Regulatory Investigations

Williams + Hughes Earns Recertification in Meritas, the Leading Global Alliance of Independent Business Law Firms

Williams + Hughes is pleased to announce that it has been awarded recertification in Meritas, a global alliance of independent business law firms. Williams + Hughes joined Meritas in 2014 and, as a condition of its membership, is required to successfully complete recertification every three years. 

Meritas is the only law firm alliance with an established and comprehensive means of monitoring the quality of its member firms, a process that saves clients’ time validating law firm credentials and experience. Meritas membership is selective and by invitation only. Firms are regularly assessed and recertified for the breadth of their practice expertise, client satisfaction and high standards of cybersecurity to keep legal information safe. Meritas’ extensive due diligence process ensures that only firms meeting the tenets of Meritas’ unique Quality Assurance Program are allowed to maintain membership. The measurement of the firm’s performance, based on input from clients, is reflected in a Satisfaction Index score, which is available online on the Meritas website.

“Our values of quality service and client satisfaction align with the Meritas mission to provide a safe and responsive global offering to clients,” said Damian Quail, Director. “We’ve successfully collaborated with colleagues in many jurisdictions around the world to solve client issues and help them seize opportunities outside of this market. We look forward to keeping those vital connections through membership in Meritas.”

The recertification process Williams + Hughes completed to maintain its membership status included exacting self-assessment, peer review by other law firms and client feedback.  

“Businesses trust the Meritas alliance of law firms for top-tier quality, convenience, consistency and value,” said Sona Pancholy, president of Meritas. “Williams + Hughes has demonstrated its commitment to world-class legal standards, and therefore has successfully earned its recertification in Meritas.”

For more information about our our membership in Meritas, please see here

About Meritas 

Meritas’ global alliance of independent, market-leading law firms provides borderless legal services to companies looking to effectively capture opportunities and solve issues anywhere in the world. Companies benefit from local knowledge, collective strength and new efficiencies when they work with Meritas law firms. The personal attention and care they experience is part of Meritas’ industry-first commitment to the utmost in quality of service and putting client priorities above all else. Founded in 1990, Meritas has member firms in 259 markets worldwide with more than 7,500 dedicated, collaborative lawyers. To locate a Meritas resource for a specific need or in a certain market, visit Meritas.org or call +1-612-339-8680

Meritas Welcomes DMAW Lawyers, Adelaide, to the Membership

Leading Adelaide commercial Firm, DMAW Lawyers has been selected to be South Australia’s representative firm for Meritas, the premier global alliance of independent law firms.

DMAW Lawyers will become an integral part of the Australia & New Zealand network of firms as well as the worldwide network of 191 law firms located across 96 countries.

This alliance will enhance DMAW Lawyers’ ability to support South Australian business interests both nationally and internationally.

DMAW’s Lawyer’s Managing Director, Mr Leo Walsh said “One of most attractive benefits of belonging to this network was the opportunity for our lawyers to participate in national and global conversations on business and legal issues. Not only does this expand our thinking, and add to our technical skills, but it help our lawyers build trusted, reliable relationships with lawyers in the regions that matter to our clients. Already we’ve participated in meetings with Insolvency experts across the country and with Senior Partners in Shanghai and Tokyo.”

Mr Mike Worsnop, Partner with Martelli McKegg in New Zealand and Co-Chair of Meritas ANZ: “We are delighted to have DMAW Lawyers join our group. Not only was their quality apparent but they’ve been very easy and responsive to deal with during our discussions.  They clearly demonstrated the type of service clients look for when using a firm in a different market.”

“DMAW Lawyers had to meet the rigorous requirements to become members of Meritas, the only law firm alliance with a Quality Assurance Program that ensures clients receive the same high-quality legal work and service from every Meritas firm.”

Meritas membership is extended by invitation only, and firms are regularly assessed for the breadth of their practice expertise and client satisfaction.

Ms Sona Pancholy, Meritas CEO: “In today’s environment having a commitment to a reliable network is more important than ever. Independent law firms, Corporate Counsel, Business Owners and their Commercial Advisors, all choose their portfolio of trusted legal relationships to match the issues and the markets they want to navigate. For 30 years, Meritas has cultivated a group of the best firms for this purpose.”

About DMAW Lawyers

DMAW Lawyers was established in Adelaide in 2002. The firm has ten Principals and a team of 50 staff. DMAW Lawyers focus on three areas of specialization being Corporate, Transactions, and Disputes for Business Clients.

Website: DMAW Lawyers

About Meritas

Founded in 1990, Meritas is the premier global alliance of independent law firms. As an invitation-only alliance, Meritas firms must adhere to uncompromising service standards to retain membership status. With 192 top-ranking law firms spanning 96 countries, Meritas delivers exceptional legal knowledge, personal attention and proven value to clients worldwide.  

Website:  Meritas 

In Australia and New Zealand, Meritas is represented by leading independent commercial law firms in each of these six major capital cities:

In Australia

Adelaide DMAW Lawyers

Brisbane Bennett & Philp

Melbourne Madgwicks Lawyers

Perth Williams+Hughes

Sydney Swaab  

In New Zealand

Auckland Martelli McKegg

What tax risks do I take on when I become a company director? (updated)

This is a question often asked of lawyers. There are many risks a person is exposed to when they agree to become a company director. 

Below is an extract from a paper I presented at a Legalwise Seminar "Business Clients: 20 Answers To Their Most Asked Questions" in Perth on 21 November 2019. 

1. Risk of breaching directors duties if taxes are not paid

Directors have an obligation to act in good faith and in the best interests of the Company and to act with reasonable care and diligence. This includes ensuring the company’s tax affairs and tax compliance matters are managed diligently.

Accordingly, a director must ensure that a company of which he or she is a director complies with its tax payment obligations. Failure to do so can result in the director being in breach of his or her legal duties as a director, which may attract penalties under the Corporations Act 2001. This could include civil penalties, compensation proceedings and criminal charges. Seek our advice as needed.

2. Risk of personal liability under Director Penalty Notices

Division 269 of Schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (the TAA) sets out the Director Penalty Notice (DPN) regime. Under Division 269 directors are required to ensure that the company complies with its Pay As You Go (PAYG) withholding and Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC) obligations. If a director fails to ensure compliance, the Commissioner of Taxation can recover personally from the director a penalty equal to the company’s outstanding PAYG and SGC obligations. 

What is PAYG withholding? 

By law a company must withhold tax from salary, wages, commission, bonuses or other allowances the company pays to an individual as an employee.  Tax legislation also requires a company to withhold tax in other scenarios, including:

• payments to company directors and officer holders;
• payments to workers under a labour-hire agreement; 
• payments under certain voluntary agreements; and
• payments to suppliers where an ABN has not been quoted in relation to a supply.

Broadly, these laws are known as the PAYG withholding regime. Withheld tax amounts must be paid to the ATO.

What are SGC obligations?

By law a company must also pay compulsory superannuation guarantee amounts to its employees. The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGAA) requires that employers pay a fixed percentage of an employee’s earnings into the employee’s superannuation fund. This is the superannuation guarantee (SG) amount. A Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC) is imposed on employers who fail to pay the required SG amount i.e. the SGC is the shortfall plus interest (usually 10% per annum) and administration costs (usually $20 per employee per period). The SGC must be paid by the employer to the ATO each quarter. 

Personal liability under Director Penalty Notices 

The DPN regime allows the ATO to impose a personal penalty on directors who fail to ensure a company complies with its PAYG withholding and SGC obligations.

In summary, if a company has an outstanding PAYG withholding or SGC debt then the ATO can send a DPN to a director giving that director 21 days to:

• cause the company to pay the debt; or
• put the company into liquidation; or
• put the company into voluntary administration; or
• come to a payment arrangement with the ATO.  

Requirements for a valid DPN

Section 269-25 of the TAA sets out the requirements for a DPN to be valid. The DPN must:

• set out what the ATO thinks is the unpaid amount of the company’s PAYG withholding or SGC liability; 
• state that the director is liable to pay to the ATO, by way of penalty, an amount equal to that unpaid amount because of an obligation the director has or had under Division 269 of Schedule 1 of the TAA; and
• explain the main circumstances in which the penalty will be remitted.

Notably, the DPN does not have to be physically received by a director for it to be valid, as long as there was effective delivery as defined in the TAA.

Avoiding personal liability under a DPN

After a DPN is issued, the ability of the director to avoid paying the penalty personally is relatively limited. If the unpaid PAYG withholding or SGC amount was reported to the ATO within three months of the due date, then the personal penalty can be remitted (cancelled) if: 

• the company pays the outstanding debts; 
• an administrator is appointed; or 
• the company commenced being wound up,

within 21 days of the DPN being given.

Importantly, the penalty on the director may not be remitted if instead a payment arrangement is agreed with the ATO (as referred to above). The ATO can commence proceedings against the director at the end of the 21 day period.  

So, a DPN cannot be ignored and must be dealt with promptly. To be clear, the 21 days runs from the date of issue, not the date of receipt.

Prior to 2012 it was sometimes possible to wind up a company at any time to avoid paying the penalty in a DPN. Amendments to the TAA in 2012 removed this ability. Essentially, the 2012 amendments make directors automatically personally liable for PAYG withholding and SGC amounts that remain unpaid and unreported three months after the due date for lodging a tax return. A DPN issued in relation to such debts is a so-called “Lock down DPN”. A director who receives a Lock down DPN cannot cause the DPN penalties to be remitted by placing the company into voluntary administration or liquidation.

So, directors must be diligent in ensuring a company keeps it tax returns up to date and lodged. Adopting a tactic of failing to lodge returns will not work. Even if the company cannot pay a PAYG withholding or SGC debt, directors must still lodge the return anyway. If they do not do so, automatic personal liability will be imposed and that liability will not be able to be remitted if a Lock down DPN is issued.

Defences to liability under a DPN

A director may avoid personal liability under a DPN if a statutory defence is applicable.  Broadly, a director may avoid personal liability if the director can show that:

• because of illness or some other good reason, the director did not take part in the management of the company at the time when the company incurred the PAYG withholding or SGC or obligation;  or
• the director took all reasonable steps to ensure the company complied with its PAYG withholding or SGC obligation, by ensuring one of the following things happened:
  • the company paid the amount outstanding;
  • an administrator was appointed to the company; 
  • the directors began winding up the company; or
  • in the case of an unpaid SGC liability – the company treated the SGAA as applying in a way that could be reasonably argued was in accordance with the law, and took reasonable care in applying that Act. 

The TAA allows for defences to be raised within 60 days from notification – that is, 60 days from when the DPN is issued.  Again, a DPN cannot be ignored and must be dealt with promptly.

A DPN defence must be submitted to the ATO in writing, clearly articulating which defence the director is seeking to rely on. It should provide all the necessary information and supporting documentation to substantiate the defence. We can assist in this regard.

Illness defence

The illness defence mentioned above has a number of limbs that must be satisfied. These are discussed in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Snell [2019] NSWDC 159. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this article. For present purposes, it is sufficient to observe that it can be difficult to substantiate the defence, as there must not be any evidence that the director took part in any aspect of the management of the company at any time during the relevant period. It is not enough to show that the director did not take part in managing the tax affairs of the company.

Also, medical evidence will be required in support of the proposition that the director could not have reasonably been expected to take part in the management of the company due to the illness.

Reasonable Steps Defence

Section 269-35(2) of the TAA provides that a director is not liable for the penalty in a DPN if the director took all reasonable steps to ensure that one of the outcomes referred to above happened.

In determining what reasonable steps could have been taken, regard must be had to when, and for how long, the director took part in the management of the company as well as all other relevant circumstances.  The ATO will consider what a reasonable director in that position during the time the director was subject to the obligation would have done. The assessment is an objective one.  Directors who are “too busy” or simply devote their attention elsewhere will not be able to rely on the defence. A lack of attention to details or ignorance of the company’s financial position will also not be enough to establish the defence.

Liability of new directors versus previous directors under a DPN

Directors recently appointed to the position are given a grace period to comply with their obligations under section 269-15 of the TAA. A director who is appointed after the due date for a PAYG withholding or SGC liability can become personally liable for the amount if after 30 days the liabilities remain unpaid.

This means that as soon as a director is appointed, they should review the company’s PAYG withholding and SGC liabilities, and ensure any amounts which remain unpaid are paid within the 30 day period. They should also check to ensure all outstanding tax returns have been lodged. If they find outstanding PAYG withholding or SGC liabilities or returns, they should seriously consider resigning.

A retired or former director can also be given a DPN. Resigning as a director does not allow a director to escape liability. The courts have confirmed that the ATO can impose liability on persons who were directors at the relevant time when the PAYG withholding or SGC obligation accrued.  There is a continuing obligation on directors to ensure the company complies with withholding tax obligations, and this obligation can persist despite the director ceasing to act in the role.  Specialist tax advice should be sought by directors in such situations.

3. Risk of personal liability for unpaid GST

Updated: 10 February 2020

New legislation recently passed exposes directors to personal liability for unpaid GST.  The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 was passed by both Houses of Parliament on 5 February 2020. Once Royal Assent is given- which should take a few weeks, at most - the ATO will be able to collect estimates of anticipated GST liabilities from company directors personally via DPN's, in certain circumstances.  The new law will allow the ATO to collect unpaid GST from directors in the same way as PAYG withholding and SGC can be recovered via DPN's, as discussed above. The new law is expected to take effect from 1 April 2020. 

4. Risk of personal liability for tax debts incurred while insolvent

Directors can be personally liable for debts incurred by a company where the company trades while insolvent. This is because one of the fundamental duties of a director is to ensure that the company does not trade while it is insolvent.  If a company is unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due the company is insolvent.

Common signs of insolvency include:

• suppliers refusing to extend credit to the company;
• minimal or insufficient cash flow;
• problems paying suppliers and other creditors on time; 
• difficulty in meeting loan repayments on time; 
• difficulty in keeping within bank overdraft limits; and
• legal action being taken, or threatened, by creditors over money owed to them.

In certain circumstances, directors may be liable for debts incurred by a company when it is insolvent. This could include tax liabilities incurred by the company while trading insolvent. There are various penalties and consequences of insolvent trading, including civil penalties, compensation proceedings and criminal charges. A detailed consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of this article. Seek specialist advice from us as needed.

5. Risk of personal liability as a Public Officer

A company carrying on business in Australia is obliged to appoint a “public officer” to act as the company’s representative and official point of contact for the ATO.

A public officer must be appointed by the company within three months of the company commencing business in Australia or deriving income from property in Australia.  It is an offence to fail to appoint a Public Officer. There must always be a person who holds the position of public officer.

Generally, the board of directors will choose who is appointed as a public officer. The power will normally be contained in the company’s constitution. 

The public officer must ensure that the company meets its obligations under the ITAA, and they can be held liable for penalties which are imposed on the company for failing to comply with the ITAA.  Similar provisions are found in the SGAA.

As can be seen from the above, there are many tax risk involved when accepting an appointment as a company director. Diligence on the part of the director is required if personal liability is to be avoided.

For further information and advice please contact me, Damian Quail.  

Thank you to Michelle Hankey and Cassandra Bailey for their assistance in preparing the original paper I presented.

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Superannuation guarantee amnesty: one last chance to pay compulsory superannuation for non-complying employers who employ "contractors"

Employee versus contractor? Are you sure?

Over the past decade many Australian companies have retained the services of people who claim they are "contractors" not employees. Usually the "contractor" wants to be paid a gross fee/remuneration, stating that they will take care of income tax, superannuation and other payments. 

The attraction for the employer is a lower total cost of retaining the person as compared to bringing them on as an employee, as well as perceived flexibility in options for ending the relationship as compared to traditional employment (the thinking is that no redundancy or leave entitlements need to be paid and no notice period applies).

Such practices were common in the IT, marketing, construction and other industries, particularly so called “digital industries”. The “gig economy” has seen the practice gain pace.

The legal reality is that many "contractors" are actually employees, particularly where they turn up to work at the same place each day, take their instructions from "a boss" at the company, are paid by the hour rather than for delivering an end product, and don't have to redo their work at their cost if the deliverable is not done to the required standard.

In such cases, income tax and compulsory superannuation guarantee payments must be paid by the employer for "contractors" who are, legally, employees. If the payments are not made, significant penalties accrue over time and must be paid to the Australian Tax Office (ATO).

Often this superannuation liability only hits home when the employer tries to sell their company and the buyer's due diligence experts point out the problem. Significant superannuation shortfall payments and ATO penalties loom large for the seller, as well as a reduction in the sale price, or at least a significant escrow sum demanded by the buyer.

A superannuation guarantee amnesty is potentially available.

Legislation has been reintroduced to Parliament providing an amnesty for employers who have not paid superannuation guarantee (SG) payments. The proposed amnesty will allow fines to be avoided, provided the SG payments are made.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2019 (the Bill) was re-introduced into the House of Representatives on 18 September 2019. The Bill was then referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for further inquiry. The Committee released its report recently - available here.

The Bill provides employers who have previously failed to pay SG contributions and failed to disclose the shortfall to the ATO with a “second chance” to self-correct any historical non-compliance. 

This amnesty operates as a way for the ATO to encourage employers to disclose unpaid SG amounts for the period during which the amnesty applies - without fear that they will be liable for fines typically associated with non-compliance. 

What are my SG obligations generally?

The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGAA) requires that employers pay a certain percentage of an employee’s earning into the employee’s superannuation fund. A Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC) is imposed on employers who fail to pay the required SG amount i.e. the SGC is the shortfall plus interest and administration costs, and this is payable by the employer to the ATO each quarter. 

Employers can also be liable for penalties for failing or refusing to provide a statement or information as required under the SGAA, which can be up to 200% of the amount of the underlying SG amount (known as Part 7 Penalties). 

How will the proposed amnesty work?

The first step is disclosing unpaid SG to the ATO. An employer who discloses SG non-compliance and pays an employee’s full SG entitlements plus any interest (which may incude nominal interest and a general interest charge (GIC)) will be entitled to the amnesty, and will avoid liability for penalties normally associated with late payment and non-compliance.  

The employer with an outstanding SG liability can either: 

• pay the unpaid SG amounts, GIC and nominal interest directly to the ATO; or 
• pay the unpaid SG and the nominal interest to the employee's superannuation fund, and then elect to offset these amounts against their liability for SGC and GIC (if any).

However, if employers have an existing SGC assessment for a quarter, or are otherwise unable to contribute directly into their employee’s superannuation fund, they will be required to pay the SGC to the Commissioner directly.

If the employer makes a disclosure under the amnesty, the administration charge component of the SGC will be waived (see example 1.1 in the Explanatory Memorandum). 

The amnesty is proposed to extend to all reporting quarters from the quarter commencing 1 July 1992 to the quarter commencing 1 January 2018. 

The disclosure to the ATO must be made in the correct form, and the employer must pay the amount of the disclosed SG to the employee or the SGC to the ATO (see above) within the required period. Failure to pay will mean the employer will not be able to rely on the amnesty and will be subject to the normal penalties imposed. 

It is expected that employers will be given from 24 May 2018 to 6 months after the date the Bill receives Royal Assent to make disclosure and pay the shortfall and interest (the Amnesty Period).  

In summary, in order to benefit from the amnesty the unpaid SGC must: 

• Not have been previously disclosed to the ATO; 
• Have been incurred between 1 July 1992 and 31 March 2018; and 
• Not be under examination by the ATO previously.

The employer must also:

• disclose the shortfall to the ATO within the Amnesty Period; and
• pay the shortfall plus interest within the Amnesty Period. 

If the employer does the above things for eligible SG shortfalls, they will not be liable for Part 7 Penalties. SG amounts paid during the Amnesty Period will be tax deductable. 

If the Bill is passed, employers who have failed to comply with their SG obligations in the past should take advantage of this opportunity to avoid liability for such penalties.

Employers who fail to disclose during the Amnesty Period 

Employers who do not disclose and pay unpaid SG and interest within the Amnesty Period will be subject to higher penalties. Generally, the Commissioner has discretion to remit Part 7 Penalties. However, from the day after the Amnesty Period ends the Commissioner’s ability to remit Part 7 Penalties will be limited. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Commissioner will not be able to remit penalties below 100% of the amount of SGC owing by the employer for a quarter covered by the amnesty. The penalty will include interest and an administration fee. 

What does this mean for my business?

The amnesty is a one-off second chance for employers to reduce their exposure to penalites for unpaid SG. Employers who are aware that they have failed to comply with their SGC obligations, or are unsure whether they have fully complied since 1 July 1992, should ensure that they keep informed of the progress of the Bill. 

In particular, employers who have utilised the services of “contractors” who look-and-feel like employees should consider taking advice on whether the persons involved were legally employees for the purposes of tax, superannuation and other legislation.

If you would like further information regarding the new laws or any other issue please contact Damian Quail or Cassandra Bailey.

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Disclose the full upfront price or risk breaking the law: new upfront pricing laws apply

It is not uncommon for businesses to advertise a headline price for goods and services to their customers, and to only disclose optional costs in the fine print or in a manner that is not necessarily clear to customers. This is no longer permitted. Some businessess will need to change their pricing practices, particularly businesses selling goods online.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018 amends the Australian Consumer Law contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and imposes an obligation on businesses operating in Australia to ensure transparent pricing for consumers. As of 26 October 2019, businesses must display the total price for the goods and services including all pre-selected optional items. In other words, if optional components are pre-selected or automatically applied by the seller, these options must be included in the headline price. The customer then has the option to remove the pre-selected options selected in order to pay a lower price.

These new laws will especially affect businesses who sell goods and services online. The Explanatory Memorandum to the new legislation provides some helpful examples in relation to airlines. For example, if an airline fare is $500 and a website pre-selects an optional carbon offset fee of $5, then the headline price must be $505, not $500. However, if the carbon offset fee is not pre-selected or automatically applied, then the ticket can be advertised at $500.  

The same approach is applicable for promotions which display only a portion of the total price. Businesses must ensure that the total price is displayed just as clearly as the fractional price. Essentially, the new laws aim to avoid the situation where headline prices are advertised initially, but once the customer clicks through the website the price is increased to include pre-selected options and charges. 

Businesses should ensure that their pricing strategies conform with the new laws. 

If you would like further information regarding the new laws please contact Damian Quail. 
 

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Modern slavery legislation: the clock is ticking for Australian companies to prepare their first Modern Slavery Statement

Modern slavery legislation has been enacted in Australia. Many larger companies are now legally obliged to prepare Modern Slavery Statements and submit these statements to the Australian Federal Government. The Statements will be published on a publicly accessible register.

At its broadest, the term "modern slavery" refers to any situations of exploitation where a person cannot refuse or leave work because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception. It encompasses slavery, servitude, deprivation of liberty, the worst forms of child labour, forced labour, human trafficking, debt bondage, slavery like practices, forced marriage and deceptive recruiting for labour or services. Indicators of modern slavery practices may incude unlawful withholding of wages and identity/travel documents through to excessive work hours and restrictions on movement. Other indicators include recruitment agencies deducting excessive fees from worker remuneration, loans to workers with astronomical interest, and similar practices. 

The Walk Free Foundation, which publishes the annual Global Slavery Index, estimates that 30.4 million people are victims of modern slavery in the Asia Pacific region, including within Australia (Walk Free Foundation, Global Slavery Index 2016, www.globalslaveryindex.org). Many Australian companies source workers, products and services from the Asia Pacific region. 

For many of these larger companies, reports will need to be lodged between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020. It is crucial that affected companies begin reviewing their internal processes and supply chains and begin collecting data to comply with the new reporting obligations.

What does the Federal legislation require?

The Federal legislation is the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). It commenced on 1 January 2019.

Key aspects of the Federal legislation are as follows:

• companies incorporated in or operating in Australia are required to submit a report - a Modern Slavery Statement - to the Federal Government if the business in Australia (of the company and its subsidiaries) has a minimum annual consolidated revenue of $100 million. Other entities may report voluntarily.
• Modern Slavery Statements must be lodged with the Home Affairs Minister (currently Peter Dutton).
• the Modern Slavery Statement must report on the risks of modern slavery in the company's operations and supply chains, and actions the company has taken to address those risks. Part 2 of the Commonwealth Act sets out in detail mandatory criteria that Modern Slavery Statements must address. It includes:
  1. the company's structure, operations and supply chains
  2. modern slavery risks in those operations and supply chains
  3. actions taken by the company to assess and address those modern slavery risks, including due diligence and remediation processes
  4. how the company assesses the effectiveness of actions taken
  5. the process of consultation with its subsidiaries in preparing the Modern Slavery Statement
  6. any other relevant information.
• the Act defines modern slavery to incorporate conduct that would constitute an offence under existing human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like offence provisions set out in Divisions 270 and 271 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, as well as conduct covered under international conventions dealing with child labour and other slavery like practices. The definition encompasses slavery, servitude, deprivation of liberty, the worst forms of child labour, forced labour, human trafficking, debt bondage, slavery like practices, forced marriage and deceptive recruiting for labour or services.
• the first reporting period will be FY2019-2020, and the first report will be due within 6 months of the company's financial year end. For most Australian companies this means that the first Modern Slavery Statement must be given to the Home Affairs Minister between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020. Companies with an international financial year may have to report earlier, depending upon the timing of their end of financial year. For example, companies with a 31 March 2020 end of financial year will need to report by 30 September 2020.
• Modern Slavery Statements will be published on a freely accessible public register on the internet - the Modern Slavery Statements Register.
• Joint Modern Slavery Statements are permitted for corporate groups. 
• Modern Slavery Statements must be approved by the Board of Directors of a company. This ensures senior level accountability, leadership and responsibility for modern slavery.
• If a company fails to comply with a reporting requirement, the Minister may seek an explanation from the company and require the company to undertake remedial action in relation to that requirement. If a company fails to comply with the Minister’s request, the Minister may publish information regarding the company’s failure to comply, including the company's name i.e. this failure will become public knowledge. 

No penalties exist in the legislation for not complying with the Act. However, the Government has indicated that if compliance rates are low, the need for penalties will be considered as part of a three year review of the legislation.

Many prominent Australian companies such as Wesfarmers, South 32, Qantas and Fortescue Metals have already published Modern Slavery Statements.

What does the New South Wales legislation require?

The NSW legislation - the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (NSW) - is not yet in force.  It was assented to on 27 June 2018, but it has not yet commenced operation. On 6 August 2019 the NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues announced an inquiry into the NSW Act. The Committee's recommendations are due on 14 February 2020.

Key aspects of the proposed NSW Act are as follows:

• it will apply to companies that have employees in NSW that supply goods and services and have a total annual turnover of not less than $50 million
• financial penalties may be imposed under the Act for failure to comply with the Act. A maximum penalty of $1.1 million is proposed to apply where a company fails to prepare a Modern Slavery Statement, fails to make its Modern Slavery Statement public or provides false or misleading information.
• appointment of an Anti-Slavery Commissioner. The Commissioner’s role will be focused on public awareness, advocacy and advice.

It is not yet certain whether the NSW legislation will operate in addition to the Federal legislation, or whether it will only operate when the Federal legislation does not apply to a particular company.  The proposed NSW Act states that the reporting requirements under the NSW Act will not apply if the organisation is subject to obligations under a law of the Commonwealth or another State or a Territory. So, a possilbe outcome is that companies that file a Modern Slavery Statement under the Federal legislation will not need to report under the NSW Act as well.  However, companies operating in NSW with revenue between $50 and $100 million may need to comply with the NSW Act once it commences operation, as they will be caught by the NSW Act but not the Federal Act.

What does the Western Australian legislation require?

Nothing yet- Western Australia has not yet enacted its own Modern Slavery legislation. However, it seems inevitable that Western Australian legislation will arrive at some point. 

Next steps

It is crucial that companies required to report under the Modern Slavery Legislation begin reviewing their internal processes and supply chains and begin collecting data to comply with the new reporting obligations. This could include: 

• mapping supply chains and undertaking a risk based assessment of where modern slavery risks may arise in those supply chains
• identifying potential modern slavery risks in their internal operations
• reviewing policies and procedures in relation to modern slavery, including supplier codes of conduct and human rights policies
• revise procurement terms and conditions to cover the new obligations
• revise employee codes of conduct and policies to address modern slavery issues
• train employees on modern slavery risks and compliance requirements
• implement procedures to monitor modern slavery risks internally and within supply chains, as well as procedures to look for indicators of potential modern slavery
• make sure supply chain participants are aware of the new obligations
• appointing a senior internal person to take ownership and responsibility for compliance.

For further information on managing your risk and compliance obligations, please contact Damian Quail.  

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

THE ACCC CONTINUES ITS CRACK DOWN ON THE USE OF UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS

Uber Eats agreed this week to amend its contracts with restaurants following an investigation by the ACCC.

From at least 2016, Uber Eats’ contracts made restaurants responsible for the delivery of food orders despite the restaurants having no control over delivery. Under the contracts, if food became “substandard” (for example hot food became cold), Uber Eats could force restaurants to refund the costs of the food to customers, regardless of whether the issue was the restaurants fault. 

ACCC chair Rod Sims said that the ACCC considers these terms to be unfair “because they appear to cause a significant imbalance between restaurants and Uber Eats; the terms were not reasonably necessary to protect Uber Eats and could cause detriment to restaurants."

Uber Eats agreed to amend these terms to make it clear that restaurants will only be responsible for matters within their control, such as incorrect food items or incorrect and missing orders. Under the amended contracts, restaurants will also be given the ability to dispute responsibility for refunds to customers and Uber Eats will reasonably consider these disputes.

Mr Sims said that the case was a “great illustration” of why the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) needs to change. Under the current ACL, a court can declare unfair contract terms to be void and unenforceable, but they are not illegal and penalties cannot be imposed. Mr Sims said that if such contracts were illegal, “we’d be taking them to court for significant penalties.”

Red Rich Fruits

The agreement from Uber follows on from the case involving Red Rich Fruits, a fresh fruit trader, agreeing to amend its standard form contract with growers last month after the ACCC raised concerns that the contract contained an unfair contract term.

The contract term in question allowed Red Rich Fruits to seek credit from a grower in respect of produce which Red Rich Fruits had on-sold to a third party, but which was rejected by the third party. The ACCC considered it likely that this term was an unfair contract term in breach of the ACL. The ACCC also raised concerns that Red Rich Fruits’ standard form contract included terms that did not comply with the pricing formula and payment transparency terms set out in the Horticulture Code of Conduct, a mandatory industry code prescribed under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Red Rich Fruits agreed to amend the pricing and payment clauses in its standard form contract in response to the ACCC’s concerns.

What does this mean for your business?

These cases demonstrate the ACCC’s willingness to crack down on the use of unfair contract terms by businesses across all industries.

The ACCC has also indicated that strengthening unfair contract term protections for small businesses remains one of its top priorities. The ACCC has called for legislative changes so that it can seek penalties and compensation for small businesses where large businesses impose unfair terms.

To avoid sanction by the ACCC and bad publicity (and possible penalties in the future), all businesses should review their standard form contracts to determine if any terms are unfair. 

For further information on unfair contract terms and how we can assist you please contact, please contact Damian Quail or Hanna Forrest on +61 8 9481 2040 or damian.quail@whlaw.com.au or hanna.forrest@whlaw.com.au. 

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Franchising: Federal Court freezes assets of franchisor to protect franchisees who claim they were misled

Background

Jump Swim is an Australian-based franchisor that sells franchises to franchisees wishing to operate their own Jump Swim School to supply learn-to-swim services to children. According to its website Jump Swim has over 65 swim school locations in Australia, and has established operations in Brazil, New Zealand and Singapore.

ACCC secures freezing order against Jump Swim

On 7 June 2019 Justice O’Bryan of the Federal Court made orders freezing the assets of Jump Loops Pty Ltd (Jump Loops) and its parent company Swim Loops Holdings Pty Ltd (collectively Jump Swim), various associated entities of Jump Swim  and Jump Swim’s managing director, Ian Campbell.  His Honour also ordered that Jump Swim and the associated entities identify their liquid assets world-wide comprising cash securities and deposits of any kind held with a financial institution.

Why is the ACCC taking action?

The ACCC instituted proceedings against franchisor Jump Swim in the Federal Court, alleging that it made false, misleading or deceptive statements about Jump Swim School franchises, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL). The freezing order was sought prior to commencing the misleading and deceptive conduct action, for reasons as explained below.

The ACCC is alleging that Jump Swim made representations in its promotional material that a prospective Jump Swim School franchisee would have an operational swim school within 12 months of signing a franchise agreement, when it did not have reasonable grounds for making that statement.

The ACCC claims that there are over 90 Jump Swim franchisees who did not receive an operational swim school within 12 months or at all. The initial costs of setting up a Jump Swim School generally ranged from approximately $150,000 to $175,000.

What is a freezing order?

A freezing order is a form of injunction restraining a party from parting or dealing with property prior to a final court judgment. 

The purpose of a freezing order is to prevent the frustration or inhibition of the Court’s process by seeking to avoid the danger that a judgment or prospective judgment of the Court will be wholly or partly unsatisfied because assets have been dissipated. 

The principles for granting a freezing order are well established:

• the applicant must show that there is a reasonably arguable case
• the applicant must show that there is a risk of dissipation if the injunction is not granted
• the applicant must show that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. 

The Court’s judgement on the freezing order application

In regards to the first condition, Justice O’Bryan was satisfied that the evidence produced by the ACCC shows that there was at least a serious question to the tried whether the alleged conduct of Jump Swim amounted to contraventions of the ACL. This appeared to include conduct that the franchises were sold on a ‘turn-key’ basis, to be handed over and ready to operate and, a representation in the promotional material that there would be a “12 month turnaround from sign to open” of the franchise. The Court referred to the ACCC’s claim that representations made were false, misleading or deceptive and/or likely to mislead or deceive because some 90 franchisees were not provided with an operational franchise within 12 months. 

As to the second condition, His Honour was also satisfied that there was a reasonable apprehension that assets owned directly or indirectly by Jump Swim and Mr Campbell would be dissipated so as to frustrate the relief sought by the ACCC. This apprehension arose from the fact that Mr Campbell and Jump Swim were facing multiple proceedings in Australia, new corporate entities had been recently created to acquire and take over the franchise business and Mr Campbell had established similar business operations in America and New Zealand (and there was evidence of material financial transactions between the Jump Swim Group and the overseas entities).  

Lastly, in relation to the balance of convenience, Justice O’Bryan noted that the application was brought on an ex-parte basis to avoid risk of the dissipation of assets. An ex-parte application is a Court proceeding where only the party seeking the Court order appears before the Court. In those circumstances, His Honour ordered that the orders would continue until 12 June 2019, at which time the prospective respondents and associated entities would have an opportunity to be heard. On this basis, it was found that the prejudice to the prospective respondents and associated entities would be temporarily confined. The freezing orders have now been extended until the hearing and determination of the substantive proceedings.

The misleading and deceptive conduct proceedings in the Federal Court

After obtaining the freezing orders the ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Jump Swim, alleging that it made false, misleading or deceptive statements about Jump Swim School franchises in contravention of the ACL, as described above. Mr Campbell is also a respondent in the proceedings. The ACCC claims that Mr Campbell was involved in the conduct.

According to the ACCC’s Concise Statement dated 17 June 2019, the ACCC claims that Jump Swim made false or misleading representations in its promotional material about the time it would take to set up an operating swim school business franchise in breach of sections 18 and 29 of the ACL, and that Jump Loops accepted payment from franchisees without providing operational franchises within the time specified or within a reasonable time, and in circumstances where it did not have reasonable grounds to believe it could do so in contravention of section 36 of the ACL. 

In a media release dated 18 June 2019 the ACCC says that many franchisees were not provided with an operational swim school within the represented time frame of 12 months or at all. The ACCC Chair Mick Keogh also said “Franchisors need to take their obligations under the Australian Consumer Law seriously. Purchasing a franchise is a big decision, and people looking to open a franchise business rely on the information from the franchisor being accurate…We allege this conduct caused substantial harm to franchisees who paid significant sums but did not receive an operational swim school within the time specified, or at all”.

The ACCC is seeking injunctions, declarations, pecuniary penalties, redress for franchisees, disqualification orders, and orders as to findings of fact, and costs.

What this means for Jump Swim franchisees 

Jump Swim franchisees should keep informed of the ACCC’s action as it proceeds, as the outcome may directly affect them. Should there be orders made against Jump Swim or if Jump Swim becomes insolvent, this could have immediate repercussions for them. 

Are you a franchisor or franchisee?

These proceedings act as a reminder to all potential franchisees to do their own due diligence before entering into a franchisee agreement and making payment. 

Franchisors also need to be very careful about what promises they make to prospective franchisees.

Williams + Hughes can assist you in several ways, including the following:

• drafting or reviewing franchise agreements
• advising in relation to exiting a franchise arrangement
• advising in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct by franchisors
• advising in relation to disputes concerning the franchise agreement, non-solicitation and restraint of trade of former franchisees, and claims relating to competition by the franchisor or other franchisees.

For further information on how we can assist please contact Leanne Allison or Damian Quail on +61 8 9481 2040 or leanne.allison@whlaw.com.au and damian.quail@whlaw.com.au.

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.

New laws imposing mandatory requirements for businesses that supply services: your T&C’s and website must be updated by 9 June 2019

Recent amendments to the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 impose new mandatory wording requirements in relation to the supply of services and also the supply of goods in combination with services.

The new requirements take effect on 9 June 2019. Failure to comply with the new laws can attract a $50,000 fine.

Australian businesses that have not updated their trading terms and conditions, product manuals, warranty cards, marketing materials, product packaging and websites must act quickly to avoid breaching the new laws.

The new mandatory wording requirements make it compulsory for businesses to inform consumers that any warranties or guarantees against defects that are contained in a business’ documents or website do not override the statutory consumer guarantees provided in the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL).

The new requirements apply in respect of any services supplied at a value of $40,000 or less or in respect of any services of a kind that are usually acquired for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption.

The new laws prescribe mandatory text that must be reproduced verbatim. The specific wording required depends on whether the warranty or guarantee against defects applies in relation to the supply of services or the supply of goods in combination with services. The supply of goods alone is already covered by mandatory text requirements that have been part of the ACL for some time.

The ACL also imposes other requirement that warranty documentation and T&C’s must comply with. Now is a good time to ensure your documents and websites are up to date.

For further information on how these changes may impact on your business please contact Damian Quail, Director at Williams + Hughes on +61 8 9481 2040 or damian.quail@whlaw.com.au.

This article is general information only, at the date it is posted.  It is not, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice.  This article might not be updated over time and therefore may not reflect changes to the law.  Please feel free to contact us for legal advice that is specific to your situation.