Many of you may now be familiar with the name of Ashley Madison with the recent widespread coverage in the media however for those who are unacquainted, it is an infamous dating website that carries the tagline “life is short, have an affair”. Recently, the names, addresses, partial credit card numbers and email addresses of many of Ashley Madison’s 39 million users were released online by a group of hackers who call themselves ‘The Impact Team’. However, this data was swiped a month ago from Ashley Madison’s servers after the hackers threatened to publish personal information on the cheating spouses who use the service unless parent company Avid Life Media took down the site and its sister enterprise Established Men.

Only hours after the information was released to the dark web, accessible only through special anonymous browsing software, law firms experienced a surge in calls from potential clients at the centre of the hacking scandal. Family lawyers could be hit with an influx in clients as every inquisitive spouse will want to check to see if their spouse is present on the list. Despite the fact that these are predictions from American lawyers, a similar situation is on the rise within Australia. Almost 800 Australian government and police workers were revealed as Ashley Madison users, with Melbourne and Sydney possessing the highest number of customers of the dating service website. Most Australian Ashley Madison users have used their work emails which has not only compromised their identity, but also their employers.

However, the situation is currently worsening for the online dating website Ashley Madison, with its parent company Avid Life Media now confronting a $US578 million class-action lawsuit from its North American-based users. Law firms Cherney Lawyers and Sutts, Strogsberg LLP, have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Canadians who had their personal data released to the global internet community. The lawsuit was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, nevertheless still needs to be certified by the court for it to proceed any further. On another note, Missouri lawyers have launched a class-action suit in the United States district court for more than $US5 million in damages. Both lawsuits detail that the privacy of the dating service members was contravened when hackers infiltrated Ashley Madison’s website and retrieved all the private information and published it online.

If you are concerned about your privacy rights under Australian law then give us a call on 8917 8700 or alternatively fill out the inquiry box detailing your issue and we will ensure to get back to you as soon as possible.

photo courtesy :Jose a Navas

The topic of same-sex marriage, in light of recent landmark rulings in the US Supreme Court, has become one of the foremost challenging for the Liberal government as it attempts to balance out the demands of society whilst upholding its conservative values. In a recent survey carried out by The Australian, from a group of 1,200 people, 76% stated they would be in favour of a plebiscite to be held prior to the next election. A plebiscite, similar to a referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal, in this particular case the question would centre on same-sex marriage. Advocates of a plebiscite on marriage equality say it would be much cheaper than a referendum and that the High Court has already ruled that Parliament has the power to legislate on the question. However there is also a risk that this referendum may not come into existence as Liberal party and its leader hold traditionalist views on the topic of marriage.

In the year 2008, the Australian government amended 84 laws that discriminated against same-sex couples. Changes were made to several areas ranging from taxation and employment to pension payments in order to provide gay couples with the equivalent rights of a heterosexual couple. The legislation amendments were praised by the Australian Human Rights Commission who stated that these were the initial steps towards full equality recognition for same-sex couples. However, groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby do not want the definition of marriage to be altered to be inclusive of same-sex couples, placing the blame on media for providing outright support for gay couples.

Australia's Marriage Act

The Marriage Amendment Act 2004 specifies in section 5(1) that marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Also, further states explicitly in section 88 that a union solemnised in a foreign country between:

(a) a man and another man; or

(b) a woman and another woman;

must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

However, if amendments are carried out for the Marriage Act, we do not anticipate significant social and legal consequences arising from this change. The Family Law Act already provides for protection for gay couple’s children hence the only impact marriage quality will have is that it will provide for a sense of security, stability and assertion to their children.

The issue of same-sex marriage issue is of great significance to be left just to politicians, the parliament and judges. Hence it is essential that a referendum is held. Through deciding the matter same-sex marriage issue by a referendum this would translate to a timely precedent in modernising Australian democracy for the 21st century.

In this day and age the cost of hiring a lawyer to dispute your matter can often be seen as a burden to your finances. Whilst many high income earners will be able to easily afford the fees of a lawyer and many low income earners can easily qualify for Legal Aid, there are a certain amount of people who earn a considerable salary and are not capable of acquiring legal representation. Consequently, this raises the question whether lawyers are morally and ethically obliged to provide pro bono services for the disadvantaged proportion of society. The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby once stated in a speech delivered to an auditorium of law students that the legal profession is “noble calling dedicated to the attainment of justice”. However is this long held view still applicable to the present profession? Are lawyers doing more than enough to ensure that the justice gap doesn’t further widen? Is Pro Bono really worth it?

What is the Pro Bono Scheme?

The Law Society of NSW is in charge of The Pro Bono Scheme which allows you to be put in contact with law firms willing to provide their legal services for free or for reduced fees. This form of assistance can include legal advice, help with preparing documentation and representation in court. Additionally, the scheme also provides legal assistance on an 'in-house' basis for eligible applicants.

Who is eligible?

To be eligible for assistance under the Scheme, applicants must:

• have applied for and been refused Legal Aid assistance for their legal matter (proof of this is required);
• satisfy the means assessment applied by the Scheme;
• have a matter that has merit and/or reasonable prospects of success;
• have a type of matter covered by the Scheme.

Change in attitudes

The National Law Firm Pro Bono Survey stated that large firms did, on average, almost 18 hours more pro bono work per lawyer per year (38 hours) than mid-tier firms (20.4 hours). However a number of mid tiers have now signed up to the NPBRC’s Aspirational Pro Bono Target of 35 hours of pro bono work per lawyer per year. It is with privilege that comes responsivities for lawyers not just in Australia but on a global basis. Almost anyone can do volunteer work (tutoring, coaching soccer, etc.), but lawyers have a unique set of skills and knowledge that can be used to expand access to justice for whose might not be able to freely obtain it. Through more lawyers taking the initiative to involve themselves within Pro Bono work society will eventually regain their trust for the legal profession which has been often put into question over the years.

Our Firm’s Pro Bono Achievement

Our firm’s legacy and former Senior Partner, Mr Harry Freedman, of Freedman & Gopalan solicitors, was awarded the Law Society Pro Bono Solicitor of the Year Award in 2014. The award acknowledged him for his countless efforts in assisting those in need and obtaining a positive result a majority of the time. He firmly believed that “the reputation of solicitors is often harmed by the greedy actions of a few members, as the vast majority of solicitors always act in the best interests of their clients”.

If you require assistance with your family law matters then contact our firm on 02 8917 8700 or alternatively fill out the email contact box on the right.

On the 1st of July drastic changes were made to divorce filing fees in the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court has seen costs rise by $355, an almost 42% increase from the previous set amount. Within the time span of almost 5 years, the federal government has consistently escalated the application for divorce filing fees from the initial considerably low amount of $432.

Divorce fees have increased gradually over these years as the government has been attempting to seek out about $90 million from court fee increases for their budgets. The costs rise has had reverberations around all aspects of the legal community and other relevant parties. The Australian Tax Office has already issued statements that they will litigate the fee hike as processing matters in the Federal Court has become too expensive over the years. However those who are going to be most impacted is the average, everyday Australian family.

Such a fee hike will deny people from accessing justice due to their financial vulnerability. The Rule of Law Institute, in their 2013 inquiry submitted that antithetical to the concept of access to justice that divorce filing fees should be made inaccessible. Divorce often comes hand in hand with dire economic consequences for the parties and the filing fee might heighten those personal problems by penalising the person who seeks to apply for divorce. Additionally such fee hikes will also act as a barrier to females who have been victims of domestic violence from seeking out a divorce as they will not be able to afford it. Due to the federal government’s actions in relation to court fees, many solicitors are cautioning that some of their poorest clients will not be able to file for a divorce as the monetary costs will act as barrier.

The government’s gradual cost increasing system will unintentionally restrict the right to seeking a divorce to those belonging to the middle and high-class income earners. In the alternative, the government states that parties filing for divorce have sufficient time to gather the funds to cover the costs that Family Court and Federal Circuit Court are demanding. However in a recent judgement handed down by the Court, application for divorce filing fees have now gone back to the previous cost of $845.

If you are looking to apply for divorce, or require legal advice in relation to a family law matter, give us a call on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP! 

After several months of deliberations and amendments, the Australian government introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 to Parliament on 24 June 2015. The introduction of the new Bill has altered the face of citizenship laws, allowing the government to block the return of dual citizens who have been suspected of terrorism. However the Bill also further allows the government to revoke the citizenship of a person even if they have not been convicted by the court of any terrorism related offences.

The Bill, titled Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 states that the Act has been implemented because the federal government identifies that

Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance.

A person may be exempted from having their citizenship revoked on the basis of judicial review, however the Bill does not detail the exact process by which this may take place.

Insight into the new law - why the Australian Citizenship Amendment has been introduced

The Bill introduces three additional categories which include:

• Fighting for a terrorist organisation: Any foreign citizen or national engaging or participating in warfare for a declared terrorist organisation as per the named terrorist organisations list, will have their Australian citizenship automatically revoked.

• Convictions for certain offences: Any foreign citizen or national convicted of any criminal offence will have their citizenship automatically revoked. The offence list includes crimes ranging from treason, terrorism-related offences, invoking or inciting violence, advocating terrorism, possessing items related to acts of terrorism, deliberately damaging Commonwealth property.

• Acting inconsistently with your allegiance to Australia: Any foreign citizen or national “acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia” will have their citizenship revoked. Essentially if an individual renounces that they are not Australian might potentially face having their citizenship revoked, raising questions in regards to the constitutional validity of this clause.

Implications for Australian citizens

It has been estimated that 27.7 per cent of population (6.4 million people) was born overseas and an approximately 4-5 million hold dual citizenship which means inherently one third of the Australian population are either foreign citizens or foreign nationals.

The introduction of this newly amended Bill has certainly raised a few eyebrows in regards to the constitutional rights of Australian citizens, such as whether a citizen will be able to challenge the revocation of their citizenship, the extent of power that the Parliament will possess in repealing an individual’s citizenship and whether the individual will be allowed to ever enter into Australian territory.

If you are worried about your citizenship status, or wish to discuss a migration matter, contact our office on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP! 

As of 6 July 2015, New South Wales has woken up to new laws relating to smoking. These changes are a continuation of a process started by the New South Wales Government to make smoking illegal in locations, especially in and around areas of food consumption. The new laws will make it illegal to smoke at:-

• All commercial outdoor dining areas, including cafes and restaurants;
• Any marked or designated areas where food is consumed, especially pub balconies, food courts etc.;
• Within 4 metres of any pedestrian entrance or exit to a hospitality venue, including a café, restaurant or bar.

With tax season upon us all, it is important to keep up-to-date with changes in taxation law that can affect businesses and individuals, particularly in regards to the powers of the Australian Tax Office in recovering taxes that have not been lodged, changes in the ATO issuing garnishee notices, and other debt recovery issues that may more significantly impact people and businesses than in previous years.

Mr. Chris Jordon, Australian Tax Commissioner, emphasises the importance of paying tax and superannuation to enable Australian society and the economy to continue to thrive. Importantly, in his recent address at the Taxation Institute Convention, Mr. Jordon announced that the thresholds at which the Australian Taxation office could commence legal proceedings against debtors had been changed from $300 000 to $35 000 for individuals, and $340 000 to $93 0000 for businesses. This is a hugely significant drop in the level at which people and businesses can remain in debt to the Australian Tax Office before legal action is commenced, and will undoubtedly affect many Australians that may in previous years have ‘slipped through the cracks’ and not been pursued by the Australian Tax Office and related legal entities.

These changes suggest that the ATO is taking the recovery of taxes very seriously. Importantly, the ATO’s increased rights to issue garnishee notices and have them prioritised over any liquidator, or any other charges against the individual or company, will detrimentally affect the ability of businesses to reduce debts to other parties, and again, affect many more individuals and businesses than in previous years.

For these reasons, it is important to be aware of changes to taxation law and to seek professional legal advice should a debt recovery order be issued by the ATO, or any other liquidator; please do not hesitate to contact Freedman and Gopalan Solicitors on 02 8917 8700.

On a general consensus basis the internet has been regarded as being a pioneer in global connectivity and instantaneous communication. However as everything good comes with a price, this is the case in regards to defamation laws. The contentious issue of defamation has been prevalent throughout legal history however there has been a recent emergence in online defamation. Due to the convenience and accessibility of communicating online, this may give rise to the potential ‘trolling’ or defamation of another’s character. In a landmark decision which took place in the New South Wales District Court in 2014 concerning a high school student, he was ordered to pay a sum of $105,000 to the teacher he posted tweets that defamed her character.

In a more recent decision, Treasurer Joe Hockey was successful in his case against Fairfax for the publishing defamatory tweets and visual content labelling him as ‘Treasurer for Sale’. The interesting point to be noted about Joe Hockey’s win is that he was successful in his claim that the online content published was of a defamatory nature however lost his case in regards to the articles and headlines of Fairfax newspapers tarnishing his character.

Legislation

There are laws enacted in NSW that target defamatory actions and which you should be aware of when it comes to your rights online. The offence of defamation is only committed when a person falsely publishes material that defames another person without the knowledge of whether the information is valid or invalid.

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Section 529(3) of the Crimes Act states that an offence of criminal defamation may be committed if a person without lawful excuse, publishes matter defamatory of another living person (the victim):

• Knowing the matter to be false, and
• With intent to cause serious harm to the victim, or any other person, being reckless as to whether such harm has been caused – is guilty of an offence.

However, Australian courts face the challenge of balancing a person’s right to freedom of speech and the safeguarding of a person’s character combined with the democratic concept of free speech.

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)

Common law provides for protection under the Defamation Act 2005. The repercussions of defamatory comments may have for the individual responsible can be devastating as highlighted in recent incidents. It is essential that users of online social media, whether it be Instagram, Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat should be wary of the consequences their words might have.

Even if the content posted by the individual is removed immediately, it may be deemed too late as in the online world content is instantaneously shared, saved and re-posted without the user being aware. In the online world, it is important that you are wary of the imprint you may leave behind and may come back to bite you in the long run if care is not taken.

If you have any concerns about defamatory statements that have been made about you, or wish to discuss a matter concerning social media, give us a call on 02 8917 8700 or alternatively, fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP!

If the Australian legal system were to adopt the use of social media than many benefits may be possibly reaped in the due process ranging from diminishing confidence of the public in the judicial system, the distorting of information by the media and journalists and an increased sense of communication between both parties, the courts and the community. The Supreme Court of Victoria has embraced the use of social media to ensure a fundamental tenet of Australian democracy is fulfilled — “that justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done”.

The Victorian Supreme Court, being one of the limited few in Australia to adopt social media, is engaging with Twitter and other social media tools actively, including by making trials and oral judgments available online through the Court’s website. Furthermore, Twitter has been used in the past to respond to criticism of the Court and publicity to present the Court’s perspective. As a result in due course the use of social media by the Victorian Supreme Court has the potential to significantly improve the accessibility of the Court and the transparency of its processes.

If other jurisdictions within Australia choose to use social media, they too can benefit in a myriad of ways. They may be able to conserve resources through the provision of immediate information through the means of mediums such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube, place information into its proper context, communicate more so easily and promptly with the public and ensure the judicial system is portrayed as being transparent, efficient and timely. Through adopting social mediums the Australian judicial system “provides an exhilarating opportunity for the Courts to tell the public...and why the rule of law matters”.

As technology changes and social media sites grow in popularity, the Australian judicial system will continue to face the challenge of adopting new rules to address the problems that come hand in hand through the use of social media tools. The issue of digital injustice has the potential to derail the very basis upon which justice is administered, if not readily addressed in a timely manner to ensure the adoption of social media by the court staff doesn’t occur at the cost of the hindering of the administration of a fair trial. However, if the Australian court staff does not espouse the use of social media then the court staff may potentially find themselves out of touch and disconnected from society once more.