A NEW ERA FOR CARBON FIBRE MANUFACTURING

23-Jun-2021

Mitchell Business Lawyers is proud to be part of LeMond Team which today announced a $58M partnership with Deakin University to commercialise groundbreaking technology to bring low cost high volume carbon fibre to the global market. RCL negotiated the exclusive licensing arrangement on behalf of LeMond Composites LLC, a company founded by Greg LeMond. Mr LeMond is a three times winner of the Tour De France and two times winner of the world cycling championship, an entrepreneur, innovator and visionary in carbon fibre production.

Link: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/

Updated Guidelines of Responsibilities of Proprietor Pharmacists

6-Oct-2019

The Pharmacy Board of Australia (‘Board’) released updated guidelines on 2 September 2019. The updated Guidelines for Proprietor Pharmacists (‘Guidelines’) highlight current legislative requirements in connection with registration, and guidance on the responsibilities of pharmacists. The revised Guideline will take effect from 7 December 2019.

Who needs to comply with the Guidelines?

The Guidelines apply to all registered pharmacists who own a pecuniary or proprietary interest in a pharmacy business, as well as to pharmacists who hold a position of authority in a corporate structure or who act as a trustee of a trust in a corporate structure. A proprietary or pecuniary interest means a legal or beneficial interest and includes a proprietary interest as a sole practitioner, partner, director, member or shareholder of a company and as a trustee or beneficiary of a trust.

If a pharmacist chooses not to comply with the Guidelines, their conduct may be referred to the Board for action under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law in each state and territory (‘National Law’) pursuant to section 41 of the National Law, which states amongst other things that the use of registration standards, codes or guidelines may be used in disciplinary proceedings as evidence of what constitutes professional conduct.

The Guidelines

The Guidelines set out a guide on pharmacist’s professional responsibilities to ensure the delivery of services to the public is to a high professional standard. The key guidelines are as follows:

The proprietor pharmacist must maintain an active interest in how the pharmacy business operates. For example, if the proprietor is not the pharmacist in charge of the pharmacy, the proprietor must maintain an active interest in how the practice of the pharmacy is being conducted. This is to ensure compliance with rules and regulations.
The proprietor pharmacist must not delegate their professional obligations. This is the case, even if they are not the pharmacist who is regularly in charge or present at the pharmacy.
The proprietor pharmacist must ensure that the pharmacy is conducted properly. To this effect, pharmacy proprietors must ensure the following:
employee pharmacists comply with registration standards and guidelines;
compliance with any state or territory legislation regarding facilities and equipment required for services delivered at the pharmacy;
appropriate risk management procedures are in place for the operation of the pharmacy;
confidential patient information is appropriately stored and accessed;
they have an awareness and understanding of the range of goods sold and services provided at the pharmacy;
the pharmacy is suitably resourced, for example, staff members are suitably trained and appropriately supervised to provide services;
they have an awareness of and are responsible for all services being provided in the pharmacy;
business procedures, policies and protocols are developed, implemented and routinely followed for all services delivered at the pharmacy; and
advertising of services and/or products sold at the pharmacy are carried out in accordance with applicable legislation and guidelines.

The Devil is in the detail – Statutory Demands for Payment of Debts

11-Sep-2013

In Product People (International) Pty Ltd v Box Seat Company Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] FCA 277 the Federal Court accepted that an entry of the debt in the Balance Sheet pursuant to section 1305 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) would be prima facie evidence of that debt, however the Court by evidence to the contrary considered the presumption was rebuttable and could be displaced.

The Product People Pty Ltd (TPP) developed various products which were licenced to The Product People (International) Pty Ltd (TPPI) for the purposes of marketing and selling those products to Australia and New Zealand. Box Seat Company Pty Ltd (BSC) was incorporated to generate business and manage clients for those products in those territories.

Subsequent to BSC going into liquidation, the liquidators issued a creditors statutory demand for payment of a debt (Demand) on TPPI pursuant to an entry in the 2010 Balance Sheet (Balance Sheet) supplied by the company secretary (CS). An application was made by TPPI to set aside the Demand.

The Court applied established principles that to set aside a Demand the applicant must demonstrate a genuine dispute in relation to the existence or amount of the debt. CS had stated on affidavit accompanying the Demand that she had incorrectly identified TPPI as the debtor when debtor was TPP.

The Court placed significant weight on the error in the Balance Sheet which the liquidators relied upon in issuing the Demand and concluded that there was a genuine dispute in relation to the Debt and ordered that the Demand be set aside.

What is Reasonable notice of termination of employment where no written Contract?

10-Nov-2016

NSW Supreme Court Awards Employee Three Months Wages as Reasonable Notice for TerminationIn Ware v Amaral Pastoral Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 1550 the NSW Supreme Court awarded a manager three months pay as reasonable notice for his termination of employment.

From January 2002 until March 2005 Mr Ware was employed by Amaral Pastoral to manage one of its farms. It was a full time roll in which Mr Ware was paid $30 per hour and entitled to four weeks annual leave.

Mr Brennan, a consultant for Amaral Pastoral prepared a document titled “Farm Manager Job Description” and provided it to Mr Ware. The document was not signed by the parties but was treated by the parties as having some contractual quality as it was referred to in conversations between Mr Brennan, Mr Ware, Mr Amaral (who was based in California investing in farms and ranches in the United States) and Ms Hamner, the Chief Financial Officer of Amaral Pastoral. Mr Ware pleaded that the “Farm Manager Job Description” document was the written component of an employment contract that was partly oral and partly written.

In March 2005 Mr Ware’s employment with Amaral Pastoral was terminated summarily. He was not paid any amount in lieu of notice.

Mr Ware sought payment of three months wages in lieu of notice. He claimed that in the absence of an express term prescribing a notice of termination period in his employment contract with Amaral Pastoral, it was an implied term that he would receive reasonable notice of his termination. In an attempt to defend this claim, Amaral Pastoral applied to the Court to amend its defence so as to allege conduct on behalf of Mr Ware to warrant his summary dismissal. This application was rejected.

The issue then for the Court was the length of notice for termination to which Mr Ware was entitled. While Mr Ware claimed he was entitled to three months notice, Amaral Pastoral claimed he was only entitled to one month notice.

In determining this issue, the Court considered the following circumstances:

(a) Mr Ware was 53 years old at the time he was dismissed;

(b) Mr Ware had worked in the position for almost three years;

(d) Mr Ware had considerable autonomy in his position as he was only accountable to Mr Amaral and occasionally to Ms Hamner.

Based on the above circumstances, the Court found that Mr Ware’s claim for three months wages could be established and that he was entitled to recover an amount representing the benefits he would have received had he continued to be employed by Amaral Pastoral from 10 March 2005 to 10 June 2005.

This case serves as a reminder to employers of the risks they expose themselves to when employment contracts are not put in writing or contain an express notice of termination period.