Federal budget sees drastic reduction in eligibility for funding in parenting and property proceedings. 

Conduct that creates potential reputational harm can place employers in a difficult position. However, a recent Fair Work Commission decision shows that the way an employer responds can be just as important as the employee’s conduct.  

Artificial intelligence (AI), automation and digital management tools may improve productivity, but in NSW they can now also create WHS exposure.

The new Work Health and Safety Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Act 2026, passed by the NSW Parliament on 12 February 2026, puts employers on notice that when algorithms shape workloads, rostering, performance management or workplace surveillance, they may be sources of health and safety risk.

We have observed a trend in the use of AI. It is understandable that people will always be keen to reduce legal costs. As Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are rapidly becoming part of everyday life. From drafting emails to summarising documents, these tools promise convenience and efficiency. It is unsurprising that some individuals have begun using AI platforms to generate legal documents or amend draft orders before presenting them to a solicitor for “review”, in an effort to reduce legal costs. However, what may initially appear to be a cost-saving measure can backfire.

Coercive control refers to a pattern of behaviour where one person uses various harmful tactics to control, manipulate, and dominate their intimate partner. For example, coercive control can range from controlling who they see, what they wear and where they go, to manipulating co-parenting arrangements or child support payments after separation.

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision highlights how quickly a workplace issue can escalate when compassionate leave is handled too rigidly. What began as an employee requesting time off after the sudden death of a family member ultimately ended in dismissal and an unfair dismissal finding against the employer.

Allegations Raise Concern: Understanding Forced Marriage in NSW and Australia

Recent reporting has brought renewed attention to allegations that 14 underage girls in New South Wales were forced into “marriage”. This has raised alarm over the claims, prompting broader public discussion about how forced marriage is identified, reported, and prevented.

The flexible working rights came into force on 6 April 2024 and employers have since seen an influx of requests for flexible work arrangements. While the right to request flexibility is now well established, uncertainty remains around what makes a request valid, how employers should respond, and how these rights interact with the concept of ‘reasonable business grounds’ for refusal.

A recent Fair Work Commission decision — Gagandeep (Skye) Kaur v G8 Education Trading AS Jellybeans Childcare [2025] FWC 3396 — provides some timely and practical clarity.

A Binding Financial Agreement (“BFA”), often known as a prenup, involves contracting out of the family law system. We often hear this misconception — that people consider BFAs as a cost-effective way to avoid court proceedings ad reduce legal costs.

However, BFAs are complex documents which require significant technical expertise and careful drafting if they are to be effective. The recent case of Shala illustrates this clearly. In Shala, five separate agreements signed over six years were ultimately found to be ineffective. As a result, the Court intervened, and the very outcome the parties had sought to avoid, became unavoidable.

When people separate from their partner, they tend to think that that is the end of everything and they can move on with their lives, but what they don’t realise is that they may need to formally end their financial relationship.

Post COVID there has been a steady increase in flexible work requests at workplaces in Australia. However, an employer can refuse the employee’s flexible work arrangements if the request does not satisfy the ‘reasonable business grounds’ set out in the Fair Work Act (Act).

The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Act 2025 marks a deeply human shift in Australia’s workplace laws – one born from heartbreak, compassion and a mother’s unimaginable loss

Love it or loath it, Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon, and its use in our everyday lives is becoming increasingly commonplace. While there are certainly uses for AI, there are also substantial risks associated with how AI is used and the degree of blind faith people put in it.

Despite increasing awareness of psychosocial risks in workplaces, employers still face accusations of bullying when performing managerial duties. Two recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions confirm that not every disagreement, performance issue, or emotional response qualifies as “bullying at work” under the Fair Work Act 2009. Employers can manage attendance, performance, and work arrangements if their actions are reasonable and do not pose a threat to health and safety.

What happens to an add back now they can’t be added back into the property pool?

Up until fairly recently, parties embroiled in property proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (“FCFCOA”) were able to have add backs included in the property pool that would be divvied up as part of the proceedings.

Despite new laws making wage theft a criminal offence from 1 January 2025, some of Australia’s largest corporations continue to underpay their staff. The recent Federal Court case highlights that even the country’s largest retailers have failed to meet basic compliance obligations.

In our increasingly globalised world, families are more connected and spread out than ever, with situations where family members live, work and own property in different countries becoming more prevalent. While this offers many opportunities, it also presents significant legal challenges, particularly when marriages or relationships break down. At Voice Lawyers, we have seen firsthand how these international aspects can turn an already difficult situation into a truly challenging legal matter. Our experience acting in these types of matters has afforded us a deep understanding of the unique jurisdictional, financial, and logistical issues that can arise in international family law matters, as well as the ability to work with you to resolve these matters by employing a careful and strategic approach.

In a recent turn of events, the Federal Court overruled the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia’s (FCFCOA) decision that ordered a company to pay a substantial sum in compensation to its financial advisor. The FCFCOA found the employee to be covered under the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2010 (Finance Award).

At first glance in Parenting matters, the issue of who is a parent tends to be fairly cut and dry, however that is not always the case in recent years, with the changing face of ‘family’ broadening with the use of surrogacy, the increase in the number of same sex couples and of blended families. In some circumstances the Court has been required to exercise its power to make a declaration on who a child’s parents are. This decision is further complicated by the fact that the Family Law Act does not offer a comprehensive definition what who or what a parent is in family law proceedings, instead applying the relevant circumstances of the matter and a contemporary understanding of what a parent is in order to determine who is a parent.

Many employees across Australia will receive an increase in their minimum wages from today. But employers do not need to worry, as we are breaking it down below to show exactly what you need to do to stay compliant.