Incorporated associations

Non-profit community groups such as sporting clubs, charities, interest groups and community associations can be formally incorporated and recognised by the law. More than 21,000 associations are already incorporated in Queensland. The governing legislation is the Associations Incorporate Act 1981 (Qld) (the Act) and the Associations Incorporate regulation 1999 (Qld) (The Regulation). The Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General is responsible for administering this Act and incorporating associations and does so through the Office of Fair Trading. This chapter covers some of the basic concepts and procedures for incorporating an association under the Act. The Act and the Regulation are usually amended at least once a year, and current materials are available on the Queensland Government legislation website.

Electronic conveyancing in Australia: Is anyone concerned about security?

Three proof requirements as essential for a sustainable land registration system. These were proof of identity, proof of ownership, and authority to deal. Our attention in this paper is drawn to the latter two requirements and will ask whether the introduction of the Property Exchange of Australia (PEXA), and its underpinning regulatory regime will meet the concerns that we have in relation to proof of ownership and authority to deal. In drawing out some problems with PEXA, we then offer an innovative idea, sourced from the transfer of equities that could serve to generate discussion on how we can ensure the Torrens system of land registration is sustainable for another 160 years.

Hamcor Pty Ltd v Queensland

The Ipp Report recommendation that for claims for personal injury and death arising from the negligent performance or non-performance of a public function based upon a policy decision, could not establish negligence unless the public authority was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority in the same position would have made it, was adopted in different ways by all jurisdictions except South Australia and the Northern Territory.1 This introduced the public law concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness to civil liability which caused much academic debate.2 Section 36 of the Queensland provides...

Health and guardianship law : guardianship and administration application in the matter of MDC [2014] QCAT 338

The recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) in Guardianship and administration application in the matter of MDC [2014] QCAT 338, provides an important ruling on the limits of who can be appointed as an enduring power of attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld). In particular, the tribunal adopted a broad interpretation of the term "health provider" when considering the limits on who can be appointed as an enduring power of attorney under the legislation...

Making the fun stop : youth justice reform in Queensland

In 2013 the newly elected conservative Liberal National Party government instigated amendments to the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). Boot camps replaced court ordered youth justice conferencing. In 2014 there were more drastic changes, including opening the Children’s Court proceedings to the public, permitting publication of identifying information of repeat offenders, removing the principle of ‘detention as a last resort’, facilitating prompt transferral of 17 year olds to adult prisons and instigating new bail offences and mandatory boot camp orders for recidivist motor vehicle offenders in Townsville. This article compares these amendments to the legislative frameworks in other jurisdictions and current social research. It argues that these amendments are out of step with national and international best practice benchmarks for youth justice. Early indications are that Indigenous children are now experiencing increased rates of unsentenced remand. The article argues that the government’s policy initiatives are resulting in negative outcomes and that early and extensive evaluations of these changes are essential.

‘Only a pawn in their game’ : crime, risk and politics in the case of Robert Fardon

In 2003 Robert Fardon was the first prisoner to be detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the first of the new generation preventive detention laws enacted in Australia and directed at keeping sex offenders in prison or under supervision beyond the expiry of their sentences where a court decides, on the basis of psychiatric assessments, that unconditional release would create an unacceptable risk to the community. A careful examination of Fardon’s case shows the extent to which the administration of the regime was from the outset governed by politics and political calculation rather than the logic of risk management and community protection. In 2003 Robert Fardon was the first person detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (hereafter DPSOA), a newly enacted Queensland law aimed at the preventive detention of sex offenders. It was the first of a new generation of such laws introduced in Australia, now also in force in NSW, Western Australia and Victoria. The laws have been widely criticized by lawyers, academics and others (Keyzer and McSherry 2009; Edgely 2007). In this article I want to focus on the details of how the Queensland law was administered in Fardon’s case, he being perhaps the most well-known prisoner detained under such laws and certainly the longest held. It will show, I hope, that seemingly abstract rule of law principles invoked by other critics are not simply abstract: they afford a crucial practical safeguard against the corruption of criminal justice in which the ends both of community protection and of justice give way to opportunistic exploitation of ‘the mythic resonance of crime and punishment for electoral purposes’ (Scheingold 1998: 888).

Plant Breeder's Rights: An Australian commentary December 2004

The aim of this manual is to provide a practical guide to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth). It is a resource of information about the legislation, its administration, and its operation. This commentary is intended to assist plant breeders, scientific researchers, and business managers who want to make a more effective use of the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth) in the management and commercialisation of their intellectual property rights. It is also designed to enhance the understanding of the legislation among lawyers, patent attorneys, qualified persons, and policy-makers.

Breaches of lease between exercise of option to renew and expiry of lease in Queensland

The decision of Greppo v Jam-Cal Bundaberg Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 131 illustrates a defect in s 128 of the Property Law Act 1974(Qld) which gives a right to a lessee to apply for relief against forfeiture against loss of a right to exercise an option to renew. The defect arises because the legislation does not adequately deal with breaches that occur after the exercise of the option but before the expiry of the lease. Most commercial leases of all kinds have a standard provisions, as the lease in this case, as a conditions of the exercise of the option to renew that the lessee will have given notice of exercise within the time specified to the lessor and will have up to the date of expiry of the lease paid all rent and observed all lessee’s covenants. The difficulties occur because invariably an option must be exercised before the expiry of the lease when a lessee may not be in breach of the lease but may later prior to the expiry of the lease fall into breach. As this decision indicates,at least in Queensland, that the lessee who desires to challenge the lessor’s right to enforce those conditions can neither seek relief under s 128 against forfeiture of the right to exercise the option ,or indeed, under s 124 of the Property Law Act 1974 to preserve the agreement for lease brought about by the otherwise regular exercise of the option to renew. The decision cries out for legislative reform along the lines of s 133E of the Conveyancing Act 1919(NSW) which was amended in 2001 to meet this contingency.

From court to QCAT, or not

In Sutton v Tang [2015] QDC 191 Reid DCJ considered the circumstances that may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to order a transfer of a proceeding to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) under s53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the Act).

‘The door creaked shut’: The new breach of bail offence for youth in Queensland

As part of the 2014 amendments to the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) the previous Queensland government introduced a new breach of bail offence and a reverse onus provision in relation to the new offence. Also included in the raft of amendments was a provision removing the internationally accepted principle that, in relation to young offenders, detention should be used as ‘a last resort’. This article argues that these changes are likely to increase the entrenchment of young people within the criminal justice system.

Costs assessment not an each-way bet: Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60

In Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60 McGinness DCJ considered issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). This recent costs assessment case from the District Court clearly illustrates the interplay between the relevant elements of the Legal Profession Act 2007 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

Decision examines wrongdoers and liability

In Ligon Sixty-Three Pty Ltd v ClarkeKann [2015] QSC 153 the court considered an application to join parties as defendants when it was alleged they were concurrent wrongdoers for the purpose of the proportionate liability provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (the Act).

Costs on review - what charges are appropriate?

In Picamore Pty Ltd v Challen [2015] QDC 067 McGill DCJ considered the nature of a review under r742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) in the context of a review of a costs assessment conducted under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). His Honour increased the amount that had been allowed by the costs assessor for a number of items. The judgment includes observations about what may appropriately be charged for particular items of legal work.

‘Lemon Laws’: an inquiry into consumer protections and remedies for buyers of new motor vehicles

1. Under the Terms of Reference for the Committee’s Inquiry, ‘lemons’ are defined as ‘new motor vehicles with numerous, severe defects that re-occur despite multiple repair attempts or where defects have caused a new motor vehicle to be out of service for a prolonged period of time’. Consumers are currently protected in relation to lemon purchases by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) located in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). The ACL applies as a law of Queensland pursuant to the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld). The voluntary recall and consumer guarantees law took effect on 1 January 2011. 2. In 2006, the Government of Victoria made a commitment to introduce a lemon law into the provisions of the then Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic). The public consultation process on the proposal to introduce a lemon law for motor vehicle purchases in Victoria was conducted by Ms Janice Munt MP, with the assistance of Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV). CAV released an Issues Paper to canvas with industry and the community options for the development and introduction of a motor vehicle lemon law.(Consumer Affairs Victoria, Introducing Victorian motor vehicle lemon laws, Issues Paper, (September, 2007). 3. A CAV report prepared by Janice Munt MP was released in July, 2008 (Consumer Affairs Victoria, Motor Cars: A report on the motor vehicle lemon law consultations (July 2008) (Victorian Lemon Law Report). However, the Victorian proposal was overtaken by events leading to the adoption of a uniform consumer protection law in all Australian jurisdictions, the ACL. 4. The structure of this submission is to consider first the three different bases upon which consumers can obtain relief for economic loss arising from defects in motor vehicles. The second part of the submission considers the difficulties encountered by consumers in litigating motor vehicle disputes in the courts and tribunals. The third part of the submission examines the approach taken in other jurisdictions to resolving motor vehicle disputes. The final part of the submission considers a number of possible reforms that could be made to the existing law and its enforcement to reduce consumer detriment arising from the purchase of ‘lemon’ motor vehicles. 5. There are three principal bases upon which a consumer can obtain redress for defects in new motor vehicles under the ACL. The first is where the manufacturer admits liability and initiates the voluntary recall procedure provided for in s 128 of the ACL. Under this basis the manufacturer generally repairs or replaces the part subject to the recall free of charge. The second basis is where the manufacturer or dealer denies liability and the consumer is initiates proceedings in the court or tribunal seeking a statutory remedy under the ACL, the nature of which will depend on whether the failure to comply with the consumer guarantee was major or not. The third basis upon which a consumer can obtain redress is pursuant to public enforcement by the ACCC. Each basis will be considered in this part. What all three bases have in common is the need to conduct an investigation to identify the nature of the defect and how it arose.

Niagara South estate and legal documents collection, 1752-1937, n.d. [non-inclusive]

The documents in the collection include the names of families residing in Stamford Township, Welland County, which today is considered Niagara Falls. Some names are: Allan, Barnett, Brokenshaw, Buchanan, Cadham, Clark, Dalton, Dell, Fell, Garner, Hemmings, Kent, Lightbody, Orchard, Perry, Pew, Ross, Street, Thompson, Willox, Willson, Wright. For a more complete list of names consult the finding aid.