In this week’s episode, Sean sought clarity on the legality of speed limit signs during inactive roadwork weekends, which may cause confusion and unintentional speeding. Nick clarified the legal necessity to adhere to the signs regardless of roadwork status. Peter queried about the legitimacy of his previous job being filled after his redundancy two years prior, and was informed by Nick that the window for legal recourse has closed. Dan raised concerns about his rights concerning a persistently defective washing machine, with Nick outlining the consumer's entitlement to opt for a refund or repair under Australian Consumer Law for a major fault. Finally, Rob brought up an uneasy situation regarding a letter from Ford about a potential defect in his car, and Nick recommended seeking assurance from a dealer.

In this week’s episode, a listener named Martin sought advice regarding his friend's entitlement to her husband's estate in the event of a divorce after one year of marriage. Nick from MKI Legal provided insight, noting that in such short marriages without children, the husband's claim to assets typically remains limited. He also touched upon the concept of spousal maintenance for financially dependent spouses. Another topic discussed was the rights of security guards to conduct bag searches outside supermarkets. Nick emphasized the need for consent in such searches and outlined the conditions under which a citizen's arrest might be appropriate. Lastly, Nick delved into consumer rights, advising that Australian Consumer Law offers guidance on remedies for defective products or goods unfit for their intended use.

In this week’s episode, Nick addressed pressing legal issues, including the incorporation of coercive control into domestic violence legislation. He elaborated on the new laws that recognise non-physical abuse forms, such as isolation and financial manipulation, to safeguard victims. The conversation also touched on the utilisation of electronic tracking for serious domestic violence offenders and the potential abuse of restraining orders in family law. Linda also called in sharing her daughter's plight with an ex-partner's coercive financial behavior. Nick offered advice on legal strategies, like suing for the debt or exploring undue influence, and the possibility of involving the family court, while also considering the emotional toll of legal action against an abusive former partner.

In this week’s episode, Shane called in with a dilemma about his desire to sell his half of an industrial property co-owned with a friend. Nick advised that Shane, as a 50% owner, has the right to petition the Supreme Court for an order to sell the property under the Property Law Act. He recommended Shane seek assistance from a property lawyer, specifically naming David McMullen. Gary had a question from someone he has spoken to called Kevin Townley, which referred to a boat collision and the challenges in acquiring CCTV footage due to privacy regulations. Nick provided a legal strategy for Kevin to obtain the footage by applying to the Supreme Court for discovery against the city or the police and warned about the potential for defamation if the footage is improperly shared.

In this week’s episode, a caller named Robin inquired about a tenancy in common issue involving a relationship breakdown and property rights. Nick explained that in a long-term de facto relationship, the division of assets might approach a 50/50 split, and highlighted the importance of recording any agreement in writing through consent orders or a binding financial agreement. Another caller, Mark, asked about the necessity and execution of a power of attorney for his mother, to which Nick advised that it is a useful document allowing financial decisions to be made should his mother lose mental capacity. He clarified that a power of attorney is separate from a will and does not supersede it.

In this week’s episode, discussions are made into the data privacy concerns regarding electric vehicles (EVs), specifically Chinese-made EVs, and how individuals in Australia can request their personal data from these companies under the Privacy Act. Craig inquired about updating his will regarding the disposition of a bequeathed asset, and Nick emphasised the importance of keeping wills current, providing the necessary process for that to be done. Kevin raises a question about possible legal action against the government regulatory body ASIC for alleged failure and negligence. Nick addresses this query by discussing the challenges involved in taking legal action against a regulatory body and offers alternative strategies. Lastly, Mark raised concerns over rising strata fees, leading Nick to discuss the post-COVID solvency of businesses and its impact on strata operations.

In this week’s episode, Jason asked about renting out a caravan on private property under new rules, and Nick promised to research advertising restrictions. Caroline discussed her mother's involvement in an Aldi gift card scam, pondering the store's liability, with Nick noting the need for further legal review. John shared his dissatisfaction with the Commonwealth Bank for closing his son's accounts without clear reasons, and Nick suggested pursuing a resolution through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) and the possibility of compensation for emotional distress.

In this radio conversation, Gary Adshead discusses a surprising workers' compensation claim with Nicholas Marouchak from MKI Legal. A council worker won the claim after being injured at home during a coffee break by tripping over a fence installed to keep puppies away from a rabbit. The discussion highlights that workers' compensation covers employees at their place of employment, which can include a home if authorised by the employer. It covers injuries during authorised breaks and regardless of fault. Employers must ensure a safe workplace, which includes assessing home environments for risks. This case raises questions about employer responsibilities for home workplaces and the potential loopholes as more people work from home. Link to topic discussed: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-29/council-employee-wins-wfh-workers-compensation-claim/104529156

In this week's episode, Nick discussed the public's concern over the presence of registered sex offenders in Western Australia. With around 5,800 offenders on the registry and more than 3,000 actively monitored, this episode delved into the community protection register that allows locals to identify high-risk individuals nearby. Nick emphasised the severe legal consequences of distributing information like photos from the register, which could lead to a five-year imprisonment. Brian addressed a collision involving an Amazon delivery vehicle, guiding the driver through the intricacies of the insurance claim process. Additionally, Nick provided insights for Stuart whose family is in a legal battle over an inheritance issue, where a sister-in-law faced exclusion from a will. Nick explained the options available for contesting such decisions.

In this week’s episode, Elizabeth raised concerns about designating a guardian for her son through her will, given the recent release of the child's father from prison on domestic violence and drug charges. Nick explained that while a will can indicate her preferences, the ultimate decision would lie with the family court, prioritising the child's best interests. Darren sought clarity on a road incident where he was not at fault, as the other driver breached traffic rules. Nick advised him to contest the insurance company's demands for damages. Benjamin brought up difficulties in accessing his superannuation early due to unemployment. Nick outlined the stringent conditions imposed by law and the ATO, which regrettably prevent early withdrawal in such cases. Other listeners questioned the need to update legal documents following an address change, to which Nick responded that such amendments are typically not required.

In this week’s episode, Nick offered guidance to Caleb, who discovered severe structural issues with a property he was purchasing. Upon issuing a termination notice, the sellers refused to refund his deposit. Nick clarified the legalities of property contracts, building inspections, and the steps Caleb could take, indicating that he might have a strong case for reclaiming his deposit through the Magistrates Court. Additionally, Morris called in regarding the liability of scooters strewn across Perth's pavements. Nick shed light on the duty of care owed by operators and the possibility of legal action if they fail to maintain safe conditions. Lastly, Mark expressed concerns about hidden cameras in his sister's home, installed by her legal guardian. Nick expounded on the Surveillance Devices Act, stressing the need for consent and the potential repercussions of unauthorised recordings, suggesting the guardian might face legal consequences.

In this week's episode, Clayton, whose friend wished to rescind a power of attorney and guardianship was advised that they need to simply revoke the document and inform the appointed individual. However, if mental capacity is compromised, the State Administrative Tribunal may need to step in. Another caller, Jeanette, sought clarification regarding the implications of her mother's friend declaring himself as next of kin at the hospital. Nick delineated the scope of next of kin authority in medical scenarios and highlighted the significance of enduring power of guardianship. Furthermore, a complex issue of marital property rights was brought up, prompting Nick to explain that a spouse might be entitled to property assets upon divorce, regardless of their name being on the title, contingent on their contributions and the marriage's duration.

In this week's episode, Beverly sought guidance on the sale of her house in the event of her husband's demise, given that the deeds are in his name. Nick clarified the necessity of probate for Beverly to manage her husband's property posthumously, despite a will favouring the surviving spouse. Nick also touched on the benefits of joint tenancy, which Beverly lacks, thus complicating the process. The discussion then shifted to address the issue of a couple sharing a solicitor during their separation, and the appropriateness of a company policy barring employees from accepting tips.

In this week’s episode, Adrian aired his grievances about a mishandled itinerary with AirAsia, leading to missed connections and extra costs. Nick counselled him on initiating a minor case claim in the Magistrates court to seek redress for the flight expenses and related charges, noting that AirAsia might respond more earnestly to legal proceedings. The episode also fielded queries from other callers, tackling diverse issues such as disruptive neighbours, suspected poisoning of tree roots by a neighbouring tree, family law contentions, and property rights regarding tree roots. Nick shed light on legal strategies and emphasised the value of equitable solutions and the utility of mediation in resolving legal conflicts.

In this week's episode, Nick addressed the revocation of service medals from Afghanistan war officers, guided Nikki on how to handle her injury claim due to a cafe's cracked floorboard, and explored the protocol for missed appointment cancellation fees for Neil. The conversation also covered how to address racial vilification at a local Woolworths, emphasising the significance of obtaining evidence like CCTV footage in such instances. Additionally, advice was provided to Robert on inheritance rights concerning a daughter-in-law and a will.