Brisbane: (07) 3221 4999
Gold Coast: (07) 5532 3133
24 Hour Crime Line: 0488 999 980 or 18004POTTS
Brisbane
Level 1/420 George St,
Brisbane 4000
(07) 3221 4999
Gold Coast
44 Davenport St,
Southport 4215
(07) 5532 3133
24 Hour Crime Line
0488 999 980 or 18004POTTS

Facebook


Instagram

Twitter


Linkedin

YouTube

 

Blog

Medical Negligence and Vicarious Liability: Holding the State of Queensland Accountable

Masson v State of Queensland [2019] QCA 80 Losing a loved family member or friend or seeing them in a seriously disabled condition is devastating and can have long term psychological and financial repercussions. In cases where a person has died or suffered unnecessarily as a result of another person’s negligence, there is a possibility that significant compensation may flow from that event. Of course, money cannot take away the pain but it can help ease the financial and other burdens which can ruin the lives of surviving family members and friends. In some cases, there might be a perceived need to ensure...

Continue reading

Fair Work Commission General Protection Provisions

Introduction The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) afford certain persons protection from prohibited conduct which would otherwise place an aggrieved person in a disadvantaged position. Breaches of these provisions primarily go before the Fair Work Commission and can resolve early on at a conciliation conference or may proceed all the way to a hearing. The Fair Work Commission provides a cheaper and quicker mechanism for parties to resolve their dispute which may relate to a dismissal or a non-dismissal issue. Alternatively, and in some rare cases, it may be appropriate for a breach of a general...

Continue reading

Important Changes to Special Hardship Order Applications

The Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Driver Licensing) Regulation 2010 governs Special Hardship Orders. This regulation has recently been amended. For those wishing to apply for a Special Hardship Order, it is important to understand how these changes may affect you.   Change 1 – Removal of 21 Day Time Limit Prior to 1 April 2019, eligible drivers had 21 days from the date of their suspension to apply for a Special Hardship Order. This restriction has now been removed to allow drivers to apply for a Special Hardship Order at any time during their suspension period. This amendment takes into account the fact that circumstances...

Continue reading

How Informant Evidence can Prevent Justice and Lead to Wrongful Convictions

Last week, on 26 July 2019, convicted murderer Faruk Orman, walked free after serving 12 years in prison. His conviction was overturned following shocking revelations that his barrister, Lawyer X (aka Nicola Gobbo) was providing information to police that led to his ultimate conviction. The Victorian Court of Appeal held that the information provided by Ms Gobbo led to a contamination of his case and found that the conviction was a “substantial miscarriage of justice”. This is the first conviction to be overturned by the Court of Appeal in Victoria since the start of the Royal Commission. Sadly, though, it is...

Continue reading

Public Interest Criterion 4020: Lessons from Wehbe v Minister for Home Affairs

In the High Court matter of Wehbe v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] HCA 50 the court upheld the delegate of the Minister’s decision to refuse a visa applicant on the basis of a bogus document pursuant to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’) Schedule 4 Public Interest Criterion 4020. There are important lessons from Wehbe for visa applicants who are required to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020. We provide some equally important key takeaways of this case further below. In our article Everything you need to know about public interest criterion 4020 we discussed the requirements of Public Interest Criterion...

Continue reading

Costs in Civil Litigation

The commencement of litigation is generally viewed as the ‘last resort’ in a dispute and connotations which are implicitly conveyed often flow to the other party which are analogous to a UFC match when the contenders enter the octagon and the announcer says: it’s…time… While it can be viewed as the only remaining option, in most civil matters where parties are represented, the matter will not go forward to a full trial in the courts. Most parties will reach a settlement which can be achieved by numerous means and is often in the best interests of everyone involved, and may also...

Continue reading

Appealing a Visa Refusal or Visa Cancellation – Merits Review and Judicial Review

A person’s visa may be refused or cancelled under various grounds pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).  Depending on the person’s circumstance and whether the person’s visa refusal or visa cancellation was valid or not, there may be a right to appeal the decision. Generally, among other things, a valid Notice of Refusal of Application or Notice or Cancellation will state whether the application for a visa is a reviewable decision or not, and will usually specify a strict time period if the decision can be appealed. To ascertain whether the respective notice is valid and/or whether the decision...

Continue reading

Removal or Deportation from Australia: A Civil and Criminal Overlap

The commonality between whether a person is removed or deported from Australia is that in both cases they are forcibly removed from Australia. There are important distinctions and applications between the two mechanisms available to the Minister and the Department of Home Affairs. In short, removal is an automated process when an unlawful non-citizen is held in immigration detention and has failed to satisfy strict statutory requirements. Deportation requires a specific deportation order to be made against an Australian permanent resident pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) In either case, a person will usually be interviewed prior to being removed...

Continue reading

No Body, No Parole – Recent decision of Lincoln v Parole Board of Queensland [2019]

The recent decision of Lincoln v Parole Board of Queensland [2019] QSC 156 demonstrates the application section 193A of the Corrective Services Act 2002. This provision is more commonly referred to as the “No body, no parole law”. The decision demonstrates that the application of the law does not specifically go to knowledge of the whereabouts of the remains of the victim of an unlawful killing. Rather, it is broader and parole can be denied where a prisoner has not cooperated satisfactorily with the investigation of the offence as a whole which could potentially lead to the location of the deceased.   When...

Continue reading

Trafficking in dangerous drugs and the application of the “extraordinary circumstances” principle

R v Nunn [2019] QCA 100 – Trafficking in dangerous drugs and the application of the “extraordinary circumstances” principle   In a decision by the Court of Appeal on 7 May 2019 and published on 28 May 2019, the Court again affirmed the “extraordinary circumstances” principle which is relevant when dealing with mature persons charged trafficking in Schedule 1 dangerous drugs. Traditionally, case law dictates that in circumstances where the trafficking is large scale, the sentences which are imposed on mature offenders who have plead guilty range from 10 – 12 years imprisonment. This recent decision indicates that the principle, is to be...

Continue reading