A recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision has changed the game for retail tenancies.
In ALDI Foods Pty Ltd v Northcote Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [2024], the Court held that rent review caps in retail leases are not prohibited under the Retail Leases Act 2003 (Vic), effectively overturning a long history of VCAT decisions indicating that such caps were void. This decision supports tenants, and will provide them with increased financial security when leasing a retail space.
This case concerned a retail lease agreement between ALDI Foods (tenant) and Northcote Shopping Centre (landlord). The main issue was whether the lease agreement permitted a cap on the rent review process.
In retail leases, rent is typically reviewed periodically to adjust for inflation or market conditions. The standard review mechanisms are:
The inclusion of caps or limits on how much rent can increase during these reviews however, has often been a contentious issue in retail leasing due to section 35(2) of the Act, which states that for leases covered by the Act, “The basis or formula on which a rent review is to be made must be one of the following” [emphasis added], and then lists five defined options, including the methods identified above.
The inclusion of the word “one” in section 35(2) has generally been interpreted as having the effect of prohibiting caps on rent reviews, because the cap constitutes a second method of review.
In this case, the lease included a provision that placed a 6% cap on CPI reviews. Northcote Shopping Centre argued that this provision was void, on the basis that the cap was not permitted under section 35(2) of the Act. Northcote Shopping Centre sought to rely on previous VCAT decisions to support their arguments.
ALDI’s position was that the cap was valid, since the Act does not expressly prohibit rental caps. In support of this, ALDI argued that since section 35(3) of the Act expressly prohibits ratchet clauses (i.e. clauses that prevent rent from decreasing during a market rent review), this would indicate that the legislators intended for caps or limits to be permitted.
The court ruled in favour of ALDI, holding that the rent review cap included in the lease was enforceable and a valid clause. The court took the view that rental caps were consistent with retail leasing legislation, going against previous VCAT decisions.
Retail tenants have an opportunity for increased financial certainty following this ruling, being in a strong legal position when and if they decide to negotiate capped increases on their rent. With business expenses rising in many industries, the decision presents an opportunity for retail tenants to better plan for the future.
Landlords should consider how this case may impact future negotiations around rent review processes. Landlords can expect caps to become a regular request from retail tenants, and will need to make a commercial decision in each case whether to agree to the inclusion of a cap to attract and retain long-term tenants.
Moores’ Commercial Real Estate team is ready to assist with all your retail and commercial leasing needs, including expert advice on your rights around rent reviews, lease renewals, and other key leasing matters. Please contact a member of our leasing team if you would like guidance or support in this area, from strategic advice through to preparation of lease documentation.
Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to you or your organisation.
Sam Kerr, captain of the Australian Women’s Soccer team, has been found not guilty of racially aggravated harassment of a London Metropolitan police officer after calling him “stupid” and “white”. Despite the acquittal, this case has drawn significant attention to whether seemingly unfavourable treatment towards white people can constitute racism and how similar incidents would be handled in Australia.
On 30 January 2023, Sam Kerr and her partner hailed a taxi to take them home after a night out. Both women were allegedly drunk and during that cab ride, Ms Kerr was sick in the taxi. The driver then locked the doors and windows and drove them to the nearest police station on advice of police but without informing the women. Ms Kerr and her partner told the court they feared they were being taken hostage, and shortly before arriving Ms Kerr’s partner smashed one of the taxi windows in an attempt to escape.
Police body camera footage showed police requesting the pair to pay for the damaged window and fare and cleaning fee. During the recorded conversation, Ms Kerr called the officers “f***ing stupid and white”.
The prosecution argued that Ms Kerr’s comments were a deliberate attempt to harm the police officer, were racially motivated and that the police officer felt “humiliated”, “shocked” and “belittled”.
Ms Kerr did not deny calling the police officer “stupid’ or “white”, but told the court she was trying to make a comment about “power” and “privilege” and believed that the officers were treating her differently because of her skin colour on the night of the incident. Ms Kerr is of Indian descent.
The jury unanimously found Ms Kerr not guilty of the charge.
While Ms Kerr has been found not guilty of racially aggravated harassment rather than discrimination, her case has prompted widespread conversation about the myth or existence of “reverse racism”, and whether racism or racial discrimination against white people is permissible under legislation or more socially acceptable.
“Reverse racism” is sometimes used to describe situations where white people believe they are discriminated against or negatively stereotyped because of their whiteness or treated less favourably than people of colour. It is an idea focused on prejudiced attitudes towards a certain racial group or groups, or unequal treatment – namely, discrimination. But it overlooks that power is one of racism’s central indicators.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” According to Mario Peucker, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow at Victoria University, the concept of “reverse racism” doesn’t work because racism is more than just prejudice. Prejudice and discrimination are inextricably linked with historically entrenched and institutionalised forms of systemic racism and racial hierarchies, injustices and power imbalance1.
State and federal anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination and harassment on the grounds of certain protected attributes in certain areas of public life, and in public with respect to vilification. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) broadly prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, as well as acts of racial hatred. Acts of racial hatred include public acts that are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or group because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. Similar protections exist under state and territory anti-discrimination laws. In Victoria, reforms have been proposed to strengthen anti-vilification laws, which are currently limited to protection from “behaviour that incites hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule for a person or group of people, because of their race or religion”.
White people can be called derogatory names that reference their whiteness. Given this, whiteness may technically be protected from anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws, and it may be possible for a white person to face discrimination or vilification by people of colour on the basis of their whiteness.
However, while white people may be covered by protections against racial hatred or vilification, there is still a requirement to establish that the alleged conduct was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate the complainant. In circumstances where whiteness has existed as the dominant race in Australia and positions of leadership and authority continue to be dominated by white people, this aspect of the legislation is likely to be extremely difficult to substantiate.
Further, there are exceptions under the RDA and state anti-discrimination laws that make otherwise discriminatory conduct lawful, in particular, special measures. Special measures are lawful discriminatory acts aimed at reducing historically entrenched, intergenerational and systemic inequalities. Affirmative action programs are direct responses to structural inequality and an attempt to level the playing field. Positive racial discrimination is based on amelioration, not racial superiority. According to Peucker, regardless of whether positive or affirmative action is lawful or not, the term racism or “reverse racism” would not apply.
While the limits of protection from racial harassment, discrimination and vilification have not been comprehensively tested in Australia’s current social climate, Ms Kerr’s case demonstrates that such claims need to be considered in the context of social, cultural and historical factors that shape individual experiences and responses, not just the letter of the law.
In Ms Kerr’s case, the words were said in the context of:
In both the UK and Australia, legal claims do not exist within a vacuum and as shown in Ms Kerr’s case, these sociopolitical factors can be pivotal in determining the outcome of the case.
Our Safeguarding and Discrimination Team has extensive experience supporting organisations to create safe and inclusive environments for all individuals, as well as navigating complaints and disputes if they arise. We can assist with tailored advice on your discrimination and safeguarding obligations to diverse groups, as well as development and delivery of policies and training to proactively address these issues.
Many of us understand the importance of having a Will in place to distribute our assets when we die.
But what happens if we lose the ability to make our own decisions for financial, personal and medical matters?
A Will only comes into effect when you die, so it is equally important to also have documents in place authorising a person or persons to make decisions for you if you are unable to make them for yourself during your lifetime. This is where Enduring Powers of Attorney and Appointments of Medical Treatment Decision Makers fill that gap.
In Victoria, there are three types of powers of attorney which you can put in place.
Enduring Power of Attorney (Financial)
In this document, you can appoint one or more people to deal with your financial matters on your behalf. Financial matters can include dealing with banks and investment companies, buying and selling assets, paying bills and buying and selling property. You can choose when your attorney’s power commences to provide greater flexibility for yourself and your attorneys. For example, if you are overseas, you can instruct your attorney to act on your behalf while you are out of the country.
Enduring Power of Attorney (Personal)
In this document, you can appoint one or more people to deal with personal matters on your behalf. Personal matters can include deciding where you live (i.e. whether you move into aged care), how you dress, what you eat, when you get a haircut and who you associate with. Given these matters are very personal in nature, your attorney’s power generally only commences if you were to lose capacity, as evidenced by a letter from a medical practitioner.
Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Makers
Although medical decisions are also personal in nature, this document differs from the Enduring Power of Attorney (Personal) because it only deals with consenting or withholding consent to medical decisions.
In this document, you can only appoint one person at a time (not jointly) to make medical decisions on your behalf. Your medical decision maker, by law, is required to make decisions that they would reasonably believe is a decision that you would have made if you had capacity.
To ensure that your medical decision makers know your preferences, you can complete a document called an Advanced Care Directive. This assists your chosen medical decision makers to make a medical decision for you based on your beliefs and values. You can elevate it from a values directive to a binding directive in which you specify what medical procedures you consent to or what you withhold consent to. Binding directives require witnessing by a doctor.
For financial and personal matters, this is not the case.
Although it may seem practical that, for example, your spouse, or your adult child can automatically sign off on financial and personal decisions for you (as long as they provide medical evidence of your lack of capacity), the law in Victoria prevents next of kin from making those decisions without being validly appointed.
However, for medical matters, yes, the law in Victoria does allow next of kin to make medical decisions for you.
There is a set hierarchy of people in your life who have legal final say on your medical treatment, if you cannot give the doctor your decision yourself. This set hierarchy is only applicable if you do not have a valid Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker document in place.
The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) at section 55 (3) provides the following order of medical treatment decision makers:
Although the law states that the people listed above are to be in a close and continuous relationship with you, in some cases, the prescribed hierarchy of medical decision makers may not be suitable in your circumstances. This is a strong reason for you to consider putting in place your own hierarchy via an Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker document.
If you lose capacity without Enduring Powers of Attorney for financial and personal matters in place, a person may make an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to become an administrator (who deals with financial matters) and/or a guardian (who deals with personal matters).
Under the Guardianship & Administration Act 2019 (Vic) section 32, VCAT can appoint an administrator or guardian who is:
When considering whether someone is a suitable person to act for you, VCAT must take into consideration the following:
If VCAT deems that there is nobody appropriate in your life to fulfil the role of guardian or administrator, they can appoint the Office of the Public Advocate as your guardian, and State Trustees Limited or a private trustee company as your administrator.
The process a family member or friend is required to go through in order to be appointed as your guardian or administrator can be time consuming, stressful and even costly, and ultimately, VCAT has the final say on who is appointed. This is why it is important to have Enduring Powers of Attorney in place while you have capacity, so you have peace of mind knowing that you have made the decision as to who looks after your affairs, yourself.
The Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team at Moores is one of the largest in Australia and can assist you in preparing your Will and Enduring Powers of Attorney to ensure that your assets are not only looked after in the event of your death, but in the event of your incapacity to make decisions.
Marriage and divorce are significant life events that can have important implications for estate planning.
Fundamentally, a Will remains in force until it is revoked. This is most often done by the execution of a new Will to replace a pre-existing one.
But did you know, marriage or divorce can also affect the validity of a Will?
In Victoria, any Will created before the marriage will be automatically revoked when a person marries. Certain clauses of the Will which may continue to have effect notwithstanding – for example, gifts for a spouse or appoints a spouse to certain roles such as executor. However, the rest of the Will including any provisions made to other people will generally cease to have effect, leaving them out of the estate distribution altogether.
The incorporation of a “contemplation of marriage” clause can help avoid this automatic revocation issue. The contemplation is generally understood to mean that the Willmaker expects or intends to marry. The effect of this clause is to ensure that the Will continues to have operative effect even after the solemnisation of the marriage.
If a person marries without preparing a new Will or there is no contemplation of marriage clause contained in the pre-existing Will and they then pass away, the deceased’s estate will be distributed according to the laws of intestacy in Victoria.
Additionally, a person entering into de facto relationships should note that these relationships do not automatically revoke a will. However, a de facto partner in Victoria may still have legal claims to the estate under family provision laws.
Divorce also affects Wills in Victoria, but it does not revoke them in the same way as a marriage.
Under Section 14 of the Wills Act 1997 (Vic):
In other words, if a person has a pre-existing Will that leaves assets to their spouse and later gets divorced, the provisions benefitting the former spouse are automatically revoked but the rest of the Will remains in effect.
However, if that is not the Willmaker’s intention, then careful drafting of the Will is required to ensure that the former spouse is not inadvertently excluded from benefiting from the deceased’s estate.
Importantly, legal separation does not have the same effect on the Will. Until a divorce is legally finalised, the Will remains valid, meaning that a separated spouse may still inherit under a Will. This highlights the importance of updating a Will immediately after separation to reflect new intentions.
Marriage and divorce have significant legal consequences on Wills. Marriage generally revokes a Will unless it was made in contemplation of marriage, while divorce revokes specific provisions benefiting the former spouse but does not invalidate the entire Will.
Given these automatic legal effects, individuals should review and update their estate planning whenever their marital status changes. Failing to do so can lead to unintended outcomes and the potential for disputes among surviving family members.
The Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team at Moores is one of the largest in Australia and can assist you in preparing your Will to ensure that your assets do not end up somewhere unexpected.
Are you an attorney or administrator tasked with selling a principal’s family home to fund their aged care, but facing challenges from a co-occupant claiming rights as a ‘protected person’?
This guide is designed to help you grasp the fundamental aspects and successfully navigate the complexities of this situation with confidence.
As an enduring power of attorney or administrator, you may need to sell the family home to cover the principal’s aged care refundable accommodation deposit. However, this process can be complicated if someone is living in the home, such as a spouse, child, or carer.
A property is not considered an asset for aged care assessment if it is occupied by a ‘protected person’. It’s crucial to determine if an individual qualifies as a protected person, as this affects how the family home is assessed. If a protected person resides in the property, the home is considered an ‘exempt asset’ for aged care purposes. This is different to the rules that apply to considering pension eligibility.
While a protected person status means the home is excluded from aged care assessment, it does not grant an inalienable right to stay in the property and prevent its sale. This distinction is critical for attorneys and administrators to understand.
While in many instances family members are cohabiting so one or more can provide the others with care and support, in other cases they can be arrangements of convenience, or exploitive.
Our elder financial abuse team too often sees adult children trying to rely on their asserted status as a protected person to justify staying in the family home and continuing the rent-free lifestyle they have become accustomed to without any history of providing care, even when doing so is financially damaging to their parent/s.
An exempt asset is disregarded for aged care assessment, meaning the principal’s aged care costs would be lower as they are assessed as a ‘non-homeowner’. The home care assessment is different from tests that apply to pension eligibility.
A protected person can be:
A protected person can remain in the property indefinitely, and while they do, the home remains an exempt asset. They typically need to complete forms with Centrelink to confirm their status.
If there is no protected person in the home, it becomes an assessable asset for aged care purposes up to the home exemption cap, which is $197,735 as of January 1, 2024. This means the principal may face significantly higher aged care fees unless the property is worth less than the cap.
If a non-protected person is co-occupying the property, selling the home depends on various factors, including any asserted rights to remain (e.g., equitable rights). Selling the home may attract scrutiny, so obtaining legal advice is prudent. Attorneys or administrators can seek advice from VCAT to protect themselves from liability if the decision is disputed.
If you are an administrator or attorney and issues arise removing a family member from a property, there are a range of legal options, including commence legal proceedings to recover possession and force an eviction. It is important to get legal advice before making a demand to vacate or commencing court proceedings.
At Moores, we specialise in Powers of Attorney, guardianship, administration, and applications in VCAT and the Supreme Court of Victoria, including elder financial abuse issues. We are here to discuss any actions regarding the status of a protected person and the sale of the family home to fund a refundable accommodation deposit or other expenses.
Content warning: This article contains information in relation to sexual assault and child abuse. If you or someone you know require support, we encourage you to contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or 1800 Respect.
A judgment recently handed down by the High Court of Australia has clarified the extent to which institutions will be vicariously liable for the historical sexual abuse and/or criminal conduct of its members.
In Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41, the High Court unanimously held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed without an employer/employee relationship. This means that institutions will not be vicariously liable for the historical and/or criminal conduct of its members where they are not strictly engaged as employees, including those engaged as independent contractors, volunteers or relationships ‘akin to employment’.
In this case, DP (a pseudonym) was assaulted and sexually abused on two separate occasions by Father Bryan Coffey (now deceased) (“Coffey”), a priest from DP’s local church. In 2020, DP commenced proceedings claiming damages for psychological injuries he had suffered as a result of Coffey’s abuse. DP alleged the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ballarat (“Diocese”) was vicariously liable for Coffey’s conduct.
At first instance, a single judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria found the Diocese was vicariously liable for Coffey’s conduct, even though that judge also found that Coffey was not an employee of the Diocese. The Diocese then appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal, which unanimously dismissed that appeal. The Diocese then applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal, which was granted.
At common law, generally, an employer can be vicariously liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of its employees in the course or scope of employment. This is based on the principle that employers knowingly accept the risks of hiring employees, including the possibility that employees might cause injury or damage to others while performing their job. However, employers are not always vicariously liable for the actions or inactions of its employees – there must be a sufficient connection between the wrongful act and the employment.
The central issue before the High Court was whether the principle of vicarious liability could or should be extended to the relationship between Coffey and the Diocese, which was not an employment relationship. To put it another way, the High Court had to consider whether in the absence of an employment relationship, a Diocese or Bishop could be vicariously liable for the unlawful conduct of a priest.
A majority of the High Court held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed without an employer/employee relationship. As there was no employment relationship between the Diocese and Coffey, the Diocese could not be liable for Coffey’s sexual abuse.
On the question of whether it should expand the boundaries of vicarious liability to include independent contractors or relationships ‘akin to employment’, the majority answered firmly in the negative. Although the High Court acknowledged the harshness of requiring an employment relationship for vicarious liability, it reasoned that expanding this requirement would create uncertainty and indeterminacy for the following reasons:
In light of these reasons, the High Court found that the requirement for an employment relationship in vicarious liability should remain and that any reformulation of the law in this area is a matter for parliament.
The majority also examined whether the Diocese was liable for Coffey’s acts on the basis of agency. However, as the unlawful acts committed by Coffey were not done with the Diocese’s or the then Bishop’s express, implied or apparent authorisation, the majority reasoned that Coffey could not be a ‘true agent’ of the Diocese.
Separately, DP also asked the High Court to rule on whether the Diocese owed a non-delegable duty of care to DP to protect him from the risk of sexual abuse by its priests, including Coffey. As the issue was not pleaded at first instance, or on appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court, the High Court declined to rule on this issue.
However, Jagot J (in obiter) observed that a personal or non-delegable duty of care may arise where the provision of care, supervision or control is required to be exercised by the defendant for the safety of the plaintiff in circumstances where the plaintiff would reasonably expect the exercise of due care for their safety. With the path to vicarious liability now requiring a strict employment relationship, it may be that claimants increasingly focus on negligence claims based on non-delegable duties of care, as these claims don’t always require an employment relationship to be established.
There also remains various statutory duties which impose liability for child abuse. For example, in Victoria, there is a duty on “relevant organisations” to take reasonable care to “prevent the abuse of a child by an individual associated with the relevant organisation while the child is under the care, supervision or authority of the relevant organisation.” An individual associated with a relevant organisation includes a minister of religion, a religious leader, an officer or a member of the personnel of the religious organisation.3
While common law and statutory duties of care remain, the High Court has made it clear that organisations will not be vicariously liable for the actions of their independent contractors or volunteers.Although Bird v DP will the ability of victim survivors to obtain compensation for abuse perpetuated by people who were not employees through vicarious liability, individuals may still be liable for civil and criminal offences for failing to report child abuse.It is unclear whether the decision will prompt calls for legislative change regarding the expansion of vicarious liability to include volunteers and independent contractors.4
Our Workplace Relations team can assist with managing risks associated with engaging and managing your workforce, including volunteers and other types of relationships. Our Safeguarding team can help organisations design and implement frameworks to prevent and respond to child abuse, and train your people on preventing and responding to child abuse and harm.
Please contact us if you would like further information on how we can assist.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to your organisation.
A long-awaited measure to allow superannuation members drawing legacy pensions to exit these more restrictive income streams has become law.
On 7 December 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Legacy Retirement Product Commutations and Reserves) Regulations 2024 came into effect.
After announcing these measures in in the 2021-22 Budget, practitioners, advisors and clients alike have been waiting on Government to enact the ‘amnesty’ procedure to ‘get out’ of these historical non-commutable income streams.
These Regulations now allow superannuation fund members, who have otherwise non-commutable pensions a five-year period in which they may fully commute that pension into accumulation phase within a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF).
Such pensions include:
Prior to the introduction of the new regulations, if a member with a legacy pension sought to restructure their restrictive pension accounts, the result would often leave an unallocated reserve in the SMSF, which could not be allocated to the member without being assessed against the members contributions caps.
This five-year window will permit members to have more flexible access to their superannuation benefits, allowing them to retain funds in accumulation phase, commence an account-based pension, or withdraw as a lump sum (subject to the rules of their fund). Importantly, the flexible access applies only to living members, and not reserves created as a result of the death of a legacy pensioner.
Whether a member chooses to obtain the benefit of the regulations or retain their legacy pension is a decision that should be carefully considered with advice from a licenced financial advisor. These changes (if the five-year window is utilised) may mean that a change to the strategy of death benefits as part of an SMSF member’s estate plan needs to be considered.
For expert advice or guidance regarding Estate Planning and self managed superannuation funds, please do not hesitate to contact us.
As the threat of bushfires continues to rise in Australia, especially during the warmer months, it is crucial for schools to implement robust bushfire preparedness strategies. The Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) has released comprehensive Guidelines for schools on how to become bushfire-ready in accordance with new bushfire preparedness guidelines, which come into effect on 1 January 2025. While existing schools have until 1 July 2025 to comply with the updated Guidelines, it is never too early to review and update your bushfire preparedness strategies.
This article will explore the key elements of the VRQA’s updated guidelines, emphasising the importance of proactive measures in safeguarding students and staff.
Victoria’s unique climate and geographical features make it particularly susceptible to bushfires. Schools located in or near bushfire-prone areas face heightened risks, which can endanger lives and homes; and disrupt all aspects of life, not least educational activities.
Understanding the risks associated with bushfire season is the first step in effective preparation. The VRQA encourages schools to assess their vulnerability by reviewing local bushfire risk maps and historical data.
A well-structured Emergency Management Plan (EMP) is at the heart of a school’s bushfire preparedness strategy. All schools are required to have EMPs in place in relation to bushfire risks. Even inner-city schools go on excursions in the bush occasionally and as such, must be prepared to respond appropriately to the bushfire risk.
Schools that are located in high-risk areas (and are as such listed on the Bushfire-at-Risk Register (BAAR)) are subject to additional requirements; such as increased planning and communication obligations, and undertaking consultation with local fire authorities on their bushfire preparedness. If your school is located in or near a bushfire-prone area, you should ensure school leadership is aware of and compliant with these requirements.
The VRQA outlines essential components that should be included in an EMP:
Effective communication is vital during a bushfire emergency. Schools should develop a communication plan that includes:
Maintaining the school environment can significantly reduce bushfire risk. The VRQA suggests several strategies:
Creating a bushfire-ready culture within the school community is essential. Involve students and staff in bushfire preparedness initiatives through:
Bushfire preparedness is not a one-time effort; it requires ongoing evaluation and improvement. The VRQA advises schools to:
Preparing for bushfires is a shared responsibility that involves the entire school community. By following the VRQA’s guidelines, schools can develop comprehensive EMPs that engage students and staff, and ensure continuous improvement in their preparedness efforts.
With proactive measures in place, schools can significantly reduce the risks associated with bushfires, ultimately ensuring the safety and well-being of students and staff. As bushfire seasons become more frequent and intense, it is imperative that schools take action now to be bushfire-ready.
Our specialist Education Law team is here to assist you to assess your school’s compliance with the existing and updated VRQA bushfire preparedness Guidelines. We can help you develop your EMP, and ensure that it meets all the requirements set out by the VRQA.
Our article Transgender protections in the spotlight: What it means for your organisation discussed the implications and significance of Roxanne Tickle v Giggle for Girls on clarifying the protections under Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (Act). The Federal Court has now handed down its decision which confirms that transgender people are protected under the Act.
Roxanne Tickle is a transgender woman who was removed from the mobile app, Giggle for Girls (Giggle) which is an online communication app for women that does not allow men to join or use the app. The CEO, Sally Grover, removed Ms Tickle’s account on the basis that Ms Grover considered her to be male upon review of her photograph.
Ms Tickle lodged a discrimination claim against Giggle with the Federal Court on the basis of her gender identity.
In defending the claim, Giggle argued that:
The Federal Court found that Giggle engaged in indirect discrimination towards Ms Tickle on the basis of her gender identity. Under the Act, indirect discrimination occurs when a person imposes or a requirement, condition or practice which has or is likely to have the effect of disadvantaging persons who have the same identity as the aggrieved person (in this case, the same gender identity as Ms Tickle). It was found that Giggle imposed a condition that users were required to appear as a cisgendered female in order to be permitted access the app. This requirement had the effect of disadvantaging transgender women in comparison to cisgendered women.
The discrimination was not considered to be direct discrimination as direct discrimination required Ms Grover to have actual knowledge that Ms Tickle was a transgender woman and there was no evidence of this.
The Federal Court did not accept Giggle’s argument that there was discrimination on the basis of sex. The Court confirmed that ‘sex’ takes a broader ordinary meaning as opposed to a biological concept referring to whether a person at birth has male or female physical traits. It accepted that a person’s sex could change and refers to a person being male, female or another non-binary status. The definition of ‘sex’ takes into account a range of factors including biological and physical characteristics, legal recognition and how they present themselves and are recognised socially. The Court recognised Ms Tickle’s sex as being female and therefore it could not be that she was discriminated on the basis of her sex as argued by Giggle.
It was also not accepted that the special measure exception applied. As Giggle argued that its purpose was to achieve substantive equality between men and women, the exception would only apply if it was discriminating against a male on the basis sex. It did not apply in the present situation as Ms Tickle is a transgendered woman.
Additionally, the Federal Court rejected Giggle’s argument that relevant provisions of the Act were unconstitutional.
The Federal Court ordered that Giggle pay Ms Tickle compensation in the sum of $10,000 and pay her costs. Giggle is currently seeking to appeal the decision.
How we can help
The decision confirms that the Act protects transgender people on the basis of their gender identity and provides clarification as to the definition of ‘sex’ in the Act. The case highlights that organisations should carefully consider whether their practices and conduct in relation to single sex spaces and services are lawful and reasonable, and whether an exception, exemption or special measure could apply.
Our safeguarding and discrimination team can assist organisations to understand how state and federal anti-discrimination laws apply to their operations, and the extent to which exceptions or exemptions may apply.
Don’t let your end of year celebrations snowball into misconduct. Keep the balance of professionalism and sensibility during your end of year celebrations.
As the festive season approaches, many organisations and businesses are preparing for their end of year celebrations and festive season parties. While this is undoubtedly a time to celebrate the ‘wins’ of the year, individual and collective achievements, and also unwind and ‘let your hair down’, employers need to be mindful of the ongoing challenges and risks these parties present. Employers must be vigilant in both anticipating and mitigating against those challenges, and reminding employees of their ongoing obligations to ensure a safe and disaster-free celebration.
Employers should be particularly mindful of issues relating to conduct, harassment, and safety when it comes to end of year celebrations. Often, these celebrations involve the presence of alcohol that may not otherwise be permitted in the work environment. This informal environment presents a sense of relaxation which is much needed, but may also mean employees let their guard down and engage in conduct that they would not normally engage in at the office or in a work or professional setting. While these moments can often be embarrassing, there can also be legal consequences.
The circumstances in which “out of hours” misconduct may constitute a valid reason for dismissal were set out in Rose v Telstra. This includes:
Some of the key risks that employers should be thinking about include:
To ensure end of year parties and functions remain celebratory events, and minimise the risk of misconduct, here are a few tips to manage your events responsibly:
Our Workplace Relations team are here to specialist advice and assistance to set up best practice policy and procedure frameworks as a proactive approach to holding and managing work-related functions, and help employers deal with incidents after they occur.