While the name and structure of our firm have evolved, what remains unchanged is the team our clients know and trust. The same friendly faces are here, continuing to provide the personalised, professional service that has always been at the heart of what we do.

The merger brings together the strengths, experience and expertise of both firms, allowing us to offer a broader range of legal services and deeper support across all practice areas. By combining our resources, we are better positioned to meet the growing and diverse needs of our clients, while maintaining the approachable and responsive service we are known for.

For our clients, it means more support and more capability, all delivered by the same trusted team.

We are proud of this step forward and look forward to continuing to assist our clients with the same dedication, now backed by an even stronger team.

If you have any questions about the merger or how we can assist you, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

In Small v Phillips (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 268 The Supreme Court released the following judgement: “The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal brought by the grandson of a woman lacking testamentary capacity, and has granted leave for an order to be made under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) for a Will to be made on her behalf. The Court found that a draft Will which had been prepared prior to her loss of capacity was, or was reasonably likely to be, a Will that would have been made and finalised by the grandmother if she had testamentary capacity at the time the draft Will was ready for signing and that it was appropriate for an order authorising such a Will to be made.” Unfortunately, it has taken the estate beneficiaries a great deal of effort and expense to get the Grandmother’s draft will upheld when a quick visit to her lawyer and a nominal fee would have legitimised her will.

If you haven’t made your will yet, call CBD Law today to make an appointment.

In that case the Court considered the warranties set out in Schedule 3 Part 1 of the Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation requiring the Vendor to warrant that “there is no matter in relation to any building or structure on the land that would justify the making of an upgrading or demolition order”. 

In that case the Vendor advertised for sale a three bedroom “unit”.  In fact the development approval provided for the apartment to contain two bedrooms.  Following that approval, a wall had been constructed along what was previously an open “media room” thereby enclosing it to create a third bedroom.

Following exchange, the Purchaser discovered the approved development plan had originally provided for two bedrooms only.

After contacting the local Council, the Council issued a notice advising that it intended to serve an order, to in effect require the Vendor to comply with the Development Consent.

The Purchaser then sought to rescind the Contract.  The Vendor disputed the Purchaser’s entitlement to do so.

The Court determined that the alteration of the media room was a non compliant development entitling Council to make an order requiring removal of the wall and reinstatement of the apartment.  It therefore concluded there was a breach of the Statutory Warranty and ordered the return of the Purchaser’s deposit.

The case demonstrates the need to be sure to disclose “relevant matters” when selling property.

Giles Finney has been helping people buy and sell properties on the Central Coast for over 30 years.  If you need help buying or selling, please call 02 4322 6666 and ask for Giles or Deb.

Although defamation claims are readily associated with actions against the media by the rich and famous in reality most defamation claims are commenced in response to publications with a more limited audience. For example, the two mothers at a top Sydney school suing each other for defamation after each posted comments about the other on an instant messaging app.

But what constitutes defamation? And how do you sue someone for making untrue comments about you which negatively affects your reputation?

Defamation occurs when a person intentionally states or spreads information about another person that damages their reputation or can make others think less of them.  The information must have been published (including being written or spoken) to at least one other person. While defamation cases involving the internet and social media are relatively new, the same principles apply.

There are a number of defences to a defamation claim, including that the statement was true, or that it was an expression of an honest opinion.

If you want to make a claim for defamation you will need to act quickly as proceedings must be commenced within 12 months of the date of publication of the defamatory material. If you have been defamed you should seek legal advice without delay.

Read more here:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/no-shave-no-job-bhp-billitons-decision-to-sack-worker-over-beard-vindicated-20150502-1mxt18.html

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena California will shortly hand down a highly anticipated court ruling on the copyrightability of yoga.

The case involves the most commercialised brand of yoga in the world, ‘Hot yoga’ created by Bikram Choudhury.

He filed a suit against two former Hot Yoga employees, Mark Drost and his wife Zefea Samson who have set up their own yoga studio.The pair claim the sequence should be taught freely.

Meanwhile in India, a government agency is about to make available to patent offices worldwide, a digital library of public domain yoga moves and yoga knowledge.