For boards and executives, wage compliance can no longer be understood as a narrow payroll or technical issue. It has become a visible measure of organisational integrity, governance maturity and leadership accountability.
When wage compliance issues arise, stakeholders rarely focus solely on the mechanics of underpayment. Their interest quickly shifts to whether leadership understood the risk, exercised oversight, and had systems in place that were capable of supporting a complex and evolving workforce. In that sense, wage compliance has joined safety and safeguarding as a core indicator of how seriously an organisation takes its obligations to its people.
It is important to acknowledge a reality that is often lost in public debate. In our experience, most wage compliance issues do not arise from deliberate misconduct or bad faith. Rather, they tend to emerge from a combination of structural and capability pressures, including:
Awards and enterprise agreements do not remain static. Roles expand, working patterns shift and operational demands increase. Payroll assumptions that were once reasonable may no longer reflect how work is actually performed. In many organisations, these changes occur incrementally and without any single trigger that prompts systematic review.
As a result, well‑intentioned organisations doing valuable work can find themselves exposed simply because their systems, processes and oversight arrangements have not evolved alongside their workforce.
Regulators recognise this reality. The current legal framework draws a clear distinction between deliberate misconduct and honest mistakes or system failures, and places significant weight on whether an employer took reasonable steps to understand and meet its obligations. That distinction is important. However, it does not eliminate risk.
Boards and executives are therefore often surprised to discover underpayments in organisations that are values‑driven, professionally advised and acting in good faith. While the absence of ill intent may be relevant to how regulators assess conduct, it does not remove the practical, cultural or reputational consequences that can follow once non‑compliance is identified.
The focus here is not on how underpayments are calculated, but on how risk accumulates unnoticed, how oversight fails despite good intent, and how boards can exercise effective stewardship in an environment of heightened scrutiny.
Even inadvertent wage compliance failures can have a disproportionate impact on trust.
From an employee perspective, underpayments raise questions about whether leadership understands the realities of work, values fairness in practice, and responds appropriately when concerns are raised. Once confidence is eroded, the issue extends beyond remediation into engagement and organisational culture.
Externally, wage compliance issues are increasingly visible. Regulatory publications, media reporting and class actions mean these matters are rarely resolved quietly or quickly. For organisations whose legitimacy is closely tied to trust, including education providers, care organisations and not‑for‑profits, reputational harm can exceed the direct financial cost.
Regulators, funders and boards are also now attuned to the governance implications. The focus has shifted from whether errors occurred to whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent them, and whether leadership had sufficient visibility and assurance over workforce risk.
Boards are increasingly reconsidering how wage compliance risk is understood and monitored.
Common questions now include:
In many cases, the most significant exposure is not a known problem, but a lack of clarity about whether current systems are still fit for purpose.
A common hesitation at board and executive level is concern that reviewing wage compliance may identify issues that then require careful management. That concern is understandable, but misplaced.
Targeted, well‑scoped reviews are not an admission of failure. They are an expression of responsible stewardship. Proactive assurance allows organisations to identify and address gaps early, manage issues transparently, and protect trust with employees and regulators alike.
When undertaken thoughtfully, wage reviews strengthen rather than undermine organisational credibility. They signal that leadership is willing to look closely at complex risk, rather than waiting for it to surface through complaint or investigation.
Effective wage compliance governance cannot be reduced to a technical exercise. It requires context, judgement and careful sequencing.
The value of trusted advisers lies in helping boards and executives:
Above all, strong advice provides leaders with confidence that they are asking the right questions at the right time, and that they are equipped to respond thoughtfully if issues are identified.
Organisations that manage wage compliance issues most effectively are those that act before trust is undermined. They invest in understanding how pay operates in practice, ensure accountability for compliance is clear, and seek assurance as complexity increases.
For boards and executives, this approach is not about risk avoidance. It is about exercising leadership in an environment of heightened scrutiny and increasing expectations.
In that context, wage compliance is not simply a legal obligation. It is a reflection of how an organisation governs itself and how it honours its responsibilities to its workforce.
The Fair Work Ombudsman has been explicit about its enduring commitment to driving compliance through education, assistance and targeted regulatory intervention, particularly in sectors known to present heightened compliance risks. Education and assistance are central to this approach, alongside a sustained focus on protecting vulnerable or at‑risk workers and addressing systemic non‑compliance.
In priority sectors including universities and disability support services, regulatory attention is not confined to the identification and remediation of underpayments. It extends to broader misconduct such as sham contracting and other practices that undermine workplace protections, with the Fair Work Ombudsman signalling a willingness to deploy enforcement tools where conduct is serious, systemic or of public interest.
Moores works with boards and executive teams to help them understand, govern and manage wage compliance risk in a way that is proportionate, defensible and conscious of organisational culture and reputation.
Our role is not limited to identifying technical issues. We support leaders to form a clear view of where risk is most likely to arise, determine what level of assurance is appropriate, and navigate sensitive decisions carefully if issues are identified. This includes assisting boards to frame the right questions, sequence review activity prudently, and maintain trust with employees, regulators and other stakeholders throughout the process.
This work draws on both regulatory developments and extensive hands‑on experience advising education providers, care organisations and for‑purpose entities through wage audits, payroll remediation and Fair Work Ombudsman engagement.
If you would like to discuss wage compliance risk in your organisation, including whether a targeted review or governance‑level assessment would be appropriate, please contact Skye Rose, Practice Leader, or Alexandra Gronow, Special Counsel. We regularly advise boards and executive teams and can guide you through the process calmly, confidentially and with a clear focus on protecting trust.
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.
The sale of any commercial property is normally subject to GST. A common exception to this rule is the sale of a tenanted property by a GST registered entity.
If the sale is to a GST registered purchaser, the sale could be GST free as the supply of a “going concern”. The “going concern” in such transactions would be the leasing enterprise.
There are clear financial benefits for a purchaser if the property that is being purchased can be treated as the supply of a “going concern” and therefore GST free. Not only is GST not required to be paid but duty on the purchase will be calculated on the GST free price, not the price plus GST.
What if the tenant vacates the property or the lease ends before the property sells or before the property settles? Would the sale of that property still qualify as the supply of a going concern and therefore be GST free?
Ordinarily this would mean that the property is not being sold with a leasing enterprise and the sale is not the supply of a going concern for GST purposes and therefore not GST free.
However, if the building or part of the building that is vacant is available for lease and is being actively marketed to secure a tenant, the sale of the property will still be regarded as the supply of a going concern for GST purposes and therefore GST free.
Our Commercial Real Estate team supports organisations across the full lifecycle of property transactions, from acquisition through to leasing, development and sale. We provide clear, practical advice to help you manage GST risk, structure transactions effectively and achieve commercially sound outcomes.
Across Australia, organisations working with children are operating in an environment of heightened scrutiny. Child safety investigations, particularly those conducted under reportable conduct schemes, now sit at the intersection of legal compliance, institutional accountability, psychological safety and public trust.
For leaders, boards and investigators alike, the question is no longer whether to adopt trauma‑informed investigation practices. The question is whether those practices are sufficiently rigorous, defensible and sophisticated to withstand regulatory oversight, judicial review and sector‑wide expectations.
At their best, trauma‑informed child safety investigations are not only child‑centred, but also procedurally fair, legally robust and ethically sound. Getting this balance wrong creates significant risk for children, respondents and organisations alike.
A common misconception is that trauma‑informed practice dilutes investigative rigour. In fact, the opposite is true. Trauma‑informed investigations require greater discipline, planning and professional judgement than traditional approaches.
Regulators across Australia emphasise that reportable conduct investigations must be child‑centred, fair and timely. They must also produce reliable findings capable of supporting consequential decisions, including employment action, notifications to professional bodies and regulatory reporting.
A trauma‑informed approach recognises the neurobiological and psychological impacts of trauma on memory, recall, behaviour and communication. Properly applied, it improves the quality and reliability of evidence, reduces the risk of re‑traumatisation, helps to maintain trust and confidence in the investigation, and strengthens the defensibility of findings if later challenged.
Effective trauma‑informed investigations recognise that different participants face different risks, and that a one‑size‑fits‑all process is rarely appropriate.
Child participants
Children may be complainants, reporters, witnesses or otherwise involved in an investigation. Regulators have made it clear that children should generally be invited to participate in a reportable conduct investigation unless there is a sound reason not to do so. Inviting children to participate in investigations appropriately recognises the voice of the child and signals that their experiences matter.
This requires tailored processes that prioritise safety agency and dignity without compromising evidentiary integrity. Depending on the age, capacity and maturity of the child, consent from a parent, carer or guardian may be needed.
Trauma‑informed practice with children involves deliberate decisions about timing, purpose and method of engagement. Practical considerations include:
One of the most common and damaging errors we see is informal questioning of children by well‑intentioned staff before an investigation is properly scoped. This frequently contaminates evidence and complicates regulatory reporting.
Respondents
Respondents are often overlooked in discussions about trauma‑informed practice, yet investigations involving child safety allegations carry profound personal and professional consequences.
A trauma‑informed approach for respondents does not protect wrongdoing. It protects the integrity of the process.
Respondents may experience acute psychological distress, reputational harm, and immediate impacts on employment, even before any findings are made. Investigative processes that lack clarity, fairness or proportionality expose organisations to legal challenge, including claims of procedural unfairness, adverse action or breach of contract.
Good practice includes involves:
Breakdowns in communication or procedural fairness at this stage are a frequent driver of employment claims, judicial review and reputational harm.
Other vulnerable participants
Witnesses, whistleblowers, family members and staff involved in parallel safeguarding processes often carry their own trauma histories or vulnerabilities.
Investigators must anticipate risks such as:
Trauma‑informed investigations anticipate these risks and put proportionate safeguards in place, while maintaining strict controls on confidentiality and information sharing.
The regulatory consequences of poorly managed investigations are increasingly severe. Across Australia, regulators have expanded powers to request documents, scrutinise investigative methodology and take enforcement action where organisations fall short.
The most common risk areas we see include:
From our experience advising and conducting investigations nationally, certain practices consistently distinguish strong, defensible investigations.
Before commencing:
During the investigation:
At conclusion:
Crucially, these investigations recognise that trauma‑informed practice and procedural fairness are mutually reinforcing, not competing principles.
Independent investigators play a critical role in high‑risk child safety matters. Independence supports confidence in findings, manages conflicts of interest and reduces organisational exposure.
However, independence alone is insufficient. Investigators must also bring:
Regulators expect reportable conduct investigations to be conducted by suitably qualified and experienced persons, whether internal or external. Where this expectation is not met, the consequences can be significant.
While it may be appealing to appoint an internal investigator to minimise costs, there is a higher risk of internal investigation findings being challenged if the internal investigator lacks the skills and expertise to run a trauma-informed and procedurally fair investigation. Internal investigations may give rise to conflicts of interest, which can undermine trust and confidence in an investigation process, leaving it open to challenge. Consider whether it is appropriate to appoint an external investigator.
Trauma‑informed child safety investigations are now a baseline expectation across Australia. What differentiates leading organisations is not whether they reference trauma‑informed principles, but whether those principles are embedded in a disciplined, legally sound investigative framework.
At Moores, we approach child safety investigations through a dual lens. We understand the human impact of these matters, and we understand the law, regulation and institutional risk that surrounds them.
In an environment of increasing scrutiny and accountability, that combination is what sets the standard.
Moores supports organisations to manage child safety investigations in a way that is trauma‑informed, procedurally fair and legally robust. We advise on scoping and oversight of reportable conduct matters, support internal decision‑makers and investigators, and where appropriate conduct or assist with independent investigations in higher‑risk or complex matters. We also work with organisations to strengthen their investigation frameworks, build internal capability and ensure alignment with employment law, work health and safety and regulatory expectations. Our focus is on practical support that reduces risk, maintains trust and produces findings that are defensible if scrutinised.
In Re the estate of Iovenitti [2026] VSC 106, the Supreme Court of Victoria refused to strike out fraudulent calumny as a ground of objection—signalling that alleged misinformation influencing a will may now be a live battleground in Victorian probate disputes.
For years, Australians contesting a will have relied on familiar arguments: lack of capacity, undue influence, lack of knowledge and approval, or technical defects in execution. But a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria has opened the door to a far less familiar and potentially far‑reaching ground of challenge.
It is known as fraudulent calumny. And until now, it has barely featured in Australian courtrooms.
When doubts arise about the validity of a will, an application can be brought in the Supreme Court to have it set aside. If successful, the court may revive an earlier will or, if none exists, distribute the estate under the laws of intestacy.
Traditionally, these disputes turn on well‑worn principles. A will may be invalid if, for example:
These grounds are well understood, heavily litigated, and supported by decades of Australian authority.
Fraudulent calumny, by contrast, sits largely in the shadows.
Fraudulent calumny is a doctrine of the common law – being judge‑made law rather than legislation – and its application varies between jurisdictions. It has long been recognised in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Hong Kong. In Australia, however, it has until recently been largely unexplored and untested.
At its core, fraudulent calumny concerns deception.
Broadly speaking, a will may be invalid on this basis where:
Importantly, courts have accepted that direct evidence of the deception is not always necessary. The false belief and its source may be proved by inference from the surrounding circumstances.
Fraudulent calumny has been mentioned before in Australian case law, notably in Newton v Taylor (NSW, 2019) and Campbell v William & Anor (NSW, 2023). But in those cases, the courts acknowledged the concept without being required to decide whether it applied.
That changed in Victoria in 2026.
In Re the Estate of Iovenitti, the caveators, represented by Moores, challenged the deceased’s final will on three grounds, one of which was fraudulent calumny. The executors of the disputed will applied to have the objections struck out or summarily dismissed, arguing that the claims could not succeed.
The Court disagreed, finding that the caveators had established a prima facie case worthy of investigation on all pleaded grounds – including fraudulent calumny – and refused to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim.
The decision is significant. It is the first reported Victorian case to expressly accept fraudulent calumny as a viable basis for challenging the validity of a will, and may be the first such acceptance in any Australian jurisdiction.
Proceedings concerning the Estate of Iovenitti are still on foot, and the fraudulent calumny claim has yet to be finally determined. But the message is already clear: Victorian courts are prepared to entertain this ground of challenge, and litigants can no longer assume it will be dismissed as a historical or foreign curiosity.
For advisers, beneficiaries and executors alike, this development adds a new layer of complexity to will disputes – particularly those involving strained family relationships, misinformation, or manipulation behind closed doors.
Moores’ Estate Litigation team has specialist experience in disputes involving wills, estates and trusts. If you are concerned that a will‑maker may have been influenced by deception or misinformation – or if a will does not sit right for another reason – we can assist you with clear, practical advice tailored to your situation.
We are proud to share that Practice Leader, James Dimond, has been included in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in Australia™ for Trusts and Estates, marking his third consecutive inclusion.
The Best Lawyers in Australia™ awards recognises lawyers across Australia based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation.
James has been instructed in a number of high-value private trust disputes and has extensive experience across all aspects of Wills and Estates practice, with a particular focus on resolving complex disputes regarding trusts, deceased estates, superannuation and Guardianship and Administration.
James is an Accredited Specialist Wills and Estates Lawyer and heads up Moores’ Elder Financial Abuse Team. He also accepts private and Court appointments as Administrator from time to time and assists clients and family groups with succession planning and structuring, including complex wills, testamentary trusts, asset protection and pro-active measures to avoid family disputes.
Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. More than 116,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and they have received more than 17 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world.
For more information or to speak with one of our experienced lawyers, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Many self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) will have properties which were purchased using borrowed funds secured by a mortgage over the property. The funds may have been provided by a traditional bank, or by a related entity.
This scenario is known as a limited recourse borrowing arrangement, or LRBA.
Under the SMSF laws, properties subject to an LRBA must be kept separate from the other assets of the SMSF. In a practical sense, this means that the title to the property is registered in the name of a single-purpose “custodian trustee” which holds the property on bare trust for the SMSF trustee.
The property title is mortgaged to the lender, and held by the lender as security until such time as the LRBA loan is repaid.
When the LRBA loan has been repaid, the property should be transferred back to the SMSF trustee, where it can be dealt with as an asset of the fund. At that point, the custodian trustee (unless it is a professional trustee company affiliated with a bank) can then be deregistered.
However, the reality is that many LRBA properties are left in the name of the custodian trustee long after the original borrowing has been repaid, often due to confusion over the processes involved in formally ending the LRBA. This causes unnecessary costs in the ongoing administration of the custodian trustee, and can also complicate matters if the SMSF wishes to sell the property.
Here we demystify the process of ending an LRBA with a simple overview of the steps involved, and some tips to avoid common traps.
Step 1 – Discharge the mortgage
Once the LRBA loan has been repaid, the lender should register a discharge of mortgage on the property title.
Key tip: Be aware that commercial lenders often won’t bother with this step unless a discharge of mortgage is specifically requested by the customer.
Step 2 – Transfer the property title
Once the mortgage has been discharged, the property title can then be transferred to the SMSF trustee.
If the LRBA has been set up correctly, this transfer should be exempt from duty – to obtain an exemption, an application for exemption under the relevant section of the Duties Act 2000 will need to be lodged with the State Revenue Office. The first step in the transfer process should always be to check entitlement for the duty exemption, which usually involves reviewing the documentation from the original LRBA and financial statements for the SMSF.
The land tax assessments for the property should also be reviewed to ensure that the property is being assessed correctly in the ownership of the SMSF, and avoid setting off any unexpected landmines in that regard when the transfer is completed.
Key tip: Engage an experienced lawyer who is familiar with the particular conveyancing steps involved in an LRBA transfer, including familiarity with the specific duty exemption application process which applies to these transfers.
Step 3 – Notify rating authorities of the change of ownership
The local council, water authority and SRO Land Tax Department must be notified once the property has been transferred, so as to ensure that it is assessed in the SMSF trustee’s name going forward. This will be handled by the lawyer managing the transaction.
The SMSF will also need to consider whether it is necessary to notify its insurer, utility suppliers, and any tenant of the property.
Key tip: Notifying relevant authorities and stakeholders of the change of registered ownership minimises the chances of future complications.
Step 4 – Deregistration of the custodian trustee
Sometimes, the property title will have been registered in the name of a professional custodian trustee operated by the lending bank. In those cases, Step 4 is not necessary.
However, in most cases a special purpose company will have been established to hold the property, and the title will be registered in that company’s name. Once the property is transferred to the SMSF trustee, that special purpose company should then be deregistered, unless it is intended to be repurposed. The deregistration process can usually be handled by a lawyer or an accountant.
Key tip: Save ongoing registration fees and accounting costs by deregistering the custodian trustee once the property is transferred out of that company.
If your SMSF has recently paid out a loan on a property and you need assistance navigating the process for formally ending the LRBA, the team at Moores would be delighted to help – please get in touch with us using the details below.
Significant changes are underway in the Early Childhood Education and Care sector, with new reforms impacting how organisations operate and keep children safe. Our Safe & Sound series explains these updates in clear, practical terms so providers can understand what’s changing and what they need to do.
In this episode, hosted by Moores Special Counsel Tal Shmerling and featuring Education and Privacy Lawyer, Cassandra Minett, we explore the complex considerations surrounding childcare workers having personal devices on them for emergency contact purposes in early learning settings.
The goal is simple: to give you the information you need to stay informed, manage risks, and prepare for change.
If you would like to discuss how we can support your organisation, our education and safeguarding teams are here to help. Please contact Tal Shmerling or Cecelia Irvine-So if you would like further support.
View our dedicated page on the Childcare and Early Education Reforms and subscribe to receive updates directly in your inbox.
On 31 March 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) released an Exposure Draft of the Children’s Online Privacy Code (the Code) for public consultation, alongside an Explanatory Statement. The Code represents a targeted shift in the Australian privacy landscape. It outlines how certain online services likely to be accessed by children, or primarily concerned with the activities of children, must comply with the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) and additional legislative requirements.
The Code, which will be in place by 10 December 2026, will complement other initiatives to protect our children online, including the Social Media Minimum Age obligation.
The Code primarily targets online services directly accessed by children such as apps, games, online tools, and websites. These online services expose children and young people to the highest privacy risks.
Notwithstanding this statutory focus, the Code also applies to schools in certain ways. In a school setting, the code may impact school’s usage of online learning platforms, other apps on school devices, messaging services used for notifying parents, and may even extend to schools’ social media posts involving students.
Below is a high-level summary of the key draft provisions that schools should pay most attention to.
1. Children’s best interests must come first
Online services must place children’s best interests first when handling personal data.
Schools will be expected to clarify with their online providers exactly how the software design contemplates children’s best interests as a top priority when handling personal data. Schools should also require vendor evidence that the Code’s requirements are not ignored for the pursuit of a commercial or financial objective. Schools should confirm with vendors that “high privacy” settings are the default. Children are also to be provided with a clear option to “opt out” regarding personal information, unless strictly necessary for a software’s service provision, a narrow test which excludes marketing purposes.
2. Data minimisation is required, not optional
The Code imposes data retention requirements on online services required to comply with the Code. To this effect, schools should ensure that providers:
3. No secondary use of children’s data
Schools should ensure that their online service providers are not using children’s data for targeted advertising, profiling, product marketing, or unrelated analytics. It follows that children’s data should not be sold, shared or monetised. These requirements are crucial as by the time a child turns 13, there is an estimated 72 million data points that may have been gathered about them.
4. Clear limits on consent and parental authority
Schools should test with their online service providers that:
The Code further proposes novel mandates to alert children where parents consent on their behalf. This is drafted to enhance transparency and respects children’s rights to their agency.
5. Age-appropriate transparency is required
The OAIC has determined that verbose, legalistic privacy policies are not suitable for children’s services. Instead, schools should look for vendors to provide clear, age-appropriate language in policies, including understandable explanations and visuals for children where necessary. Vendors should also supply transparent declarations on their handling of personal data, why it is collected, and for how long.
Schools will need to ensure that their general privacy policy is clear, simple, and concise enough for the children to understand. Alternatively, schools will need to introduce an additional version of their privacy policy, that is in a form and language understandable by the children. Such a policy must be easily accessible.
A clear complaints procedure for privacy complaints must also be established, with an option to make complaints of a general nature anonymously. The complaints procedure should also make clear how a complaint can be made to the OAIC. Schools need to respond to complaints within 30 days.
6. Children’s rights to access and delete data must be supported
Significantly, the Code introduces a statutory right for children (and parents, where appropriate), to request deletion of their personal information. A provider must respect this right and respond to such requests within 30 days. Schools should also support requests to access children’s personal information, as long as this is conducted in accordance with the school’s privacy policy.
7. Geolocation and tracking requires heightened caution
The Code has made it clear that geolocation tracking is a high-risk area, and should be considered unnecessary, unless absolutely essential for the functioning of the service. Therefore, schools should ensure that tracking via their online service providers is transparent and minimised. Children have the right to be notified when this tracking occurs, irrespective of parental consent. The legislative intent is to safeguard children’s rights and provide them with agency when it comes to their personal data.
8. Schools are not the privacy “shield”
In order to protect their legal position, schools should be clear with online service providers that under the Code:
9. Security and breach readiness are essential
In addition to maintaining their internal systems, schools should seek confirmation from providers that their technical and organisational measures are secure and suitable to handle children’s personal information. Schools should also consider the ability for staff to access personal data and acquaint themselves with data breach response procedures in accordance with the Australian law. All school staff interacting with children’s data must be provided education and training to understand their obligations under the new provisions. Record of this training should be kept and provided to the OAIC upon request.
10. Contractual commitments are expected
It is expected that schools will implement their privacy commitments into their respective privacy policies. However, it is also vital that these obligations and expectations are written and enforceable in contracts, in a transparent manner. When the Code is finalised, privacy policies, procedures and contracts should be updated to reflect compliance with the Code. Privacy practices and procedures are also expected to be updated annually, and records of such updates and reviews must be kept and provided to the OAIC upon request.
Additionally, the Code recognises that children’s personal information may be handled by services that are not directly accessed by children but are nonetheless primarily concerned with children’s activities and that such services may present similar privacy risks. This includes, for examples, online apps and systems that track childhood development, facilitate photo sharing of students to parents and otherwise support schools to monitor student performance.
Moores supports non-government schools, and other education bodies and not-for-profits with privacy compliance, data breach response and cyber incident management. Additionally, Moores will release our Privacy Toolkit for Organisations during Privacy Awareness Week 2026. Our team regularly advises not-for-profits, schools and education providers on privacy compliance, data breach response plans and proactive redesign of processes to implement privacy-by-design.
Across the education sector, increased fuel costs and transport disruption are already creating operational pressure. Despite temporary fuel‑related relief measures announced by government, rising input costs, scheduling disruptions and reduced service capacity look to place strain on service providers that schools rely on day‑to‑day.
In this environment, schools may face delayed performance of contracts, requests for increased payments, or declines in service levels or quality. These pressures can present legal and governance risk if not managed carefully.
The starting point is always the contract.
When it comes to fuel‑related cost increases or service disruption, many school service agreements contain limited flexibility and some contain none at all.
Bus and transport contracts often include specific fuel adjustment mechanisms, such as agreed fuel levies triggered only when diesel prices rise beyond defined thresholds. Where these provisions exist, schools should ensure any surcharge strictly complies with the contract terms. Unilateral “emergency fuel levies” imposed outside the contract are not automatically payable.
By contrast, cleaning, maintenance, gardening and canteen contracts are frequently fixed‑price arrangements. Unless the contract expressly allows cost variation for fuel or transport increases, suppliers may have no contractual right to seek higher fees, even where their costs have increased significantly.
Force majeure clauses, where they exist, are narrowly construed. Fuel shortages may not fall within their scope. In some cases, parties refer to “frustration” of contract, but this is a high legal threshold and rarely applies simply because performance has become more difficult or expensive.
A key emerging issue for schools is service‑level slippage, where services continue, but at a reduced frequency, quality or reliability. Examples include:
While short‑term flexibility may be appropriate, school executives should be cautious about allowing slippage to become normalised. Where services no longer meet contractual standards, schools should:
Failure to address service slippage can weaken the school’s contractual position if disputes later arise.
We expect contractual disputes to increase in coming months, particularly in relation to:
In each case, early legal review can help schools preserve rights while maintaining constructive relationships.
Schools should:
Fuel disruption may be temporary, but decisions made under pressure can have lasting implications. Careful contract management discipline now can reduce risk later.
With a deep understanding of school operations, contracts and typical school agreements, we can assist with clarifying the school’s rights and acting on these via notice, negotiation or appropriate risk-based escalation in your context.
What was once viewed as a contingency risk is fast becoming a live operational risk for businesses which may manifest as contractual management issues. With fuel supply pressures remaining unpredictable, organisations should be turning their minds to how disruption may affect contractual performance, trigger risk allocation clauses, and increase the likelihood of disputes.
Businesses are already facing impacts and uncertainty as a result of fuel shortages and fuel supply disruption. The education sector and its services providers are impacted by increased fuel prices and there are reports of school camps being cancelled as prices spiral. Cost pressure and delays caused by fuel issues or transport constraints have the potential to impact the construction sector. We are seeing an uptick in enquiries where delivery of contractual obligations is delayed or service levels are slipping. Despite temporary fuel support relief measures introduced by the ATO and the federal government, and business lender support, financial stress and operational challenges are impacting small to medium enterprise.
It is important for all businesses to consider how current and ongoing volatility in fuel supply may impact on their operations and to be prepared to respond accordingly. In particular – delay in performance of contracts, requests for a higher amount to be paid or a need to preserve your rights if a contract may be headed for dispute.
The starting point always is to consider a contract and its terms.
Some contracts allow specific flexibility based on fuel costs. We have seen examples of school agreements with bus companies that specifically enables a fuel levy to be imposed by agreement, where the cost of diesel increased by a specific amount. Suppliers may seek to add a so called “emergency fuel levy” but unless specifically provided for by the contract, it may not be payable by the counterparty.
Other contracts do not allow any flexibility on price – fixed price building contacts and services agreements. Where there are delays in performance of contracts purportedly as a result of supply chain issues (caused by fuel scarcity for instance), it is not always possible – let alone desirable – for counterparties to a contract to vary its terms.
Force majeure contractual clauses are often but not always contained in commercial agreements. If they are, they may not extend to suspending or delaying contractual obligations when events beyond the parties control prevent performance. The current fuel crisis may not constitute a force majeure – it may fall into the category of “frustration” of contract.
We expect to continue to see an increase in contractual disputes in the coming months – whether because the contractual arrangements themselves are in breach or where counterparties seek to end a contract due to business uncertainty generally or a reduction in revenue. We see contractual risks arise in some of the following situations:
Perhaps less obvious are insolvency related risks, particularly for SMEs operating on tight margins or with limited cash reserves. Cash flow pressure may follow where fuel price spikes or potential shortages in future delay projects or increase operating costs – particularly if contracts remain bound to fixed prices or strict completion timeframes. Where contractual arrangements are disrupted, payments withheld or termination and/or claims for damages can compound financial strain.
Directors must remain alert to the risks arising from unprofitable or disrupted contracts and continue to monitor cash flow, contractual exposure to avoid trading while insolvent if fuel related disruption materially impacts operations. Where solvency concerns arise, Boards should seek immediate advice and consider the safe harbour provisions. The recent Federal Court decision in the Star Entertainment case has significant implications for directors and officers, including requiring proactive Board oversight in active risk management and governance.
Whether you operate in the education sector, construction sector, you are a not for profit or a small business, any correspondence relating to contractual rights or alleging breach of contract or frustration need to be taken seriously. Even where performance of contracts remains possible, delay or cost pressure can expose businesses to unexpected claims or contractual disputes.
For organisations where fuel disruption causes a supply chain risk, in addition to reviewing your operational risks you will benefit from also reviewing your legal risks and key contractual arrangements.
The Disputes Team at Moores can support in reviewing legal risks and key contractual arrangements to ensure your organisation understands contractual risks. We can advise on contractual rights and obligations if any issues arise. We also assist where contractual disputes can’t be resolved – from notice of default to conduct of litigation.