Did the trade mark “Post without the office” breach Australia Post’s intellectual property? Which case won?
Sendle Pty Ltd is a Sydney-based parcel delivery company that provides low-cost, door-to-door delivery, enabling customers to avoid physically attending a post office to send parcels.
As a start-up back in 2014, Sendle lodged an application to register the trade mark “Post without the office”.
In 2015, Australia Post filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose the registration, arguing that the phrase was a breach of the Trade Marks Act because it was deceptively similar to its own trade marks and likely to mislead consumers.
The matter came before the Australian Trade Marks Office for hearing in February 2017.
“My son forged my signature on a fraudulent mortgage and that house belongs to me.” Which case won?
Ms I was an 83-year-old woman who owned a property on Queensland’s Gold Coast.
In June 2017, Ms I’s son mortgaged the property as security for a $1 million loan to the family business.
He did so without his mother’s knowledge by forging her signature on the mortgage documentation.
He then defaulted on the loan.
Illegal building works – the horror story edition
Was the binding financial agreement unfair? Did the court set it aside? Which case won?
A binding financial agreement (also commonly known as a prenuptial agreement or “prenup”) is an agreement made between two people that sets out how they want their affairs to be arranged if their relationship ends.
These agreements can be made before, during or after a marriage or de facto relationship, including for a same sex relationship.
A binding financial agreement is a formal document made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), but it is not reviewed or approved by the Family Court and, as long as it complies with the requirements set out in the Act, the court has no jurisdiction to adjust it.
Should 16-year-olds be allowed to vote?
“If I’d had a safe system of work, I wouldn’t be injured.” Which case won?
A case in 2019 examined the question of whether a race club had provided one of its casual employees with a safe system of work.
Because of the big crowd of racegoers, and copious supplies of food and drink (which could be brought in or purchased), more than a hundred 240-litre wheelie bins were placed at various locations around the racecourse.
The bins had soft plastic bin liners placed in them and were positioned in groups at various locations. Some were on paved areas, but others on grass.
On one of these grassed areas (with a moderate but unquantified slope) was a group of six bins. Despite the worker’s emphatic evidence to the contrary, the trial judge accepted that the bins were placed back-to-back, with their handles touching.
About twenty metres away from these bins was a garbage skip, where full bin liners were dumped. It was accepted that the weight of a full bin liner could vary considerably, depending on the mix of food waste and lightweight items, such as empty cardboard cups and drink cans.
Can I become bankrupt to get rid of my debts?
New online defamation defence for publishers “innocently disseminating” third party comments
New “post and boast” law can end in jail
“I endured regular abuse at my hospital job and I want compensation for PTSD” – which case won?
A case in 2023 concerned a woman who worked as a nurse and made a claim for compensation for PTSD.
The woman worked in the emergency department of a hospital in northern NSW from 2011 to 31 January 2019.
Staff in the emergency department were regularly subject to abuse by patients.
Around 2015, the nurse had a particularly upsetting encounter with a patient, LF, who was verbally abusive, yelled profanities at her and threw a blood pressure monitor across the room.
On 31 January 2019, when the nurse arrived for her shift, she saw LF’s name on the patient handover sheet. She began crying uncontrollably and suffered a panic attack for the first time.
She left work that day and has been unable to work since.
The nurse was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Changes to labour hire laws for “same work same pay”
NSW police insurance scheme ends lump sum payments for TPD
You’ve had a windfall and won lotto! To keep it you’d best get expert advice
Cultural heritage and colonial history – should Ned Kelly’s descendants have a claim on his story?
Would dad still have to pay child support to mum after his son moved in with him full-time? Which case won?
A case in the Family Court involved a binding child support agreement.
A couple first started living together in 1994, were married in 1995 and had four children together.
They separated in 2006 and in February 2008, they entered parenting orders by consent, which provided that their youngest child would live with his mother and spend time with his father for five nights each fortnight during the school term and for half of the school holidays.
In July 2008, the parties entered into a binding child support agreement (BCSA) which provided that the father pay child support to the mother for the youngest child in the amount of $220 each week (indexed to inflation) until the child’s 18th birthday.
A BCSA is a binding agreement that can only be changed or set aside by a court if exceptional circumstances have arisen.
“My partner left his binding death benefit to me, but the superannuation trustee won’t hand it over” – which case won?
A recent dispute in the Supreme Court of NSW involved a binding death benefit nomination and a superannuation trustee.
A man and his de facto spouse had lived together with their two small daughters for five years, when in October 2019, he was diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer.
As his condition worsened, he began putting his affairs in order.
In November 2019, he instructed his lawyer to prepare a will.
The man’s assets included a superannuation death benefit in excess of $4.7 million.
He instructed his lawyer that he wanted this death benefit to be paid to his estate, and for the authority to be given to apply the benefit towards discharging debts.
On 15 July 2020, the man was admitted to hospital for palliative care.
On 23 July 2020, he executed his last will, which was prepared by his solicitor in accordance with the instructions given in November 2019.
On 24 July 2020, the deceased instructed his lawyer to prepare a Binding Death Benefit Nomination (BDBN), directing that in the event of his death, the superannuation fund was to pay the $4.7 million death benefit to his spouse. This differed from his original instructions to pay the death benefit to his estate.
At around 12pm on 26 July 2020, the spouse received a call from the man’s doctor, to tell her that the man’s condition had deteriorated, and he was being transferred to the ICU.
Then at around 1pm on the same day, the deceased signed the BDBN in favour of his spouse.
He died later that day.
The bankrupt, the trustee and the superannuation fund – which case won?
A man was declared bankrupt and a trustee in bankruptcy was appointed to his estate in 2011.
In December 2013, the bankrupt’s mother died and, after a grant of probate was made in February 2014, the proceeds of her estate were distributed. Her estate included, amongst other assets, the proceeds of a regulated superannuation fund.
Under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), payments made from a regulated superannuation fund to a bankrupt after the date of bankruptcy, unlike other payments, do not have to be divided amongst the bankrupt’s creditors.
Part of the mother’s estate, an amount of $87,900.33, was distributed to the bankrupt in accordance with her will. The money was paid to the bankrupt’s wife because the bankrupt did not operate a bank account in his own name.
The trustee brought proceedings against the bankrupt’s wife seeking a declaration that the money was not excluded under the Act and should be divided amongst the bankrupt’s creditors.
“Mum was heavily drugged when she changed her will and disinherited me.” Which case won?
In January 2020, at the age of 92, a woman was hospitalised with a life-threatening leg condition.
During the day she underwent two unsuccessful procedures to restore blood flow to the leg, and at about 2pm she was given anaesthetic agents and other drugs.
Around 6:30pm, the doctors informed her that she required emergency surgery on her leg, and she signed a consent form for that surgery.
However, immediately before her scheduled 8pm surgery, the woman adamantly refused consent to the operation unless she could change her will.
