r/AusLegal

I had a bit of a weird experience at a petrol station today and wanted to ask what you all think.

I filled my car like normal. The bowser started at zero, as normal, and when I finished it showed about $160 and off I then went inside to pay.

At the counter, the staff member asked me if I had filled up twice as there was also another amount of about $90 in addition to the $160, so the total owing was about $250. I explained that I had only filled up once, and that the bowser outside clearly showed the single transaction I had just made for about $160.

She said she needed to call her offsite manager to check CCTV. I was just standing there saying I didn’t understand and was confused but the staff member made me stand aside like I was in the wrong and holding up the line.

I stood there like a stunned mullet getting funny looks from other customers, and to make things worse she didn’t contact the manager. She just kept serving other customers… It was like a never ending line and after a few minutes I had to point out that I am a mum and have my kids in the car and in a bit of rush to see my own mum in hospital (which was true) so please resolve this issue.

I had kids waiting in the car and felt so embarrassed, like I was being treated as though I had done something wrong, even though I was actively trying to pay.

She said until her manager clears it, I couldn’t pay (unless it was $250), and was advised I was not free to leave either. She then called him/her which was a very quick conversation and said we must wait for a call back for further direction.

Eventually after about 10 minutes of waiting I put my foot down, and said you cannot lawfully hold me hostage here - I said go and look at the bowser it’s $160 not $250! In the end she called her manager back again and after some hushed talk she said OK you can pay and leave. I took a photo of the bowser on the way out. No apology, nothing.

I am really perplexed about the way I was treated and wonder how lawful it could be to hold someone - especially with kids sitting in the car - for payment that clearly was not theirs. I don’t think I look dodgy or anything at all I am just a daggy mum (not that it matters!)

I know it was only 15 minutes in total but I’m not sure how long I would have been standing there if I hadn’t been forced to advocate for myself quite strongly! It was also really embarrassing as I hate confrontation of any kind.

The plumbing is fixed!

Strata manager issued a 7 day breach notice letting the owner, who claimed to be away, know that a locksmith and plumber would attend the property.

He replied the day before, after not responding to the Strata Manager since December. He said he would give access if they waited until today, so it was an additional week to the first breach notice.

The upshot is that 18 units paid about an extra $1,200 per unit over the last 12 months which equates to 12.4 Olympic sized swimming pools of water gurgling wastefully down the drain.

Waiting to hear back from the Strata division of Legal Aid to see if there is any way for the other owners to recoup any of the costs. I'm not holding my breath though.

I recently had a script filled at Chemist Warehouse, and they sent a notification about it to my dad and included information about the medicine in the message. I’m an adult, and the only reason his number was even on my account is because it was added over 10 years ago when I was a young kid.

This wasn’t something I’d expect anyone else to be notified about, it’s private medical info, and I never gave consent as an adult for that to happen. I didn’t even know his number was still linked to my profile.

I’ve now called and updated my account details so it won’t happen again, but the damage is already done.

Surely this is a privacy breach? Do pharmacies have any responsibility to update or verify contact details once someone turns 18? And does this potentially violate Australian privacy laws?

Would really appreciate any insight.

Basically I am on my red p’s and my husband has his full license. (I have narcolepsy and only recently got passed by my doctor to drive)

We are currently renting and sharing my car as he has a WRX which is too loud for where we are currently living and my p-plates are attached by some zip ties at the back so it’s annoying to take them off or on.

Was basically wondering if there is any law/fine for having them on if the person that’s driving has their full license. I did try googling it but couldn’t find a good answer.

So i was caught without driving with a supervisor, i had P’s displaying because my friend was driving prior and cops had ran my plate. I’ve got my court In a few week, wondering what the punishments are looking like. The officer said there’s a high chance i don’t get suspended. I currently have my test booked for a month ahead. I’ve got a RN licence (moped). Just curious what are the chances of me getting a 3 month disqualification. This was in Western Australia

Long story short, our appointed lawyer has been caught out unlawfully falsifying government documents for financial gain. We appointed him to get things done for us, and we never questioned him, until we looked a bit deeper in his practice. Came out everything he supplied so far is fake, and I don’t want to let this go and let this bugger get away with it.

Hey Guys!

I currently work as a construction labourer and I recently found out that it is a labour law to get more pay for overtime, Saturdays and public holidays. In addition, I would have to get the minimum wage of about $33/h, but right now I only get $29.75/h. I've calculated that and come up with a difference of $3500 in the last 2 months. Since I work casually, I'm afraid that my boss will fire me as soon as I contact fair work. However, I like the job and my plan is to work there for another 2 months. Does it make sense to go through with this and contact fair work at the end?

I believe I have been sham contracted, and super is being deducted from my base hourly rate.

Are employers obligated to pay super on top of the hourly rate, even if hired as an independent contractor?

Is there any legal loophole that allows an employer to include super in the base hourly rate, without stipulating the exact % being allocated as super?

I did the math and found that employer has been allocating 10.7% from my hourly rate as "Super". This percentage was never outlined in the contract nor agreed upon.

Thank you in advance.

Hi, looking for some advice. I’m 21 in NSW trying to sell my unregistered Volvo. When I went to Service NSW today to sort the transfer paperwork, they flagged an issue with the vehicle and said police would be calling me. The Service NSW worker specifically asked about when I last got a blue slip done on the car

I’ve never organised a blue slip myself as the car was already registered when I bought it.

There’s also an active NCAT case against the mechanic (Mycar) who removed my cooling fan during a repair and returned the car damaged — I’m claiming $3,000. Before the mycar incident I could view my vehicle details online fine, it’s only since then that issues have appeared.

Not sure if the police call is related to the blue slip question, the mycar situation, or something else entirely. Wanting to know what kind of trouble I could realistically be in and whether I should call police

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some guidance or insights from people who may have experience with Australian employment law, particularly adverse action claims.

About a year ago, I was working as a casual employee through a labour hire agency at a winery. After being touched in multiple occasions, I reported sexual harassment by a permanent employee to HR and management. Three days after that meeting, I was dismissed. Worth mentioning that I’m a working holiday visa holder and a female.

Some key points:

•	I made a formal complaint about inappropriate touching together with another person 

•	The labour hire agency didn’t support me or take part in the investigation

•	I believe my dismissal was linked to me speaking up

•	There were other similar complaints about the same person

•	I was given a different reason for dismissal

I’m now considering pursuing an adverse action claim (not unfair dismissal), as I understand this may be more appropriate given the circumstances.

I’d really appreciate any insights on:

•	Whether this situation sounds like adverse action

•	What kind of evidence is most important in these cases

•	Any pitfalls or things to be aware of before starting the process

I understand this isn’t legal advice, just looking for general guidance or shared experiences.

Thanks so much in advance 🙏

Hi,

my employer is asking me to switch from part time to casual because they are changing the roster and my availability does not suit this new roster.

they said it is voluntary but this feels like they are essentially forcing me.

this is in the disability industry and i assume its in line with the new NDIS policy that people need 2 days off.

anything I can do? can they fire me if I refuse?

Hi,

our neighbour wants to put privacy screening on top of the fence on our boundary, without discussing it with us or giving us a fencing notice. he just informed us verbally about it. couldn't really find a clear answer in the fencing act, as it is neither a repair nor a new fence.

but the question is, can my neighbour put a privacy screening/lattice on the fence without our consent?

Hi everyone, seeking some advice on an insurance/liability dilemma.

​A family member was driving my car and was involved in a minor at fault accident. The family member is under 25 and is not a listed driver on my RACV policy.

​The Situation:

The damage to the other party's car appears to be purely cosmetic/body damage. No mechanical issues were apparent, and they were able to drive the car away from the scene.

​Our plan is to wait for the other party’s insurer to assess the damage and send us a demand for payment. If the figure is reasonable, we’ll pay it privately. If it’s a "decent chunk," we’ll have to go through RACV.

​My questions are:

1.​Since the car is drivable and there’s no immediate rush for repairs, can we wait for their insurer's final figure before deciding to lodge a claim with RACV?

2.​Does RACV have a specific timeframe/cutoff for when a claim must be lodged?

3.​Are there risks to waiting for the final bill if the other party is already back on the road?

​Trying to avoid the massive stacked excesses (Standard + Age + Unlisted), but I want to make sure I don't accidentally void my right to claim if the bodywork ends up being more expensive than it looks.

Thanks for any advice.

Hey team. In the process of the above as I've broken up with my Australian partner recently. I was granted PR from an Irish passport via the de facto process a few years ago, however, the online form states "Citizenship Certificate" as one of the required documents.

Am I slow or should an Irish birth certificate suffice?

I passed two speed cameras in the back of the parked cars and I’m pretty sure was going above the speed limit both times. It’s wasn’t anything crazy but it was still over. The first one I was going around 102-4ish in a 100 zone and the second one was around 62-6ish in a 60 zone. For the second one I was less sure of how fast I was going since the car was parked in a country town instead of on the side of a random road like the first one and didn’t notice it in time. My car also has an analog speedo and I saw somewhere that most cards speedos show a faster speed than your actually going so is that also true?

Kia ora, aus law.

I'm hoping to get some advice on a situation that's become a bit of a headache.

I'm the registered owner of a car in Victoria, though I've been living in New Zealand for the past year or so. Before I left, a family friend did me a favour and dropped my car off at a local mechanic for some repairs. Those repairs have been fully paid for.

The problem is that when my friend left, he signed something with the mechanic agreeing to a $25/week storage fee while the car stayed on their property. He did this completely off his own back I had no idea, never asked him to, and never would have agreed to it if I'd known. He had no authority from me to sign anything like that.

Now, about a year's worth of those fees has stacked up, and the mechanic is refusing to hand the car over to someone I've sent to collect it until the whole lot is paid.

I've got a few questions I'm trying to work through:

1. Since I never signed that agreement and never gave my friend permission to sign it on my behalf, can the mechanic actually hold me to those charges? It feels like I shouldn't be liable for something I had no part in.

2. Even setting the contract issue aside, does a mechanic's lien under Victorian law actually cover storage fees, or is it limited to the repair work itself?

3. What's the most realistic way to challenge this and get my car back? I've seen mentions of Consumer Affairs Victoria and VCAT, are either of those worth pursuing given I'm doing this from overseas?

Any guidance would be really appreciated. Happy to provide more detail if it helps.

Thanks

My ex and I are in family court and he hasn’t seen our child in over a year due to domestic violence and child protection intervention.

We have a case assessment conference next week and I’m so stressed I’m not sleeping. My son’s safety is my top priority and I really want to get it right. Can anyone tell me what to expect? I was limited in my affidavit to a small number of pages and evidence but have a decade of examples of physical and verbal abuse, emotional blackmail, financial control, drug fuelled rages etc. The court already has videos and police reports and he’s admitted the abuse I have evidence of.

Any tips or advice? How long will they speak to me for? Is it better to avoid emotion and stick to facts? I know I should keep it child focused and stay on track about things my son has seen and heard, how it’s impacted him etc and not about me.

TL;DR: My mum’s family lawyer has not just been passive, she has repeatedly failed to act on clear breaches of court orders, serious non-disclosure, hidden income, missing business money, and false hardship claims. At the same time, she has pressured my mum into settlement positions and consent orders that favour the other side, while refusing to challenge things that appear unsupported. My mum has spent a very large amount on legal fees in a relatively short time, the other side still has not disclosed key business and asset material, and the matter seems to be getting pushed toward trial in a way that could seriously damage her.

I’m posting because I genuinely want outside views from people who understand family law litigation, because from where I stand, this has gone far beyond “just trust the lawyer.” Apologies in advance for the long post.

My mum is in a family law property matter in Australia. I’ve spent a huge amount of time on the documents, the orders, the chronology and the law, and I am extremely concerned by how her legal team has handled it.

It was a long relationship. The main asset is my mum’s home, which she owned before the relationship and which already had substantial equity. I understand that does not automatically mean the other party gets nothing, and I am trying to be realistic and fair about that. But the issue is that he now wants to treat the home like a normal shared asset while, in my view, excluding his own assets and concealing substantial income since separation through a business connected to the relationship.

Some time ago, my mum had an application dealing with non-disclosure and enforcement. The other side responded by pushing for sale of the home based on hardship claims. The court did not have time to hear the substantive issues, so that issue was pushed to a later date. At the same hearing, the barrister then acting for my mum was not properly across the history of the matter and agreed to withdraw the non-disclosure / non-compliance part of my mum’s application in exchange for mediation. In my view that was a serious mistake, because disclosure was central to identifying the true asset pool and the extent of non-compliance.

After that, my mum retained a new solicitor who initially presented as very strong.

Before mediation, we gave detailed instructions about the other side’s non-disclosure, hidden income, unexplained money movements, overseas assets, business issues, and breaches of orders. The other side had been running hardship, homelessness and benefit-type claims, but later bank statements appeared to seriously undermine that narrative. We identified large sums moving through accounts, including money going into his lawyers’ trust account on a regular basis with no proper explanation. A significant amount appeared to have been taken from a relationship business, and a much larger amount since separation seemed missing or unexplained.

I asked my mum’s lawyer to squarely put these matters into the without prejudice mediation material and negotiations, including the issue of relationship money being used or dissipated without disclosure. She refused. I also raised that my mum had obtained legal funding secured against the house, and if she was expected to retain the home, that reality needed to be reflected in any settlement structure. Again, she refused. I still cannot see any sound basis for refusing to advance those matters in a without prejudice negotiation context.

There were also major problems with how overseas assets were handled. One asset was being heavily discounted by the other side based on an alleged partial interest that, in my view, was not properly established. Instead of requiring proper proof, my mum’s lawyer accepted very old material as if that settled the issue. She also would not adopt the valuation basis we understood had been agreed and instead used an approach that appeared to favour the other side financially. Every time we raised these issues, the discussion was effectively shut down rather than tested.

At mediation, I also had my own separate claim relating to the home based on long-term contributions over many years. Despite originally agreeing they were aligned with me, my mum’s lawyers immediately shifted to the other side’s position and said it simply fell within my mum’s case anyway. I do not agree with that. It was an independent issue and it was never properly pressed.

The broader pattern was this: the other side had weak documentation for key parts of his case, had not disclosed business records, had not disclosed asset material, had not properly established his contribution case, and yet his lawyers advanced his position aggressively on every front. Meanwhile, my mum’s legal team seemed to accept almost everything he asserted, even where it was unsupported, contradictory, or plainly wrong.

Then the pressure intensified. My mum was repeatedly pushed toward a 50/50 style settlement and a large cash payment if she wanted to settle. From my perspective, there was no sound basis for pushing her that hard in that direction while the other side remained in breach, under-disclosed, and unable to prove major parts of his case. It honestly felt like her own lawyers were advancing his position harder than they were advancing hers.

After mediation, the other side rejected what was already, in my view, a very favourable offer and then demanded even more in his own favour. Even then, my mum’s lawyer still would not push the disclosure issues, the missing money, or the contradictions in his financial position with any real force.

Then came the mention hearing, and this is one of the clearest examples of why I have lost confidence.

My mum’s lawyer repeatedly told her that this hearing was only to list an interim defended hearing and that nothing else could really be argued. That was simply not true. It was a mention. The other side was still able to advance various arguments, while my mum’s side advanced none of the key issues we had raised. The sale issue could have been brought up for discussion, but that is very different from saying the hearing was only about listing an interim defended hearing as though that outcome was inevitable.

By that stage, my mum had material that significantly undermined the hardship case the other side had been relying on. My view is that if the sale issue had actually been contested, the other side would have faced real difficulty maintaining that same narrative in open court. Instead, pressure was put on my mum to consent to orders favourable to the other side before the hearing. To me, that looks like she was manoeuvred into giving away ground that the court may not have given the other side if the issues had actually been argued.

What makes this worse is that the other side did ask for other things at the hearing, and the court rejected them. So it was clearly not just rubber-stamping everything put forward. That is one of the reasons I believe the pressure placed on my mum around the sale issue was unjustified and that she consented to multiple unfair orders in exchange for nothing.

Instead, my mum was pushed toward consent orders that helped the other side, including removal of an order requiring him to contribute toward the property, despite my mum being on benefits and despite the evidence suggesting he was not in the financial position he had been claiming. No enforcement path was pursued. No serious disclosure pressure was applied. Then the matter was pushed toward compliance and readiness even though major issues remained unresolved.

At this point, my mum has paid a very large amount in legal fees in a relatively short period and, as far as I can see:

- clear breaches of court orders have not been pressed

- business disclosure still has not been forced

- asset disclosure still has not been forced

- no meaningful enforcement has occurred

- the missing money issue has not been pursued seriously

- the case has simply moved closer to trial while the other side stays funded and my mum burns through money

This is why I am so alarmed. If the other side has not disclosed business records, asset material, contribution documents, and financial movements, and if multiple orders have already been breached, how is it acceptable to keep moving the case toward compliance and readiness as though everything is normal?

It feels like there is a culture where some lawyers will not truly press the other side’s misconduct and instead just keep the machine moving, even when one side is clearly not complying. I have now seen this pattern with more than one solicitor, which is why I’m asking whether others have experienced the same thing.

My biggest fear is simple: my mum runs out of funding, ends up self-represented, and the other side gets to trial having hidden assets, hidden income, missing business money, a false hardship narrative, and an inflated claim against a home that was originally my mum’s. She could genuinely lose housing security while he walks away with an outcome built on non-disclosure and delay.

Has anyone dealt with something like this? Is this just bad strategy, or does it sound as wrong as I think it is?

Is there any free legal help for small businesses in Queensland for help in dealing with an underhanded, dodgy landlord?