In this week's episode, Annabelle sought clarification on joint tenancy versus tenants in common for her property and was advised by Nick to change to joint tenants for automatic survivorship, though a will is generally sufficient. Mark questioned the property rights of secondary owners listed on his boat registration, and Nick explained the concept of constructive trust, suggesting he consult a property lawyer. Natalie asked about ensuring her children inherit her share of her mother's estate if she predeceases her mother, with Nick recommending an express provision in the will. Richard inquired about obtaining power of attorney for his aging parents, and Nick advised getting a doctor's letter assessing their mental capacity before proceeding. Luke raised a hypothetical question about proving innocence in defamation cases, and Nick outlined the process and defenses involved. Finally, Trev discussed issues with a vehicle purchased at auction and discovered odometer tampering, with Nick advising reporting to the Department of Commerce and Department of Transport and consulting a lawyer.

In this week's episode, Nick addressed several legal queries. New scam laws were discussed, highlighting increased protections for consumers and potential legal action against companies failing to prevent scams. Travis sought advice on a defective vehicle purchased from a dealer, with Nick explaining statutory warranty rights and potential recourse through the Department of Commerce or a minor case claim. Dawn inquired about insurance issues in a strata title property, focusing on the requirement for joint insurance and potential recovery of costs. Brian raised concerns about roller shutter safety in a commercial unit, with Nick advising on communication and potential legal action to ensure repairs. Finally, Paul sought guidance on defective flooring in a new build, and Nick suggested contacting the building commission and potentially taking action against the builder for the defects.

In this week’s episode, Mark asked about a warranty issue with an oven repair, and Nick explained consumer rights under Australian Consumer Law, stating that the seller must cover all costs within a reasonable period. Another caller, Martin, reported an issue with a store's return policy regarding solar batteries, and Nick advised that the store must honor the return as represented by their employee. John, a business owner, asked about recovering costs for pursuing unpaid invoices. Nick clarified that court filing fees and bailiff costs are recoverable, but not legal costs for claims under $10,000. Andrew texted in with a concern about a company making employees pay for discrepancies, which Nick stated is a breach of the Fair Work Act. Lastly, Les inquired about warranty coverage for a second-hand TV, and Nick confirmed that Australian Consumer Law applies to second-hand goods within a reasonable period.

In this week’s episode, Debbie discussed her difficulty in getting a refund from the ATO after accidentally paying her bill twice. Nick advised her to pursue an internal review and potentially commence proceedings against the Commission of Taxation. Neil shared his experience of being falsely accused of being drunk and abusive at a bottle shop, leading Nick to explain the legalities of defamation and suggest Neil speak to the store owner. Joe inquired about the legality of a Facebook group organizer sharing his court conviction publicly, and Nick clarified that it is permissible if the information is truthful and no non-publication order was in place. Brendan asked if Debbie could receive interest on her refund from the ATO, and Nick confirmed she is entitled to prejudgment interest. Finally, Nick provided his website and contact number for those seeking legal advice.

In this week’s episode, Nick discussed a class action lawsuit against Sportsbet for allegedly circumventing laws against live betting. A caller named Mo sought advice on creating a will and appointing an executor, and Nick provided guidance on the process and costs involved. Another caller, Anthony, asked about his daughter's parking fine from a private operator. Nick offered insights into dealing with such fines and the difference between private enforcement and government-issued fines. Lastly, Mike inquired about his neighbor's surveillance camera that overlooked a common area, and Nick explained the relevant legislation and potential courses of action.

In this week’s episode, Carl faced a $3 million building defect issue due to a collapsed builder, and Nick emphasized reviewing insurance policies and contracts, recommending specialized legal advice. Rob detailed a car-purchase scam stemming from a dealership email hack; Nick explained that consumer privacy obligations could leave the dealership liable. Another caller, Paul, learned his uninsured daughter could sue the at-fault, unlicensed driver, though recovering damages might be futile if the driver has no assets. Finally, Jody discovered her employer’s attempt to dock holiday pay without consent likely breaches employment law, and Nick advised contacting the Fair Work Ombudsman for assistance.

In this week's episode, Nick discussed beach ownership, clarifying that Australian beaches are government property. Julie sought advice on returning a TV that didn't meet the salesperson's claims about its performance in bright rooms, and Nick advised her on her rights under Australian Consumer Law. Lastly, Nick explained the importance of preparing an advance health directive or enduring power of guardianship to ensure medical wishes are followed in the event of incapacitation.

In this week's episode, Nick discussed divorce day and the lengthy divorce process in Western Australia. Kevin, a caller, sought advice on enforcing a court order against his ex-partner who was violating their agreement, and Nick outlined the legal procedure for enforcement. Des, another caller, expressed his frustration over the lack of victim support, recounting his experience with his former wife's murder and the difficulty in obtaining information about the juvenile involved in a prior break-in. Nick offered condolences and explained the limitations due to privacy laws.

In this week’s episode, Nick Marouchak offered advice on consumer rights for faulty Christmas gifts, family law issues during the holidays, and end-of-year workplace disputes. A caller named Nick discussed contesting a speeding ticket due to a recent speed limit change. Marouchak suggested using a mistake of fact as a defense. He also recommended settling property disputes between ex-partners outside of court.

In this week’s episode, a key point of discussion revolves around the recent amendments to the superannuation regulations for contractors, where Nick elaborates on the specific scenarios that warrant super contributions. He also addresses Brian's predicament with a blinds company, shedding light on consumer rights and the legal recourse available when services don't meet the agreed-upon standards. The conversation shifts to the topic of superannuation access due to financial distress, and Nick imparts insights on some lesser-known traffic regulations.

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.