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 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.

In this episode, Peter sought advice on an iPhone 12 earpiece fault that Apple acknowledged but is now charging him for repairs, despite the trade-in value being lower. Peter was advised on his consumer rights and the potential to demand a repair or replacement. Steve inquired about extending his rental lease to bridge the gap until his new house is ready, learning about the 60-day notice requirement and his options post-lease expiration. Brad discussed how to recover unpaid superannuation from a previous employer, with Nick highlighting new laws that empower employees to claim in court and potentially target business owners directly.

In this week's episode, Brian inquired about superannuation rules for subcontractors in the transport industry, learning that running his business through a company may exempt him from receiving super. A caller discussed an insurance claim dispute after a minor car accident, with the insurance company conducting a thorough investigation before making a decision. Paul sought advice regarding his daughter's hairdressing apprenticeship, where the new employer misled her about providing training. Jason asked about the court's role in approving consent orders for asset division in an amicable separation. George inquired about challenging his former employer's policy of only reimbursing expenses claimed within three months. Topics

In this week's episode, Mark inquired about changes to his employment contract, Lucy tackled job application discrimination, John debated the excess payment for a company car accident, and Nick highlighted the 'right to disconnect' law and its interview implications.

In this week's episode, Anna called in about a financial dispute with a former partner who owes her $50,000. The ex-partner's lawyer tried moving the case to family court by claiming they were in a de facto relationship, but the judge disagreed, and now a trial is set to decide on the debt. Barry needed advice on handling the belongings of a deceased tenant with next of kin in Austria. The final caller, Rob, inquired about whether juvenile convictions need to be declared when applying for entry into the United States. Nick offered guidance on these issues and emphasised the importance of complying with employer policies, referencing a story about a lollipop man who was instructed not to give high fives to children because of a complaint from a parent.

In this week's Law Talk episode, a caller named Tom discussed receiving a $65 parking fine from Wilson Parking due to a failed credit card payment caused by a system outage. Nick clarified that these fines from private companies are considered liquidated damages, not official government fines, and suggested they might not be enforceable. He mentioned that private companies may not pursue legal action due to the costs involved, but warned there could be risks in not paying. Additionally, another caller, Mary, asked about leave entitlements for an injured family member, to which Nick advised on using various types of leave and assured that an employee cannot be fired for taking up to three months of unpaid sick leave.

In this week's Law Talk episode, Veronica's case of identity theft through her telecom provider was discussed, with advice to request her personal information under the Privacy Act. Cassie, struggling with home build issues, was guided to complain to the Building Commission or explore builder's insurance claims. Len, who lost a $1,000 deposit to a car rental company after an accident while driving for Uber, was advised to have a lawyer assess the rental contract and consider a Department of Commerce complaint. Lastly, Margaret was informed that Legal Aid could represent both parties in a domestic violence and theft case by assigning external lawyers to avoid conflicts of interest.

In this week's Law Talk episode, Tracy is counselled to take immediate action against identity theft after being impersonated on a dating website, potentially by a woman her husband had an affair with. The second caller, Belinda, questions the legality of her employer's request to photograph her car's odometer for mileage reimbursement, wondering if it infringes on her privacy.

In this week's Law Talk episode, a listener named Belinda asked about sharing the cost of a fence replacement, to which Nick explained that costs are shared if the fence is defective, but aesthetics alone do not obligate shared costs. Ray discussed a gate he installed on a common driveway, and Nick advised him to get a surveyor to clarify boundaries to avoid legal issues. The segment also mentioned a unique family court case in WA that required a judge from Queensland due to conflicts of interest. Nick advised on the importance of legal agreements when parents lend money to children for house deposits. Finally, Tracy, who believed she was a victim of identity theft, was advised to perform a credit search and to discuss her issue further in the next week's segment.

In this week's Law Talk episode, Jenny called in to discuss defects in her apartment building, and Nick outlined steps she could take, including exploring building liability insurance and contacting the building commission. Nick then addressed recent amendments to family court laws that could impact working parents' claims to shared parental responsibility after a separation. Another listener, Bob, inquired about further options after losing an appeal over his wrongful dismissal from a government position while Brian was advised to contact the Ombudsman for his double billing issue by his internet provider.