My Parenting Order is being breached by the other party, what are my options?
Persons are obligated to comply with the provisions of parenting Orders which have been made by the court. In the event that a person fails to comply with such an Order remedial action will need to be taken. Options available include:

Attend a family dispute resolution conference; and/or
File a contravention application.

On the filing of a contravention application with the court, a determination will thereafter be made, based on all the evidence which is tendered, as to whether the alleged contravention was established but that there was a reasonable excuse for same, that there was a contravention established without reasonable excuse or that the alleged contravention was not established to the satisfaction of the court.
In the event that the court finds that a party has failed to comply with a parenting Order without reasonable excuse, the court may:

Vary the primary order;
Order the party to attend a post separation parenting program;
Compensate the other party for the time lost with the child as a result of the contravention;
Require that party to enter into a bond;
Order that party to pay all or some of the legal costs of the other party;
Order that party to pay compensation for reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the contravention;
Require that party to participate in community service;
Ordering that party to pay a fine;
Order that party to a sentence of imprisonment.

It can be seen that the contravention of a parenting Order is a serious matter and will be treated as such by the court. In fact the breach of any court order could constitute contempt of court for which wide ranging sanctions are available to the court to impose upon the offending party.
For all your family law needs, including the enforcement of parenting Orders, Brydens Lawyers is available to assist. With a team of experts headed by our NSW Law Society Accredited Family Law Specialist, Brydens Lawyers can provide to you the best legal advice and representation for all your family law needs.
 

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 1st May – My Parenting Order is being breached by the other party, what are my options? appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

How can you put a dollar value on everything that I have lost as a result of someone else’s negligence – an injured person asks. 
 
The fundamental principle of compensatory damages is to put the injured person back into the position they would have been in had the accident not occurred.
Calculating compensatory damages can seem cold and clinical to a person who is now suffering every single day. It is therefore important that an injured person’s lawyer effectively communicate to their client the basis upon which the claim for compensation is made.
You can appreciate that for most injured people this can be so much more than calculating lost wages for a few days off work and the cost of some conservative treatment. Injuries can have a devastating and long-term effect a person’s life both physically and psychologically. The person will now carry these injuries, often for the rest of their lives. Consider not only the person’s pain and suffering, but the loss of employment opportunities, the expensive specialist appointments, the need to rely on family members for personal care and help around the home – these are just a few ways that an injury can impact a person.
There are a number of ‘heads of damage’ (or categories of compensation) that a person may be entitled to if they have suffered an injury caused by someone else’s negligence. These can include loss of wages, medical expenses, domestic care and compensation for pain and suffering. Generally, calculation of an injured person’s losses is by reference to evidence such as expert medical opinion on the injured person’s likely treatment needs and ability to return to work, evidence from treating doctors, the person’s circumstances before the accident, evidence from family members as well as a person’s own evidence and instructions on the impact the injuries have had on their life. No two injured people are the same, and therefore each case it built on its own evidence.
We understand the significant effect that an injury can have on a person’s livelihood and we are dedicated to ensuring that our injured clients recover the maximum amount of compensation to which they are entitled. 

The post Weekend Write-Up Article 4 – How can you put a dollar value on everything that I have lost as a result of someone else’s negligence – an injured person asks appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

A note on these times of uncertainty
 
Amidst the increasing uncertainty brought about by this global pandemic, many of us are, for the first time, experiencing or know someone experiencing the feelings of anxiety and frustration brought about by being made redundant due to factors well beyond our control. Many business owners fear that the livelihood to which they have dedicated everything that they have to may not withstand these tumultuous conditions, with outgoing payments  often the only remaining constant. Individuals wonder how they will pay their rent or mortgage, afford food and other basic necessities, and remain in good spirits with no guarantee that things will get better any time in the near future. The reality is, none of us know how long this new norm will last. But one thing is clear, that this feeling of uncertainty and trepidation is shared amongst us all.
For many of us, COVID-19 is the first major crisis we are experiencing in our lifetime. The impacts of this pandemic are far reaching and have a flow on effect, not just financially but also emotionally; in our interactions, our outlook and the relationships with those around us. These feelings and challenges that so many of us are now facing are feelings that many individuals who have been injured in an accident at no fault of their own often face on a daily basis.
In this time of uncertainty, we have been fortunate to have the resounding support of the government in the form of urgent stimulus packages that have increased funds to our healthcare system, increased access to mental health services, provided financial support to individuals and business in the form of wage subsidies, welfare payments and rental assistance, interest rate reductions – just to name a few. However, those injured in accidents are not met with the same level of support in their time of crises and are all too often are met with denial of payments, denial of financial support and denial of treatment and assistance. These individuals are often forced to jump through loops and hoops every single day in order to make ends meet and find themselves left with no alterative other than to prosecute their claims to obtain their right to compensation. Even if successful, there is often a significant time delay from when these individuals are injured and required urgent support, to when they receive that support. This is why I am so motivated in my role as a compensation lawyer and why it is so important to advocate for victims of accidents who are forced into these situations at no fault of their own.
The swift support the government has provided for those of us affected by COVID-19 has alleviated some of the immediate financial concerns but it does not quell the feeling of uncertainty that continues to linger at the forefront of our thoughts. For those who have been injured in accidents these feeling of uncertainty, anxiety and frustration continue to linger and permeate other aspects of their lives until their claims are finalised and for many years after that. For some, these feelings may continue to linger indefinitely. In this time of great difficulty, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on the individuals who often go unnoticed and face this reality on a daily basis.
There is light at the end of the tunnel, we will get through this difficult time together.
We are thinking of you and understand you.

The post Weekend Write-Up Article 3 – A note on these times of uncertainty appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

Superannuation/TPD division
 
Q.What are the new rules surrounding early access to superannuation?
In a response to the current pandemic, the Government is allowing Citizens and Permanent Residents of Australia and New Zealand affected by the Coronavirus to access up to $10,000 of their superannuation in 2019-20 and a further $10,000 in 2020-21.
All eligible temporary residents are able to apply once to access up to $10,000 of super in 2019–20.
 
Eligibility for Citizens and Permanent Residents of Australia and New Zealand
As at 21 April 2020, the eligibility criteria to apply for early release for all Australian and New Zealand citizens and permanent residents, must satisfy any one of the following requirements:

You are unemployed.

You are eligible to receive one of the following; jobseeker payment, youth allowance for jobseekers (unless you are undertaking full-time study or are a new apprentice), parenting payment (which includes the single and partnered payments), special benefit, farm household allowance.

On or after 1 January 2020 either

you were made redundant
your working hours were reduced by 20% or more (including to zero)
you were a sole trader and your business was suspended or there was a reduction in turnover of 20% or more.

 
Eligibility for Temporary Residents
As at 21 April 2020, Temporary residents must be in one of the following circumstances:

You hold a student visa that you have held for 12 months or more and you are unable to meet immediate living expenses.
You are a temporary skilled work visa holder; your working hours have reduced to zero and you remain engaged with your employer.
You are a temporary resident visa holder (excluding student or skilled worker visas) and you cannot meet immediate living expenses.

 
Will I be taxed?
If you are approved in accessing your superannuation early, you will not need to pay tax on amounts released and the money you withdraw will not affect Centrelink or Veterans’ Affairs payments.
 
What are the implications of accessing my super early?
It is important to keep in mind that, in apply for early release of your super, it will affect your super balance and may affect your future retirement income.
It may also affect income protection insurance life / total permanent disability insurance cover and insurance may no longer be available on accounts that:

are fully withdrawn
have a balance below $6,000
are inactive low balance accounts.

To confirm this information, you will need to speak to your superannuation fund about the implications on your account if you were to apply for early release of you super.
 
How do I apply?
You can apply directly to the ATO through the myGov website: www.my.gov.au. It is free to do so.
Before applying, you should confirm that your personal details are correct on your MyGov account and with the ATO. This will assist in avoiding any delays by the ATO in processing your application.  
You can only submit one application in each financial year:

2019–20, between 20 April and 30 June 2020
2020–21, between 1 July and 24 September 2020, for the 2020–21 year.

You do not need to attach evidence to support your application. However, the Government   has recommended you keep records and documents to confirm your eligibility as this may be asked of you at a later stage.  
There are penalties for making false and misleading statements.
 
Recommendation
It is recommended you consider whether you need to seek financial advice before submitting an application for early release of super.

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 24th April – Superannuation/TPD division appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

Can you secretly record someone if they are committing a crime?
 
Consider this: you receive information that a greyhound trainer is using live rabbits as bait when training his greyhounds. You are told the rabbits are being maimed and killed.
What do you do?
This was the scenario that confronted Animals Australia, a ‘not for profit’ charitable organisation. Animals Australia do not have the power to search premises, obtain surveillance warrants or arrest people like the Police or the RSPCA.
Sometime around 21 November 2014, Animals Australia received information from an anonymous source that Zeke Kadir, a prominent greyhound trainer, was engaging in ‘live-baiting’ at his property in Wilshere Park.
This information was relayed to Ms Lyn White, the ‘Investigations Director’ at Animals Australia. Ms White did not contact Police or the RSPCA.
Rather, she decided to hire Ms Sarah Lynch, a ‘freelance investigator’, to attend Mr Kadir’s property at Wilshire Park to install ‘covert surveillance equipment’ to secretly record Mr Kadir.
The recordings captured Mr Kadir and one of his employees, Ms Donna Grech, engaging in live baiting of rabbits.
Both persons were subsequently charged with numerous animal cruelty offences.
On 5 February 2020, the High Court of Australia considered whether those secret recordings could be used against Mr Kadir and Ms Grech.
 
Who is Animals Australia?
Animals Australia is a ‘not for profit’ charitable organisation registered as a company limited by guarantee. According to their website, Animals Australia is, “Australia’s leading animal protection organisation” with an, “unprecedented track record in investigating and exposing animal cruelty”.
 
What did Animals Australia do?
At the behest of Ms White, on 5 December 2014 at approximately 3am, Ms Lynch attempted to enter Mr Kadir’s property. To do so, she entered and walked through the property of one of Mr Kadir’s neighbours. She also climbed through one fence, then over another fence and then opened a latched gate.
Once on Mr Kadir’s property, she placed a camera so that it could view the area where the greyhounds were trained.
The next night, at 1am, Ms Lynch returned to the property to retrieve the camera and recording. She viewed the recording which depicted Mr Kadir and Ms Grech engaged in live baiting of rabbits.
Ms Lynch repeated this process on 15 separate occasions over the next 2 months.
In doing so, Ms Lynch committed the following offences:

‘Unlawfully enter inclosed lands’ pursuant to Section 4 of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW). This related to entering Mr Kadir’ property and the property of Mr Kadir’s neighbour;
‘Knowingly install, use or maintain an optical surveillance device’ pursuant to Section 8 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW). This related to the surveillance devices.

Neither Ms Lynch nor Ms White were ever charged with any offences in relation to their conduct.
Ms White also contacted an ABC journalist, Ms Caro Meldrum-Hanna in early January and advised her about the investigation Animals Australia was conducting. Ms White allowed Ms Meldrum-Hanna to speak to Ms Lynch. This conversation was later used in an ABC ‘Four Corners’ program.
Ms Lynch also contacted Mr Kadir, posing as a greyhound trainer. She alleged that Mr Kadir made admissions to her about live baiting of rabbits.
 
The RSPCA’s involvement
All of these things occurred before Ms White contacted the RSPCA to arrange a meeting on 30th January 2015. On 2nd February 2015 the meeting occurred where she showed the RSPCA a summary of the videos.
A search warrant was subsequently obtained for Mr Kadir’s property by the RSPCA conducted a search of Mr Kadir’s property and discovered body parts of dead rabbits. They also discovered live rabbits in good condition as well as injured rabbits.
Both Mr Kadir and Ms Grech were charged with numerous counts of:

Serious animal cruelty pursuant to Section 530(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);
Use animal as lure to blood greyhound pursuant to Section 21(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Both offences carried maximum penalties of 5 years imprisonment.
Mr Kadir’s charges related to surveillance device recordings Ms Lynch had obtained, the evidence discovered at his premises by the RSPCA as well as the admissions he made to Ms Lynch.
Ms Grech’s charges solely related to what was depicted on the surveillance device recordings Ms Lynch had obtained.
Ms Grech contacted me after being charged. After assessing the case against her, I advised her the only way to defend the charges was to argue that the recordings were inadmissible due to Section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which sets out:  
“(1) Evidence that was obtained:
(a)       improperly or in contravention of an Australian law, or
(b)       in consequence of an impropriety or of a contravention of an Australian law,
is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained.”
Ms Grech chose to plead ‘not guilty’ and we proceeded to Trial at Penrith District Court.
 
What happened at the Trial?
At the Trail, we sought to have the evidence of the recordings excluded. The matters the Court was required to take into account are set out in s138(3) of the Evidence Act:

the probative value of the evidence, and
the importance of the evidence in the proceeding, and
the nature of the relevant offence, cause of action or defence and the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding, and
the gravity of the impropriety or contravention, and
whether the impropriety or contravention was deliberate or reckless, and
whether the impropriety or contravention was contrary to or inconsistent with a right of a person recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
whether any other proceeding (whether or not in a court) has been or is likely to be taken in relation to the impropriety or contravention, and
the difficulty (if any) of obtaining the evidence without impropriety or contravention of an Australian law.

Both Ms White and Ms Lynch were called to give evidence. They were cross-examined at length and the full breadth of their actions were revealed.
The trial Judge found that the surveillance device recordings Ms Lynch had obtained should all be excluded pursuant to s138 of the Evidence Act.
In his reasons, His Honour found that:

the probative value of the recordings was high;
the recordings were very important to the prosecution case;
the offences were very serious and involved “callous and deliberate cruelty administered to defenceless animals for financial gain”;
both Ms Lynch and Ms White engaged in deliberate illegal conduct;
the gravity of Ms White’s and Ms Lynch’s impropriety was very high and serious;
admitting evidence obtained by a deliberate disregard for the law by Animals Australia was more likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute;
the motives of Animals Australia were laudable;
it was relevant that cross-examination had revealed both Ms White and Ms Lynch had received indemnities from the Attorney General and would not be prosecuted for their actions;
Ms White’s failure to approach Police or the RSPCA before commencing engaging Ms Lynch to conduct the recordings could not be justified;
once the first recording was obtained, there was no reason why the police through the RSPCA could not have been approached and requested to apply for a warrant to install an optical surveillance device. No such approach was undertaken and multiple breaches of the Surveillance Devices Act were then engaged in;
there was some difficulty in obtaining the evidence in some other way which did not involve a contravention of the law, but the degree of difficulty is not easily determined when no steps were taken to endeavour to obtain the evidence in a lawful way;
the Court should be reluctant in the context of criminal proceedings to lend “judicial integrity” to conduct which deliberately breaches the law.

His Honour found that evidence the RSPCA obtained through the search warrant and the admissions Mr Kadir made should also be excluded as there was a ‘causal connection’ between these pieces of evidence and the surveillance device recordings.
 
The Crown appeals
The Crown appealed the decision to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. They argued that the Judge made an error in considering all of the recordings together.
The argument was that the Judge should have assessed the difficulty of obtaining the first recording by itself and then assessed the remaining recordings separately.
The Court of Criminal Appeal accepted this argument and found that the first recording should be admitted into evidence.
The Crown also argued that the RSPCA search warrant and Mr Kadir’s admissions should be admitted as the trial judge failed to take account of material differences between the surveillance evidence, the search warrant evidence and the admissions in the “way” each was obtained.
The Court of Criminal Appeal also accepted this argument and found that the search warrant evidence and evidence of Mr Kadir’s admissions should be admitted into evidence.
 
The High Court intervenes
We then appealed this decision to the High Court. On behalf of Ms Gech, an argument was put forward that the Trial Judge was correct in assessing the recordings together.
The High Court agreed with this argument and set out:
“In the circumstances of this case, the trial judge did not err in failing to weigh the s138(3) factors separately in relation to the first video-recording. His Honour was right to find that each video-recording was the product of a serious contravention of Australian law. The seriousness of the contravention was in each case the greater because the recording was made in deliberate contravention of the law with a view to assembling evidence which it was believed the proper authorities would be unable to lawfully obtain. To the extent that it was more difficult to lawfully obtain evidence of live baiting before the first video-recording was made, this was a factor which weighed against admitting it. There is no suggestion that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the other s138(3) factors. His Honour’s determination that none of the surveillance evidence is admissible is correct.”
 
Mr Kadir also appealed to the High Court and argued that the evidence from the search warrant and his admissions should be excluded.
Unfortunately, the High Court disagreed.
The High Court held that the way in which the search warrant evidence and admissions were obtained was materially different from the way the surveillance evidence was obtained.
The High Court found that the trial judge’s analysis of the admissibility of the search warrant evidence and the admissions, “did not go beyond satisfaction of the causal link between the evidence and the contravention of the Surveillance Devices Act”.
In relation to the search warrant evidence, while there was a serious breach of the Surveillance Devices Act by Animals Australia which led to the search warrant, the RSPCA acted lawfully in obtaining the warrant and executing it.
In relation to Mr Kadir’s admissions, the High Court found that Ms Lynch did not make use of any knowledge that she gained from the surveillance evidence in her conversation with Mr Kadir.
As such the High Court admitted the evidence from the search warrant and admissions against Mr Kadir. Mr Kadir still faces a number of charges based on this evidence.
The exclusion of the first recording means that there is likely to be no case against Ms Grech.
 
Significance of the High Court’s decision
This decision makes it very clear that where deliberate, illegal conduct is used to obtain evidence, the Court will be very reluctant to admit that evidence. This is so even where the evidence is crucial and the offences the evidence provides proof of are very serious.
The trial judge assessed the practice of live baiting as “callous and deliberate cruelty administered to defenceless animals for financial gain” and lauded the motives of Animals Australia. Despite this, he excluded the evidence obtained from all of the surveillance recordings – a decision that the High Court endorsed.
The position is different if Police or other government bodies receive illegally obtained evidence and then conduct investigations lawfully. If other evidence is (lawfully) obtained, it is likely that this evidence will be admitted.
Had Animals Australia approached Police or the RSPCA at an early stage, rather than conduct their own ‘investigation’, there may have been some admissible evidence against Ms Grech.
Fortunately for Ms Grech, this was not done and she is free to move on with her life.

The post Weekend Write-Up Article 2 – Can you secretly record someone if they are committing a crime? appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

How has Coronavirus affected contracts and conveyancing?
The pandemic, COVID-19, has affected all aspects of our lives. There is a physical, emotional and financial cost. We have also found that this pandemic has imposed itself on some aspects of the work that we do on behalf of our clients.
This is seen, particularly, in the realm of contracts and conveyancing. As to any contract, the COVID-19 pandemic may:
1. Not affect the contract at all;
2. Affect the contract so that one or both parties are unable to fulfil their obligations which may trigger:

A force majeure clause; or
The doctrine of frustration.

The force majeure clause, often referred to as the “act of God” provision, provides that if due to such an unforeseen event, including a pandemic for example, the contract cannot be fulfilled, there is no liability imposed upon the party who had been charged with the obligation affected by the act of God. Depending on the wording of the force majeure provision, some contracts may allow the parties to terminate the contract; other contracts provide an extension of time to either of the parties to fulfil their obligations.
The doctrine of frustration is worthy of consideration. Where there is no provision for a force majeure in the contract, and where a contractual obligation imposed on one of the parties is incapable of being performed because of circumstances which are now different than when the contract was entered into, it is arguable that the contract has been frustrated. Should a contract become frustrated, the parties are released from their obligations as from that time. It does not render the contract void ab initio, that is as from the outset.
In the event that the COVID-19 pandemic does not affect the obligations of the parties to a contract, as would generally be the case, then there will be no alteration to the responsibility of the parties to fulfil their obligations under the contract.
With respect to conveyancing, the imposition of the pandemic can be identified in two particular areas.
In relation to the purchasing of a home, enquiries have been made by clients as to whether the purchaser can compel the vendor to clean and/or disinfect the home prior to settlement. Regrettably the short answer is no. The standard contract for the sale and purchase of land in NSW does not refer to cleanliness. Generally, contracts note that the properties are to be in the same condition and state of repair as at the date of exchange, or the date that the purchaser entered into the contract, subject to fair wear and tear.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic would also be relevant when dealing with third parties who are intrinsically involved in the sales process. This would include real estate agents, the solicitors acting for the parties, removalists and banks for example. Our experience has been that some banks have had difficulties in meeting their obligations to effect settlement of a conveyance which has caused delays, with one instance of a bank outsourcing their operations overseas.
The sale of a property the settlement can be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic if there is a tenant. With respect to tenants, generally speaking, the settlement of the sale is usually completed in one of two ways. The sale of the property can proceed with the contract marked “with existing tenancy” and a full copy of the tenancy agreement attached. Alternatively, should the purchaser wish for vacant possession, the owner of the property can issue a notice to vacate.
The question now arises as to whether any additional protection is afforded to the tenant with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Government’s response to same.
On 13 April 2020 the Government confirmed the implementation of a 60-day moratorium on evictions for rental arrears where the tenant is in financial hardship due to COVID-19. There is also provision for a longer six-month restriction on rental arrears evictions for those who have been financially disadvantaged by COVID-19.
In order to be afforded the 60 day stop on evictions and the longer six-month restriction the landlord, or in this case the seller of the property, must demonstrate:

One or more rent-paying member of a household having lost their employment or income, or a reduction in employment income, due to COVID-19 business closures or stand down; or
One or more rent-paying member of a household have had to stop working or reduce work hours due to illness with COVID-19 or due to COVID-19 carer responsibilities for household or family members; and
The above factors result in a household income (inclusive of any Government assistance) that is reduced by 25% or more.

These changes have not as yet been formally implemented by the Government but same are likely to occur by 17 April 2020.
These are matters that would be relevant to any seller of property that is subject to a tenancy if it is the intention of the parties to sell the property with vacant possession. The implementation of these additional protections afforded to tenants may serve to delay the sales process.
For all your commercial law and conveyancing needs, Brydens Lawyers can assist. Whether it be a commercial dispute, preparation of contracts for sale of property, leases or other documentation, Brydens Lawyers can provide expert legal advice and representation in all aspects of commercial law and conveyancing. WE DO commercial law and conveyancing – contact Brydens Lawyers on 1800 848 848 or visit us at brydens.com.au.

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 17th April – How has Coronavirus affected contracts and conveyancing? appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

I have suffered a flare-up of an existing injury whilst at work- do I have any legal remedies?
Many ask whether they have an entitlement to claim workers compensation benefits if they suffer an aggravation or a flare-up of an existing injury.
A number of issues arise. Firstly, consideration must be given as to whether the original injury was work related and therefore the proper subject of a claim for workers compensation benefits. If so, and then there is subsequently an aggravation or flare-up of that injury, a question arises as to whether the aggravation or flare-up is simply a consequence of the original injury or alternatively has been caused or substantially contributed to by any subsequent act or conduct. The question that needs to be decided is whether or not there has been an intervening event that breaks the chain of causation with the original injury. If not, and the aggravation or flareup is directly related to the original compensable injury or arises as a result of other compensable circumstances, then the worker is perfectly entitled to recover benefits as a consequence of that aggravation or flare-patient up.
This applies also if the aggravation occurs with a different employer. For example, in those circumstances, the worker would need to establish whether the aggravation or flare-up is simply a condition arising from the original injury or alternatively, has been brought about by the subsequent employment. If the former, then the claim for workers compensation benefits would be made as against the original employer. If however the subsequent employment is responsible for the aggravation or flare-up of the injury, then a claim can be legitimately made as against the subsequent employer.
As with all claims for workers compensation benefits the employee needs to establish that the original injury or indeed the aggravation or flare-up was as a result of or arose out of the employment. Once that causal connection has been established with the employment the worker is entitled to claim benefits.
Difficulties may arise however if the original injury was not work-related and the subject of a workers compensation claim yet there has been a subsequent aggravation or flare-up of that injury by reason of the worker’s employment. In those circumstances the worker would be entitled to claim benefits as against the employer for the consequences of the aggravation or flare-up if the worker can establish that the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the aggravation or flare-up. If so, the worker would be entitled to claim benefits which would include treatment expenses and weekly benefits of compensation for periods of absence from work which arise as a result of the aggravation or flare-up.
Brydens Lawyers has for over 40 years been successfully prosecuting thousands of workers compensation claims on behalf of injured workers and recovering for them their full entitlements. If you have been injured at work, then contact Brydens Lawyers today to ensure that you are receiving all the benefits to which you are entitled. Brydens Lawyers – #WE DO workers compensation claims.

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 10th April – I have suffered a flare-up of an existing injury whilst at work- do I have any legal remedies? appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

A Will is a relatively simple document.
A Will is a relatively simply document.  It is however an incredibly important document.  It is the document in which you set out your wishes as to how your Estate is to be distributed to your beneficiaries.
There are Will kits available which can be purchased to enable people to prepare their own Wills.  However, in our view, given the importance of a Will, your interests are better served by ensuring that the Will is prepared by an expert. There are strict legal requirements that need to be complied with in order to ensure that a Will is valid.  Failure to comply with these requirements may render the Will invalid, and in those circumstances, your wishes as to how your Estate is to be distributed may not be fulfilled.
A Will provides for the appointment of an Executor or Executrix.  This is a person who is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the terms of the Will are fulfilled.  Also, the Will may provide for the appointment of a Trustee.  That may be the Executor or Executrix or another person.  The Trustee will receive on trust any assets of the Estate which may be held for the benefit of infant children, for example.
As we have said, a  Will can be a relatively simple document.  However, depending on your personal circumstances, it may also be a very complicated and complex document. It may involve the creation of testamentary trusts and deal with very complicated business or corporate structures. Either way your interests are best served by having a Will prepared by an expert such as the lawyers in the Wills & Estates Division of Brydens Lawyers.
At Brydens Lawyers #WE DO Wills & Estates.  We will ensure that a Will created fulfils all your intentions as to the distribution of your Estate to your beneficiaries.  For expert legal advice and representation in relation to all Wills and Estate matters contact Brydens Lawyers today on 1800 848 848.

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 3rd April – A Will is a relatively simple document appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

My lawyer is Empathetic, is yours?
 
We have all heard it at least once – Lawyers lack Empathy.
As a Lawyer working in the area of Superannuation, TPD and Life Insurance, my colleagues and I help individuals access their total and permanent disablement benefits/ income protection benefits, as a result injury or illness, that has caused them to stop working.
There I was, engulfed in an area of law that fights for people who have lost their livelihood, are severely injured, estranged and suffering from mental illness.
Empathy – was all I could hear ringing in my ears as I would listen to how a client lost so much.
Empathy – offers that helping hand, that shimmer of light in the dark, that feeling that someone cares.
Empathise – is all we can do for our clients to show them that We do care about their story, their lives, their claim and their future.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines Empathy as; the ability to share someone else’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person’s situation.
So how do we as Lawyers apply Empathy to practice? It’s simple – you do what you can to see the world through the eyes of your client… You listen…You imagine yourself in an alternate reality, that is your clients…
By applying Empathy to your work ethic and everyday practice, you will no doubt be fully equipped to be an incomparable Lawyer for your client.
The ripple effect of this will help re-shape the opinion of many that Lawyers lack Empathy – says the client who doesn’t feel heard  or appreciated to My Lawyer is Empathetic – says client who felt heard, cared for and in turn trusted their Lawyer ­– what an impact!
– have Empathy. 
By Ashli Joudo
 
 

The post Weekend Write-Up Article 1 – My lawyer is Empathetic, is yours? appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

I was recently terminated from my place of employment, and adequate reasoning was not provided- do I have any legal remedies?
If you have been recently terminated from your place of employment, and you are concerned that the termination may have been unlawful, we recommend that you immediately seek legal advice as applications to the Fair Work Commission generally need to be lodged within 21 days of the date of the termination. Such time limits are strict and must be adhered to. 
 
Valid Reasoning for Dismissal
Pursuant to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), to comply with procedural fairness, an Employer must provide an Employee with a valid reason for dismissal and provide the Employee with an opportunity to respond to the Employer before a decision is made to terminate the Employee unless the conduct is determined as serious misconduct within the meaning of the Act. If the Employer has failed to comply with their obligations, this may give rise to an Unfair Dismissal claim.
 
Legal Action an Employee can take for Unfair Dismissal
The most common legal avenue to seek remedies for Unfair Dismissal is through the Fair Work Commission, however, the circumstances of each individual will determine whether they are eligible to bring an action in this jurisdiction. The potential remedies in the Fair Work Commission are:

Reinstatement;
Compensation (must not be more than 26 weeks’ pay)
Non-financial remedies such as a statement of service.

Other types of legal avenues for termination of employment depending on each individual situation include:

General Protections/adverse claim application in the Fair Work Commission/Relevant Court
Unfair Dismissal claim application in the Industrial Relations Commission
Civil claims for breach of contract
Discrimination claims pursuant to legislation.

We again note that strict time limitations apply and legal advice should be obtained immediately following termination of your employment if you are concerned that the termination was unlawful.
For any legal advice or representation pertaining to employment law matters, call Brydens Lawyers today. We do provide expert legal advice and presentation in relation to all employment law matters.

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 27TH MARCH – I was recently terminated from my place of employment, and adequate reasoning was not provided- do I have any legal remedies? appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
 
In this week’s edition of LawPod; Lee is joined by Musstafa Al-Khafaji from our Common Law division, and Isabel Suleau from our Superannuation + TPD division!
They discuss the reasoning behind the rise of young solicitors, why they chose to enter the field of law, and provide valuable insights to those who are currently completing their degree.
Take a listen!

Download the podcast

The post Lawpod – Behind the rise of young solicitors appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

At Brydens Lawyers we are committed to protecting the health and wellbeing of our employees, clients and all visitors to our premises.  We continue to monitor developments in the advice of expert authorities and our thoughts remain with those affected by COVID-19.
As the impact of COVID-19 further escalates we are writing to advise that Brydens Lawyers are adopting a number of measures in order to contain our staff and minimise the risk of contracting the virus.
To that end it is requested that all clients do not attend the offices of Brydens Lawyers unless strictly necessary or if you have been requested to do so. Your solicitor and the paralegal assisting with your matter will always be available to speak with you by way of telephone or video link up if you have that technology available. Rest assured the quality of our service to you will not be impaired or compromised in any way by reason of these changes. If you have any documents that need to be provided then you can choose to email or mail same to us (ensuring that you retain a copy) or leaving same with our receptionist.
All critical functions of Brydens Lawyers will continue to operate as normal. We will maintain the highest level of expert legal advice and representation that you have become accustomed to.
These are challenging times. We are, as we have said, doing what we can to protect the health and wellbeing of our staff and clients. This will remain of paramount importance.
We will keep you informed as to any changes to what we hope will only be temporary arrangements. If you have any questions, then please do not hesitate to contact your solicitor.
Yours faithfully,
Bandeli (Lee) Hagipantelis

The post Latest News From Lee 19th March 2020 appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

CORONAVIRUS
Since the World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 a pandemic we have been inundated with enquiries by both employers and employees as to their respective rights and obligations in the event that they either contract the virus or alternatively self-quarantine by choice to reduce the risk.
Work Health and Safety (WHS)
The Work Health and Safety (WHS) legislation requires employers “to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others at the workplace”. Importantly this includes the maintaining and providing of a risk-free work environment for the health and safety of employees with adequate facilities given to the carrying out of work as is reasonably practicable.
Employer must comply by identifying the risks of COVID-19 to the workplace and enforcing what is reasonably practicable to eliminate or at least minimise the risk. This can be implemented through control measures including:

monitoring and acting in accordance with expert advice;
educating and informing employees of all available expert and medical information;
reviewing control policies and effectiveness of same in light of medical and expert advice;
considering workplace activities, events and social gatherings; and
having employees work from home if practicably suitable for those who need to self-quarantine.

Leave Entitlements
Sick leave provisions under the Fair Work Act for employees other than casual workers, provide for 10 days paid personal/carers leave on an accrued basis. Within the context of COVID-19 personal/carers leave will apply:

when the employee requires to look after a family member who is sick with the virus;
if the full-time or part-time employee is not fit for work due to the virus; and
if the employee is needed to care for a family member due to an “unexpected” emergency such as unexpected health issues of a child or elderly family member.

Employers will also be protected from dismissal if temporary absence is due to injury or illness unless such absence exceeds three months, or total absences are three months within a 12 month period in which the employer will still require a valid reason for dismissal of the employee.
Employees’ requirements to advise employers of self-quarantine
It is highly advisable that all employees immediately notify their employer if they are required to self-quarantine due to either contracting the virus, overseas travel or coming into contact with those who are infected.
The Fair Work Act does not provide specifically for the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore employers and employees need to come to some arrangement which may necessarily involve:

working from home or other suitable location according to applicable workplace agreement and workplace policies;
using leave entitlements including sick leave, annual leave or long service leave; or
using unpaid leave as agreed upon with the employer

These are difficult and challenging times. employers and employees find themselves in unchartered territory so far as their rights and obligations are concerned when dealing specifically with COVID-19. Ultimately it will require good faith discussions on the part of both the employer and employee to resolve what can be difficult and complex employment issues.
 

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 20TH MARCH – CORONAVIRUS appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
 
In this week’s edition of LawPod, Lee is joined by S the co-captains of the Wests Tigers, Benji Marshall and Moses Mbye!
They discuss twhat the season looks like for the team, the correlation between leadership and fatherhood, and what it means to them being appointed co-captains.
Take a listen!
If you have a guest/topic you would like to see featured – please send it through to: [email protected].

Download the podcast

The post Your 2020 Wests Tigers Co-Captains! Featuring Benji Marshall & Moses Mbye appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

It was recently reported (SMH 23 February 2020) that the NSW State Government is considering changes to the workers compensation scheme which will provide for injured workers having to pay a “gap fee” for some medical treatment.
Apparently the State Insurance Regulatory Authority is considering the proposed changes and submissions made by Icare. Icare is the insurer responsible for about 75% of all claims made by injured workers and therefore submissions made by Icare would appear to carry a significant amount of weight with the government.
The Chief Medical Officer for Icare, Chris Colqhuon referenced what he says are significant increases in costs for hospitals, surgical intervention and associated anaesthetics. To reduce this burden on the insurer the gap fee for treatment has been proposed but Dr Colqhuon has not stipulated how big the gap will be.
Dr Colqhuon is reported as saying that people would be less likely to claim for procedures they didn’t strictly need if there was a fee attached. He went on to say “if someone is potentially out-of-pocket for an intervention, they are more likely to do the research to see whether or not that intervention is the best possible treatment for them”
Genius.
How clever of Dr Colqhuon to recognise that if people were put to the expense of having to pay medical treatment themselves, usually in situations where they did not have the money to do so, then they were less likely to claim for the procedure.
Also, since when did it become the obligation of the injured worker to “do the research” to see whether or not the proposed treatment was the best possible treatment for them.
Is this not the role of the treating doctor?
Dr Colqhuon seems to assume that the moment a worker is injured and lodges a claim for compensation they are somehow endowed with medical expertise.
The Australian Medical Association’s NSW branch is, quite appropriately, “disappointed and concerned” about what they have regarded to be the “unfounded and inappropriate attacks on the medical profession by Icare”.
All of these proposed reforms should of course be read in the light of the Independent Reviewer Report on the Nominal Insurer of the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme prepared by Janet Dore in December 2019 which found that the Icare claims model “led to a significant deterioration… poor return to work rates, underwriting losses, no competition and therefore, a concentration of risk”.
If there is indeed a significant escalation in the costs of medical treatment then the insurers, the government and the medical profession should work together to resolve that issue. There should be absolutely no compromise on the extent and quality of the medical treatment that an injured worker requires. Nor should the injured worker be obligated to undertake “research” to determine what is the best treatment option for themselves.
This is the role of the medical profession.
The role of Icare is to pay for it.
It seems that whenever issues or concerns are raised with respect to the economic viability of an insurance scheme, rising costs or whatever the concern might be, the easy out is to look to the injured worker to subsidise the scheme by way of a reduction in benefits.
It is not the obligation of the injured worker to prop up insurers who, without hesitation, accept the premium for the policy they issue but are constantly looking at ways of reducing the benefits payable.

The post Latest News From Lee 25th February 2020 appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

Question: My WorkCover claim has just been rejected- what are my next steps?
WorkCover
There are a number of reasons why an insurance company may reject your claim. This may include:

the injured person does not meet the legal definition of a “worker”;
the illness or injury of which complaint is made was not substantially work-related;
the compensation sought is excessive given the nature and extent of the illness or injury;
the worker had a pre-existing injury or condition which is the cause of ongoing symptoms.

In the event that an insurer disputes liability for a workers compensation claim they will advise of their reasons for same pursuant to a Section 78 Notice.
The Section 78 Notice must provide:

an explanation as to why liability for the claim has been disputed;
identification of the documents available to the insurer at which time the decision was made;
a clear pathway or guidelines outlining how to go about requesting a review of the decision.

In the event that an injured worker receives a Section 78 Notice their options are:

Seek legal advice.

At Brydens Lawyers our workers compensation team are experts in the prosecution workers compensation claims on behalf of injured workers. Instructions are taken as to the circumstances of the injury, the file is recovered from workers compensation insurer and all relevant medical evidence is recovered. We will then assist every step of the way to ensure that the worker’s full entitlements are recovered.
A successful workers compensation claim can result in the worker receiving benefits for lost income, medical expenses, travel expenses, domestic assistance and in some cases, lump-sum compensation for permanent impairment.

Request a review by the insurer

An application form will be attached to the Section 78 Notice. Submissions can be made in support of the application for review. Additional information can also be lodged with the insurer. The insurer then has 14 days in which to respond. The insurer can either maintain the original decision or reverse that decision and accept the claim. If the rejection of the claim is maintained, then an application can be made to the Workers Compensation Commission.

Apply to the Workers Compensation Commission.

The Workers Compensation Commission is an independent Government Tribunal that resolves disputes between workers, employers and insurers. The Commission may appoint an arbitrator who is an independent decisionmaker to help the parties resolve the dispute.
If you have been injured at work and your claim has been disputed by the insurer, then you need to contact Brydens Lawyers today. Our expert team of lawyers in our Workers Compensation Division will provide expert legal advice and representation to ensure that you recover all of your entitlements.
If your claim has been accepted by the insurer and you have received benefits for loss of income, medical expenses and the like, you may also be entitled to claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment resulting from the injury.
If you are uncertain as to whether you have rights available to you under the workers compensation scheme, contact Brydens Lawyers without delay for a free, one-on-one free consultation and assessment.  Brydens Lawyers – WE DO workers compensation claims.

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 21ST FEBRUARY – My WorkCover claim has just been rejected- what are my next steps? appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
 
In this week’s edition of LawPod, Lee is joined by Superannuation + TPD Lawyer- Stacey Phillips!
They discuss the circumstances under which one is able to make a claim, the logistics of how the payments are made, and the relationship between Workers Compensation and TPD.
Take a listen!
To book your FREE* one-on-one consultation, view our upcoming legal centres here:
If you have a guest/topic you would like to see featured – please send it through to: [email protected].

Download the podcast

The post What You Need To Know About Superannuation + TPD appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

Question: Council has not approved my Development Application – do I have any legal remedies?
If your Development Application (DA) has been refused by Council the first remedial action would involve a request for an internal review of the decision. This affords the Council an opportunity to reconsider the DA. The application would then be reviewed by a different officer within the Council for the purpose of determining whether the original decision is to be affirmed or overturned.
Once the reasons for the Council are known as to why a DA has been denied, it would be prudent to consider modification, addition or deletion to the DA, as necessary, to ensure compliance and then re-lodgement of the DA with the Council. Such amendments could go to rectification of errors, descriptions or miscalculations.
If the denial of the application is maintained, then an appeal can be prosecuted through the Land and Environment Court. Please note that an appeal must be made within six months from the initial refusal.
In matters of this kind time is of the essence. There are strict time limits that must be adhered to. Accordingly, it is imperative that if you are to challenge the rejection of the DA, legal advice be sought as soon as possible.
Generally, it is our advice that before proceeding with the prosecution of any litigation in the Land and Environment Court every effort be made to secure the approval of Counsel. Accordingly:

Examine the DA relative to the feedback received from the Council and in particular, the reasons for the denial of the application. Take advice from experts such as your architect or any consultants for the purpose of undertaking modification, addition or deletion to the DA as necessary to ensure compliance.
Consider the amendments to the plans and proposals, being the subject of the DA, which will assist in the prosecution of any internal appeal process within Council to resolve the issues.

You should be aware that there may be significantly less opportunity available to modify a DA once an appeal has been lodged with the Land and Environment Court. This would also ordinarily give rise to much higher legal costs compared to the costs that may be incurred in the modification of the DA and re-lodgement of same.
For any legal advice or representation pertaining to the rejection of Development Applications, compliance with Council requirements or the prosecution of appeals through the Land and Environment Court, call Brydens Lawyers today. We do provide expert legal advice and presentation in relation to all Local Council and Planning and Environment matters.

The post Question of the week- FRIDAY 06TH MARCH – Council has not approved my Development Application- do I have any legal remedies? appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
 
In this week’s edition of LawPod, Lee is joined by widely-loved, former Balmain Tigers star, Steve “Blocker” Roach!
They discuss how Blocker has been keeping busy since retiring from his playing career, the importance of good commentary, and whether or not a new NRL team should be formed in Brisbane.
Take a listen!
Want to WIN a Kangaroo Supporters tour for two on a bus led by Blocker himself? ENTER HERE: https://bit.ly/2IRA72q

Download the podcast

The post The Life and Times of Blocker Coach Featuring Steve Roach appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.

New Personal Injury Commission proposed for injured road users and workers
 Victor Dominello MP, Minister for Customer Service, issued a press release on 10 March 2020 which reads, in part:
“The NSW Government remains committed to establishing a Personal Injury Commission (PIC) this year, to simplify the dispute resolution system for injured road users and workers who make a compensation claim.
“The proposed PIC model has been developed in consultation with scheme providers and industry stakeholders over the past 12 months to ensure that it delivers the best possible claimant experience,” Mr Dominello said.
“A single tribunal will deliver greater flexibility in the allocation of workloads and resources across different jurisdictions.”
The intent is to bring about a consolidated and modern tribunal, with minimal impact to insurance premiums and to ensure certainty with business continuity.”
It is helpful to undertake a closer examination of what the Minister has said and, most importantly, what he has not said.
Firstly, the Minister references a proposal to combine workers compensation and motor accident claims in a one-stop shop being the Personal Injury Commission
A commission is not a court.  Matters before a commission are determined by commissioners, not judges.
It is important to note that every other member of the community who is involved in any legal dispute or has any legal claim to make has unfettered access to our judicial system for the purpose of having their matters determined by an independent judge of the court. For example, if you are embroiled in a family law dispute, then invariably your matter will come before the Family Court to be determined by a Family Court judge. If you have been charged with a criminal offence, then your matter will similarly be brought before the courts for determination. If you are owed money, then you have access to the courts to bring recovery proceedings as against the debtor. If you are involved in a Wills dispute, then again you are entitled to prosecute a claim in the Supreme Court of NSW for determination of that matter.
For reasons which escape me, those who are injured at work or the innocent victims of a motor accident are denied access to our judicial system for the purpose of determining the merits of their claims.
Why is that?  Are those injured at work or innocent victims of a motor accident second class citizens?
There has been, as one of the bedrocks of our democracy, the separation of powers as between the legislature, executive and judiciary. Commissions, such as the one that has been proposed, are created by the executive and administered by the executive.
This is not just a blurring of the lines between the executive and judiciary, it is the extinguishment of same. What the government proposes is to completely remove the judiciary from any involvement in the determination of these matters. They will be determined by the executive.
The French philosopher, Montesquieu, a man of incredible foresight, advocated the importance of the separation of powers.  He said “when the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates that can be no liberty…apprehensions may arise…there is no liberty, if the judiciary power cannot be separated from the legislative and executive.”
How apt!  How can there not be apprehension on the part of those who seek proper compensation for their injuries when their claims are being determined in a commission created by a government whose sole focus has been on the reduction of costs and premiums as opposed to ensuring that the demands of fair compensation for those who have been injured are satisfied.
The Minister goes on to say that this model has been developed after “consultation with scheme providers and industry stakeholders”.
By stakeholders the Minister cannot be referring to the legal industry. No lawyer that I know would prefer to have a client’s claim determined in a commission as opposed to a court of law. When I first commenced practice, over 30 years ago, all claims were determined in a court. It was, in my view, an incredibly efficient and judicious process. Invariably clients were satisfied to have their “day in court”. It was an opportunity for them to tell their story to someone who was completely independent and that could bring about a fair and just determination of the matter. Injured persons want their matters determined by judges in courts of law. Our judiciary bespeaks a level of independence and impartiality which, no matter what this government does, cannot be emulated in a commission.
I do not for one moment demean or disparage or criticise in any way the qualifications, experience and integrity of the Commissioners who have and will be appointed to determine these claims. Invariably these Commissioners are either lawyers or barristers who practise extensively in this area of the law.  In those circumstances there can be the perception on the client’s part that there may not be complete impartiality in the determination of their matter.  This is fair enough.  How would you feel in having your compensation claim determined by a solicitor who only does work for insurers in these sorts of claims?  There can be no argument, from a client’s or any reasonable person’s perspective, that having a matter determined by a permanently appointed and fully independent judge is preferable to having the matter determined by a legal practitioner who in their own practice undertakes that kind of work on behalf of insurers. After all, it is the mere perception of bias that is sufficient to warrant the disqualification of a judicial officer in court proceedings. It is a very low threshold to be satisfied. Is it not then reasonable for such a perception to arise in these circumstances?
The Minister also references “greater flexibility in the allocation of workloads and resources across different jurisdictions”.
What does any of this mean?
I suspect what it means is that ultimately the workers compensation and motor accident schemes will be merged into one, or as close to one as can be, and that there will be little separation in the resources provided by the Government to the determination of these claims.  There will be, I suspect, also little separation in the actual schemes themselves.  That is, claims for compensation under the motor accident schemes will eventually be no different to a workers compensation claim whereby injured motorists will receive payment of medical treatment expenses, payment of any wage loss (on a limited or reduced basis) and a small lump sum of compensation for any injury resulting in a whole person impairment.
Again, it is painfully evident, that the Government’s focus is on serving the interests of the insurers and minimising costs to maintain the insurer’s profits where it can in the administration of these claims.
And yet again, not one word of concern is expressed by the Minister for those injured workers and innocently injured motor accident victims who have had to endure a systemic reduction in benefits for years but to say that the proposed PIC model will deliver “the best possible claimant experience”.
What experience is Mr Dominello referring to?  It is not one with which I am familiar.
It seems that the Minister’s vision involves a cold and clinical assessment of claims utilising the “digital and efficient delivery of dispute resolution” as opposed to the personal and empathetic hearing that claimants receive in a court of law.
It is indeed regrettable that the fixation on efficiency, productivity and digital enhancements overshadows the suffering and cost borne by claimants.  These are, after all, real life human beings who are the ones bearing the cost, physical, emotional and financial, of these reforms.
Claims by injured workers or innocently injured motorists is an obvious annoyance to insurers and to this Government. They are an impediment to even larger profits for insurers and a cost which the government obviously laments having to bear. The only concern it has is to minimise the impact of same by equating these claims to no more than an administrative task that has to be endured and disposed of as quickly and cheaply as possible.
All that we can do is pray and hope that common sense will eventually prevail and this Government will see what impact its reforms have had on the lives of thousands upon thousands of injured workers compensation and motor accident claimants.
I, for one, will not be holding my breath.

The post Latest News From Lee 13th March 2020 appeared first on Brydens Lawyers.