Family Law
Family Court takes the Compliance of Orders seriously
On January 10th, 2006, following their divorce, Mr Rand + Mrs Rand were given specific orders by the Family Court pertaining to the settlement of their property. On June 25th, 2007 Mr Rand was found guilty of Contempt of Orders and was to “be imprisoned until discharged by order of the Family Court of Australia” .... potentially for the term of his natural life!
Mr Rand appealed the conviction and the sentence was stayed providing that he entered into a bond and didn’t travel outside Sydney.
Three years later on the 20th of April 2010, Mr Rand’s appeal was presented to the Full Court of the Family Court. Finally, on the 3rd of September 2010, judgement was delivered in favour of Mr Rand ensuring that the convictions for Contempt of Orders were overturned.
Interestingly, the reason that the conviction was overturned was that the Full Court found that the original order given on January 6th, 2006 was not sufficiently clear and was therefore too ambiguous to find a breach by way of contempt of the Order.
Whilst we agree that the current judgement rights a wrong, Mr Rand will not receive any compensation for the limitations placed upon his liberty for the past 3 years and to this extent, the delay has prejudiced his personal and financial interests.
This is a strong reminder the Family Court takes Compliance with Orders in relation to children and property extremely seriously.
|
Commercial Law
Warning for Business owners regarding “Kick Backs”
Did you know that in both the private and government sectors of the economy, taking a secret commission is a criminal offence? A secret commission is a payment or benefit provided to a significant stakeholder. Colloquially, these secret commissions may be referred to as ‘kick backs’ or ‘cash for comments’.
There are both State and Federal Criminal Statutes that prohibit people receiving secret commissions. There are also potential civil proceedings that could occur under the Trade Practices Act as a result of receiving secret commissions.
So, if you are in business, safeguard yourself by having clear terms of arrangement with both your agents and your suppliers. For further assistance in safeguarding your interests, email us at advice@streeterlaw.com.au
Insider Trading - not worth the risk
Purchasing shares while in
possession of ‘insider’ information about those shares has the potential
to see you with either a civil liability or criminal conviction..
Section 1043A of the Corporations Act prohibits a person who possesses
inside information from buying or selling a financial product [including
shares].
ASIC, the Regulator is able
to seek penalties against the insider through civil remedies under the
Corporations Act. The Commonwealth DPP can also choose to bring action
for criminal sanctions. This area of law is extremely technical and
complex.
The potential cost of
insider trading [a conviction] is simply not worth the potential gain [a
financial windfall].
|
|
Also now available on the Streeterlaw website
Workplace Fraud Investigation - How to legally uncover it, stop it, prevent it is a free white paper to help businesses address this important area. Request a copy >> Workplace Fraud Investigation
Other videos and resources to identify and combat workplace fraud:
>> Video - Preventing Corporate Fraud is Good Business
>> Video - Most Common Business Fraud Schemes
>> Video - Stealing from Work News Report
>> News Article: $41m fraud over Fighter Jets
|
|
Streeterlaw Frequently Asked Questions
The Streeterlaw Frequently Asked Questions page on our website is proving popular in helping people better understand their options. Click here to view >
|
|
|
|
