If you are building in high bushfire risk area, make sure you read the bushfire building regulations before starting work. Some states have brought in new laws that allows owners to clear a larger portion of vegetation from around their homes than normal. This is the so called 10/50 rule as it lets you clear trees and shrubs that grow within ten meters of the house, and other undergrowth that is within fifty meters of the dwelling. This is because it is vital to maintain a clear area around the house to reduce fuel. You’ll also want to make sure you have no overhanging trees or foliage around the house as this greatly increases you fire risk.

A fairly new system of rating a buildings bushfire risk is the BAL (Bushfire attack level) which is made up of six levels from “Low risk” to the disturbingly named “flame zone”. Depending on which category your building site falls under, determines the types of materials that should be used in any building or additions. For example, any doors or window in high risk areas generally need to use a high fire rated glass and fire retardant frames. If you are looking to install new door hardware or windows, Brio offer a large range of quality sliding doors that can be made fire compliant yet still retain effortless elegance. Brio’s door hardware can stand the test of time and allow homes to be fully secure when needed yet open and light filled.

In general you will need to factor in extra costs if you building in a high risk zone, but don’t let this stop you from designing a great house. Sometimes these limitations can actually lead to even better architecture!

Number one. Make sure whichever builder you choose is a fully licensed and insured residential builder. It sound obvious but I have seen many people simply choose a builder based on a vague recommendation that they later find out was not qualified to carry out the project. If things go wrong you want to be sure that the builder has sound insurance to cover any potential mistakes – otherwise you will be paying the bill.

Ensure your legal building contract is watertight and does not have any loopholes that may come back to haunt you. If you have concerns, speak with a lawyer or solicitor that has experience with property/building law.

Make a detailed schedule to limit the chances of a project going over time and cost. Most people think this simply involves setting a start and end date, however it require a little more depth than this. Make sure you devise a task list and completion date for each and keep a record of what is actually happening building wise to see if you slipping behind schedule. Also, it’s a good idea to keep you own record of what trades people are on site on each day, to make sure they align with the overall schedule as it can be very important to have certain trades working before others.

Ask the builder how they will protect your valuable property. Make sure you have this discussion before walls start tumbling down and you home is covered in dust. There are many dust reduction solutions that can be used, such as using plastic sheets to cordon off areas of the house and high powered vacuums to beat dust before it settles. If you are really worried, its best to remove books, objects or paintings before work starts.

ASIC has issued a major cyber resilience report. A cyber attack occurs when computer systems, networks and technology dependent enterprises are deliberately utilized for illegitimate ends. Organisations need to develop cyber resilience, which is the ability to prepare for, and respond to, a cyber attack. But organisations need to also be capable of continuing their operations during a cyber attack or to at least be rapidly able to recover. The result hoped to be achieved by cyber risk management and cybersecurity measures is cyber resilience.

ASIC’s Report 429 Cyber resilience: Health Check highlights to investors and markets that the ability to prepare, respond, adapt and recover from a cyber attack is vital for the markets to retain financial consumers’ trust and confidence.

The integrity and efficiency of global markets can be easily compromised by a cyber attack because of the electronic linkages within the financial system. The ASIC report suggests businesses flag relevant legal and compliance requirements, especially on disclosure and risk management.

ASIC suggests businesses should consider using the United States’ NIST Cybersecurity Framework for checking on cyber risk management practices. The NIST Framework is a voluntary, technology-neutral cyber risk management tool for organisations. It uses a common language to manage cyber risk and is based on assessments of company resources, risk tolerances and business requirements.

The ASIC report aims to assist businesses improve their cyber resilience by increasing awareness of cyber risks, encourage industry and government to work together to achieve cyber resilience and to identify how cyber risks should be addressed in accordance with ASIC’s jurisdiction in relation to current legal and compliance obligations. ASIC considers that it is an appropriate part of its role as the regulator of corporations, markets, financial services and consumer credit to incorporate cyber resilience in its surveillance programs.

If a good is purchased and the consumer then changes their mind and tries to return the item, the ACL does not automatically require the retailer to refund the purchase price or to exchange the good. However a right to a refund does arise if you advised the salesperson that the item was needed for a specific purpose and the good does not meet that requirement.

When an item is faulty the ACL does offer remedies for consumers. But a distinction is drawn between a major fault and a minor fault and there exist differing remedies for these.

If the good is unsafe, or it does not do what it is supposed to do or is different from the description or you would not have bought the item if you knew about the problem it is a major fault. In any of these scenarios the consumer can choose to have a refund, have the item replaced or to have the good repaired. Retailers do not have the option of applying a 30 day time limit to these types of returns.

If the good has a minor fault which can be fixed fairly quickly and easily, the retailer can choose to give the consumer a refund, replace the product, or repair it.

The ACL applies to all types of Australian consumer transactions, including online sales. For instance, if you bought a laptop from a company whose website supplied information about the weight of its products and after receiving the laptop you thought it was too heavy to carry comfortable, unless you had made your needs known to the seller, you would not be entitled to return the laptop for a refund.

But it is vital to realise that the ACL only applies to Australian-based retailers, not when the retailer is from overseas and not if they are a private seller.

So, beware when buying online from overseas-based sellers.

Criminal law, on the other hand, is concerned with the punishment of the wrongdoer. The focus of tort law is to compensate or provide another remedy for the victim.

Negligence is the most common tort, and an action can be brought where a careless act by a person causes harm to another. Importantly, there was no intent by the person to cause harm, for example, most car accidents are the result of negligence.

To succeed in a negligence action, the injured person needs to prove that the careless person

• owed the injured person a duty to take care
• breached that duty to take care AND
• the harm suffered by the breach was caused by the breach (causation).

It is the third element, causation, that is the focus of changes to shareholder class actions. A class action is a single legal action that can be brought on behalf of many hundreds or even thousands of victims. Shareholder class actions are brought by groups of shareholders in relation to corporate mismanagement.

Victims’ lawyers and litigation funders are increasingly arguing that a lower test for causation for shareholder’s class actions should be used by courts. Their argument is that the more difficult causation to prove, which is direct or individual reliance is inappropriate in a stock market setting. The traditional test requires each member to prove that they relied on a company’s misleading disclosure when making the decision to buy the securities.

Some lawyers claim that the proper causation standard should be indirect or market reliance. As this lower standard of causation is easier to prove, the recognition of this by the courts would mean a far greater increase in the number of shareholder class actions being brought against companies.

This would have a significant commercial effect, as well as social outcomes, as companies and their directors would be faced with defending more litigation by disgruntled shareholders. Arguably they may not be able to effectively run their business when there is a constant threat of litigation.

Investing in the stock market holds risks for investors and the lower test for causation may be over-protecting consumers – treating them as children instead of as intelligent investors.

Credit licensees must comply with the responsible lending conduct obligations in Chapter 3 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (National Credit Act). Importantly, the rules in this part of the Act apply to licensees that provide credit assistance in relation to credit contracts, as well as to the credit providers themselves.

The rules are aimed at helping to prevent consumers from entering into credit contracts that are not suitable for their circumstances. These obligations placed on providers of credit assistance mean that consumers are better informed before they enter into credit contracts. Vulnerable consumers who may be particularly subject to exploitation are especially protected by the provisions.

One of the fundamental obligations on credit licensees is that they are required to make reasonable inquiries into an individual consumer’s specific circumstances. Secondly, reasonable steps must be taken in order to verify the consumer’s true financial situation. This ensures that consumers are able to meet their repayment obligations without substantial hardship and that the credit contracts entered into meet the requirements and objectives of the consumer. Thirdly a person providing credit assistance must make a preliminary assessment, or a person providing the credit must make a final assessment about whether the credit contract is ‘not unsuitable’ for the consumer. This determination should be based on the inquiries and information obtained from the consumer.

So, the credit licensees must not suggest a credit contract to a consumer, assist a consumer to apply for a credit contract or enter into a credit contract with a consumer if the credit contract is unsuitable for the consumer.

ASIC has released a Regulatory Guide to assist licensees to understand their obligations – RG209 Credit licensing: Responsible lending conduct. This guide was updated in November 2014 following a Federal Court judgment, to better inform licensees.

In the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] FCA 926, ASIC launched proceedings against payday lender, The Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (TCS), and loan funder, Assistive Finance Australia Pty Ltd (AFA). The Federal Court found that both companies breached consumer credit laws and engaged in unconscionable conduct in the sale of insurance.

The Federal Court ruled that both institutions did not comply with their responsible lending obligations to their particular customers. Most of their customers were on low incomes, or in receipt of Centrelink benefits, such as unemployment benefits.  The Court further held that TCS acted unconscionably in selling consumer credit insurance in relation to these loans when it was unlikely that that insurance could ever provide any benefit to their customers. The Federal Court clarified that to enable a meaningful assessment of whether a loan is suitable, credit licensees must inquire about the customer’s current income and living expenses. As well as those inquiries, further information must be obtained depending on the circumstances of the particular consumer involved.

The maximum penalty for a corporation for breaching responsible lending and credit guide laws is $1.1 million for each contravention.

Ambion is a Sydney-based web development Sydney company that covers all your legal bases.