Grapes have a notorious reputation for causing slips in supermarkets.  Those injured often make claims for significant amounts of money as compensation. This is what happened to 51-year-old Queensland man Raymond Polwarth who made a compensation claim after slipping on a grape in a Woolworths store in February 2014.  Mr Polwarth sought more than $140,000 in damages for medical and projected care expenses.

Mr Polwarth was a disability pensioner who had amputated his right leg after a motorcycle accident in his 20s. He claimed that the fall had reinjured his stump and rendered him severely disabled, unable to walk, drive, or care independently for himself. Following this, unbeknownst to Mr Polwarth, Woolworths installed secret cameras to undergo surveillance of Mr Polwarth’s home on two occasions in 2016. The video footage revealed Mr Polwarth walking, standing, driving, and even playing golf, for extended periods of time. While Woolworths did not deny fault in causing the fall, they disputed the extent of the injury and the prospective medical treatment that he would require.

Following the video evidence, Judge Searles from the Brisbane District Court stated that

“the level of functioning of the Plaintiff [Mr Polwarth] is self-evidence and reflects that his ability to function has not been significantly curtailed… the surveillance footage speaks for itself”.

As a result, Judge Searles awarded Mr Polwarth an amount of $11,111.  This was to cover general damages, medical expenses, and other care expenses incurred following the incident. While far from the $140,000 initially claimed by Mr Polwarth, Judge Searles ruled that there was no basis for awarding such a great amount. Mr Polwarth did not appear to be unable to care for himself, or require extended medical treatment.

It comes as no surprise that grocery giants like Woolworths will do what it takes to determine the extent of injuries and the accuracy of accusations in order to avoid an influx of large claims by shoppers looking for an easy payout. Genuine injuries and expenses, however, are still considered by Courts to determine a reasonable amount of damages to be paid.

If you have experienced an injury in a store and believe you may have a claim for compensation, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

In a historic feat yesterday, Mr Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest gave the largest ever philanthropic donation in Australia’s history. Mr Forrest donated a staggering $400mn towards various charities and causes in a bid to have other millionaires to follow in his footsteps towards a better Australia.

In giving his donation, Mr Forrest hopes to inspire others to give back to their community whether it be with money, or simply with time. In a breakdown of his donation, Mr Forrest broke his $400mn donation into 6 different areas.

1. $75mn was pledged towards the coordination of world cancer institutes to make lethal cancer history for the coming generations;
2. $50mn towards building stronger communities;
3. $75mn towards higher education and breakthrough research;
4. $75mn towards giving every child their best chance;
5. $50mn towards creating equality of opportunity amongst all Australians; and
6. $75mn towards removing modern slavery from human history.

Mr Forrest will for sure leave a long lasting mark on the Australian community with his generosity and love for the community. However, it is the message that he sends to others that will have the greatest of impacts for the future.

Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors congratulates and thanks Mr Forrest for his generosity and commitment to planting the seeds to a better Australia!

The obligation that every legal firm should be sticking to. 

A NSW Supreme Court Judge has ruled in favour of Mr Tan Than Le, a former client of Sydney law firm Brydens Lawyers, who was expected to pay a total of $304,688.72 in legal costs without being provided an itemised bill of costs.

Mr Le suffered a serious injury in 2005, after being struck by a forklift at his workplace. The complainant, who has limited English skills, retained Brydens Lawyers to commence legal proceedings in 2006. Mr Le eventually was granted a damages award in his favour in May 2013. A non-conditional cost agreement was then entered into between the two parties before Brydens issued the complainant with a hefty memorandum of costs and disbursements.

Not only did Mr Le expect a higher payout than that he received, but Brydens failed to provide an itemised bill on the grounds that the complainant did not ask for one for more than 12 months after the case was finalised. Upon being further interrogated about the absence of an itemised bill from Mr Le’s new lawyers, the firm claimed to have lost his files entirely.

The case escalated to the Supreme Court, where on 16 March 2017 Justice Schmidt ruled that Brydens was expected to provide an itemised bill to Mr Le if they wished to receive a payment for their legal fees. Under s 309 of the Legal Profession Act 2004, it is a requirement for all legal practises to inform their clients of legal costs that they are expected to pay and provide itemised bills that corroborate these fees. Accordingly, the Court found Brydens in contravention of this Act.

In the midst of proceedings, it was also discovered that Mr Le was never advised that he was expected for such a bill within 12 months of the finalisation of his case. Justice Schmidt scrutinised the professionalism and ethical conduct of the law firm, stating that “its approach was inconsistent with the obligations imposed on parties [by the law].” On these grounds, it was ordered that Brydens were to pay Mr Le’s legal costs on an indemnity basis.

Mr Le’s legal proceedings reinforce the obligations – ethical, moral and legal – that law firms have to operate on the grounds of fairness and justice, and maintain transparency with their clients.

If you are concerned about your legal costs, contact us on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

Are men at a disadvantage?

Twice-convicted drug trafficker, Sorayah Louise Constant, was sentenced to serve at least 18 months of jail time for drug offences in late April 2016. The District Court heard that Constant had placed orders for medications containing pseudo-ephedrine from overseas in April 2016. This was estimated to produce over $102,000 worth of methamphetamine. Given that this most recent crime was in breach of Constant’s previously instated good behaviour bond, the Court had originally sentenced Constant to jail time as a method of general deterrence. At the time, Constant had an 18-month-old child and was heavily pregnant with her second child.

A few months after the original sentencing, the Court of Criminal Appeal set aside her sentence on the grounds of leniency. Constant’s lawyer argued that the absence of any mother and babies facility in Adelaide’s women’s prison would not only strain her client’s relationship with her toddler but also prevent her from being able to breastfeed her second child. Cumulatively, the defence maintained that the Court should consider the severity of the separation hardship that would eventuate. After considering the relationship of the mother and daughter and the potential implications the sentence would have on the relationship between the mother and her unborn child, the Court has recently re-sentenced Constant to serve an 18 month good behaviour bond.

The bond was also issued on the basis that Constant will remain under the supervision of a corrections officer for four months and undergo drug and rehabilitation counselling. Following the re-sentencing, Ms Stokes confirmed Constant’s overwhelming relief in being granted the freedom to move interstate to rekindle her relationship with her eldest child and her partner.

The re-sentencing of Constant’s crime has eventuated in controversy, with the public scrutinising judicial inconsistencies and weakness that has become apparent. Ultimately, a major issue that all participants in the courtroom – namely magistrates and judges – face is striking a balance between judicial impartiality and not delivering injustice. In the matter at hand, many believe that the Court was guilt tripped into suspending Constant’s sentence on the grounds that her maternal responsibilities far outweighed her responsibility as an Australian citizen to face just punishment for her crimes. In most instances, the Court does not tend to be lenient to those that have committed indictable offences.

Furthermore, the controversial opinions stemming from this case have highlighted the need for consistency and change in judicial mentality. For instance, would such an outcome have been reached if the defendant was a male? While the argument of breastfeeding is eliminated, it seems unlikely that the Court would consider the relationship between a father and his children as highly as that discussed in the case, due to its tendency to revert to traditional societal values and customs when reaching a verdict. The case of Sorayah Constant, however, proves that much is still to be done to ensure that all citizens, irrespective of gender and backgrounds, are treated fairly and equally under the law.

If you believe you have faced discrimination in any situation, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP. 

Have you ever seen a new phone and thought, “gee, that looks very similar to this other phone I’ve seen”?

Brand image and product differentiation is usually make or break for any company.  A company often invests vast amounts of money and time into developing the perfect product design that is easily recognisable and identifiable.  Companies will protect their design through Patents.

The definition of a Patent from Intellectual Property Australia is:

“A right that is granted for any device, substance, method or process that is new, inventive and useful. A patent is a legally enforceable right to commercially exploit the invention for the life of the patent.”

Smartphones nowadays are becoming increasingly complex and advanced, which means that the designs and technology behind them also become invaluable. However, whilst they are becoming more advanced, they are also becoming very similar.  This means that companies need to differentiate their models from competitors.

A Chinese Firm named Baili, recently commenced proceedings in China against tech-giant, Apple.  Baili claimed that Apple's iPhone 6 and 6 Plus were incredibly similar to products released by their parent company. Baili argued that the exterior design of the iPhones was a copy of their smartphone, dubbed the Baili 100C.

However, Beijing's Intellectual Property Court held that Apple did not infringe upon Baili’s patent.  The court noted that the iPhone had "enough features to distinguish it" from the 100C. The Court noted that similarities between the handsets would not fool consumers.

This decision means that Apple's sales ban in China has been lifted and the Tech Giant can begin to look at cracking the smartphone market in China again.

If you have a patent that you believe has been infringed, require advice on intellectual property or would like to know more about this issue, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP!

This week, the world woke up to news that one of Hollywood's biggest power couples - Brangelina - had split, with Angelina filing for divorce from Brad.

When a couple separates, they are both swept up into a whirlwind of issues ranging from new living arrangements to questions of who gets custody of the children. No matter how amicable the situation may seem, divorce is hard on all parties involved. Brad and Angelina are about to discover just how difficult it can be whilst deflecting speculative questions and prying eyes.

Here are five pointers that might ensure the Brangelina split doesn’t get out of hand:

1. Speak to an attorney

Ideally, it is best to consult legal advice before filing for a divorce as there are steps that can be taken to avoid drastic action. These steps include marriage counselling and family mediation but if divorce is imminent, speaking to a lawyer is advised. As a result, actions taken subsequent to filing for divorce will be legal and should assist to keep both parties well informed of the process.

2. Consider the children

Try to remember that you and your partner are divorcing, not the children. Both Brad and Angelina were often quoted to say that their children are the best thing that has happened to them, but what will happen to them once the divorce proceedings commence? If this is a difficult time for you, imagine the toll it will take on the children. It is important to note that reforms to the Family Law Act have attempted to emphasise shared parenting responsibilities so it would be ill-advised to encourage the children not to speak to the other parent or deliberately sour the relationship between you and your partner.

3. Take note of Furniture and Furnishings and Copy Documents

Brad and Angelina will certainly have a hard task of determining their asset pool, but for most of us, this pool will include bank accounts, debts, shares in a business, the matrimonial home, cars and even household furniture. It is important to determine these assets when the time comes to split up the property or when the Court becomes involved. Subsequently, any documents that can prove these assets such as bank statements, wills, car registration titles will be useful when dividing the property.

4. Consider your own earning potential

If your divorce goes to the Family Court, it is necessary to be aware of your own earning potential as splitting up the property can be affected by you or your partner’s potential to earn money. In some cases, it is best to keep the matter out of court so that you and your partner can determine on your own who should keep what depending on individual circumstances.

5. Consider alternatives to Court

In famous cases like that of Pitt and Jolie, going to court is expected. However, in ordinary circumstances, taking a divorce to court can be a significant financial and emotional burden on all parties involved. In most situations, both sides are at the mercy of the uncertainty of how a judge will rule. Therefore, alternative solutions should be considered. Rather than falling back on the belief that if all else fails, court is an option, the process of ‘collaborative divorce’ involves working with lawyers and additional experts to resolve the problem without going to trial. If both parties decide to go to court, they must acquire new lawyers. The greatest benefit of these processes is the autonomy it allows both you and your partner, as well as structuring a plan that will also suit the children.

If you are currently thinking about filing for divorce or wish to know more about the legalities surrounding the Brangelina split, do not hesitate to contact our offices on 02 8917 8700.

As the 2016 political year commenced, we have seen controversial debate sparked by the banning of the burkini, the introduction of a new iPhone and the arrival of Senator Pauline Hanson. As one of her party’s core policies, the One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson has made it very clear that the Family Court has to go.

This week, those feelings have been exacerbated in Hanson’s first speech in the upper house of Parliament as the words ‘unworkable’ and ‘discriminatory’ have been used to describe the Family Law system. She has proposed that a tribunal of ‘mainstream Australians’ replace the court to ensure there is a body which can sustain the unbearable workload.

Amongst her claims, Hanson condemns the system on the basis that men are unfavourably looked upon and victims of family violence are disadvantaged in court proceedings by common practices. This includes the allowance for self-represented litigants (often the accused) to cross-examine their alleged victim.

Moving past Hanson’s unfounded comment regarding female favouritism, there are grounds for annoyance concerning the court’s workload and current lack of support. Justice Bryant has publicly asked for an increase in government funding to ensure there are better risk assessment tools for family consultants and expanded domestic awareness training.

Justice Bryant has publicly disagreed with Hanson’s views in stating that the abolition of the Family Law Courts would not only be unconstitutional but a brash response for an issue that deserves more expertise as opposed to less.

Realistically, it is inappropriate that the wait time for trial is approximately two years and cross-examination by an alleged abuser is allowed to occur. However, abolishing the system is not the answer. Family law has already seen significant reform and will continue to improve with greater funding as a result of increased research on key areas of focus such as family violence.

If you have a family law matter that you want to discuss, or are currently going through the Family Court, contact us on 02 8917 8700 to discuss your matter further.

Marriage has often been jokingly referred to as ‘the old ball and chain’. However what happens when the marriage you enter into is inflicted on you without your consent?

Everyday around the world millions of girls are being forced into marriages against their will. They are threatened, coerced and deceived into situations that may be likened to a form of modern day slavery. Forced marriage occurs when an individual is entered into a marriage without their full and free consent. The consequences of forced marriages are devastating; with physical abuse, sexual assault and family violence a horrifying everyday reality. Victims often find it difficult to leave abusive situations due to immense familial pressure and social stigma associated with divorce or separation.  In addition, in communities where there is a higher incidence of forced marriage, there is often a lack of education or access to protective agencies which results in the creation of a vicious cycle.

So what is being done about it?

Forced marriage is a crime under Australian law. Under s.270-7B of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, forced marriage is a criminal offence which carries a four year jail term. This is upgraded to 7 years if aggravated. These amendments were introduced to combat the rising incidences of forced marriage and human trafficking in Australia. However, in reality the success has been limited. This is because the victim is often unwilling to partake in the prosecution of their own family members.

In responding to this sensitive situation, it may be worthwhile examining the UK’s Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) in order to formulate a more effective way to assist the situation in Australia. The FMU provides a telephone helpline that provides advice and assistance to victims. This encompasses the entire scope of the situation, including:

• providing safety advice;
• preventing unwanted sponsorships; and
• in extreme cases, rescuing victims that are held against their will overseas.

The importance of a helpline service, as opposed to criminal prosecution through police intervention is in providing a service to monitor the situation.

A Forced Marriage Order can be granted if there is a risk of forced marriage. There is a criminal penalty of 5 years imprisonment if the orders are not complied with. The benefit of this order is that it is preventative as opposed to the punitive measure as enacted by Australian legislation, and this better reflects an understanding of the delicate family situation faced by victims of forced marriage. The adoption of a similar service in Australia may be a right step in the direction of preventing forced marriages.

In the event that you are already in a forced marriage, Australian law has measures that can help you restore your freedom. Under Section 23(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), a marriage will be annulled or declared void by the Family Court if it was found that the marriage occurred as a result of:

• force,
• duress,
• fraud; or
• if one party did not have the mental capacity to consent to the marriage.

This means that if you were forced into a marriage against your will, then you can seek to have your marriage declared invalid under Australian Law.

Although Australia has made progress in addressing the issue of forced marriage, there is still a long way to go.

If you are in a forced marriage or have concerns about the welfare and safety of a friend or family member, please do not hesitate to contact Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors on 02 8917 8700.

‘Why did you buy that for?’ A seemingly innocent enough question, but once you look behind the surface an entire world of control and coercion emerges. Financial abuse is tactic by which abusers seek to gain control over a relationship by controlling a partners finances in order to regulate their behaviour and prevent them from leaving. In an article released by the National Network to End Domestic Violence it has been articulated that financial abuse occurs in 98% of abusive relationships and surveys of domestic abuse survivors indicate that the fear of an inability to provide for themselves and their families was one of the top reasons for staying in an abusive relationship (link). All over the country millions of women are being financially abused, yet it remains one of the least recognised and understood forms of abuse.

So how do you know if you’re being financially abused?

• Does your partner prevent you from working or control your salary?
• Do you have no decision about how money is spent in your relationship?
• Does your partner withhold money from you or only allow you an ‘allowance’?
• Does your partner prevent you from seeing or being included on financial statements?
• Does your partner threaten you or make you feel guilty when you want to make purchases?
• Does your partner hide assets from you or not inform you of major financial decisions like taking a loan?
• Do you feel like your powerless, like you’re dependant on your partner for food, clothing and shelter?
• Does your partner force you to do things you don’t want to do in return for access to money?

Financial abuse has very real consequences and may result in feelings of helplessness, a complete loss of autonomy and leave you feeling forced to stay in a situation you know is bad for you. It also has significant monetary implications and victims of financial abuse are often left in situations where they have no means to support themselves and this may result in bad credit scores, an inability to seek loans, loss of employment opportunities and homelessness. If these signs signal a red flag in your relationship, it may be time for you to recognise that this is not okay and you can find the help you need to escape this vicious cycle of abuse.

If you are in a similar situation or wish to know more about financial abuse, please do not hesitate to contact our offices on 02 8917 8700.