April 1st is known for tricks, surprises and the occasional moment of good-natured mischief. It’s a day where things aren’t always quite what they seem. But the opening of the new Stone Group Lawyers office in Hervey Bay is not a trick and it’s certainly not a joke.
Instead, it’s a deliberate step, grounded in experienced, shaped in community values, and focused on something very real: supporting local families through some of the most important and challenging moments in their lives.
Rebekah Hemerik, your Family Lawyer located in the heart of Hervey Bay
I am an Associate in the Family Law team at Stone Group Lawyers. I moved to Hervey Bay in early 2025 with my husband and young son, after coming here for a holiday for Christmas 2024 and falling in love with the town I now call home.
Over the last several years, I have completed Bachelor of Laws (Honours), Bachelor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, as well as a Master of Applied Law (Family Law). These qualifications, along with my years of exclusive practice in the family law space, have provided me with a broad range of experience in assisting clients navigate separation.
I am dedicated to supporting my clients through some of life’s most challenging transitions with clarity, compassion and practical guidance to reach outcomes that are both realistic and sustainable. With me as your lawyer, you won’t receive sugar coated advice. I pride myself on providing clear advice that has been tailored to your circumstances and allows you to make an informed decision about your future. I prioritise reaching a resolution at the earliest juncture, where possible. If a resolution is not achievable, for whatever reason, I will stand by your side and advocate strongly for you.
I am excited to now be working with Stone Group Lawyers to bring specialist family law services, and offer my dedicated family law experience, to the Fraser Coast. This new office represents a long-term commitment to the Fraser Coast region from both myself and Stone Group Lawyers. A commitment to providing accessible specialist family law advice regardless of locality.
Looking ahead, my goals are simple:
Family law is not about winning or losing. It is about helping people move from one chapter of life to the next with dignity, clarity, and the right support behind them.
So, while April 1st may be a day for light-hearted surprises, this new beginning in Hervey Bay is anything but. It is a genuine commitment to the community, to the practice of family law, and to the people who need guidance during times of transition.
No tricks. Just support when it matters most.
A straightforward approach in a complicated area of law
If there’s one thing April fools reminds us, it’s how easy it can be to misled. However, we understand that in family law clear concise advice and clarity matters.
There are no shortcuts when it comes to separation, parenting arrangements or the division of assets. Every relationship breakdown carries its own story, its own pressures and its own path forward. What people need during these times isn’t confusion or theatrics, but clear advice, steady guidance and practical solutions from a Family Lawyer who understands the complexities of separation and who cares.
That has been the focus of my approach to practicing family law from the outset of my career – providing clear, compassionate advice.
With years of experience in family law, I have worked with individuals and families at all states of separation and during the restructuring of their lives. I understand that beyond the legal framework there are real people navigating uncertainty, emotion and change. My role as a Family Lawyer is not just to provide legal advice but also help clients make informed decisions their future so they can move forward, past separation, with confidence and clarity.
A commitment to community
I am a Family Lawyer; however, I am also a mother, a wife, a friend and a member of the wonderful community we have here in the Fraser Coast. I may not have been born here in the Bay, but since moving here I have grown to love the Fraser Coast as if I have been here my whole life.
That is why opening a family law dedicated office in Hervey Bay is not simply about expanding an existing practice or capitalising on the growth of our region. It’s about deepening our connection to the community, strengthening the foundations of the region and providing support that the residents of our region need. It’s about the difference that we can make to people lives while they are potentially at their worst.
Regional communities have unique strengths, but they can also face challenges when it comes to accessing specialised legal services. Our goal is to ensure that individuals and families across the Fraser Coast have access to experienced, reliable family law support without needing to look beyond their own region.
While we have a team of Family Lawyers spread across Gold Coast and Brisbane, I am located right here in Hervey Bay – in our beautiful office on Torquay Road, Pialba. This allows Fraser Coast residents to access local specialised family law advice right here in the Bay, with the backing of a bigger support system across South East Queensland. In my eyes, it’s the perfect mix between local support and connection to the ‘big city’.
Community involvement is an important part of our commitment to supporting the region. Whether through local engagement, education, or collaboration with other professionals, I see this office as more than a place of business. It is an opportunity to continue contributing meaningfully to the wellbeing of the region. You will continue to see me at various community events, supporting numerous causes and doing what I can to support the region.
No gimmicks, just genuine support
While April Fools is built on the idea of tricks, we know that there is no place for gimmicks in family law.
Clients deserve honesty about their options, transparency about the process, and realistic expectations about outcomes. They also deserve to feel heard, respected, and supported along the way. That’s where Stone Group Lawyers step in.
Our approach is grounded in:
To us you’re not just another number. Rather, you are one of the people that we are supporting to navigate the breakdown of your relationship and create a new life post separation.
On behalf of Stone Group Lawyers, we look forward to welcoming you into our new space.
If you would like to visit our office in person, we are located at 19/58-60 Torquay Road, Pialba.
"*" indicates required fields
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland has brought into sharp focus the conduct of certain private lenders and the law firms engaged to act on their behalf, and the findings carry significant implications for borrowers navigating the private lending market.
In Evolve Wealth Corp Pty Ltd v QB Finance Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 46, delivered by McCafferty J on 17 March 2026, the Supreme Court of Queensland was called upon to resolve a dispute that, on its face, should never to have reached a courtroom.
Evolve Wealth had borrowed $450,000 from a private lender, secured by a registered mortgage over a property at Burleigh Heads. The facility was structured as a commercial loan rather than a regulated consumer credit arrangement. The loan fell into default. Following a period of correspondence and forbearance, the parties agreed upon a settlement date of 23 May 2025. Evolve Wealth arranged refinancing, loaded the full payout sum of $517,448.74, the precise figure the lender had itself advised, into the PEXA, and stood ready to complete.
The lender declined to proceed with settlement. On the morning of settlement, the lender’s solicitors provided, for the first time, a Deed of Settlement and Release and made clear that settlement would not occur unless it was executed.
Notably, this was the first occasion on which a copy of the deed had been provided to the borrower, on the day its execution was demanded.
The proposed deed was not a standard settlement instrument. It purported to require Evolve Wealth to, inter alia:
Upon Evolve Wealth’s rejection of the proposed deed, the lender escalated its position. It demanded that Evolve Wealth either execute the deed as presented or pay an additional sum of $110,000 as a form of post-settlement security against the prospect of future claims, bringing the total amount demanded to approximately $627,448.75.
The Court found comprehensively in favour of the borrower.
Evolve Wealth had made a valid tender. Funds were available, the payout figure was set by the lender and remained current, and the PEXA workspace was properly prepared. Settlement failed solely because the lender refused to complete.
The lender was not entitled to require execution of the deed. While the mortgage permitted releases where a claim was apprehended, that power was limited to claims connected with the transaction and to the credit provider itself. It did not extend to third parties or justify a broader indemnity.
There was also no proper basis to apprehend a claim. The borrower’s prior correspondence did not amount to a genuine threat against the lender.
The lender’s subsequent demand for additional security was impermissible, having not been raised prior to refusing settlement.
As a result, the lender lost its entitlement to interest from the settlement date, and its application for default and possession was dismissed.
The significance of this decision extends beyond the parties. It highlights practices emerging in parts of the private lending market that warrant close attention from borrowers, advisers and regulators.
Settlement deeds as a commercial lever
The use of last-minute settlement deeds places borrowers in a difficult position, forcing a choice between accepting prejudicial terms or prolonging default. This decision confirms that such demands must be grounded in the mortgage and cannot be used to obtain broader releases or indemnities.
Confidentiality and regulatory access
Confidentiality clauses that restrict complaints to ASIC, AFCA or other regulators raise serious concerns. If routinely imposed, they risk suppressing legitimate grievances and limiting oversight.
Commercial structures and reduced protections
Private lending is often structured as commercial borrowing through corporate entities, removing access to protections under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). Combined with high default interest and capitalisation, these arrangements can become difficult to exit even where refinancing is available.
Whether entering, managing or exiting a private lending arrangement, several issues warrant careful attention. Borrowers should understand the implications of borrowing through a corporate structure, including the loss of consumer protections, and carefully consider interest provisions, particularly default rates and compounding.
Mortgage memoranda should be reviewed closely, as they often contain expansive enforcement and discharge provisions. Any indication that a deed may be required at settlement should be addressed early by requesting a draft, and any proposed deed should be scrutinised for the scope of releases, indemnities and confidentiality obligations.
Where security is sought for anticipated claims, it must be raised before settlement is refused and be proportionate. Above all, early independent legal advice is critical, particularly as default progresses and options narrow.
We regularly act for borrowers, guarantors and property owners in disputes arising from mortgage enforcement, default and redemption, including matters involving privately arranged commercial lending facilities. We advise on whether enforcement action has been validly taken, the scope of redemption rights and valid tender, whether discharge conditions are supported by the loan documents, and the enforceability of settlement deeds, including confidentiality and indemnity provisions. We also advise on urgent injunctive relief to restrain wrongful possession or sale. These matters are often time-critical, and delay can have serious consequences. If you are facing pressure from a lender or concerns about settlement terms, we encourage you to seek advice promptly.
Evolve Wealth Corp Pty Ltd v QB Finance Pty Ltd confirms that a mortgagor’s right to redeem upon payment of the amount owing cannot be used as leverage to extract broader releases, indemnities or confidentiality obligations than those provided for in the mortgage. It also underscores that courts will not hesitate to scrutinise and reject overreach by private lenders and their advisers, with potentially significant consequences, including loss of interest and failed enforcement action.
Russell Hall
Associate
"*" indicates required fields
In recent years, the idea of the “side hustle” has evolved dramatically. What might begin as a weekend passion project, whether selling products online, monetising social media content, or offering coaching or advisory services, can quickly become a serious revenue stream.
For many entrepreneurs, however, the legal structure of the business does not always evolve as quickly as the business itself.
Operating under a personal ABN might be perfectly adequate when you are testing an idea. But once income becomes regular, clients are recurring, or the brand begins to grow, the legal risks and commercial opportunities change significantly.
For Australian online businesses and influencer-led ventures, transitioning from a side hustle to a properly structured enterprise is not just a formality; it is an essential step in protecting the business, the brand, and the people behind it.
The modern digital economy has created an entire category of businesses that sit somewhere between traditional SMEs and personal brands. These include:
Many of these ventures begin informally; often run by a single founder using a personal ABN.
However, once revenue becomes consistent, partnerships emerge, or contractors are engaged to help scale the business, the legal and commercial structure should mature accordingly.
There is rarely a single moment when a side project becomes a business. Instead, there are practical indicators that the venture has crossed that threshold:
At this point, continuing to operate purely through a personal ABN can expose the founder to unnecessary legal risk and may limit the commercial scalability of the business.
Online businesses often rely heavily on website terms and conditions, platform rules, or digital service agreements.
However, many founders simply copy template terms from the internet or use generic website generators without understanding whether those terms are legally enforceable in Australia.
For terms to be effective, they must be (amongst other things):
Poorly drafted terms can create the false impression of protection while offering very little real legal enforceability.
And while it may be tempting to copy another business’s terms and conditions, doing so can create unintended legal risks, including potential copyright infringement, and fails to properly address the unique aspects of your own business.
Many online entrepreneurs assume that consumer protection laws apply mainly to large retailers. In reality, the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) applies equally to small online businesses.
Common risk areas include:
Even influencer partnerships can trigger consumer law exposure if sponsored content is misleading or not properly disclosed.
Understanding how the ACL applies to online services, digital goods, and influencer marketing is critical for growing businesses.
For influencer businesses and collaborative online ventures, intellectual property ownership can quickly become complex.
Consider the following common scenarios:
Without a properly drafted agreement, the creator of the work may retain the intellectual property rights (even if you paid them to produce it).
This can create serious issues later, particularly if the business grows, attracts investors, or is sold.
Clear agreements dealing with intellectual property ownership and licensing are essential whenever external collaborators contribute to the business.
As online businesses scale, founders often engage virtual assistants, social media managers, editors, or customer service staff. Many of these relationships are labelled as “contractors”.
However, under Australian law, simply calling someone a contractor does not determine their legal status.
If the working relationship more closely resembles employment, for example, where the worker:
then the arrangement may legally be considered employment.
Misclassification can expose the business to claims for unpaid leave entitlements, superannuation, and penalties.
For many online businesses, the brand itself becomes one of the most valuable assets. Yet many founders assume that registering a business name or securing a domain name automatically protects their brand.
In Australia, the only effective way to secure exclusive rights to a brand name or logo is through trademark registration. Without a registered trademark, another business could potentially register the same or similar name and prevent you from expanding your brand.
For influencer brands, product lines, and e-commerce stores, trademark protection is often a crucial early step in building long-term value.
Many founders begin operating as a sole trader under a personal ABN, which is simple and inexpensive.
However, once a business becomes profitable or begins generating recurring income, that structure can present several limitations:
In many cases, transitioning to a company or trust structure can provide better asset protection, commercial flexibility, and long-term scalability.
The right structure will depend on factors such as:
The transition from side hustle to structured business is not simply about compliance, it is about building a platform for sustainable growth.
Well-structured online businesses benefit from:
Taking these steps early can prevent costly disputes and position the business for future expansion, partnerships, or sale.
Our commercial lawyers regularly advise founders, creators, and digital entrepreneurs as their businesses grow beyond the early start-up phase.
Our work in this area spans a broad range of commercial matters, including assisting clients with:
As online ventures mature, the legal framework supporting them should evolve as well. If your “side hustle” has started generating consistent revenue or expanding into a broader brand, it may be time to consider whether the legal structure supporting it is still fit for purpose.
"*" indicates required fields
The decision in Alistair v Brisbane City Council (No 2) [2025] QIRC 139 provides important clarification regarding the definition of the phrase “engaged for a specific period or task” under the Queensland unfair dismissal regime. The case highlights a significant jurisdictional limitation for Queensland state and local government employees seeking relief for unfair dismissal before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC).
The Queensland state industrial relations system is governed by the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (IR Act) and applies to Queensland state government and local government employees. Employees within this system must bring employment law applications before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which has the authority to deal with dismissal-related claims.
Under section 315(d) of the IR Act, it is a jurisdictional limitation that a Queensland state or local government employee who is “engaged for a specific period or task” cannot make a dismissal-related application under the QIRC, with the following two exceptions:
a. where the main purpose of engaging the employee on that basis was to avoid the employer’s unfair dismissal obligations; or
b. where the employee is participating in a labour market program and is dismissed before the period ends or the task is completed.
If neither of the above exceptions applies, the employee will not be eligible to make a dismissal-related application under the QIRC due to this jurisdictional limitation.
In the present case, the key issue addressed by the Commission was whether the applicant’s employment fell within the meaning of “specific period or task” for the purposes of section 315 of the IR Act.
Generally, an employee engaged for a specific period or task refers to an employee who is not employed permanently.
The position adopted by the QIRC in Alistair has considered the decisions in Alouani-Roby v National Rugby League Ltd (2024) 307 FCR 65 and adopted a broader interpretation when interpreting the phrase “specific period or task”, where the Commission departed from earlier authorities that required greater certainty as to the end date of employment and accepted that an engagement for a “specific period” may include what has been described as an “outer limit contract”, that is, a contract expressed to run for a nominated or nominal period but which allows for earlier termination under the terms of the contract. This approach recognises that a contract may still be considered as one for a specific period even where it contains mechanisms permitting the employment to end before the nominal expiry date.
A “labour market program” is a program approved by the Minister that ordinarily deals with the policies regarding the supply and demand of labour at a systemic level. It is differentiated from a traineeship as a traineeship is employment-based training; Alouani-Roby v National Rugby League Ltd (2024) 307 FCR 65 [52].
It is common practice for Queensland state or local governments to employ temporary employees, whether for the purpose of budgetary control, funding structures, project-based work, or to fill skill shortages and provide flexibility. Queensland state or local government employees need to be aware of the jurisdictional limitations in the IR Act. Notwithstanding that employees may have been employed for a long period on the basis of repeated fixed-term contract renewals, they are likely, as of the latest decisions as of the date of this article, to still be subject to these jurisdictional limitations with respect to their eligibility to make a dismissal-related application in the QIRC.
The case of Alistair therefore serves as an important reminder that the jurisdictional limitations in the IR Act can significantly limit the availability of dismissal-related remedies for Queensland public sector employees who are employed on fixed-term or temporary bases.
To speak with one of our lawyers today, call us on 1300 088 440
"*" indicates required fields
On 10 December 2025, Australia implemented a world-first legislative ban on children under the age of 16 holding accounts on major social media platforms including Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit and others.
The change – which was introduced through the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 (SMMA Act) – aims to protect children from early exposure to the pressures and risks associated with having social media accounts, including addictive design features, harmful content and cyberbullying.
Whilst the legislation is primarily focused on ensuring social media platforms take reasonable steps to prevent users under 16 from creating or keeping accounts, the legislation may also have practical implications in parenting matters and proceedings.
For separated parents, restricting your child’s access to social media is no longer simply a household rule or parenting preference – it is now a matter of federal law.
For families with existing parenting orders or a parenting plan in place, the new legislation may have immediate consequences.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia cannot make or enforce orders that override Commonwealth legislation. Accordingly, any clause that effectively authorises children under 16 holding or using a social media account contrary to the SMMA Act may be unenforceable.
Put simply, if an order permits something the legislation now prohibits, the Court cannot enforce that part of the order.
Separated parents who already have existing parenting orders or a parenting plan in place should review their agreement to determine whether it includes:
Even provisions that were previously drafted to regulate or supervise social media use may now require reconsideration.
If a parent finds that their current orders or parenting plan does appear to authorise children under 16 accessing or using social media platforms, they should seek legal advice as to the enforceability of the clause.
In light of the recent legislative changes, it may be that a variation to the orders or parenting plan is necessary to reflect the current legislative framework.
In some cases, a simple agreed variation may resolve the issue. In others, formal steps through the Court may be required. Early advice is critical.
For parents currently negotiating parenting arrangements, whether Court proceedings have been commenced or not, social media use is no longer just a household preference. Separated parties must now consider the legislative requirements for the social media ban as they navigate their family law matter, including:
This may involve practical discussions about device management, parental controls, monitoring applications, and agreed communication platforms that comply with the legislation.
Not only this, but if a parent is aware their co-parent is assisting their children circumvent the age restrictions, this could raise concerns about safety, supervision and compliance with the law. This can be relevant when the Court is assessing the best interests of the children, being the paramount consideration in family law matters.
A parent’s attitude toward compliance with federal law may become a relevant factor in assessing their capacity to provide appropriate supervision and guidance.
At this stage, there is limited case law precedent on such issues and its impact on family law matters. However, with the recent legislative changes, and the impacts on individuals in the family home, it can be expected that issues surrounding online access, supervision and parental compliance may increase.
As families navigate separation in this evolving landscape, understanding the limits on children’s social media access, and reflecting those limits in parenting arrangements, will be essential. These legislative changes now mean that social media use and online engagement are no longer matters for personal discretion of the parents but rather are mandated by federal law.
Consistency between households will be key. Mixed messages or inconsistent enforcement can create conflict not only between parents, but also confusion for children.
To ensure parents are fully informed and on the same page, it is advisable to seek legal advice of your obligations and ways to set expectations clearly with your co-parent, so consistency is maintained for the children across both households.
If you are unsure how these changes may affect your current orders or negotiations, obtaining tailored legal advice early can prevent unnecessary dispute and ensure your arrangements remain legally sound. Our family law team is here to help.
"*" indicates required fields
The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 received Royal Assent on 9 February 2026 and will commence on a date to be proclaimed, or automatically on 10 August 2026. The reforms introduce significant procedural changes to the way certain migration decisions will be reviewed, with a particular focus on streamlining high‑volume case types.
A central feature of the Act is the expanded ability for the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) to determine matters without an oral hearing. The ART may now decide a matter “on papers” where:
This shift is intended to reduce delays and concentrate oral hearings on matters where they are genuinely necessary.
Student visa refusals have recently represented one of the largest caseloads before the Tribunal. The new requirement for these matters to be reviewed on paper is aimed at alleviating that pressure and improving processing times.
Long delays have had real‑world consequences. It is not uncommon for student visa applicants to complete their course before their Tribunal review is finalised. Once their Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) ceases, applicants no longer meet the criteria for the visa they originally sought, often leaving them without a viable pathway despite having pursued their appeal rights.
By moving these matters to paper‑based review, the ART intends to reduce the backlog and minimise the risk of applicants ageing out of eligibility simply due to processing delays.
These amendments are not limited to student visas. The Act also enables the Migration Regulations to prescribe additional temporary visas that must be reviewed on paper. Permanent visa matters remain unaffected and will continue to have access to oral hearings.
It is also increasingly important that applicants understand the legislative requirements that apply to their visa subclass. Many applicants assume they can rely on compelling personal circumstances to support their case, however, without a hearing where a Tribunal member might otherwise ask clarifying questions to determine whether the applicant meets the relevant criteria, self-represented applicants are likely to be impacted. Where submissions are incomplete or fail to address the legislative requirements, there may be limited opportunity to remedy those gaps under a paper-based decision-making model.
With paper‑based reviews becoming more likely for student visas, and potentially other temporary visas, written advocacy will become the decisive factor in many appeals. Applicants will need to present a clear, well‑structured, and persuasive written case from the outset. This includes:
For applicants with limited English proficiency, this shift presents an additional challenge. The ability to explain complex circumstances in writing without the benefit of an interpreter‑assisted hearing may be difficult.
As the process becomes more document‑driven, legal representation is likely to play a more significant role. Migration lawyers and agents will be central in ensuring that submissions are comprehensive, strategically framed, and lodged at the earliest opportunity.
The reforms will also have the effect of discouraging applicants who lodge review applications primarily to gain additional time in Australia while awaiting a hearing. With decisions expected to be made more quickly without the need for scheduling a hearing, the system is likely to become less attractive to those misusing the review process as a delay mechanism.
Given the ART’s expanded ability to decide matters without a hearing, applicants might expect that their case may be determined based solely on the material provided at lodgement. The ART must invite the applicant to give written submissions and evidence – it is unknown whether this invitation for submissions will accompany the formal acknowledgement of lodgement, or once a Tribunal Member has been allocated and is ready to assess the decision. This may push applicants and their representatives to prepare full submissions and evidence from the outset rather than relying on later opportunities to supplement the record.
These changes also remove important opportunities that arise during a hearing, including the ability to request post-hearing submissions. In certain cases, post-hearing submissions allow the applicant or their representative to address issues raised by the Tribunal Member during the hearing, clarify points of concern, or provide additional evidence in response to the way the matter appears to be assessed. If a decision is made entirely on paper, applicants lose the ability to respond dynamically to the Tribunal’s reasoning or questions, which may disadvantage those whose arguments or evidence would have benefited from further explanation or follow-up.
As commencement approaches, further guidance from the ART and the Department of Home Affairs will be important in shaping how these reforms operate in practice. What is clear is that the shift toward paper‑based review represents a significant procedural change for temporary visa applicants, and preparation at the earliest stage will be critical. It also remains to be seen whether the reduced opportunity to clarify issues without a hearing, and the increased risk of adverse decisions based solely on written material, may lead to a rise in applications for Judicial Review where applicants feel that relevant considerations were not fully explored.
If you require advice on a Tribunal review, assistance preparing written submissions, or guidance on how these reforms may affect your appeal application, the Migration Team at Stone Group Lawyers can assist.
"*" indicates required fields
After almost 20 years practising in commercial law, one of the most common things we hear from clients is: “We’ve already got a contract for that”.
Sometimes, they do have a contract for that, which was drafted properly at a point in time, and then reused for years with minimal or no updating.
For a long time, that approach was relatively safe. The law moved slowly and a well-drafted precedent could last a decade. Over the past two years, however, the pace of legislative change has altered that landscape in ways that directly affect standard form documents. At the Commonwealth level, amendments to the unfair contract terms regime under the Australian Consumer Law, which commenced in November 2023, now make it unlawful to include unfair terms in standard form contracts, with significant civil penalties applying. Previously, such clauses were merely unenforceable if challenged. Now, risk arises simply from having them in the template.
In Queensland, reforms such as the Information Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 introduce strengthened privacy obligations and a mandatory data-breach notification scheme commencing in 2025. These changes extend compliance expectations into everyday commercial arrangements, particularly where businesses collect, store or share personal information. More broadly, the ongoing rollout of the Property Law Act 2023 signals a modernisation of long-standing legal concepts and greater emphasis on transparency and disclosure in transactions.
What we often see in practice is “document drift” in that clients start with a sound agreement, but over time add clauses borrowed from other contracts or found online. Years later, the document is a patchwork that has never been tested against current law.
Unlike accounting systems or insurance cover, legal precedents rarely get reviewed on a cycle. Yet they sit at the centre of nearly every transaction and quietly allocate risk across the business.
In today’s environment, precedents should be treated as living documents, with a review every two to three years, and particularly following legislative change is recommended to ensure templates remain compliant and aligned with how the business actually operates.
A short review now is far easier than dealing with the consequences of outdated drafting later.
If you would like us to review your existing agreements or discuss whether your current documents remain fit for purpose, the team at Stone Group Lawyers would be pleased to assist. A targeted review can often be undertaken quickly and provides practical assurance that your contracts reflect current law and support your business objectives.
"*" indicates required fields
With the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and online legal templates, many businesses and clients have changed the way they approach legal documentation. Automated drafting tools and standard form agreements promise speed and efficiency, and we acknowledge, in appropriate cases they can be useful.
However, they are not a substitute for tailored legal advice, particularly in the commercial context where risk, strategy and regulation intersect.
Each commercial transaction sits within a unique factual and commercial framework. Templates on offer, whether through free or paid services, are designed for generic situations, no matter how much prompting the onboarding system provides. They cannot account for a client’s specific risk appetite, industry conditions, regulatory exposure or strategic objectives. A clause that may appear routine on its face can carry very different consequences depending on how it interacts with the broader transaction and the client’s business objectives.
While AI can assist with drafting and research, it does not, at least yet, exercise professional judgment. It cannot assess whether a particular risk may be commercially acceptable, whether a provision will create leverage in future negotiations as a result of business objectives, or how a dispute is likely to unfold in practice. These assessments depend on experience, context and an understanding of how law operates beyond the written word, which is what you get when you consult with a lawyer with experience and knowledge in the subject area.
Lawyers often also add value by anticipating problems before they arise. Effective legal advice is not limited to recording an agreement, but rather it is about structuring transactions to minimise future disputes, managing regulatory compliance, and protecting clients from exposures they may not have identified themselves. This kind of forward-looking risk management is inherently bespoke and may not be suitably addressed in the AI models or template documents.
Where you engage a lawyer to provide legal advice, that lawyer carries professional accountability. Lawyers are bound by ethical duties, confidentiality obligations and professional standards, and their advice is given within a framework of responsibility and insurance. Templates and AI tools do not provide that protection.
That’s not to say that technology does not play an important part now, and increasingly in the future. Technology has an important role in modern legal practice, but it is an aid, not a replacement. In complex commercial matters, bespoke legal advice remains essential to achieving sound, durable and commercially effective outcomes.
At Stone Group Lawyers, our experienced commercial team can guide you through your commercial transaction with clarity and confidence, ensuring your business objectives and outcomes align with both your strategic goals and current legal requirements. To get started, contact one of our commercial lawyers today on (07) 5635 0180.
"*" indicates required fields
The Christmas school holiday period is one of the most joyful — and often one of the most stressful — times of the year for separated families. Emotions can run high, travel plans need to be coordinated, and both sides naturally want meaningful time with the children.
As family lawyers, we see many disputes arise at this time of year. With preparation, communication, and a clear understanding of your obligations, the holiday period can run smoothly for you and your children.
Below is a practical guide to help you prepare for Christmas parenting arrangements, understand common pitfalls, and plan ahead to avoid conflict.
Christmas is a “special occasion”, meaning it often requires a unique arrangement separate from regular or ordinary term-time care. This period is longer, involves festive events, travel, and extended family gatherings, and is often emotionally charged. It also falls in the longest school holiday period in the year.
For many families, Christmas arrangements differ from the usual routine and require careful planning to make sure the children enjoy their break, maintain relationships with both parents, and avoid being caught in the middle of conflict.
In certain cases, parties have the benefit of clearly structured parenting arrangements that are reflected in either a Parenting Plan or Parenting Orders. In these circumstances, navigating the care and time arrangements over the holiday period can be easier as the parties have a guide or Orders which assist the parties navigate any disputes and sets out what their obligations may be.
Equally, disputes, problems or confusion may arise for those who do not have the benefit of clearly and adequately structed arrangements; and the parents/carers will be relied upon by their children to facilitate child-focussed arrangements for them. In this circumstance, careful and early planning can be key.
One of the most common triggers for disputes is not arranging holiday care early enough. The Court becomes extremely busy from October onwards, and urgent applications to deal with any disputes may not be heard in time.
Even if the parents/carers had Parenting Orders, those parents/carers sometimes assume the holiday period follows normal arrangements, only to discover too late that their orders have a separate holiday clause, or no clause at all.
Interstate or overseas travel often requires the other parent’s/carer’s consent. Problems arise when:
Changeovers during the festive period can be complicated by travel, family events, and changes to usual locations.
Tension during the holiday season can make communication challenging, but poor communication may inevitably create further conflict.
Use this checklist to prepare well in advance:
✔ Review your Parenting Orders or Parenting Plan
✔ If you have no holiday arrangements — discuss them early
Aim to start discussions by September–October, to leave the parties with sufficient time to deal with any disputes that may arise.
If negotiations fail, you may need mediation and/or the guidance of family lawyers before applying to the Court.
✔ Confirm travel plans
Provide the other parent/carer with:
If overseas travel is planned, check passport arrangements early.
✔ Plan changeover times and locations
Agree on:
✔ Share information about Christmas events
Children deserve to experience Christmas without tension. Sharing event times, family plans, or religious activities helps avoid overlap or conflict.
✔ Pack appropriately for the children
Ensure the children have:
✔ Keep communication clear, respectful and child-focused
Use Apps like OurFamilyWizard, or parenting communication guidelines if communication is strained.
✔ Consider mediation early
If there is disagreement, you may consider booking mediation well before December. Many services close or become fully booked in late November.
Ask: “How will this arrangement affect the kids?”
Children benefit most from low conflict and predictability.
Sometimes unexpected things happen — illness, family plans changing, or travel delays. Showing reasonable flexibility (where safe and appropriate to do so) can reduce unnecessary disputes and can create positive experiences for the children.
Important information should be shared early and clearly. Last-minute changes often trigger conflict.
Direct adult-to-adult communication reduces confusion and protects the children from emotional strain.
If Christmas Day is shared or alternated, remember that usually, the date is not as important as the experience. Many families celebrate “Christmas Day” on multiple days or in different households.
If you are unsure of your rights, responsibilities, or options, speaking with a family lawyer early prevents problems from escalating.
If you cannot reach agreement and mediation has been attempted (or an exception applies), applications for Christmas arrangements should ideally be filed as early as possible — usually by October.
The Court traditionally sets cut-off dates for Christmas applications, and missing these deadlines may mean the Court cannot hear your matter before the holidays.
Pursuant to the Family Law Rules, interim time applications seeking parenting orders for the end-of-year school holiday period must be filed by 4pm on 14 November 2025.
Christmas should be a time of joy, rest, and connection for you and your children. With early planning, respectful communication, and a clear understanding of your arrangements, most holiday disputes can be avoided.
If you need assistance negotiating holiday care, drafting a parenting plan, or bringing an application to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, our family law team is here to help.
"*" indicates required fields
If your business is still running on “set-and-forget” contracts drafted a few years ago, 2025 is the year to fix that. Legislative changes have reshaped what you can (and can’t) put in your agreements, especially around unfair contract terms, data security and privacy, and employment-related obligations. Below is a practical checklist of what to update before 2026 to reduce legal risk and protect your bargaining position.
Under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), it is unlawful for businesses to propose, use or rely on an unfair term in a standard form contract with consumers or small businesses.
A contract will generally be considered “standard form” if one party has substantially greater bargaining power, the agreement was pre-prepared before discussions began, and the other party was effectively required to accept it on a “take it or leave it” basis with little or no real opportunity to negotiate. Courts also look at whether the terms are tailored to the transaction or simply reused across customers. Even where minor amendments are allowed, the contract can still be standard form if there is no genuine negotiation or individual consideration.
Recent reforms have also broadened the definition of a small business, meaning more contracts are now caught by the regime. A business qualifies if it employs fewer than 100 people or has an annual turnover under $10 million. Under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), the regime only applies where the upfront contract price does not exceed $5 million. Under the ACL, that monetary limit has been removed altogether.
While the legal test for what constitutes an “unfair term” remains the same, the consequences have changed dramatically. Each unfair term now amounts to a separate contravention, attracting significant penalties of up to $2.5 million for individuals, and for corporations, the greater of:
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) has undergone important reforms following the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth). These changes strengthen the accountability and enforcement framework for organisations handling personal information and expand the powers of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). For businesses, this means that privacy compliance and the way it is reflected in contracts is now a critical legal and commercial priority.
Under the current law, penalties for serious or repeated interferences with privacy by corporations can reach the greater of:
Individuals can be fined up to $2.5 million. The reforms also give the OAIC broader powers to investigate, issue infringement notices, and seek civil penalties for a wider range of contraventions.
At the same time, the Notifiable Data Breach (NDB) scheme continues to impose mandatory obligations where a breach is likely to result in serious harm. Businesses must assess suspected breaches within 30 days and if the breach meets the “eligible data breach” threshold, they must notify both the OAIC and affected individuals.
The 2024 reforms are just the first stage of a broader multi-year reform process. Businesses should therefore ensure that their contracts are compliant now and adaptable as further obligations take effect.
Vague or outdated privacy clauses can expose a business to serious risk. Agreements that fail to define security standards, incident-response timelines or accountability between parties may no longer meet the strengthened compliance expectations under the amended Privacy Act.
The ‘Closing Loopholes’ reforms have introduced major changes under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) that affect not only employment contracts but also the way businesses structure their client and supplier agreements. These reforms aim to improve work-life balance, strengthen employee protections, and ensure fair pay practices, all of which have direct contractual implications for employers.
Employment Contracts:
Commercial Contracts (Clients and Suppliers)
General
The legislative landscape for Australian businesses is shifting rapidly, and contracts that were once “fit for purpose” may now expose you to unnecessary risk. Compliance is no longer just about ticking a box, it is about embedding fairness, transparency, and accountability into your commercial relationships.
Reviewing your agreements before 2026 is not only prudent but essential to avoid penalties, protect your reputation, and maintain strong, compliant business partnerships.
At Stone Group Lawyers, our experienced commercial team can guide you through this process with clarity and confidence, ensuring your agreements align with both your strategic goals and current legal requirements. To get started, contact one of our commercial lawyers today on (07) 5635 0180.
"*" indicates required fields
