Whether it is taking on your partner’s last name or wanting to legalise your nickname, below are the implications of changing your name.

Documentation

Changing your name means that you must update your personal records with multiple organisations including but not limited to:

· Australian Passport Office

· Transport for NSW

· banks

· Australian Taxation Office

· Australian Electoral Commission

· NSW Electoral commission

· Medicare

· insurance companies

· doctors/dentists

· superannuation funds.

Change of Name Certificate

If you are planning on changing your name, this one document will become forever useful. In order for the above listed organisations to approve your new documentation, a change of name certificate, or equivalent, will most likely be required.

Changing your name after marriage? – its free!

Changing multiple important documentation gets expensive. Luckily, for marriage related surname changes, it's not necessary to pay the fee for an official change of name. Most government departments accept your official marriage certificate as proof of your name.

Your surname options include the following:

· you can take your partner’s surname

· your partner can take your surname

· you can combine your name and your partner’s name with a hyphen.

Overall, changing your name has serious legal implications and all respective organisations need to be well informed to ensure that your personal identity is standardised and updated.

The Christmas and holiday season is often a joyful occasion however, it can be stressful and difficult for separated families who are co-parenting their children. Currently, there is no statute in New South Wales that regulates Christmas arrangements for separated families. Rather, the Court believes that it is in the child's best interest to have personal relationships with both parents after separation and thus, parents should try and reach an amicable agreement that allows the child to spend quality time with both of them over the Christmas and holiday season.

Separated parents who have a Court Order in place must ensure that those Orders are strictly followed and adhered to. However, if the parents do not have a Court Order in place, they should come to an agreement in advance so that both parents can make plans, and the child is aware of how their holidays will be spent. In making such agreements, parents should primarily be concerned with the welfare of their child but can also consider other factors such as the child’s age, wishes or feelings, and also the practicality of handing over the child to the other parent, including the distance between both parent’s houses.

One common arrangement between separated parents is sharing Christmas Day. The child would stay with Parent A during Christmas Eve and until Christmas morning, before being handed to Parent B for Christmas lunch, dinner and night. This works best for parents who live in close proximity to one another, allowing for smooth handovers with least disruption to the children.

Another arrangement is for the child to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with Parent A, and then Boxing Day and 27 December with Parent B. As with the above arrangement, this is more appropriately suited for families where both parents live within a relatively short distance to one another.

Alternatively, for parents who do not live close to one another, multiple handovers around the holiday season may not be practical and instead, may cause additional stress and difficulties. In such situations, parents may choose to divide the days which their child is on holidays for in half, and each parent spends half of the child’s holidays with them, before handing them to the other parent for the remainder of the holidays.

With the rapid expansion of social media use throughout not only Australia, but the rest
of the world, social media platforms have become one of the most common places that
defamatory materials are shared. Platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, and X (formerly
twitter) allow information to spread almost instantly, often without careful
consideration about the consequences. Under Australian law, online publications are
treated in the same way as traditional forms of social media. As a result, a single post,
comment, or message may expose an individual to legal action if the content is harmful
to any individuals or entities. With the recent introduction of the under-16s social media
ban in Australia being implemented by the 10th of December 2025, the amount of social
media users will significantly change how frequently defamatory content is created,
shared, or challenged online.

What is Defamation?
In the context of social media, defamation is the act of making false statements about
an individual or entity that can harm their reputation and it could occur through various
forms of online communication. The key elements of defamation include; The false
statement (the statement made must be untrue), publication (the statement must have
been communicated or seen by a third party, meaning that it has been posted or
shared), and harm (this statement must have been causing harm to reputation of the
individual or entity being targeted by the claims). On social media, defamation could
include posts or captions, comments, private messages that are forwarded,
screenshots, stories, reviews or reposts/shared content. Once a material is shared, it is
seen as ‘published’, even if the audience is small.

Why are defamation cases increasing?
Australia has seen steady growth in defamation actions in recent years, largely due to
online communications. Everyday disputes, workplace tensions, and interpersonal
conflicts now often play out publicly on social platforms. Combined with the
accessibility of posting, the speed of content circulation and the misunderstanding of
legal consequences, more individuals are unintentionally placing themselves at risk of
legal liability.

What are the consequences of defamation?
For the affected individual or entity, defamatory statements can damage their
reputation, relationships, and professional opportunities, often causing long term social
or career consequences. Legally, they can seek compensatory damages, or formal
apologies under the Defamation Act 2005 (cth). For the offender, consequences include
paying damages, covering legal costs, issuing public retractions, and potential
reputational harm. These legal and social outcomes highlight the importance of
responsible communication, particularly online, where statements can spread rapidly
and widely.

The contentious social media ban for under-16s in Australia, is set to come into action on the 10th of December 2025. With this date approaching, it is vital to understand what this means for those affected by the ban, as well as other major points of discussion that question its viability.

What platforms does the ban target?
The ban affects many social messaging apps that are popular among young people, such as Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube. However, platforms such as YouTube Kids, Google Classroom and LinkedIn will be exempt. Notably, gaming social platforms such as Twitch and Discord will be exempt, sparking debate due to their respective controversies regarding the cyber safety of their young users.

The age-checking process
The Labor Government has proposed multiple ways to verify if a user is above the age of sixteen, namely the utilization of facial detection technologies, ID checks and existing pattern recognition that stems from data already collected from the user’s activity. Importantly, it will not be up to the parents or children to enforce these bans, but it will be up to companies, who are incentivized by the avoidance of a hefty fine if they do not comply and integrate effective methods to block under-16s from accessing their platform.

Discrepancies in the ban
Many individuals and groups have voiced their dissatisfaction when it comes to how the ban is enforced, especially regarding its easily penetrable nature. For instance, the facial recognition technology employed by the affected social media platforms are still juvenile and are open to error, with studies showing that a simple rubber mask can allow under-16s to bypass the age check, thus creating a large fault margin above and below the age of 16. Furthermore, the Government has not outlined how the ban would respond to the usage of VPNs, that provide the user with a different location, hence excusing them from the ban. Most of all, there are significant privacy concerns associated with the ban, as many people are not comfortable providing their private information (through the form of IDs) to these online services.

My work experience week at Freedman and Gopalan was filled with laughs, learning and working. I had so much fun, from the moment I stepped through the glass doors I felt included, everyone was so welcoming and kind. I have enjoyed getting to know the whole team individually and will cherish these experiences forever.

This week has given me an incredible insight into the legal system and I have learnt so much in such a short time. I spent my week emailing clients, archiving old cases and writing articles for social media. I never felt scared or worried about asking for help, everyone was so helpful and easy to talk to and even when busy they all made time to have a laugh with each other. It was so great to be part of such a friendly and kind team.

I will forever be grateful for the time I spent here and the experience I have had it is truly priceless, and it has made me even more excited about pursuing a career in law.

Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom’s relationship has long been a subject of public fascination, marked by high-profile appearances and a shared child. Their recent split in mid-2025 reignited speculation about the role of infidelity may have played, particularly after Perry was seen kissing former Canadian Prime Minister Justn Trudeau just weeks after the breakup. While tabloids have swirled with rumors, including past allegations involving Bloom and Selena Gomez in 2016, neither Perry nor Bloom has publicly confirmed cheating as the cause of their separation.

From a legal standpoint, even if infidelity occurred, it would not entitle either party to compensation under Australian family law. Australia follows a no-fault divorce system, meaning courts do not consider the reasons for a relationship’s breakdown, such as cheating, when determining property division or spousal maintenance. The law focuses on equitable financial outcomes and the welfare of any children, rather than assigning moral blame.

There are limited exceptions, a prenuptial agreement may include clauses that penalise infidelity, but such provisions must be carefully drafted and are rarely enforced. Unlike some jurisdictions that once allowed “alienation of affection” lawsuits against third parties, Australia does not recognise such claims.

In the case of Perry and Bloom, their separation, however dramatic in the public eye, will likely be resolved through standard family law procedures without regard to personal grievances. The legal system prioritises fairness and practicality over emotional justice, even when celebrity relationships unravel under the spotlight

Not every courtroom drama happens inside the courtroom. Sometimes, it begins at the airport. Imagine standing in line at Sydney International, passport in hand, suitcase packed, and your phone starts buzzing in your pocket with reminders about an upcoming divorce hearing. Can you board that flight to France without derailing your case?

In Australia, there’s no automatic ban on overseas travel during divorce proceedings. But if your matter is active, especially when financial settlements or parenting arrangements are being contested, travel can become legally complicated. Court orders, undertakings and even the perception that you’re dodging responsibilities can all come into play.

For example, Sarah, who’s negotiating property division and spousal maintenance. She’s invited to a professional event in London. While the trip is legitimate, her ex-partner raises concerns about asst movement and delays. Sarah would be wise to notify her legal counsel and the court, provide clear itinerary and ensure she’s available for virtual hearings. Ignoring these steps could lad to adverse inferences or even contempt proceedings.

If children are involved, stakes rise sharply. International travel during custody disputes may require written consent from the other parent or a court order. Attempting to leave without permission could trigger airports to alerts under the Family Law Watchlist and result in serious legal consequences.

So, yes you can travel, but only with the court’s blessing. One wrong move and your relaxing holiday could turn into a legal headache for you and your legal team.

Pacific Current Group Ltd v Fitzpatrick (No 2) [2025] FCA 1152

Justice Beach dismissed Pacific Current Group Ltd’s (PAC) proceedings against its former CEO, Mr Andrew McGill, concerning alleged breaches of directors’ duties during a 2014 merger with Northern Lights Capital Partners LLC. The merger involved transferring assets into a unit trust (Aurora Trust), with PAC holding 61% and Northern Lights 39%.

PAC alleged that Mr McGill and other directors breached statutory and equitable duties—particularly under s 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)—by failing to conduct proper due diligence, withholding key financial models, and not obtaining shareholder approval. PAC pursued a “no transaction” damages claim, arguing the merger would not have occurred but for the breaches.

Justice Beach found:

• Mr McGill breached s 180 by failing to disclose risks associated with WHV Investment Management Inc., including uncertainties around dividend entitlements and flawed financial modelling.
• However, PAC’s “no transaction” scenario failed. The evidence showed that the merger would likely have proceeded, albeit potentially on renegotiated terms.
•  PAC did not plead or prove an “alternative transaction” scenario, nor did it establish causation or quantifiable loss.
•  As no damages flowed from the proven breach, the Court dismissed the case against Mr McGill.
• Mr McGill’s cross-claim against Mr Fitzpatrick was also dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Justice Beach emphasised the importance of precise pleadings and procedural fairness. He noted that PAC’s board, despite criticisms, demonstrated strong governance and intellectual diversity. The judgment also clarified that directors are not liable for hypothetical losses unless causation and damage are properly pleaded and proven.

PAC was ordered to pay 80% of Mr McGill’s costs, reflecting limited success on the WHV issue.

Key Points – PAC v Fitzpatrick (No 2)

• Background: PAC sued its former CEO, Mr McGill, alleging breaches of directors’ duties under s 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) during a 2014 merger with Northern Lights Capital Partners LLC.
• WHV Issue: Mr McGill failed to disclose risks tied to WHV Investment Management Inc., including dividend uncertainties and flawed financial modelling. This breached his duty of care.
• Causation & Damages: PAC ran a “no transaction” case, arguing the merger would not have occurred but for the breaches. The Court rejected this, finding the merger would likely have proceeded—possibly with renegotiated terms.

• No Alternative Scenario: PAC did not plead or prove an “alternative transaction” case. Without causation or quantifiable loss, no damages were awarded.
• Outcome: The case against Mr McGill was dismissed. His cross-claim against Mr Fitzpatrick was also dismissed. PAC was ordered to pay 80% of Mr McGill’s costs, reflecting limited success on the WHV issue.
• Judicial Commentary: Justice Beach praised PAC’s board for its intellectual diversity and governance, and emphasised the importance of precise pleadings and procedural fairness.

Ekermawi v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 1141

Justice Perry summarily dismissed two proceedings brought by Mr Samir Ekermawi against Services Australia (SA) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), alleging racial discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) and international law.

Mr Ekermawi, a Palestinian-born Australian citizen, claimed that the Commonwealth’s refusal to allow “Palestine” to be recorded as his country of birth in official systems (Centrelink and passport databases) constituted unlawful racial discrimination and breached his human rights. He sought declarations, damages, and orders requiring the Commonwealth to insert “Palestine” into its systems.

The Court found:

• There is no human right to have a particular place of birth recorded in government records. The RDA does not confer such a right, nor does the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

• The evidence showed Mr Ekermawi could record “Palestine” in hard copy applications and that DFAT allowed options such as “Occupied Palestinian Territories” or “British Mandated Palestine” in its internal systems.
• The inability to select “Palestine” did not affect eligibility for social security or passport renewal. Citizenship, not birthplace, determines entitlement.
• Mr Ekermawi failed to identify any specific act that breached ss 9, 10, 17, or 18C of the RDA. His claims were vague, lacked legal foundation, and did not raise any substantial factual or legal dispute.
• The relief sought—requiring recognition of Palestine—was non-justiciable and fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction, as recognition of foreign states is a matter for the Executive under Chapter II of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court held that the applications had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed them under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), with costs awarded to the Commonwealth.

Key Points

Mr Ekermawi alleged racial discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) after Services Australia and DFAT refused to record “Palestine” as his country of birth in official systems. He claimed this breached his human rights and caused marginalisation.

Justice Perry summarily dismissed the case, finding:

• No human right exists to have a specific birthplace recorded in government databases.
• The RDA does not guarantee such a right, nor does ICERD.
• Evidence showed Mr Ekermawi could write “Palestine” on hard copy forms and request internal codes like “British Mandated Palestine.”
• His eligibility for services or passports was unaffected by the birthplace listing.
• The relief sought—requiring recognition of Palestine—was non-justiciable and outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
• No actionable breach of ss 9, 10, 17 or 18C of the RDA was identified.

The Court held the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed both proceedings under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court Act, awarding costs to the Commonwealth.