amounts subject to non-resident withholding tax, and income from assets of testamentary trusts that existed at the time the changes were announced.

Other types of trusts, including fixed and widely held trusts (including fixed testamentary trusts), complying superannuation funds, special disability trusts, deceased estates and charitable trusts, are excluded from the new minimum tax.

Draft legislation has not yet been released and is expected to be the subject of consultation with stakeholders prior to enactment.

Consequences

As a result of the Government’s proposed tax changes, many Australians will need to revisit their business, investment and estate planning structures.  Discretionary trusts and established residential investment properties may become less tax effective in some circumstances, including income levels, asset type, family arrangements, succession planning objectives, debt levels and the availability of any traditional rules, exemptions and rollover relief. 

If you are concerned about your current arrangements, or are considering buying, selling, restructuring or transferring assets, it may be time to book an appointment with your estate planning lawyer and financial planner. 

The post Federal Budget 2026: New Tax Changes for Property Investors & Trusts appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

In the 2026–27 migration program, Australia will allow up to 185,000 permanent migrants. 132,240 of these places (over 70%) are for skilled migrants. The government will give priority to people who are already living in Australia, with 129,590 places set aside for onshore applicants. There are also 300 spots for Special Eligibility cases. The other 55,110 places are for high-skilled workers who are applying from overseas.

The budget papers indicate that the permanent migration points test will be reformed to prioritize candidates who are better educated, highly skilled, and younger. This change is intended to ensure that migration intake aligns with Australia’s strategic economic requirements.

The Government has committed $85.2 million to accelerate skills assessments for migrant trades workers, enabling them to join the workforce sooner. These reforms will enhance skills recognition and streamline occupational licensing, facilitating easier access for migrants to work in their profession throughout Australia.

In summary, the Budget signals Australia’s commitment to a more targeted, higher-skilled migration program, focusing on skilled professionals who can contribute to productivity growth and address workforce shortages. The emphasis on skilled and targeted migration will mean that the process for applicants is expected to be even more rigorous, and the pathway to permanent residency may be less straightforward.

With a more competitive and complex migration landscape, seeking expert advice and support is more important than ever to ensure you understand your options and maximise your chances of success.

Should you wish to discuss how these changes may affect your visa options or business sponsorship strategies, please contact the DOMA team for tailored advice.

The post Australian Budget 2026–27: What It Means for Skilled Migration appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

The Court ordered compensation pursuant to s 527D arising from a single incident of sexual harassment involving a kiss to the mouth, reinforcing that the Respect@Work reforms have introduced a direct, compensable statutory pathway.

The Court accepted the conduct caused real harm and awarded damages to reflect the personal impact of the harassment, not just the existence of inappropriate behaviour.  The focus was squarely on consequences, not intent or workplace informality.

Section 527D fundamentally changes the risk profile for employers.  Sexual harassment is no longer confined to discrimination jurisdictions or policy‑based responses.  It is a Fair Work Act (2009) contravention with financial consequences, capable of being enforced through federal workplace law processes.

Three Points Stand Out:

• compensation under the Fair Work Act 2009 is now a practical remedy, not a fallback option
• small and informal workplaces are squarely within scope
• failure to prevent or address sexual harassment can translate into direct monetary liability

For employers, the lesson is straightforward.  Policies alone are not protective.  Courts will assess whether preventative steps were real, active and effective and whether complaints were handled promptly and appropriately.

Sexual harassment risk now sits firmly at the intersection of employment law, compliance and financial exposure.

The post A New Compensation Pathway Under the Fair Work Act: What Employers Need to Know appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

These changes form part of a nationwide effort to prevent serious financial crime, including fraud and money laundering.  While the new requirements affect how law practices operate behind the scenes, our focus remains the same: providing clear, practical and trusted legal advice.

Why are these changes happening?

Australia is updating its laws to align with international standards and to close gaps that criminals can exploit. Regulators have identified that certain professional services, including some legal services, can be misused for illegal activity if appropriate checks are not in place.

The new laws are designed to strengthen safeguards across the legal and financial system.

Will this affect all legal work?

No. The new requirements apply only to certain higher‑risk legal services, such as:

• buying or selling property
• setting up companies or trusts
• managing client funds
• some commercial and financial transactions

Many areas of legal work, including litigation and court‑based matters, are not affected.

What might clients notice?

For some matters, we may need to:

• request additional identification documents
• ask questions about the nature or purpose of a transaction
• carry out ongoing checks during longer‑running matters

These steps are now required by law and are similar to the checks clients may already be familiar with when dealing with banks or other financial institutions.

What are we doing to prepare?

Dobson Mitchell Allport is actively preparing for these changes by:

• reviewing our internal systems and processes
• training our staff on the new requirements
• ensuring compliance is handled efficiently and respectfully

Our aim is to make this transition as smooth as possible for our clients, with minimal disruption to your legal matters.

Need more information?

If you have questions about how these changes may affect your matter, we are happy to discuss them with you.  Please feel free to speak with your lawyer or contact our office.

The post New Anti‑Money Laundering Laws for Law Firms: What Clients Need to Know appeared first on Dobson Mitchell Allport.

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.