Posts of Danny Jovica RSSTue, 01 Feb 2022 06:34:54 GMTThe New CTRS (Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme) Regulations released by Victorian Government and are now up on the Vic legislation website at https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/as-made/statutory-rules/commercial-tenancy-relief-scheme-regulations-2022 In brief: On 16 January 2022 the extended CTRS took effect and will end on 15 March 2022. Eligible businesses (tenants) that make a compliant rent relief request under the extended Scheme will be eligible for relief retrospectively from 16 January 2022. The definition of SME changes to ‘small entity’, defined as an entity with turnover (including group) of less than $10 million. Eligibility can be assessed by comparing turnover from January 2020 to turnover from January 2022 or if the business closed for a week or more during January 2020 because of an event or circumstances outside the tenant’s usual operations and started trading again by 31 January 2022, the tenant can compare December 2019 turnover with December 2021. Alternative tests are available for different circumstances.... Read more

]]>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 06:34:54 GMTMinister Pulford has announced on Saturday that the Victorian Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme (CTRS) which was to cease on 15 January 2022 will be extended until 15 March 2022.   There will be some changes to the scheme and its operation will be retrospective commencing Sunday 16 January 2022.   Small Business Victoria will work with stakeholders to develop the regulations to support this announcement as they did with the previous versions. It is expected that the new regulations will be in place in a couple of weeks. Some key features of the extended scheme to note: The eligible turnover threshold has been reduced to $10M or less per annum   It will be retrospective, commencing on 16 January 2022 and continuing until 15 March 2022   The policy intent of this is that for tenants who are entitled to and accessing rent relief under the current CTRS regulations, and who remain eligible under the new CTRS regulations, there will be no gap in coverage of the scheme between when the current regulations end and the new regulations are in place.  The practical impact of this would be that their entitlement to rent relief continues unbroken and the eviction and rent increase prohibitions remain in place.   We will continue to provide information and free dispute resolution to tenants and landlords   Once the regulations are developed the Victorian Small Business Commission will update the FAQs and supporting website content. They have also commenced reviewing the existing website content to make amendments to the current language which refers to 15th of January as the end of the scheme. As a holding measure, a banner has been placed on the VSBC website noting the announcement of the scheme’s extension for some current participants. They will work closely with SBV and stakeholders to develop the new FAQs and content.   KEY POINTS Landlords will not be able to lock out or evict tenants without undertaking mediation through the VSBC   Eligib... Read more

]]>Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:00:27 GMTThis information has crossed our newsdesk today.  The Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) form (IM017) for ceasing correspondence and release of information Use this form to advise the Australian Immunisation Register you don't want to receive correspondence, or share information with third parties.   The question is whether this is even relevant to the issue they claim.  If in fact the Government has an intention to have a Vaccine Passport for domestic purposes whether your records from the Australian Immunisation Register are shared with the States or other third parties would be quite irrelevant.  What would be relevant is that you don't have the Vaccine Passport and without it you can not do X, Y or Z whatever prohibitions are potentially placed. "The AVN has just discovered that there are plans to use the data from the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) to inform State Governments of who is and is not vaccinated for the purposes of bringing in a vaccine passport within the next 2 months. What we were not aware of is the fact that we can opt-out of allowing the government to share our data with any third party including sharing it with the States (it is currently held by the Federal Government) or whomever will win the tender to operate the passport system. Time is short since the federal government has already said they have everything ready to go for the vaccine passports and are only waiting on the States to complete their end.Please visit this website - https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/organisations/health-professionals/forms/im017   and fill in the form IM017. It cannot be submitted online but must be printed out and mailed - we recommend you do this by express post and also if you don’t mind spending a few dollars extra, paying for the proof of delivery so you have the signature of who has received it should they claim they never got it."   For instance you can see in the attached image in from the Philippines, the Government there is ... Read more

]]>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:40:21 GMTThe Doctrine of informed consent operates at common law within Australian Health law.The Doctrine commenced with the seminal Schloendorff decision, where it was held the need for Informed Consent is a prerequisite to the Doctor-Patient Relationship.  Meaning if you have not provided informed consent to the medical practitioner for a procedure (including vaccinations) then there is no "Doctor-Patient" relationship that exists for that procedure.  With Justice Cordozo stating “In the case at hand, the wrong complained of is not merely negligence. It is trespass….and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent, commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.”For further information on Informed Consent please read Contemporary Challenges regarding Informed Consent & Vaccination in Australia.#HealthLaw NOTHING IN THIS FORUM IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE, IT IS PURELY INFORMATION TO ASSIST YOUR UNDERSTANDING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, IT IS A CONDITION OF ENTRY INTO THIS FORUM THAT IF YOU INTEND TO ACT UPON ANY INFORMATION YOU FIND IN THIS FORUM THAT YOU BRING IT TO A LAWYER AND SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE.

]]>Mon, 01 Mar 2021 02:08:50 GMTFollowing the extension of the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme until 28 March 2021, the Victorian Government has launched the Commercial Landlord Hardship Fund Round 2. Grants of up to $3000 per tenancy are available to eligible small landlords who reduce commercial rent for their tenants under the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme. Full program guidelines and information on how to apply are available at Commercial Landlord Hardship Fund Round 2. The Victorian Government offers other support for businesses, landlords and tenants. Details are available at Business Victoria COVID-19 business information. Information on additional land tax relief for landlords can be found at  State Revenue Office Land Tax Relief. Please share this message with your members and networks who might be interested.

]]>Tue, 16 Feb 2021 04:37:39 GMTIf you are in Victoria and have a Commercial Lease and your business has been affected by COVID Lockdowns then you can apply for Rent Relief.   So long as you complete the Rent Relief Application you will receive a proportional reduction in your rent pro-rata to the reduction in your business turnover over the period demonstrated by BAS Statements or other accounting methods.It is vital that this application for rent relief is completed and compliant with the legislative requirements and so long as you do that the landlord MUST :    Grant a reduction in the rent proportional to the decrease in turnover eg: Turnover dropped 70% means a 70% reduction in the rent. From that 70% Reduction in Rent 50% of it must be waived by the landlord altogether and the remaining 50% is on a deffered payment. The Victorian Small Business Commissioner is authorized by the Legislation to make a binding order on parties who do not participate in the process. For more information visit the Victorian Small Business Commission website.   https://www.vsbc.vic.gov.au/responding-to-coronavirus-covid-19/commercial-including-retail-tenants-and-landlords/process-for-commercial-tenants-and-landlords/ ... Read more

]]>Thu, 11 Feb 2021 02:12:04 GMTWhat Follows below is an excise of the Conversation between myself and Serene Teffaha, with comments of Rufiath Danny Jovica Hello Serene Teffaha can you clarify exactly what you believe contravenes s.109 of the Constitution?My understanding the Commonwealth Act deals with Commonwealth matters (entry into Australia, interactions between states) and has no jurisdiction on the internal affairs in a State.Moreover s.8 provides for any concurrent operation of the Commonwealth and State Legislation.Mishka Hudson absent a s.109 conflict there is no basis for a cause of action with merit.   Rufiath Yousuff Serene Teffaha - using examples that pull at the emotions of people is not a valid way of emphasizing your point. Just because vulnerable people ask you to represent them doesn't mean that you are immune from having ulterior motives due to the opportunity presented before you. I really hope you are sincere in your claims and are not exploiting people. Time will tell in relation to that and also the merits of any judicial avenues you are pursuing.   Serene Teffaha Danny Jovica I have explained myself above. Biosecurity Act covers the field- it also deals extensively with management of infectious diseases for humans hence human Biosecurity emergency powers. With no offence to you Danny people are commenting without reading the law. Giving their opinions without understanding anything. Read section 8 carefully. There are no issues subject to States and Territories running concurrently with the Biosecurity Act meaning consistently. Further proof is found in subsection 8(3)and (4) where allowance is provided for setting different penalties and fault elements for breaches. Subsection 8(2) gives a clear preference in emergency times to the Federal Health Minister. So you have to read it properly to understand the context. Clearly the Biosecurity Act widens the field and deals with all matters of quarantine including for human infectious disease. With all due respect- I have... Read more

]]>Tue, 08 Sep 2020 03:42:27 GMTThis paper examines the contemporary challenges with the doctrine of informed consent ‘Doctrine’ and its application in the vaccination program of the Australian Government[1].  In order to understand the challenges, we must first understand the background of the development of the Doctrine. The Doctrine commenced with the seminal Schloendorff[2]decision, where it was held the need for Informed Consent is a prerequisite to the Doctor-Patient Relationship. With Justice Cordozo stating “In the case at hand, the wrong complained of is not merely negligence. It is trespass….and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent, commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.[3]” In determining what information should be given to clients doctors traditionally used the “Physician-Based Standard"[4], this was the idea that a physician isn’t liable for negligence or malpractice if they followed the consensus of opinion in medical practice.  It was accepted by the English Courts in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee[5] this became known in law as the Bolam Principle[6] The Australian Experience In F v. R[7] a woman who wasn’t warned of a 1% failure rate in a medical procedure sued for negligence.  The Doctors argued that the consensus of medical opinion was it wasn’t necessary to warn when failure rate was so low, the Court refused to apply the Bolam principle. King C.J. said: The ultimate question, however, is not whether the defendant's conduct accords with the practices of his profession or some part of it, but whether it conforms to the standard of reasonable care demanded by the law. That is a question for the court and the duty of deciding it cannot be delegated to any profession or group in the community. King C.J. agreed with the Supreme Court of Canada in Reibl v. Hughes (1980): The issue under consideration is a different issue from that involved where the question is whether the doctor carried out his professional activities... Read more

]]>Fri, 15 May 2020 04:12:17 GMTThis paper examines the plausibility of a legal challenge to the government’s “No Jab, No Pay” policy from an Administrative Law perspective.  Unlike Constitutional Law which examines the validity of legislation according to the Constitution, Administrative law assumes the legislation is constitutionally valid and examines the decision making process of the executive; either on its merits or by judicial review. MERITS REVIEW Merits review is either conducted through internal mechanisms provided by the executive or by legislative provisions to access inferior courts such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ‘AAT’. Additionally, Administrative law provides for judicial review of the decision making process which will not examine the case on its merits, but on an error in law, and whether or not the source of authority has acted lawfully in accordance with the power conferred upon it in statute. JUDICIAL REVIEW Administrative decision makers (when making decisions) often turn to practices within their institutions, guidelines, procedures, manuals, policy documents and directions from ministers that might distract from the relevant provisions, but must not be allowed to do so.[1] Where a decision maker’s power to make a decision depends on the existence of a particular fact (a ‘jurisdictional fact’) and he or she wrongly determines the fact exists, the courts will quash that decision[2]. Decisions are reviewable, as is the conduct in reaching that decision.  Reviewable conduct involves the issue of a notice of intention to exercise statutory powers[3] and a direction to provide evidence in support of an application by a specified date[4]. In relation to conduct, a complaint could be that the process of decision making was flawed in such a way as to involve a denial of natural justice[5]. When a statute empowers a public official to adversely affect a person’s rights or interests, the rules of procedural fairness regulate the exercise of the power unless excluded... Read more

]]>Fri, 15 May 2020 02:37:42 GMTThis paper examines the legality and enforceability of the new Australian Government “No Jab, No Pay/Play” Legislation with the view of potential aspects to challenge the validity of this new law. Starting with an examination of the legislation[1] and its intent, the Explanatory Memorandum states  "the Bill will ensure children fully meet immunisation requirements before their families can access child care benefit, child care rebate or the family tax benefit Part A supplement, [‘patient compulsion factor’]." Brief Background The Government expects the measure will result in savings of $508.3 million over five years. Exemptions will be granted only for medical reasons and Media reports suggest around 10,000 families will lose eligibility for payments in 2016–17[2]. The Budget measure is primarily targeted at conscientious objectors ‘the target’ who allegedly make up 1.77% of the population who “should be” vaccinated, but will affect all those who receive child care subsidies or the FTB-A supplement and whose children’s vaccination records are not up-to-date. To try and justify this the Government cites the overall rate of immunisation required to achieve herd immunity for measles at 95 per cent[3]. No Jab, No Pay but only a "Good Doctor" can certify? In reading the explanatory memorandum of the new Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015, there is the following explanation for changing the definition of a doctor. "The current definition of medical practitioner in subsection 3(1) of the Family Assistance Act would include a broader range of medical professionals than the definition of general practitioner in the Health Insurance Act 1973." Looking at the original definition of "medical practitioner" in the Family Assistance Act it states: "medical practitioner” means a person registered or licensed as a medical practitioner under a State or Territory law that provides for the registration or licensing of medical practitioner... Read more

]]>Fri, 15 May 2020 01:34:27 GMT