My week at Freedman and Gopalan has given me an incredibly valuable insight into the daily operations of a legal firm and what it means to work in a professional environment. Through tasks such as filing, scanning, organising documents, taking calls, writing emails and articles, I was able to see how much attention to detail and communication goes into maintaining an efficient workplace. Being trusted with real responsibilities helped me build confidence and develop skills I didn’t have before, and it made me develop many helpful skills I didn’t have before, and it made the whole experience feel meaningful rather than just observational.

What made the experience even more enjoyable was the team at the firm. The staff were incredibly supportive, patient, and welcoming from the moment I arrived. They worked closely together, communicated openly, and created an environment where I felt comfortable asking questions and learning from them. Their encouragement and willingness to guide me made a huge difference, and I’m genuinely grateful for how included they made me feel throughout the week. This placement has motivated me to keep exploring the legal field and appreciate the impact that a positive work environment can have. I am extremely happy with how my placement turned out, and I would definitely do it again if I got the chance.

Domestic violence is an ongoing problem in Australia with around 1 in 4 women (23%) and 1 in 14 men (7.3%) having experienced violence by an intimate partner since age 15. The holidays are often a break from work and the stress of a busy life. But for those in toxic and unsafe households, holidays can become even more dangerous than normal.

During holidays the heightened stress and expectations can increase tensions in relationships and families. Alcohol consumption and substance abuse becomes more prevalent and increases the risk of abuse. Isolation and breaks during the holidays can limit access to support and can encourage abuse as victims have no escape.

Alcohol consumption is often encouraged in social gatherings, which can make abusers feel a heightened sense of power and control allowing their behaviour to be excused. For victims of domestic violence, holiday social events come with fear rather than excitement and the anticipation for their abusers volatile and unpredictable behaviour.

We often feel the pressures of social obligations to buy expensive gifts, prepare elaborate meals and create a perfect holiday experience. This pressure often brings increased anxiety and frustration which can intensify existing tensions in families and relationships triggering abusive behaviours. Victims feel the weight of this pressure knowing expectations around these gatherings go well beyond the food.

Holidays are often a time we are all with our own families celebrating the joys of special events. Although ironic, for victims of domestic violence holidays can be extremely isolating. The pressures to be with family can often prevent victims from reaching out for help from their friends and family. Not only are victims emotionally isolated, but they can also be physically isolated as many healthcare and support centres are closed or have limited hours due to the holidays. Abusers can often take advantage of these circumstances pushing their victims into corner they can’t escape.

On New Years Day, domestic violence incidents doubled from a median of 72 to 152 incidents.  On Christmas, the average number of recorded family violence incidents rose by 33% and on New Years Eve more than 45% more domestic violence assaults than a typical day. These statistics reveal that holidays are not always joyful for everyone, and they call for greater awareness for domestic violence.

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.

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.

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:

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)

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:

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:

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.

envelopephonemap-marker