My X is Delaying Property Settlement – How to avoid and what to do

My X is Delaying Property Settlement | How to avoid and what to do... Separating from your partner is a difficult task which often carries significant heartbreak and emotional stresses. Dealing with these tensions whilst navigating the difficulties involved in a property settlement is by no means a simple task. A significant contributor to the stresses involved is a delay to the property settlement, which involves the division of the parties assets. Assets include property, money, furniture, superannuation, stocks & cryptocurrencies, etc. There is a multitude of reasons why a property settlement can be delayed, which often has negative implications emotionally and financially to both parties. Reasons for delay in property settlement may include: • parties failing to agree on a settlement; • parties failing to provide financial disclosure; • parties disputing the value of an asset; • parties disagreeing on contributions; • parties attempting to hide assets; • parties refusing to enter negotiations; and • parties failing to participate in the process entirely. Unrepresented parties may find it difficult to navigate the complexities of family law and property settlement. Even where parties agree to the distribution of their assets in a property settlement, separated parties should finalise their property settlement by way of Financial Agreement or Consent Orders. Parties who do not finalise their property settlement run the risk of having their ex-partner renegotiating a new property settlement or filing an application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for property orders. How to accelerate your property settlement: Without representation, parties often don’t appreciate the difficulties involved in progressing and finalising their property settlements. The following can be done to expedite a property settlement: • Advise your ex-partner that you intend on finalising the property matters and invite them to propose what they believe to be a just and equitable property division • Negotiate • Undertake mediation • Obtain legal advice from a family lawyer • File an Application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (must file within 12 months from the date of your divorce or 24 months from the date of separation for de facto cases. Whether it be by agreement or court ordered, Salerno Law’s family lawyer are experienced in all aspects of property settlements. During these times, you need a competent and experienced family law lawyers who understands what you are going through, thinks carefully and proactively on your behalf and knows how to represent you for the best possible outcome. If you want to understand your rights, contact Salerno Law and discover why we are Gold Coast’s best family lawyers. Tyrone Boucher - Salerno Law

jackadmin2023-02-02T12:43:42+10:00January 25th, 2023|Family Law|

How long do you have to be separated before filing for divorce?

In Australia, you must satisfy the threshold provided under Part VI of the Family Law Act 1975 to file an Application for Divorce in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. That being, that: - The marriage has irretrievably broken down and that the court is satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood of cohabitation; and - That you have been separated for a minimum of 12 months. An Application for Divorce can be filed at any time following the relevant 12-month time limit. What if we were separated, but still living under the same roof? If you were separated and living apart under the same roof, an affidavit must be provided in support of the Application providing details of the living situation and evidence as to how the parties had separated (i.e living in separate rooms, separating finances, etc.). A supporting affidavit should also be provided from a friend or family member who was aware of your separation and living situation. If the Court is not satisfied that you have been separated for 12 months, they may withdraw your Application for Divorce. How to file an Application for Divorce An Application for Divorce can be filed: - Solely; or - Jointly with your husband/wife. If a Sole Application is filed, the sealed copy (stamped by the court), must be personally served upon your husband/wife at least 28 days prior to the court event, or to their lawyers if represented. If a Joint Application is filed, an Affidavit of eFIling must be signed by both parties and filed with the court. An Application for Divorce requires your Marriage Certificate and details of any other orders made in relation to property or children matters and a filing fee is applicable. Responding/Objecting to a Divorce The only grounds to file a Response to a Divorce Application are: - That you have not been separated for at least 12 months; and - That the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia does not have jurisdiction to grant a divorce (i.e married overseas, etc.). Time Limits Once an Order for Divorce is granted by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, parties have 12 months (exceptions may apply) to bring an Application for Property Orders to court. Prior to filing for Divorce, parties should obtain legal advice from a family lawyer as to what relevant time limits should be considered. During these times, you need a competent and experienced family law lawyers who understands what you are going through, thinks carefully and proactively on your behalf and knows how to represent you for the best possible outcome. If you want to understand your rights, contact Salerno Law and discover why we are Gold Coast’s best family lawyers. Tyrone Boucher - Salerno Law

jackadmin2023-02-08T16:44:43+10:00January 25th, 2023|Family Law|

Liability for injuries suffered playing sport at school

“Life is risky. People do not expect, and are not entitled to expect, to live in a risk-free environment. The measure of careful behaviour is reasonableness, not elimination of risk” (Gleeson CJ quote on Swain v Waverley Municipal Council) A school’s liability surrounding student injuries, particularly during school sports, can be a complex issue. A failed slam dunk? A tackle gone wrong? Or even a fall while running? This article will explain how and when schools may be liable for sporting injuries of their students. It will also discuss two real-life examples of the application of a school’s liability for an injury suffered by a student during school sport. When are schools deemed liable for its students’ sports injuries? Schools and teachers have a duty of care to ensure reasonable steps are taken to minimise the risk of their students’ suffering injury or harm whilst under the supervision and care of the school. This duty of care extends to any extracurricular activities that the school offers to their students. This duty of care will also extend to any visiting students on the school’s grounds who are engaging in school sports. The traditional perception surrounding duty of care is that school teachers and any third party extracurricular facilitators will take care of the students the same way a parent would with their child. There is an expectation for schools and their teachers to take reasonable steps in protecting students against any foreseeable injuries that may take place whilst participating in school sport. In Queensland, the Department of Education provides educators with a student supervision guideline for over 70 activities. The guideline illustrates best practice methods to ensure the safety of students and further provides reasonable steps on mitigating school sport related injuries. An example of reasonable steps a school may implement to avoid a sport-related injury in rowing could include: - Using appropriate equipment to better handle the boat i.e boat ramps - Ongoing assessment of marine animal presence to avoid attack whist on the water; - Watch and warn procedure for moving vehicles near boats; - Correctly tying down and storing of equipment to mitigate tripping or similar hazards; and - Having a first aid plan. Example of a school not being held liable for a student sporting injury: (Sanchez-Siridopoulos v Canavan [2015] NSWC 1139) In this case, a 10-year-old boy while at school was warming up for a PE class. During the warm-up, which involved players running from one side of the asphalt to another, the plaintiff bumped into another student and the plaintiff fell to the ground injuring her wrist. Years after the injury, the plaintiff developed complex regional pain syndrome in her injured wrist. The plaintiff argued the injury had impacted her social and future professional life. The plaintiff alleged that the school had breached its duty of care to her by promoting a game/sporting activity that had given the risk of injury to the students involved. This was also corroborated by the alleged lack of [...]

jackadmin2022-11-25T09:44:37+10:00November 24th, 2022|Personal Injury, Sports|

Token Holders Up in Arms Over Freezing of Digital Wallet Involving Crypto Arbitrage

There has been an increase in the freezing of digital assets held in centralised exchanges, with token holders demanding answers. The recent FTX saga has only exacerbated the instances of centralised exchanges freezing assets. Understanding why your wallet is frozen requires an exploration of crypto exchanges, arbitrage, and their legal requirements. Both centralised and decentralised exchanges are platforms which enable investors to trade cryptocurrencies and facilitate price discovery. On a decentralised exchange (DEX), transactions occur directly between crypto traders using smart contracts without interference from facilitators or intermediaries. DEXs uphold a key principle of cryptocurrency: to enable transactions to occur between parties without the need for a third party. Essentially, the control provided to a user on a DEX is a key advantage. DEXs allow users to exclusively trade cryptocurrency tokens directly with other users. A centralised exchange (CEX) enables trading to occur on a platform moderated by a private company or third party. Account and customer support services are available, and much like other stock trading websites, investors can buy and sell digital assets which are recorded using a central order book system. Since CEXs would retain custody of all digital assets on the platform rather than allow users to have exclusive access to their wallets, CEXs are much more susceptible to hacks and data breaches. Importantly, the CEX holds the users’ private keys, allowing it to prevent transactions ordinarily pursuant to its terms and conditions. What is crypto arbitrage and is it legal in Australia? Crypto arbitrage is a trading strategy to earn a potential profit by taking advantage of price discrepancies whereby investors purchase cryptocurrency on one exchange and sell it on another exchange for a higher price. Factors such as the fluctuation in trading volume and the latest bids on an exchange order book may contribute to price discrepancies between CEXs. One of the benefits of arbitrage is that it has the potential to balance an asset’s price across markets by attracting additional traders also hoping to exploit price discrepancies. Cryptocurrency arbitrage is perfectly legal in Australia. At present, the Australian framework treats cryptocurrencies as property, in the sense that capital gains tax applies. Additionally, under the current legal framework, cryptocurrency exchanges must be registered with the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC). AUSTRAC is an agency responsible for detecting criminal abuse of the financial system and thus, cryptocurrency transactions and reporting entities (such as digital currency exchange providers) are subject to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter- Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AML/CTF Act). The Act places special focus on fulfilling Australia’s international obligations to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. In an AUSTRAC report reviewing the AML/CTF Act, it was highlighted that offshore businesses providing services to Australian customers are not regulated thereby gaining a competitive advantage. However, this is a rapidly changing regulatory environment and the existing laws are subject to these changing conditions. Although arbitrage is legal in Australia, CEXs may have to protect themselves against risks such as technical errors, [...]

jackadmin2022-11-23T13:42:27+10:00November 23rd, 2022|Cryptocurrency|

Australia’s Proposed Legislative Regime To Assist In Protecting Indigenous Culture and Art

We acknowledge the people united by the Yugambeh language who are the original custodians of the local land, rivers, mountains, and sea. We pay our respects to their past and current Elders and look to a positive future for their young people. We acknowledge their continued care of land, their wisdom, their laws and their passing on of knowledge. First Nations cultural expression is firmly connected to over 75,000 years of heritage and continuing practice in Australia. Their art has been recognised both within Australia and internationally. Despite the artistic recognition, current intellectual property (IP) laws in Australia only protect individual artists and do not recognise any communal rights. The inability of current IP laws to protect the creative and traditional ownership of indigenous art and property has been an ongoing problem within Australia. Currently, there are no specific laws that prevent the misuse, distortion or alteration of Indigenous and cultural IP that is communally owned or part of an Indigenous group’s heritage. The Productivity Commission (the Commission) has investigated this problem and released the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Visual Arts and Crafts report in response to the lack of legal and cultural protection offered to Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP). Since the birth of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT’s), there has been concern with copyright as the purchase of an NFT is not accompanied by a copyright transfer. Therefore, when an NFT is purchased, only the NFT itself is owned. This challenge stems from the lack of an authentication process and platforms not verifying the people who create (or mint) the NFTs in the first place. Subsequently, this impacts Indigenous artists who are now competing with fake Indigenous artwork or having their art sold as NFTs without their knowledge. Safeguarding Indigenous traditional knowledge and cultural expression is crucial to ensuring that cultural heritage is maintained and passed down from one generation to another. What is the Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP)? The ICIP refers to the rights that Indigenous people have, and want to have, to protect their traditional arts and culture. Rights protected by the ICIP include the rights to protect traditional knowledge and sacred cultural material and the right to ensure that traditional laws and customary obligations are respected. The Australia Council for the Arts along with the national arts funding and advisory body to the Australian Government Office of the arts have released a set of protocols aimed at bridging the legal gap and providing IP protection by recognising and engendering respect for customary practice. The protocols aim to address key legal and ethical issues of Indigenous cultural material. Furthermore, ICIP covers many differed forms of traditional culture and expression. Who owns the IP of an NFT? NFT owners are not granted any rights under IP unless the creator takes certain measures to ensure that they are. Essentially, copyrighting is a proactive choice for artists whereby they can outline what others are able to do with their artwork. This information may be included in a [...]

jackadmin2022-11-02T14:59:47+10:00November 2nd, 2022|Cryptocurrency, Intellectual Property|

Queensland Land Tax Reform Struck Down

Queensland Land Tax Reform Struck Down Last week, the Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk abandoned the proposed Queensland Land Tax reform following significant industry pushback. Queensland was set to implement new legislation affecting the land tax of Queensland landowners. The change was set to take effect 30 June 2023 and would have significantly increased the annual land tax liability of Queensland landowners. Currently Currently, Queensland land tax is calculated based on the value of all Queensland land which is not exempt from land tax. Land which is exempt from land tax includes: land held by individuals with a value of $600,000.00 or less; or land held by companies, absentees, or trustees with a value of $350,000.00 or less. Crucially, Queensland landowners are not currently assessed on the value of land held outside of Queensland. What was proposed? Under the proposed reform, from 30 June 2023 land tax for Queensland homeowners would have been assessed based on all land held across any State in Australia. These changes would have seen landowners with land in multiple States, including Queensland, pay significantly higher land tax. Calculations Under the proposed reform, land tax liability would be calculated as follows: calculate the total value of taxable land owned in all of Australia; calculate the Queensland land tax liability of the all the taxable land held in Australian as if it were all held in Queensland; calculate the percentage of the total taxable land which is owed in Queensland only; and then multiply the total calculated land tax liability by the percentage of Queensland land. Example For example, Stephanie owns land in Australia with the following taxable value: Queensland $750,000.00 New South Wales $550,000.00 Victoria $300,000.00 Stephanie’s land tax liability as of 30 June 2022 is calculated only on the $750,000.00 land value in Queensland and totals $2,000.00 for the year. Under the reform, as of 30 June 2023, Stephanie’s land tax liability would be calculated as follows: Total value of taxable land = $1,600,000.00 = ($750,000.00 + $550,000.00 + $300,000.00) Land tax payable on total value of taxable land = $14,400.00 Percentage of Queensland property = 46.875% = ($750,000.00 / $1,600,000.00) x 100% Land tax payable = $6,750.00 = $14,400.00 x 46.875% Following the land tax reform, Stephanie’s land tax would increase from $2,000.00 to $6,750.00 per annum. Concerns over the Reform Amid the rising RBA cash rate, the proposal sparked panic across the property industry. The main concern being that Queensland landowners would suffer a double jeopardy on land tax for any interstate land. To continue with the above example, Stephanie would not only pay a significantly higher land tax in Queensland based on the taxable value of her properties in New South Wales and Victoria, but also pay separate land tax in those States. The proposed reform received significant industry pushback as it was seen as an unfair money grab by the Queensland Government. Significantly, the NSW premier, Dominic Perrottet, announced he would not be providing the Queensland Government with information on the [...]

jackadmin2022-10-19T16:08:27+10:00October 19th, 2022|Property & Conveyancing|

ACCC Suing Airbnb Over Allegations Of Misleading Aussies

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Australia’s competition and consumer watchdog, has instituted proceedings against Airbnb, Inc. and Airbnb Ireland (Airbnb) in the Federal Court of Australia claiming that Airbnb falsely, and misleadingly, represented to Australian consumers about Australian accommodation prices. ACCC accusations is that Airbnb led consumers to believe that the prices were in Australian dollars (AUD), when in many cases they were priced under the US dollar (USD). What is Deceptive and Misleading Conduct? Misleading or deceptive conduct is a legal concept enshrined under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Law 2010 (Cth)) (the Act). In its most basic definition, the misleading or deceptive provisions under the Act prohibits businesses, in trade or commerce, to engage in conduct that misleads or deceives, or is likely to mislead or deceive, consumers or other businesses. For example, misleading or deceptive conduct can occur when a business makes claims or representations that are likely to create a false impression in consumers regarding the price, value or quality of goods or services on offer. How the events transpired The ACCC alleges that Airbnb guests had booked accommodation under misleading pricing between January 2018 and August 2021. Significantly, thousands of these customers booked the accommodation assuming that they were paying with AUD but were ultimately paying in USD instead. With an average conversion rate of 0.72 US cents to AUD over the last three years, Australians were paying a far higher price for accommodation than what was advertised. For instance, customers who booked a $500 rental paid $200 more than planned after being charged in USD. In some cases, the ACCC alleged that Airbnb clarified that the price was in USD in a small font, but only after the customer had reserved the accommodation. A series of complaints to the ACCC ensued, resulting in the ACCC initiating proceedings against Airbnb to compensate the affected customers. Misleading or deceptive conduct at a glance – Representations made to the public In the context of advertising, the question is when will conduct that is directed to the public at large be considered as misleading or deceptive? Some of the following principles, established by Australian courts, may assist in answering that question: the relevant section of the public must be identified; the matter must be considered in reference to all people who come within that section of the public (i.e. demographic and socioeconomic status). However, the conduct must be tested against ordinary and reasonable members of a class; it is necessary to query why the misconception occurred through evidence by those who have been led into error, in order to determine whether they were confused by the misleading conduct; and the conduct that is claimed to mislead or deceive must be consider within the context of its occurrence. Of important note, no one actually needs to be misled in order for misleading or deceptive conduct to occur. The conduct just needs to be "likely" to mislead or [...]

jackadmin2022-10-06T10:01:21+10:00October 6th, 2022|Commercial & Corporate|

Heated Argument In Cool Room At Work Causes a Psychiatric Injury, But Is It Work Related?

A sadly common feature of some workplaces are arguments between employees, which occurred in Sheraden Jayne Browne v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 060 The issue was, just because an argument happens in a work setting, and the only injury was a psychiatric one, was work a “major significant contributing factor” to the cause of the injury? Facts:Mrs Browne worked at Woolworths and part of her job was to check food items had not reached their expiry date and to clean out the cool room. She had left 3 trolleys outside the cool room as part of doing this task. A fellow employee needed to access the area so pushed the trolleys back inside the cool room, (intending to return them once he finished gaining access), which upset Mrs Browne and a short, voices raised argument about the trolleys ensued. Mrs Brown became deeply upset, left work and was found to have suffered an injury. Mrs Browne alleged she was yelled at and sworn at, while the other party admitted raising his voice in response to her yelling. The self insurer accepted she was injured during work, but denied work was a major significant contributing factor, saying this was just a personal argument between 2 employees with a history of disliking each other, and work was just the setting for their latest confrontation. Mrs Browne submitted the argument was about work, so it was the only significant contributing factor. Counsel for the regulator put their case in paragraph 14 of the judgment as follows: “Mr Rashleigh, counsel for the regulator, submits that unless I accept Mrs Browne's version of the events, I cannot find that the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the injury because the injury was not due to her employment. His argument is that because she was the instigator of the altercation that was the cause of the injury, she took herself outside the employment. He submits that employees are not at work to abuse one another. It follows that when they do so they are outside the employment. Mr Rashleigh went on to submit that going in there and abusing someone to the extent that it causes a reaction brings the action outside the employment; that such conduct is not part of Mrs Browne's employment.” Deputy President Kaufman was brief in rejecting this argument, saying in paragraph 15 of the judgment: “I do not accept Mr Rashleigh's argument. Both Mrs Browne and Mr Gourlay, as well as Mr Kernke, were going about their duties when the argument broke out. What occurred was a disagreement about how the work was to be performed that escalated into an argument. That incident was the major significant contributing factor to Mrs Browne's personal injury. Exchanges between employees are an inherent part of their employment. The fact that an exchange escalates into an argument does not remove the activity from the employment.” The case seemed to have been clouded by prior events, and whether reasonable management action was involved, [...]

jackadmin2022-10-06T17:06:09+10:00October 6th, 2022|Personal Injury|

DEBT RECOVERY IN CRYPTOCURRENCY MATTERS

DEBT RECOVERY INa CRYPTOCURRENCY MATTERS – RETRIEVING ERRONEOUS TRANSFERS CASE: FORIS GFS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD V MANIVEL [2022] VSC 482 Brief Facts Foris GFS Australia Pty Ltd and Foris AU Pty Ltd (Plaintiffs) are part of the corporate group that operates the cryptocurrency trading platform, Crypto.com. The proceeding related to a mistaken payment allegedly made to one of its customers, the first defendant (Manivel). It was alleged that in May 2021, instead of refunding $100.00 as intended, $10,474,143.00 was erroneously transferred (the Wrongful Payment) to Manivel after an account number was accidentally entered into the payment amount field by a representative of the Plaintiffs. Extraordinarily, the Plaintiffs allegedly did not realise this significant error until some seven months later, in late December 2021. After making various enquiries of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the Bank), the Plaintiffs commenced proceedings in early February 2022. The following day, without notice to Manivel, it sought, and obtained, freezing orders over Manivel’s bank account and assets in an amount reflecting the Wrongful Payment. The Plaintiffs submitted subsequent applications to join additional defendants and sought freezing orders in respect of each of them. The Plaintiffs produced evidence to the effect that Manivel had transferred the bulk of the Wrongful Payment by various payments to the third to eighth defendants, some of which had been used to purchase real estate (Property) and was the basis for the joinder against the other defendants. What were the causes of action? The claim was, substantially, a claim for restitution on the basis that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The Plaintiffs claimed (among other things): The sum equal to the purchase price of the Property from the second defendant payable to either of the Plaintiffs; A declaration that the Property was held on trust by the second defendant for the benefit of the Plaintiffs; and Orders requiring the Property to be transferred to, or alternatively sold for the benefit of the Plaintiffs. What was the outcome? On 13 May 2022, judgment was entered for the First Plaintiff and the following orders and declarations were made: Manivel’s sister (also a defendant in the proceedings) to pay the Plaintiffs the sum of $1,350,000.00; A declaration was also made that the Property was acquired by Manivel’s sister on trust for the First Plaintiff. Further, an order was granted that set out arrangements by which the First Plaintiff was to sell the Property and awarded interest and costs in favour of Plaintiffs. Salerno Law’s services Salerno Law regularly advises and provides debt recovery advice and services to cryptocurrency exchanges and users of these exchanges (among others). Salerno Law also has a dedicated cryptocurrency legal team that can assist with navigating the legal cryptocurrency environment. If you have any debt recovery matters, are the victim of a cryptocurrency scam, or require legal advice for your crypto business start-up, please contact Matt Krog and Inoke Faletau. Author Inoke Faletau

jackadmin2022-10-06T10:12:48+10:00October 6th, 2022|Cryptocurrency|

Queensland Residential Rental Crisis and Law Reform

Queensland is facing the worst rental crisis in recent history The Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (Qld) is set to improve the rights and standards of renting for Queensland residential tenants Legislation for the protections of victims of domestic and family violence was introduced in October 2021 As of 1 October 2022, new legislation will: increase the rights of tenants to keep animals in rental properties, end tenancies and improve the standard of housing; and restrict the rights of landlords to terminate tenancies without grounds. About the Rental Crisis High demand and short supply of Queensland housing, largely from interstate migration, has created a monopoly for landlords. The situation grows significantly dire for tenants, with low vacancy rates and continuing price hikes for rental properties. Rental Reform In light of the continuing rental crisis the Queensland Government has implemented new legislation, set to roll out in three stages. The Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (Qld) (the Act) is stage one of the Queensland Law Reform and is set to improve the rights and standards of renting for Queensland tenants. In its explanatory notes, the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 (Qld) set out an objective to ‘ensure Queenslanders have access to safe, secure, and affordable housing’. The introduction of reforms under this Act is staggered to allow landlords to adequately prepare for the changes. Changes from October 2021 The first of these changes was implemented in October of 2021. The legislative amendments improved the rights of tenants who are victims of domestic violence to end tenancies and recover their bonds. Changes from October 2022 More changes are set to be introduced under the legislative amendments beginning 1 October 2022. Terminating Tenancies The new legislation will change the rights of landlords to end tenancies. An amendment to section 291 of the Act will prevent landlords from removing tenants ‘without grounds’. Instead, the rights of a landlord to provide the tenant with a notice to leave under section 291 are restricted to the ending of a fixed term agreement. However, new provisions will be introduced empowering landlords to terminate tenancies under the following circumstances: ending a fixed term agreement (section 291); planned demolition or redevelopment (section 290C); significant repair or renovations (section 290D); change of use (section 290 E); and owner occupation (section 290G). These provisions ensure that the rights of landlords to end tenancies are not removed entirely but restricted to specific, reasonable grounds. Further, the insertion of section 307A will allow tenants to terminate tenancies within the first 7 days of occupation where the property fails to comply with the minimum housing standard, where the house is in disrepair or is otherwise unfit for occupation. Pet Ownership As of October 2022, renters seeking to live with a pet cannot have their application declined without ‘reasonable grounds’. A landlord will only be entitled to refuse an application to keep a pet on the premises on the grounds set out in section 184E of the Act. These grounds include where keeping the [...]

jackadmin2022-09-12T10:45:25+10:00September 12th, 2022|Property & Conveyancing|

About jackadmin

SALERNO LAW HAS OFFICES IN:

Useful links

Get Connected