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.

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.