grape compensation
Notorious for causing slips in supermarkets, one man's experience almost left Woolworths with a large damages bill.

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.

Andrew Forrest
Andrew Forrest made history with his donation, hoping to inspire other millionaires to better the future.

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. 

legal costs supreme court
The Supreme Court of NSW slammed major Sydney Law Firm Brydens with an indemnity costs order after they failed to provide their client with an itemised bill for legal costs.

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?

sorayah constant
Sorayah Constant leaving the District Court. Image: abc.

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. 

apple patent
Apple Inc had an infringmenet and injunction against them overturned in late March 2017 when a Beijing Court found that it did not infringe on a Chinese Company's smartphone Patent

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!

Why mouldy bread should be the least of your worries. 

building dispute
Woolfman has been unable to live in, or rent out the apartment she purchased several years ago thanks to a building dispute over leaky walls and toxic mould.

As a new home buyer, getting into the market today is already hard enough.  Now imagine finally being able to put your foot in the door as a first home buyer, to realise you’ve purchased a mouldy, unlivable apartment?

That’s exactly what happened to Lucy Woolfman.  Dripping water and toxic mould forced Woolfman and her partner to move out of their newly purchased residence.  The couple were also advised to get rid of many possessions that were affected by mould.

Woolfman claims that she and her partner planned to live in the apartment for a year, then rent it out.  As a result of these defects and the continuous dispute, Woolfman has lost out on years' worth of rent. They are also out-of-pocket for storage fees to avoid contamination and legal fees.  The total claim amounts to $260,000.

They have been couch-surfing and renting for years.  Woolfman currently rents a small studio apartment across the street.  Their apartment remains empty as they wait for something to be done about the uninhabitable property.

Meanwhile, a complex legal battle as to who should be held liable continues to be on foot.  Both the developer and the body corporate are denying liability for the expensive clean up task, which is estimated to cost more than $10,000.

Determining who the liable party is even more complicated as legal proceedings against the builder were dropped in 2013. Woolfman received a settlement payout of $5,000 and signed a Deed of Settlement. This had the effect of releasing Ceerose, the developer, from any further legal action against them relating to the apartment.

As of now, it is but a race against time, and bank accounts as the costs piles up and tensions run high. The matter is listed before the District Court in May.

If you are in a similar situation, or have been affected by building defects, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700 to find out how we can help!

 

 

 

 

belle gibson
She's the disgraced wellness blogger that made headlines in 2015 after revealing she was not actually suffering from cancer. Belle is now back just as her matter nears judgment, promoting a new diet with extraordinary claims.

Belle Gibson - its a name that will not be forgotten any time soon.   The well-known and now disgraced health and wellness blogger made headlines in 2015 after she admitted to faking terminal brain cancer and claiming that she cured it with "clean eating" and juice cleanses.  Gibson and her business were brought before the court by the Victorian consumer watchdog when it was found that they failed to pass on charitable donations from App Sales, book sales and events.  In total, the disgraced blogger promised to hand over donations to charities, amounting to $300,000. These donations were never passed on.

In the Federal Court of Australia, Justice Mortimer handed down her Judgment, upholding majority of the allegations held against Gibson. She is now facing a possible $1million fine for her false and misleading conduct.

Despite her previous issues, Gibson has been recently caught promoting another alleged diet regime. Gibson claims that her colonic irrigation caused her to expel a 15cm “HUGE ROPE WORM” and that it prevented two of her teeth from needing fillings. She also claims that her tonsils are now “30% smaller” and that her eye colour is changing from hazel to “green with blue underneath”.

Gibson's post, which appeared on closed Facebook Group "Master Fast System"  has been taken down.

"If you have been given a death sentence and without hope, let us teach you that EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE and your situation CAN be turned around no matter what “they” named your dis-ease," the website for the System reads.

Publicity and group membership has skyrocketed thanks to sceptical Aussies that remember Gibson.

Justice Mortimer drew on actions like this when handing down her Judgment, stating that:

“Ms Gibson deliberately played on the genuine desire of members of the Australian community to help those less fortunate."

It seems that bad habits certainly do die hard.

Any promises made by an individual or organisation that donations to charity organisations are to be made, should be followed through. If not, organisations run the risk of facing serious consequence and legal action.

If you are aware of any organisations or entities which have not been passing on their donations, please contact us on 02 8917 8700.

Terms and Conditions
Terms and Conditions are getting lengthier and more confusing.

“I have read the terms & conditions” … Tick!  It’s the one lie we are all guilty of. The little box is unassuming, yet essential for everyone who purchases anything online or signs up for a mailing list. This pesky little box gets in the way of buying that new phone you’ve had your eye on for weeks now. Many online retailers won’t let you progress to the next page until you have checked this box.

Many people progress straight to the next page without taking the time to read the often lengthy document. Most of the time, Terms and Conditions don’t leave you wondering why they’re not being read.

A recent review of the terms and conditions for the Amazon Kindle found it took over nine hours to read them. That’s enough time to fly to Bali, order a mojito and lay in your beach-side cabana (just in case you wanted to do some light reading on the plane ride over).  The review found that the contract contained approximately 73,198 words!

Blindly accepting these Terms and Conditions takes a short second.  This split-second decision, however, can leave you open to exploitation for unreasonable terms and/or conditions associated with your purchase. Something as simple as purchasing an app on the App Store may not be too much of an issue. It's when you're purchasing a phone plan, insurance policy or an online subscription, that not reading the terms and conditions could leave you open to issues that you're not even aware of.

 “One particularly concerning clause in the Amazon contract locks consumers into an arbitration process in the US if they have an unresolved problem with their Kindle."  -- Tom Godfrey, Choice Media Spokesperson

This kind of clause leaves many consumers confused about their legal rights. In Australia, defective products or faults are covered under Australian Consumer Law where a buyer has the right to be directly compensated by the manufacturer.

Having a nine-hour long terms and conditions section means that consumers forego reading what they’re accepting, and subject themselves to clauses and confusions like the one above.

In a recent move, Telstra has made a switch to a one-page summary of their terms and conditions to avoid this confusion, but this summary could have consequences of its own. Other businesses have made similar moves.

If you believe you have been subject to unfair terms & conditions, would like to have your terms & conditions reviewed, or if you would like to obtain legal advice before you agreed to any terms & conditions, please feel free to contact us on 02 8917 8700.

Just another reason for that apple a day, in hopes to keep the (fake) doctors away.

shyam acharya
A man has stolen another man's identity and faked his way into the Australian Medical System, posing as a junior doctor for 11 years.

Pretending to be a professional has become a much-talked about topic with the rise of many references in pop-culture.

Unfortunately, no longer the subject of a TV show or movie, a man has recently been found to have been impersonating a doctor for over 11 years, working as a junior doctor in hospitals in Manly, Wyong, Gosford and Hornsby. The man, posing under the name Shyam Acharya allegedly took the name of another man in India before arriving in Australia to begin his new-found career in the field of Medicine.  This was unbeknownst to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency for the past 11 years. It is alleged he was able to gain registration in Australia by using forged documents of another doctor in India. Acharya went on to practice until November of 2016 when the AHPRA then began to investigate him for “falsely holding himself out as a registered medical practitioner.”

Mr Acharya has now been charged under s 116 of the Health Practitioner National Regulation Law (NSW), which makes it an offence to use a title that could make others believe you are a registered medical professional.

As a junior doctor, Acharya would have had work under the supervision of other doctors, meaning there was no immediate danger to patients as such.  However, there has been an incident in which the “adequacy of the treatment” was questioned.

Regardless, all patients that were in contact with Acharya have been notified.

Acharya has now believed to have fled the country and the NSW government has released a passport photo of the man in question.

If you were a patient of Mr Acharya, have concerns relating to a medical negligence issue or would like to know more, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700.

envelopeprinterphonemap-marker