Obtaining State Sponsorship for Business Visa Applications

State Sponsorship for Business Migration to Australia is a process whereby an Australian State or Territory government business agency that wishes to encourage a particular business or business person to invest in Australia can sponsor that person or business. By obtaining sponsorship, the visa applicant gains a number of concessions which make it easier to qualify for the relevant business visa.

State Sponsorship is available in the Business Owner (Subclass 163), Investor (Subclass 165) and Business Talent (Subclass 132) categories amongst others.

State and Territory governments each have their own criteria for deciding whom they will sponsor. However, a common feature of the process of being granted sponsorship is the requirement to provide an appropriate business plan or business proposal demonstrating the feasibility of the proposed business, its economic contribution to the State and the applicant’s knowledge of the industry, the legal and regulatory framework and other commercially relevant issues. In certain cases submissions may need to be made to cover difficult or exceptional circumstances or unusual aspects of the proposal.

By combining the skills and resources of our team of accountants, business advisors and lawyers, we are able to provide business proposals that withstand rigorous government scrutiny. Our professional fees are competitive without compromising on quality or speed of execution.

Of note, over the past few years we have successfully obtained state government sponsorship for a number of Business Talent (Subclass 132) visa applicants to New South Wales and to Victoria. In support of such applications we prepare detailed submissions, market research and business plans prepared in-house. These applications are highly complex in comparison to the other sponsorship categories hence we are particularly proud of our track record in this area.

For further information in relation to State Sponsorship for Business Visa applications, please contact Goshawk Law on 1300 918 788 or email goshawk@sent.com

General Protections Disputes Under the Fair Work Act 2009

The general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)  aim to protect workplace rights and freedom of association and to provide protection from workplace discrimination.

An employer must not take any adverse action against an employee because the employee has a workplace right, has exercised a workplace right, or proposes to exercise such a right.

‘Workplace rights’ has a very broad meaning. For example, an employee has a workplace right if he or she has an entitlement under an award or agreement or a workplace law, is able to initiate a proceeding under a workplace law or is able to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to their employment.

‘Adverse action’ includes dismissing or refusing to employ someone, and also includes discriminating against them or otherwise injuring them in their employment (by for example demoting them).

Further an employer must not take adverse action against an employee because he or she has engaged in lawful industrial activity (such as belonging to or participating in a union).

In addition, an employer must not dismiss an employee because the employee is temporarily absent from work because of illness or injury.

An employer must not take any adverse action against an employee (or prospective employee) because of his or her race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.

Under the general protections provisions a dispute can arise in 2 circumstances:

  1. Where the employee is still employed, OR
  2. Where the employee has been dismissed.

Where the employee has been dismissed in breach of the general protection provisions an application to Fair Work Australia must be made within 60 days of dismissal. It is important to note that a person cannot make an unfair dismissal application at the same time as a general protections application.

Goshawk Law provides employment law and general protections dispute resolution advice to employers and employees. Call us on 1300 918 788 or email goshawk@sent.com for a confidential and no-obligation discussion of your situation.

Property Settlement Proceedings Adjourned Due to Unlodged Tax Returns

In the recent matter of Kruger & Zaio [2009] FamCA 1218, property settlement proceedings began before Justice Mushin but were adjourned because the parties’ had failed to lodge tax returns for a number of years and because of discrepancies between the documents produced and the sworn financial statements.

Mushin J made a specific order that the Registry Manager cause a variety of documents to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Taxation and thatafter that, consideration be given to the matter being relisted for continuation of the proceedings. He also noted that there was a potential “significant tax liability”.

The Court has a duty to protect the revenue and as can be seem from this matter, will not hesitate to hand over documents and information to the Australian Taxation Office for the purposes of an action for non-compliance with the tax law.

Goshawk Law provides a confidential, discreet, professional and understanding family law service. Our first interview or phone discussion is free of charge and no obligation. If you have any queries about property settlement or other family law issues you can contact us on 1300 918 788 or by email to goshawk@sent.com

How Much Compensation for Unfair Dismissal?

A common question for those who have made or are making an unfair dismissal claim is how the compensation amount is calculated. The answer to this question is by no means simple.

If Fair Work Australia (FWA) is satisfied that an employe who was protected from unfair dismissal has been unfairly dismissed the FWA is bound to follow the law set out in Sections 390 – 392 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in determining an appropriate remedy.

Section 390 of the Act lays down the general principles to be followed. First, FWA must not order compensation unless satisfied that reinstatement would be inappropriate. In fact reinstatement is relatively rare. Second, the payment of compensation must be appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

Section 391 of the Act deals with reinstatement as a remedy.

Section 392 of the Act deals with compensation as a remedy. It provides for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In deciding how much compensation to order, FWA must take into account the following factors:

  1. the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise; and
  2. the length of the person’s service with the employer; and
  3. the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and
  4. the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the person because of the dismissal; and
  5. the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation; and
  6. the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation; and
  7. any other matter that FWA considers relevant.

If FWA is satisfied that misconduct of a person contributed to the employer’s decision to dismiss the person, FWA must reduce the amount it would otherwise order by an appropriate amount on account of the misconduct.

The amount ordered by FWA to be paid to a person must not include a component by way of compensation for shock, distress or humiliation, or other analogous hurt, caused to the person by the manner of the person’s dismissal.

The amount ordered by FWA to be paid to a person  must not exceed the compensation cap. The compensation cap is calculated according to a formula set out in the Act but basically compensation must not exceed the lesser of 6 months’ pay or half of the high income threshold ($108,300 in 2009-2010 = $54,150).

We must now look to case law to see how these statutory provisions are applied in practice.

In Sprigg v Paul’s Licensed Festival Supermarket (1999) 45 AILR the full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) set out a number of steps that should be followed in calculating lost remuneration.

  1. Estimate the remuneration the employee would have received, or have been likely to have received, if the employer had not terminated the employment.
  2. Deduct moneys earned since termination. The failure of an applicant to mitigate his or her loss may lead to a reduction in the amount of compensation awarded.
  3. The remaining amount of compensation may be discounted for contingencies.
  4. The impact of taxation should be calculated to ensure that the employee received the actual amount they would have received if they had continued in their employment.
  5. Apply the legislative cap on compensation.

In Hughes v PrintLinx Pty Ltd (2001) 50 AILR a full bench stressed that the statutory cap is simply an arbitrary limitation on the compensation amount. The compensation cap does not operate as a maximum amount to be awarded only in the most grievous or serious cases.

In Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd (2004) 130 IR 446 a full bench cautioned that while the guidelines in Spriggs case should generally be followed, the particular circumstances of the case needed to be considered to ensure that the compensation amount was neither clearly excessive or clearly inadequate.

As we can see from the above review of the relevant legislative provisions and of case law, the calculation of compensation in unfair dismissal cases is somewhat of an art rather than a precise science.

Goshawk Law provides employment law and unfair dismissal advice to employers and employees. Call us on 1300 918 788 or email goshawk@sent.com for a confidential and no-obligation discussion of your situation.

De Facto Couples – Married in the Eyes of the Law

De facto couples might as well be married as far as the law is concerned.

Many people do not realise that since 1 March 2009 de facto couples have become subject to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This means that de facto couples are treated the same as married couples for the purposes of a de facto property settlement or maintenance proceeding in the event that the relationship breaks down.  It is not only the parties contribution that will be considered in the event of a property settlement but also their income earning capacity as well as future needs and financial resources. A claim might also be made for spousal maintenance.Time limits do apply however and any claim must be made within 2 years of the relationship ending. 

A “de facto relationship” is defined in Section 4AA of the Family Law Act. Usually, couples need to have been living together for 2 years but this is not necessary in all cases as per the statutory definition of the phrase. In determining whether parties are or have been in a de facto relationship all the relevant circumstances must be taken into account. A shorter time period can result in a de facto relationship, especially if there is a child of the relationship. Same sex relationships are included in the definition. Philanderers also need to beware - the law states that a de facto relationship can exist even if one of the partners is legally married to another person at the time…

Those entering or already in a de facto relationship should consider the benefits that a Binding Financial Agreement can provide in these circumstances. This is an agreement that allows the couple to decide how their property will be divided in the event that the relationship breaks down. The agreement can deal with all types of property such as houses, business, savings, cars, superannuation, inheritances, poker winnings and personal items. Whether maintenance should be paid to either of the parties can also be specified in the agreement. These agreements must meet the technical requirements of the Family Law Act in order to be binding, for this reason it is not recommended to use DIY-kits. In any event one of the requirements is that a lawyer must advise each party on the agreement and provide a certificate to each.

Goshawk Law provides a confidential, discreet, professional and understanding family law service. Our first interview or phone discussion is free of charge and no obligation. If you have any queries about de facto relationships, financial agreements or other family law issues you can contact us on 1300 918 788 or by email to goshawk@sent.com

For help or advice call 0419 106 975

To save you time, your call will be answered by a lawyer directly or alternatively please leave a message for prompt service.

Client Satisfaction Guarantee

We guarantee your satisfaction with our legal services and advice. We maintain the highest standards of client service excellence.

Member of the Law Institute of Victoria

LIV Practice Id 231124