E-scooters and e-bikes have become increasingly popular in recent years. Currently, there are roughly 1.35M e-micromobility devices in NSW homes, with 18-29 year olds being the most frequent users of these vehicles. Additionally, 47% of people use e-micromobility devices to access public transport, and they are also a great way to be more environmentally friendly.

However, the regulation and rules surrounding their use and modification is confusing and unclear, and e-bike riders often don't understand their duty to give way to pedestrians. Additionally, there are community concerns around device modification and safety risks on the road. Accordingly, Minister for Transport, John Graham, has stated that "these devices are creating an evolution in how people move around, and that's a good thing, but we need to get the balance right."

In 2024, the NSW government put forth their E-micromobility Action Plan. Now, they are seeking to build upon this Plan to expand the rules and regulations surrounding the use of e-scooters and e-bikes.  This action being taken is part of the NSW government's response to a recent Parliamentary inquiry, which claimed the current rules surrounding the use of e-scooters and e-bikes are "outdated and ineffective."

E-scooters will now be legalised on shared paths with a default speed limit of 10km to 20km per hour, and are legal for independent riders aged over 16.

E-bikes are not subject to a speed limit because they must be mostly propelled by riders. This is because its motor is not the only source of power but rather, is primarily used to help riders when starting off their ride or going uphill. Minors are allowed to ride e-bikes without a licence or formal training.

For both these vehicles, riders must give way to pedestrians using shared paths, and helmets are mandatory.

Additionally, there are other regulations designed to enhance the safety of these e-micromobility devices. Specifically, safety standards and risk-based protocols will be established to limit battery fires. There will also be efforts to boost rider and road user education, including voluntary tests, campaigns and in-school road safety education programs.

However, there has been some criticism surrounding the proposal of these new rules. The NSW Police is tasked with enforcing these rules, however, Harold Scruby from the Pedestrian Council of Australia has claimed that the NSW Police are currently ineffective in enforcing current rules surrounding the use of e-micromobility vehicles, stating that "they can't [enforce the rules] now, so why are they going to do it when...hundreds, thousands more of these [vehicles are] on our footpaths."

In November 2024, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was passed, which banned children under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms. Whilst the Bill did not individually name the social media platforms to which this ban would apply to, Communications Minister, Michelle Rowland, confirmed that these laws would apply - at a minimum - to TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram and X.

Shadow Minister for Education, Sarah Henderson, claimed that these restrictions were "absolutely critical" due to the severe mental health impacts which young people are suffering due to social media use being unregulated by parents or carers, and by the platforms themselves.

However, a recent eSafety Commissioner Report revealed that this ban has been largely unsuccessful as most children under 16 are still using social media. The Report discovered that 80% of surveyed children aged 8-12, and 95% of surveyed children aged 13-15, are using one or more social media platforms. These platforms ranged from Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube and Discord. Of the surveyed children, 54% had accessed social media through their parent's or carer's account, whilst 36% had their own account.

So, why did the ban not work?

The ban relied significantly on truthful age declaration so that social media platforms could prevent users under 16 from making an account. However, children making an account could easily falsify their age or alternatively, use their parents' accounts to access social media. Additionally, different platforms sought to enforce the ban in different ways rather than using one consistent and unified method. Accordingly, some platforms were more committed to preventing users under 16 from accessing their platform, whilst others were less effective in achieving this aim.

The Bill has also faced significant backlash and public criticism. Notably, the Human Rights Law Centre claimed that "these laws would undermine the human rights of young people in unacceptable ways, including their rights to freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy." They argue that this social media ban does not effectively address the real problem and instead, the government should focus on making social media platforms for everyone, and holding these platforms accountable.

The increased growth and popularity of Generative Artificial Intelligence has made its way into the courtrooms as both self-represented litigants and lawyers begin relying on this tool to prepare their submissions and evidence. However, this has raised concerns about the accuracy and quality of submissions being presented to the court.

For example, in a defamation case, Dr Natasha Lakaev cited a case, 'Hewitt v Omari [2015] NSWCA 175,' but in reality, no such case existed. In his judgment, Justice Blow stated that this error was likely the product of Generative AI, highlighting that "when artificial intelligence is used to generate submissions for use in court proceedings, there is a risk that the submissions that are produced will be affected by a phenomenon known as ‘hallucination’". These 'hallucinations' occur when Generative AI perceives patterns or objects that are non-existent, creating outputs that are inaccurate or nonsensical. Additionally, in another case, a legal agent at the Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal had submitted 600 pages of "rambling, repetitive, nonsensical" material, which was suspected to have been written by AI.

Given the lack of guidelines and rules surrounding the use of Generative AI, "Judges of the Federal Court have been considering and discussing the development of either Guidelines or a Practice Note in relation to the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence"(Media statement from the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, March 2025).  This reflects the law's attempt to appropriately balance the interests of the administration of justice along with fairness and efficiency for each individual who comes before the court. The Chief Justice has stated that the court's AI Project Group will seek submissions from legal professionals, self-represented litigants, and the public starting mid-June 2025.

Submissions can be emailed to AI_Consultation@fedcourt.gov.au until June 13, 2025. This public consultation aims to inform the Federal Court's approach to regulating AI in legal proceedings, balancing efficiency with accuracy and ethical considerations. Recent incidents globally, including cases in the US and Australia involving fabricated AI-generated legal information, underscore the urgency of establishing clear guidelines for AI use in the legal profession.

'Brooki Bakehouse' is a popular bakery in Brisbane which has gone viral across social media platforms for their range of pastries and treats, along with their unique Instagram and TikTok content centred around topics such as 'A Day In The Life of a Bakery Owner.' Brooke Bellamy is the founder and owner of this popular bakery, however, she has been accused of plagiarising the recipes in her recently published book, 'Bake With Brooki.'

Nagi Maehashi from RecipeTin Eats is one of Australia's most respected food bloggers, and she has come forth claiming that her recipes have been stolen by Brooke, who then incorporated it into her book, 'Bake With Brookie.' In a statement on her website, ‘RecipeTin Eats’, Maehashi said two recipes in Bellamy's bestselling cookbook ‘Bake with Brooki’ were far too similar to recipes she had previously published, being her recipes for a caramel slice and baklava. Maehashi posted side-by-side screenshots of the ingredients, quantities and instructions from the two books, which gained enormous traction and backlash on social media. She said the similarities between the recipes amounted to plagiarism however, lawyers for Penguin Random House Australia - the publisher of Bellamy's book - have rejected her claims and said all recipes were written by Bellamy.

What Legal Action Can Maehashi Take?

Maehashi claims that the similarities between the recipes amounted to plagiarism, but Professor John Swinson from the University of Queensland has stated that plagiarism isn't a legal claim, so she cannot sue for this. Additionally, Associate Professor of Law, Vicki Huang from the University of Queensland, has also stated that plagiarism isn't unlawful but rather, is regulated by social and industry norms. However, there are still consequences of plagiarism, stating "there can be reputational harms within an industry for copying or plagiarising other people's work."

Additionally, Maehashi has also claimed that she was not given credit for her recipes. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), an author's work must be credited. This situation underscores the complexities that can arise in the publishing industry and the different approaches parties may take in resolving disputes. Maehashi's experience highlights the potential challenges authors can face when dealing with large corporations and navigating legal processes

In a significant move to address the pervasive issue of domestic violence, the Coalition government has pledged a $90 million package that includes the creation of a national register for offenders and the criminalisation of technology-facilitated abuse. Peter Dutton, drawing on his experience as a former police officer, announced the suite of measures aimed at bolstering the decade-long national plan to end violence against women and children.

Acknowledging the "lifelong impact of these horrific crimes," Dutton emphasised the urgency of the situation, echoing the national cabinet's previous commitment of $4.7 billion to tackle the emergency. A cornerstone of the Coalition's strategy is the establishment of a National Domestic Violence Register. This database would enable police and relevant agencies to access and share crucial information regarding an individual's history of family violence convictions, although it would not be publicly accessible. The Coalition government argues this will enhance information sharing and improve responses to potential threats.

Furthermore, the proposed package includes the creation of new domestic violence offences specifically targeting the misuse of mobile phone technology. This initiative aims to criminalise the use of phones to threaten or track intimate partners or family members, explicitly addressing the growing concern around perpetrators utilising spyware and engaging in coercive control through digital means.

This $90 million strategy represents the Coalition's long-awaited comprehensive plan to combat domestic abuse, signalling a determined effort to strengthen legal frameworks and provide law enforcement with enhanced tools to protect vulnerable individuals. Although while information is still emerging, amendments to legislation are yet to be recognised.

Pets are considered property and a shared asset in the eyes of the law, however, they are not mentioned in the Family Law Act 1975.

In most cases, the Courts will make an Order and award a pet to either party in the same Order that lists other personal property. Because the Family Law Act has yet to distinguish pets from property, they will make decisions regarding pets in the same way they might consider any other family asset.

The Court will consider a range of factors including:

Some couples choose to predetermine their financial position at separation, also known as a Binding Financial Agreement. This legally binding document outlines how assets, including pets, would be divided if the relationship ends.

Mediation is another valuable pathway and can be incredibly helpful by making couples work out ownership issues amongst themselves. If a couple cannot come to an agreement there are a few principles the Courts will apply. For example, it can be as simple as who wants the pet more.

It is important to note that there is not a formal or court-ordered custody arrangement for pets. Every case is unique and poses its own challenges, and outcomes can vary depending on your individual circumstances. If you are struggling to come to an agreement with your ex-partner, mediation is always recommended. At the end of the day, any decision you make regarding pet ownership should always prioritise your pet’s best interests in the long run.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

As election season ramps up, many Australians find their phones buzzing with text messages from political parties and candidates. These messages bypass the usual protections against spam through specific exemptions in Australian law.    

Political parties and their representatives operate under a different set of rules when it comes to electronic communication. Unlike commercial entities, non-commercial phone calls, emails, and text messages from registered political parties are largely exempt from the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 and the Spam Act 2003. This means that even if you have registered your number on the Do Not Call list, political parties can still legally send you unsolicited text messages and gather your number from lists including the electoral roll. 

Furthermore, the Privacy Act 1988 also contains exemptions for registered political parties and political representatives when they are carrying out what's termed an "exempt political activity." A political representative, in this context, refers to a member of parliament or a councillor in a local government authority.    

This group of legislation was designed to offer relief from unsolicited, unwanted direct marketing. However, this does not stop the deluge of political spam at election time due to broad political exemptions sewn into the legislation decades ago. 

According to the legislation, an “exempt political act” includes actions or practices carried out for: 

- An election under an electoral law

- A referendum under a federal, state, or territory law

- Another aspect of the political process in which the political representative is involved

This broad definition essentially covers the communication efforts parties and representatives undertake to campaign, inform the public about their platforms, and encourage participation in the democratic process. Importantly, this exemption extends beyond just the party and the representative themselves.  

In essence, the legal framework in Australia prioritises the ability of political parties and representatives to communicate their messages directly to the electorate during crucial democratic processes. While this can lead to an influx of political text messages and emails, it is currently permitted under the existing legislation due to these specific exemptions.  

The University of Sydney has recently announced that students are permitted to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) in their academic assignments. The University's Interim Head of School and Dean, along with 2 former law students, have spoken about the potential implications of this shift on law students’ education and professional development. 

Under its new “sector-leading” assignment policy, the University will allow students to use generative AI tools for their coursework, marking a significant shift from its previous stance on academic integrity, which banned technologies like ChatGPT. 

Starting in Semester 1 of 2025, students will be permitted to use AI for assignments, with exceptions for exams, in-semester tests, and instances where teaching staff opt to exclude its use. 

Some potential advantages benefits of this change include: 

  1. Inclusivity: AI has the potential to promote inclusivity. For example, international students in Australia may struggle to follow class discussions and understand the content if English is not their first language. Accordingly, they may rely on AI to translate or summarise the information for them.
  2. Personalised Help: Students can ask AI generative tools questions or confusions they might have about the content. This is a more accessible mechanism compared to asking their lecturer or tutor directly as some students may be too afraid to approach their lecturers to ask these questions. Hence, AI can increase their ability to understand the content.
  3. Efficiency: AI helps promote efficiency for students conducting legal research by helping them find relevant information and reliable sources. As a result, students can spend more time focusing on the application of legal concepts and principles, which helps build up their skills.

However, others have voiced concerns about allowing AI to be used as it could lead to a range of disadvantages or counterproductive results:

  1. Over-Dependence: Allowing students to use AI can result in them becoming overly dependent on this tool, thereby stifling their ability to think critically, creatively or uniquely. When given an assignment, students may immediately resort to using AI instead of taking the opportunity to attempt to complete the task using their own knowledge.
  2. Lack of Accuracy: AI generative tools often lack the precision and accuracy which other resources, such as university-approved textbooks, offer. As students use AI as a shortcut to learning the content themselves, their knowledge of the course may be surface-level and in some situations, based on inaccurate information or unreliable sources.
  3. Economic Factors: Some AI tools are free, but more accurate and effective models can cost a lot of money. Accordingly, students who can afford to pay for AI models would be in a more advantageous position compared to other students who cannot afford such expenses.

The obligations and rights of parties are outlined in formal agreements through contract terms. Terms can either be express or implied.

 

Express Terms refer to terms which are explicitly outlined in the contract. Generally, written or oral express terms are incorporated into a contract through signature, notice referring to another document containing terms, or a regular course of dealing, whereby terms in previous agreements may be assumed as incorporated.

 

Implied Terms refer to terms which are not explicitly outlined in the contract. Generally, these terms arise in situations where parties do not consider or turn their minds to particular events. Implied terms may be:

 

Parol Evidence Rule

For contracts that are wholly in writing, the Parol Evidence Rule (‘PER’) generally prevents extrinsic evidence from admissibility to the Court. Extrinsic evidence may include statements made and correspondence between parties during negotiations, prior to the contract’s formalisation in writing.

 

However, exceptions to the PER may arise in the following circumstances:

    1. The agreement is both connected, but independent, to the main contract;
    1. The agreement must be consistent with the terms of the main contract.

 

The general example of a collateral contract is inducing a party to enter into the main formal agreement by providing further consideration e.g: a car salesperson promises an additional warranty period if purchase a car and agree to its main contract terms.

 

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

 

envelopeprinterphonemap-marker