Compliance & regulatory advice

Compliance & regulatory advice lawyers Sydney

Staying compliant with the latest laws and regulations can be a challenging task, especially for businesses operating in highly regulated industries. But with Heathfield Grosvenor, you can have peace of mind knowing that you have a team of experts on your side.

Our services include but are not limited to:

Advising on the latest compliance and regulatory requirements and best practices
Reviewing and updating company policies and procedures to ensure compliance
Representing clients in investigations and enforcement actions by regulatory bodies
Providing training and education on compliance and regulatory matters
Assisting with the development and implementation of internal controls and compliance programs

At Heathfield Grosvenor, we understand the importance of being proactive when it comes to compliance and regulatory issues. Our team of experts will work closely with you to understand your unique business needs and provide tailored solutions that meet your specific requirements.

Don’t let compliance and regulatory issues slow down your business. Contact us today to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced lawyers. We are here to help you navigate the complexities of this area of law and ensure that your business stays compliant and protected.

Related insights

Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 (Bill) was introduced by the House of Representatives on 1 March 2017. A report of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee is presently due by 9 May 2017. It is anticipated that the Bill (in its current form or otherwise with amendments) will receive Royal Assent later this year. The Bill addresses the findings of various well publicised reports regarding the exploitation of workers (including migrant workers under temporary work visas). Briefly, the measures to be introduced include: Higher penalties[1] for “serious contraventions[2]” of various workplace laws[3] (to act as a deterrent); Prohibitions against employers unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments (e.g. requiring their wages to be paid back in cash); Making franchisors and holding companies[4] potentially liable for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they “knew or could reasonably be expected to have known” that the contraventions, or similar contraventions, would at least be likely to occur and failed to take reasonable steps[5] to prevent them; Higher penalties for record keeping failures; and Increased evidence gathering / investigatory powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman. The following activities are examples of some reasonable steps which could be taken by franchisors and holding companies (who have a significant degree of influence or control over their franchisees or subsidiaries) to try to avoid a contravention of the Bill (if and when enacted), depending on the size and influence of the relevant franchisor or holding company: ensuring that the franchise agreement or other business arrangements require franchisees to comply with workplace laws. Consider appropriate amendments to your franchise manual for example; providing franchisees or subsidiaries with a copy of the FWO’s free Fair Work Handbook and information notices / circulars; encouraging franchisees or subsidiaries to cooperate with any audits by the FWO; establishing a contact or phone number for employees to report any potential underpayment to the business; and auditing of companies in the network. ……………………… [1] Up to $108,000 for individuals and $540,000 for corporations [2] Where the conduct constituting the contravention was deliberate (i.e. expressly, tacitly, or impliedly authorised) and part of a systematic pattern of conduct bearing in mind the number of contraventions, the period of time during which the contraventions occurred, the effect of the contraventions, and any other relevant considerations [3] e.g. contravening the National Employment Standards, a modern award, enterprise agreement, workplace determination, national minimum wage order, equal remuneration order, certain payment related provisions and record provisions [4] Who have a significant degree of influence or control over the affairs of their franchisee or subsidiary [5] The court will take into account factors such as the size and resources of the franchisor or holding company, their ability to influence or control, any action taken to ensure that the franchisee or subsidiary knew about their obligations under the specific workplace laws, any arrangements in place for assessing compliance with the specific workplace laws, whether there are any complaints related arrangements in place, and the extent to which compliance with the specific workplace laws is encouraged or required by the franchisor or holding company

a-guide-to-statutory-demands featured photo

Guide to Statutory Demands – What to Do When Served

Intro If a company owes one or more debts which are due and payable to a creditor and which remain outstanding, it is possible that the creditor may decide to serve a statutory demand on the debtor company. The statutory demand may require the debtor company to either pay the debt(s) in full or provide security for the debt(s) to the creditor’s reasonable satisfaction within 21 days after the demand is served on the company[1]. Requirements for a valid demand In summary the requirements for a valid statutory demand on a company are as follows: If the demand relates to a single debt the demand must specify the debt and its amount. If the demand relates to 2 or more debts then the demand must specify the total; The total debt(s) owed must be more than $2,000; The demand must require payment of the debt or the debtor company to secure or compound the debt to the creditors reasonable satisfaction within 21 days of service of the demand on the debtor company; The demand must be in writing, in the prescribed form, and signed by or on behalf of the creditor; and If there is no judgement in respect of the debt then the demand must be accompanied by an affidavit which clearly verifies that the debt is due and payable in full and the affidavit must comply with the rules. Bear in mind the available grounds to have the demand set aside, and the likely costs outcome if it is set aside (discussed below). All of the circumstances should be considered before deciding to proceed with service of a demand. Time is of the essence If you are on the receiving end of a statutory demand, legal advice should immediately be sought. If the debtor company does not take any action (i.e. comply with the demand, ensure that the demand is no longer in effect, or apply to the relevant Court) within 21 days of service of the demand, and the demand is still in effect, the creditor[2] can immediately apply for the debtor company to be wound up and the Court “must” presume that the debtor company is insolvent[3]. Extensions of time are not possible. Aside from the very harsh effects of winding up proceedings on the debtor company, the onus will be on the debtor company to then prove that it is in fact solvent. In such circumstances the debtor company will not, without the leave of the Court[4], be able to oppose the application on a ground that it might otherwise be able to do so in an application to set aside the statutory demand. Application to set aside a statutory demand If however an application is made to set aside the statutory demand within 21 days of service, supported by an affidavit, and the application to set aside the statutory demand along with the supporting affidavit is served on the person who served the demand on the debtor company within the 21 day period[5], then the application to set aside the demand would be validly issued[6]. Grounds for setting aside the statutory demand The Court must be satisfied either: that there is a “genuine dispute” between the company and the creditor about the existence or amount of the debt; that the debtor company has an offsetting claim[7]; that there is a defect in the demand “and substantial injustice will be caused unless the demand is set aside”; or that some other reason exists why the demand should be set aside[8]. If the demand is set aside then there will be no automatic presumption of insolvency and it is likely that the creditor would have to pay the debtors costs of the application to set aside[9] unless the debtor has behaved unreasonably. ……………………… [1] S.459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) [2] being one of the class of persons under s.459P of the Corps Act [3] s.459C (2) (a) of the Corps Act [4] the Court can only grant leave if it is satisfied that the ground is “material” to proving that the company is solvent under s.459S of the Corps Act. [5] Sufficient time must be allowed for service in compliance with s.109X of the Corps Act. Any person receiving a statutory demand must take action immediately. [6] s.459G of the Corps Act [7] s.459H of the Corps Act [8] s.459J of the Corps Act [9] s.459N of the Corps Act

Minimum Employment Terms and Conditions in Australia

Employers who wish to sponsor skilled employees from overseas are, in summary, required under the subclass 457 scheme to provide terms and conditions which are at least equivalent to those which an Australian citizen or permanent resident would achieve performing the same work at the same location. This is an ongoing requirement not least because it is a 457 sponsorship condition, and severe sanctions can result in non-compliance. Its primary purpose is to prevent the undercutting of the local Australian labour market, protect overseas employees from exploitation, and maintain integrity in the scheme. In Australia, the employment relationship is governed or affected by a number of different parameters, all of which are variable depending upon the circumstances: Applicable Federal, State and/or Territory legislation: These include the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Fair Work Act establishes the National Employment Standards. Industrial instruments: There are various awards and statutory agreements / enterprise agreements which may impact upon the minimum terms and conditions with which an employee must be provided (for example by amending or adding to the National Employment Standards, and setting minimum wages for particular occupations). Contract of employment: This is agreed between the employer and the employee. Terms are both express and implied into the contract: Express terms: These are usually the written terms and conditions of the employment contract but may include terms and conditions which have been agreed verbally and also provisions of internal employment policies and any other terms (if they have been incorporated into the contract by reference for example). Implied terms: Terms can be implied into the employment relationship through custom, and the common law also implies terms into every employment relationship. Importantly, the contractual terms cannot override or detract from legislation and so the contract needs to provide terms and conditions which are at least equivalent to the terms and conditions required by applicable law (referred to under points 1 and 2 above). It is therefore important to be mindful of the tasks and functions of the occupation in question (and any changes from time to time which may alter the nature of the role), and the minimum requirements which are prescribed by the law for that particular occupation. In addition, the obligation upon 457 visa employer sponsors is broader in the sense that market salary rate conditions (not merely the requirement to pay a minimum wage) are also relevant, and market salary rates may fluctuate from time to time.

Additional damages for copyright infringement

Under Australian law, victims of copyright infringement may be entitled to an account of profits or compensatory damages under s.115 (2) of the Copyright Act 1951 (Cth) (Copyright Act). Additional damages may also be available under section 115(4) of the Copyright Act. That section provides: (4)Where, in an action under this section: (a)an infringement of copyright is established; and (b)the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so, having regard to: (i)the flagrancy of the infringement; and (ia)the need to deter similar infringements of copyright; and (ib)the conduct of the defendant after the act constituting the infringement or, if relevant, after the defendant was informed that the defendant had allegedly infringed the plaintiff’s copyright; and (ii)whether the infringement involved the conversion of a work or other subject‐matter from hardcopy or analog form into a digital or other electronic machine‐readable form; and (iii)any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason of the infringement; and (iv)all other relevant matters; the court may, in assessing damages for the infringement, award such additional damages as it considers appropriate in the circumstances. The purpose of additional damages is to deter copyright infringement. The amount of additional damages awarded will depend on the facts of the case, such as the nature and extent of the infringement, the level of harm suffered by the copyright owner, and any aggravating or mitigating factors. It is worth noting that the award of additional damages is discretionary and not automatic, and that the copyright owner must prove their entitlement to such damages. Additionally, courts may consider other factors such as the infringer’s conduct, their level of knowledge of the infringement, and any steps taken to remedy the infringement when determining whether to award additional damages. Top Plus Pty Ltd v Mix Entertainment Pty Ltd [2022] FEDCFAMC2G 981 This case concerned Top Plus Pty Ltd who were applying for summary judgment against the first respondent, Mix Entertainment Pty Ltd, and the second respondent, Mr Yiren Wang, for infringement under ss 115 and 116 of the Copyright Act1968 (Cth) of copyright in certain cinematograph films owned by the second applicant, Universal Music Limited, and exclusively licensed to the first applicant, Top Plus Pty Ltd. The cinematograph films were karaoke music videos (KMVs). They comprised approximately 6,214 Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese) and English KMVs, and new releases of KMVs added from time to time, owned and controlled by Universal Music, released in Hong Kong and Australia, and/or supplied commercially in Australia in VCD/DVD format or electronic form (collectively, the KMV Films). Mix Entertainment had previously been accused of alleged unlicensed use of copyright in the KMV Films in infringement of applicants’ rights. That earlier dispute was resolved in 2012 prior to the commencement of suit by entry into a written non‐exclusive licence agreement between Top Plus and Mix Entertainment, signed by Mr Wang in his capacity as sole director of Mix Entertainment on 30 April 2012 (2012 Agreement). Pursuant to the 2012 Agreement, Top Plus permitted Mix Entertainment to offer the licensed content — the KMV Films — for viewing and singing by customers in up to 13 rooms at Mix Entertainment’s karaoke outlet ‘Mix Karaoke’ for the period of the licence. The 2012 Agreement expired on 31 December 2012. Compensatory damages which applied the licence fee test were awarded in the sum of $179,616.70. Principles governing an award of additional damages under s.115(4) of the Copyright Act 1951 (Cth) Reference was made to a summary of the principles relating to an award of additional damages at [717] – [721] of Microsoft Corporation v CPL Notting Hill Pty Ltd (No 7) [2022] FedFamC2G 590. In short, the principles are: First, it is not necessary that any amount of additional damages be proportionate to any award of compensatory damages. Secondly, an award of additional damages involves an element of penalty. Thirdly, part of the [function] of an award of additional damages is to mark the Court’s disapproval or opprobrium of the infringing conduct. Fourthly, the matters set out in sub‐s 115(4)(b) of the Copyright Act are not preconditions to an award of such damages. Fifthly, conduct that may properly be seen as flagrant (per s 115(4)(b), Copyright Act) includes conduct which involves a deliberate and calculated infringement, a calculated disregard of an applicant’s rights, or a cynical pursuit of benefit In addition: If additional damages are appropriate, the amount of damages to be awarded must operate as a sufficient deterrent to ensure that the conduct will not occur again. It should also be noted that, whilst additional damages encompass, they are not the same as aggravated or exemplary damages at common law. Specific deterrence has a role to play, including general deterrence. It is not always the case, however, that additional damages must be given, nor that they be such as to be given in an award and an amount as claimed by an applicant. Additional damages may be seen as encompassing broad concepts not always readily amenable to precise measurement or quantification. This includes having regard to capturing aspects of loss that have not been able to be ascertained because of the imperfect nature of litigation and evidence gathering in reflecting all aspects of wrongdoing and the total damaging effect of infringing or contravening conduct. It also entails giving a dollar figure to otherwise intangible considerations of punishment, giving effect to judicial disapproval and sanction and future‐looking considerations of specific and general deterrence. A key consideration when deciding to exercise the discretion afforded to the Court under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act is whether the infringement was flagrant. As noted by Beach J in Henley Arch Pty Ltd v Lucky Homes Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1217; 120 IPR 137 at [244] (citations omitted): [244]…in this context flagrancy means more than copying. It also means more than mere mistakes or carelessness. It connotes reprehensible conduct or scandalous conduct which may be demonstrated by deliberate and calculated acts of infringement. But it is not necessary to demonstrate a consciousness of copyright infringement. A consciousness of wrongdoing may be sufficient. In Truong Giang Corporation v Quach [2015] FCA 1097; (2015) 114 IPR 498 , discussing the relevant principles in the trade mark context, applicable also to the copyright context, per s 115(4)(b)(ib), Copyright Act) Wigney J said at [138]–[139]: [138]Sixth, post‐infringement conduct within s 126(2)(c) of the [Trade Mark Act 1995 (Cth) (TM Act)] is unlikely to include the respondent’s conduct of