Szabo & Associates News & Updates

The recent decision of the NSW's Land and Environment Court has had global reverberations and environmental groups applauding. In Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning, the Court considered a request for approval of a proposed coal mine. They considered this in the context of emissions of greenhouse gases and their effect on climate change, the impact on existing, approved and preferred uses of land in the vicinity, and the social implications it would have on the environs and the Aboriginal community.

Section 128(1) of the uniform Evidence Acts applies where a witness objects to giving particular evidence that "may tend to prove" that the witness has committed an offence under Australian or foreign law or is liable to a civil penalty. It contains a version of the common law privilege against self-incrimination which entitles a person to refuse to answer a question or produce a document if the answer or production would tend to incriminate that person. If the court determines that there are reasonable grounds for the objection, the Court is obliged to give the witness a certificate which prevents the evidence from being used against the witness in any proceedings in an Australian court. A certificate is, for example, sometimes sought to protect a client from charges of tax fraud.

The recent decision in Kai Ling v Rosengreen considered whether an option to purchase land had been successfully novated in favour of a substituted grantee.

Background

Superannuation is a major asset of many Australians, and consequently, it has a crucial role in effective estate planning. In that context the importance of controlling self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF) is axiomatic.

Pets can be important to families, and disputes over the family pet in separations appear to be becoming more common. However, in Australia, the Courts have only limited capacity to deal with pets with no legislation for guidance though legal precedent has been established with several cases.