COVID-19 - Updates, Webinars and Resources

Do you need help with Probate?

Our expert legal team is ready to take your call

Mitchell is the Managing Principal of Sharrock Pitman Legal. He is an Accredited Specialist in Commercial Law (accredited by the Law Institute of Victoria). He also deals with areas of Employment Law, Wills & Estate Planning and Probate and can answer all your questions related to probate.

For further information, contact Mitchell on his direct line:


CALL: (03) 8561 3318

To what extent can an employer use workplace policies to regulate what their employees say outside work? The question has become very topical, with the high profile court cases of Israel Folau and Michaela Banerji both making headlines last year. The question has arisen again, this time in a recent decision by the Full Federal Court in a case involving Dr Gary Rumble, a constitutional lawyer, and his former employer, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers.

The question is a fraught one, and brings together questions of contract, free speech, the extent to which employers can regulate out of work conduct, and in Folau’s case, religious freedom. Whilst this is very much a developing area of law, there are nonetheless important lessons employers and employees can learn from these three cases.

Unlawful dismissal? Workplace media policies and the law

Employers commonly have policies regulating what employees can say on social media, online or to the press. Policies allow employers to set the expectations that they have for their employees. If an employee breaches an employer’s policy, the employee may be in breach of their contractual obligations to their employer. In the three cases, the employers in question determined that their employees had breached their policies in so serious a manner as to warrant dismissal:

  • In Dr Rumble’s case, by criticising the Department of Defence, a client of HWL Ebsworth, on Channel 7’s Weekend Sunrise program, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times. The Department of Defence had engaged HWL Ebsworth – and Dr Rumble – to prepare a review of the Department, and Dr Rumble was so frustrated that the Government was not taking his advice that he went public with his criticisms.
  • In Michaela Banerji’s case, by making numerous anonymous tweets and blog posts criticising her employer, the Department of Immigration.
  • In Israel Folau’s case, by tweeting a paraphrase of a biblical passage widely considered offensive to people in same-sex relationships.

In both the Rumble and Banerji cases, the employers won. The Folau case settled out of court, meaning that we do not know how a court would deal with a situation like his, were it to arise again.

The legal claims by the three employees were different, but the basic argument was that the employer had dismissed the employee for an illegal reason, because the actions of the employee were lawful and protected:

  • In the Rumble and Banerji cases, that the employee has a right to express their political opinions; and
  • In Folau’s case, that he had the right to express his religious views.

Legally, the Banerji case is only relevant to public servants, but it does highlight that Australia does not have a constitutional right to ‘free speech’ as such, and Parliament can regulate speech provided it has a legitimate end. Maintaining an impartial public service, the High Court said, is a legitimate end for which the Parliament and government could regulate the speech of government employees through the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.

Is it unlawful to prevent employee’s public comments?

The Rumble case, on the other hand, provides an example that may have broader practical implications. In this case, Justice Perram at first instance found that HWL Ebsworth had not dismissed Dr Rumble for expressing a political opinion. Rather, the firm had dismissed him for publically commenting on a client of the firm, without permission, and it was only incidental that the client happened to be the Federal Government. Justice Perram found that, as to Dr Rumble’s political views, ‘the Firm was at least indifferent and quite possibly in fact sympathetic’ with those views. The decision was upheld on appeal. The takeaway is that it was not unlawful for HWL Ebsworth to prevent its employees publically commenting on clients of the firm. It was incidental that the views were political because of the nature of the client however this ultimately did not make dismissing Dr Rumble based on the workplace policy unlawful.

To what extent can views be regulated?

In Folau’s case, the connection between his social media post and his employment was weaker than in the Rumble and Banerji cases, though Rugby Australia argued that Folau’s comments could have had a serious impact on it, with sponsors threatening to withdraw funding. Rugby Australia no doubt had a commercial interest in having its employees avoid making controversial comments, but it is unclear to what extent such considerations could allow them to regulate the content of their employees’ social media comments, particularly if those comments were religious or political in nature. The Federal Government’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill may provide a legislative answer to that question, in favour of the employee, but in the meantime the law is uncertain. The case highlights the difficulties that arise when employees promote personal views that an employer finds problematic.

Both the Rumble and Banerji cases show that the courts are willing to uphold disciplinary action taken by employers against employees who breach workplace policies aimed at protecting the employer’s reputation.

There is therefore value for an employer to have workplace policies in place that set out clearly an employer’s expectations of their employees’ out of work conduct on social media and other platforms. Nonetheless, there are limits to an employer’s ability to hold employees accountable for what they say and do outside work, and special care needs to be taken if the comments made by an employee are religious or political in nature. The border between work life and personal life is less distinct than it was in the past, but it still exists.

How can Sharrock Pitman Legal assist?

If you require assistance or advice regarding workplace social media policies, our employment team would be happy to assist you. Contact us on (03) 9560 2922 or alternatively fill in the contact form below.

The information contained in this article is intended to be of a general nature only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Any legal matters should be discussed specifically with one of our lawyers.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Written by one of our lawyers

,

.

Samuel Ellemor

For further information contact

Samuel Ellemor

Samuel is a Legal Practitioner at Sharrock Pitman Legal.

He deals with areas of Commercial Law, Employment Law and Charities & Not for Profit Law. For further information, contact Samuel on his direct line (03) 8561 3316.

More on

Employment Law

However, in this article we will set out the factors that influence how long it will take to obtain a Grant of Probate and to administer an estate in Victoria.

The basics

First things first: what is a Grant of Probate? A Grant of Probate is effectively a document issued by the Supreme Court of Victoria which formally authorises an executor to manage the estate of a deceased person in accordance with their Will. Without Probate, the asset holders (say a bank or share registry) cannot be satisfied as who has the correct authority to receive the deceased's assets and may refuse to pay out.

Sometimes, for smaller estates or if assets are mostly jointly owned with a surviving spouse, asset holders might agree to release payment without requiring a Grant of Probate. This is usually on the basis that the person who receives payment promises to repay (or Indemnify) the asset holder if it turns out they paid to the wrong person.

If there is no Will, then you cannot obtain a Grant of Probate. Instead you obtain Letters of Administration. This is effectively the same, in terms of authorising someone to administer the estate, and would usually be obtained by the person who is the closest next-of-kin to the deceased.

“A Grant of Probate is effectively a document issued by the Supreme Court of Victoria which formally authorises an executor to manage the estate of a deceased person in accordance with their Will.”

Timeframes for Probate in Victoria

In order to obtain a Grant of Probate, the Court needs to be given information about the assets and liabilities of the estate, the deceased person, the witnesses to the Will, the executors and the Will itself. An advertisement of your intention to apply for Probate must also be placed on the Supreme Court website for at least 14 days prior to any application.

Often, making enquires to obtain all the necessary information can take a number of weeks. Also, you will need the Death Certificate for the application for Grant of Probate and possibly for making proper enquires regarding the assets and liabilities. Waiting for the Death Certificate to issue can therefore add a few more weeks to the process. Overall, if you have your application for Grant of Probate lodged within 1 to 2 months from the date of death, you are making timely progress.

The Court itself does not take long to process the application (maybe another 1 to 2 weeks) and this is done 'on the papers' using the electronic Court filing system. This means you do not have to go to a court hearing. There is also a general discretion for the Court to issue a 'Requisition' asking that you provide more information before they process the application and this can delay matters.

“Overall, if you have your application for Grant of Probate lodged within 1 to 2 months from the date of death, you are making timely progress.”

So, here we are a few months after death and you finally have a Grant of Probate. It is important to remember that this is the start of the estate administration and not the end. For a very simple estate, you might only need a further month or so to cash the assets and pay them to the correct beneficiaries. However, it can often be more complex than that. Factors that determine the timeframe to administer the estate include:-

  • Some assets will take time to cash or transfer. For example, if selling a property, final settlement might be 60/90/120 days from the day of sale.
  • There is a 6 month period for challenges to be brought against the estate and executors must wait until this period expires before distributing the estate, if there is any risk that a disgruntled family member might come forward.
  • There might need to be final tax returns for the deceased or for the estate. Failing to wait for the ATO to process these could leave the executor personally liable for a tax bill.
  • You might need to advertise for creditors to come forward and wait for a period of months while this advertising timeframe expires. This protects the executor if they are unsure of all of the deceased's financial dealings and creditors.
  • It might not always be a good time to immediately cash estate assets. For example, the shares just took a nose-dive, do you still sell regardless of available price?

There is a general rule that executors have an 'executor's year' to complete the estate administration. This means that you should be aiming to have the estate finalised and distributed within 12 months from the date of death.

The information contained in this article is intended to be of a general nature only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Any legal matters should be discussed specifically with one of our lawyers.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Need help with Probate?

Our expert legal team is ready to take your call!

Mitchell is the Managing Principal of Sharrock Pitman Legal. He is an Accredited Specialist in Commercial Law (accredited by the Law Institute of Victoria). He also deals with areas of Employment Law, Wills & Estate Planning and Probate and can answer all your questions related to probate.

For further information, contact Mitchell on his direct line:

DIRECT LINE: 
(03) 8561 3318

Download our FREE legal guide to Probates & Estates in Australia

GET YOUR FREE DOWNLOAD

Enter your details

Thanks for your interest! 

Here's your download:
DOWNLOAD PDF
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Could your business do with a “health check”?

Fill in our survey about the legal health of your business and get 30 minutes FREE legal advice!

FILL OUT SURVEY NOW

Could your Not for Profit organisation do with a "health check"?

Fill in our survey about the legal health of your organisation and get 30 minutes FREE legal advice!

FILL OUT SURVEY NOW

About Sharrock Pitman Legal

For fifty years Sharrock Pitman Legal has made a significant and long term contribution to meeting the legal needs of business owners and residents in the City of Monash and greater Melbourne area.