News

Turks Finalist at the 2026 ANZIIF Australian Insurance Industry Awards

zoe-leonard@turkslegal.com.au (Zoë Leonard) — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 23:00:00 GMT

Turks is proud to be named a finalist for Professional Services Firm of the Year at the 2026 ANZIIF Australian Insurance Industry Awards, marking our third consecutive year as a finalist in this category.

The ANZIIF Awards celebrate the individuals and organisations driving excellence across the Australian insurance sector. We're pleased to be recognised for the strength of our insurance practice across criteria including client outcomes, community impact, inclusion and sustainability, innovation, and people development.

This recognition reflects our ongoing commitment to the industry and the trusted relationships we've built with our clients, colleagues and industry peers.

Congratulations to all finalists.

Employers Liability Newsletter - July 2026

Adele Fletcher — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 23:00:00 GMT

Legislative Updates
Major NSW Workers Compensation Reforms in Force from 1 July 2026

Recent Decisions
Insurer Successfully Defends Dispute About Domestic Assistance
Abrhaim v The CJ Labour Hire Company Pty Ltd (Deregistered) [2026] NSWPIC 340

Employer and Occupier Found Equally Liable for Workplace Injury
Smith v Visy Pulp and Paper Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 685

Celebrating 20 Years of ATLIS

alph-edwards@turkslegal.com.au (Alph Edwards) — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 23:00:00 GMT

To mark the launch of ATLIS's 20th year, Turks welcomed judges past and present, previous winners and valued industry colleagues for an evening of celebration and reflection.

For two decades, ATLIS has provided a platform for life insurance professionals to share bold ideas, challenge conventional thinking and contribute to the future direction of the industry. The program has played an important role in shaping careers, elevating diverse perspectives and fostering meaningful dialogue on the opportunities and challenges facing the Australasian life insurance sector.

We extend our thanks to ALUCA for its ongoing support of this important thought leadership initiative. Through ATLIS, ALUCA continues to champion critical industry conversations and encourage fresh perspectives on the issues that matter most to life insurers and their customers.

With entries now open for the 2026 ATLIS program, there has never been a better time for aspiring thought leaders to share their expertise, put forward innovative ideas and contribute to the profession's future. We encourage professionals from across the life insurance sector to take advantage of this unique opportunity to influence industry dialogue and help shape what comes next.

To find out more or submit an entry, visit: 2026 ALUCA Turks Life Insurance Scholarship - ATLIS | Turks

Re Gemwood: The Realities of Solvency

david-mccrostie@turkslegal.com.au (David McCrostie) — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 23:00:00 GMT

Re Gemwood Projects Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] VSC 819 (19 December 2025)

Brief facts

Gemwood Projects Pty Ltd (the Company) entered liquidation following voluntary administration.

With funding from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (Fair Entitlements Guarantee Branch) (FEG), the liquidator, Michael Carrafa, commenced proceedings against the Company's director, Emilios Georgiou, and his related entity E&C Georgiou Nominees Pty Ltd (E&C). The foundation of these proceedings was that the Company was insolvent pursuant to s 95A between its inception and the voluntary administration date.

The liquidator alleged against the director insolvent trading under s 588G of the Act and sought that certain transactions made by the Company be declared void for that reason.

The liquidator also made a series of claims for recovery of unfair preference payments.

The director defended the liquidator’s claims and also pressed that under s 90-15 of the IPS, the liquidator should be removed and his remuneration disallowed.

The facts of this case were centred around the 3 key issues raised, including:

Whether the Company was insolvent.
How the involvement of the family trust E&C affected the Company’s solvency.
Whether the liquidator should be removed under s 90-15 of the IPS.

Judgment

Croft J found that the Company was not insolvent at any point between its inception, in August 2016, and its voluntary administration on 4 July 2019. Most interestingly (and amongst other things), the Court held:

E&C loan as a non-current liability
- The loan from E&C was treated correctly as a long-term debt which was not due and payable. His Honour accepted the director’s evidence that since he controlled E&C, he would not demand repayment of the loan in the immediate future.
Access to E&C funding
- At all material times, the Company had access to money from E&C, and E&C was always willing and ready to pay the Company’s debts where required.
Late payment of debts did not establish insolvency
- The Company did not consistently pay its debts as they fell due. However, the Court observed that delaying payment of debt is common and that fact alone cannot prove insolvency.
Presumption of insolvency not established
- The statutory presumption under s 588E(4) that a company is presumed insolvent if it does not maintain and keep proper financial records was not made out, or that it had been rebutted by the defendant’s evidence.

Implications for practitioners

Although cases of this kind depend heavily on their particular facts, this judgment is particularly interesting because it shows that solvency conclusions must focus on the true availability and reliability of related-party funding, not just accounting deficits. It also highlighted the importance of proper documentation of funding support. The case also highlights risks for liquidators, proving that poorly supported claims or errors in pleadings can lead to personal cost consequences and reduced remuneration.

Finally, creditor remedies under s 90-15 of the IPS are broad but must be used to support the reliability of the administration, with expert evidence playing a key role depending on the quality of the underlying records. For reasons that include aspects of the liquidation that are not explored in this paper, the Court ordered the liquidator cease to be the liquidator of the Company and that he not have any of his remuneration and expenses incurred in respect of the proceeding and that he return any remuneration and expenses already paid to him.

Co-authored by Zoë Farmer, Lawyer.

Out of Bounds: When Is a Casual Employee ‘Dismissed’ from Employment?

Natasha Sim — Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:00:00 GMT

Case: Cannavan v Tennis Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2094

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision has highlighted risks for organisations when classifying workers as volunteers or casual employees. Organisations should take note that imposing obligations on a worker that continue past the end of a shift may affect how the relationship is characterised at law, and when a ‘dismissal’ occurs.

What happened

On 27 October 2025, Mr Simon Cannavan and Ms Karen Mak (Applicants) lodged general protections claims alleging that they were dismissed from their employment after Tennis Australia terminated their officiating memberships, and that their dismissals were in contravention of general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

Tennis Australia supports local community tennis clubs as well as professional tournaments. The organisation engaged the Applicants as Tennis Officials to act as umpires, referees and linespersons at these events. For each separate tournament, the Applicants were required to sign a casual employment contract or hobbyist (also referred to as ‘volunteers’) terms and conditions intended to cover the period of the relevant tournament.

However, as Tennis Officials, the Applicants were also bound by the terms and conditions of their Officiating Membership for the entirety of their engagement with Tennis Australia.

Holding an officiating membership is a prerequisite for acting as an official at Tennis Australia events, and its cancellation prevented the Applicants from applying for and being offered a casual employment contract to officiate future tournaments.

Tennis Australia alleged that it cancelled the Applicants’ officiating memberships due to the Applicants allegedly engaging in inappropriate conduct in breach of their obligations.

Tennis Australia argued that the Applicants were casual employees whose casual engagements ended at the conclusion of a tournament. On that basis, it asserted that the Applicants had not been dismissed from their employment and that their casual arrangements were contracts for a specified task, time or season in the context of s 386(2)(a) of the FW Act.

Fair Work Commission’s findings

The FWC rejected Tennis Australia’s position, finding that the Applicants were dismissed when their officiating memberships were cancelled. The FWC found that this constituted a dismissal at the initiative of the employer within the meaning of s 386(1)(a) of the FW Act.

The FWC determined that the contractual arrangements reflected an ongoing casual employment relationship. The FWC came to this finding having regard to the reality and totality of the terms of the relationship.

Key aspects of the relationship that the FWC took into consideration when making its determination were:

The contracts used ambiguous and inconsistent language, referring to the term ‘employment’ and stating that employment ended after each shift while simultaneously imposing obligations that applied between tournaments, including obligations to attend training and other commitments, indicating an ongoing degree of control.
Tennis Officials were required to comply with several policies contained in the Officiating Membership arrangements on an ongoing basis, including being required to maintain accreditation.
Tennis Officials were required to meet minimum participation requirements each year.
Tennis Australia provided uniforms to Tennis Officials, even where they had not secured work at a specific tournament.

Why this decision matters

This case serves as a warning to sporting organisations, not-for-profits and other organisations that rely on volunteers or casual employees, particularly if a person may be engaged as both a volunteer and a casual employee.

Where an organisation exercises control over workers and imposes obligations that apply outside of a casual employee’s allocated work shifts, the existence of a casual employment relationship may continue past the end of the shift. In these circumstances, organisations may be exposed to unfair dismissal, general protections or other dismissal-related claims if their actions bring the ongoing employment relationship to an end.

Recommendations

Employers should review their arrangements to ensure that contractual terms align with the reality and totality of relationships. In particular, organisations should ensure that their arrangements with volunteers or casual employees genuinely reflect the true nature of the relationship in practice.

We can assist with reviewing worker classifications, as well as drafting employment contracts and volunteer agreements.

This article was written by Dana Popovic, Lawyer, and Natasha Sim, Partner.

Creditor Not Liable for Unconscionable Conduct It Did Not Know About

lachlan-wilson@turkslegal.com.au (Lachlan Wilson) — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 23:00:00 GMT

Direct Steel Traders Pty Ltd v Abdallah [2025] NSWSC 1551

Overview

Turks recently obtained judgment for a steel supplier enforcing a third-party guarantee, after the guarantors; an elderly couple with limited English and no connection to the borrower, claimed they were misled into signing and sought to have the guarantee and mortgage declared void.

The Court held that vulnerability alone is not enough to defeat a guarantee on unconscionable conduct grounds, the guarantor must show the creditor had knowledge of that vulnerability. Alleging ignorance of or a failure to consider vulnerability is insufficient.

The facts

Direct Steel Traders Pty Ltd (DST) supplied steel on credit to Steelcorp Engineering Pty Ltd (Steelcorp).
The director of Steelcorp, arranged for Mr and Mrs Abdallah (Guarantors) to provide a guarantee and mortgage over their family home. It was alleged that the Guarantors had limited English and no involvement with Steelcorp.
Mr and Mrs Abdallah said in evidence that they believed they were signing a character reference for the director. Neither received legal or financial advice, and neither had any direct contact with DST.
Steelcorp later went into liquidation and DST called on the guarantee.
Mr and Mrs Abdallah defended the proceedings and alleged that the guarantee and mortgage should be void on the grounds of unconscionable conduct.

The legal framework

Unconscionable conduct can be established under the general law (equity) or statute (Australian Consumer Law or s 12CB of the ASIC Act). Both were argued here. Under the general law (Thorne v Kennedy (2017)), three things are required:

The innocent party must be subject to a ‘special disadvantage’ that seriously affects their ability to make a judgment in their own best interests;
The other party must have unconscientiously taken advantage of that disadvantage; and
The other party must have had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of the special disadvantage.

The decision

At trial, DST accepted that the Guarantors were subject to a special disadvantage given their limited English skills, limited education and no involvement in Steelcorp. However, this concession did not determine the outcome.

The Court found that DST had no actual or constructive knowledge of the Guarantors’ disadvantage. DST had never contacted them directly, made no inquiries into their circumstances, and had no reason, on the information available to it, to suspect they were vulnerable. Knowing their ages, their countries of birth, and that they were not connected to Steelcorp was not enough to attach constructive knowledge to DST.

The Court drew a clear and important distinction between:

Constructive notice: being aware of facts that might, on inquiry, lead to discovery of a disadvantage if not sufficient.
Constructive knowledge: actual awareness of facts from which the party ought to have known of the specific disadvantage is required.

The Court also noted that DST placed no time pressure on the Guarantors. It neither required nor requested that the documents be signed within any specific timeframe. The opportunity to obtain independent legal or financial advice was available to them; they simply did not take it.

The Court rejected the Guarantors' argument that accepting a mortgage without investigating their capacity to repay was inherently unconscionable. Following the High Court's decision in Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd,¹ there is nothing inherently wrong with a creditor taking security over property without investigating a guarantor's capacity to repay. Something more is required, and it was not present here.

By reason of the above, the Guarantors were unable to establish unconscionable conduct, and the Court granted judgment in favour of DST.

Takeaways for credit managers

Vulnerability alone does not defeat a guarantee. If you had no knowledge of a guarantor's special disadvantage, an unconscionable conduct claim is unlikely to succeed.

There is no general duty to investigate a guarantor's personal circumstances. You are not required to inquire into a guarantor's age, health, education, English proficiency, or financial position before accepting their guarantee.

If warning signs exist; for example, a guarantor who appears to have no understanding of what they are signing, or where there are clear indicators of a language barrier, you should take steps to verify their understanding and encourage independent legal advice.

^[1]Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd (2022) 276 CLR 1; [2022] HCA 6.

Insurer Successfully Defends Dispute About Domestic Assistance

jade-bowdler@turkslegal.com.au (Jade Bowdler) — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 23:00:00 GMT

Abrhaim v The CJ Labour Hire Company Pty Ltd (Deregistered) [2026] NSWPIC 340

Key takeaways

For section 60AA(1)(b) to be satisfied, a worker must have performed the specific domestic assistance claimed prior to the injury, even if their circumstances have changed since the injury occurred.

Brief facts

The worker sustained a lumbar spine injury on 20 August 2015 after a fall while working as a formwork laborer. Liability for the injury was accepted, and he was later assessed by an Approved Medical Specialist as having 28% Whole Person Impairment (WPI).

The worker had three children. He alleged that due to ongoing back pain he was unable to drive for long periods and safely get his children in and out of the car. He requested funding for transportation of his children to and from school and daycare, as well as after-school activities such as sport and swimming lessons.

Liability for the claimed domestic assistance was disputed by the insurer, GIO, for a number of reasons, including that the worker did not provide the assistance himself prior to his injury, as required by s 60AA(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Judgment

Member Seaton determined that although the requested transport assistance was reasonable, it did not satisfy all of the statutory requirements set out in s 60AA(1).

Section 60AA(1) sets out the following criteria for ongoing domestic assistance to be compensable:

A medical practitioner has certified, based on a functional assessment, it is reasonably necessary* as a result of injury.
The assistance would not be needed ‘but for the injury’ (because the worker provided the assistance before the injury).
The injury has resulted in at least 15% WPI.
The assistance is provided in accordance with a care plan established by the insurer.

The Member accepted that the worker’s lumbar spine injury prevented him from safely transporting his children to and from school, daycare and other activities. The medical evidence demonstrated that the worker experienced significant pain with prolonged driving and had difficulty lifting his children in and out of the car. The Member therefore accepted that the claimed domestic assistance was reasonably necessary.

The Member also noted that the worker exceeded the required 15% WPI threshold to be eligible for ongoing domestic assistance under s 60AA(1)(c). While there was no evidence of a formal care plan established by the insurer, Member Seaton found that reports by the worker’s occupational therapist were sufficient to satisfy the requirement in s 60AA(1)(d).

The worker’s claim, however, failed as it could not be established that he provided the assistance himself before the injury, in accordance with s 60AA(1)(b). The worker argued that his children had not actually been born at the time of his injury, but had he not been injured, he would now be transporting them to school, daycare and their other activities himself.

The worker submitted it was unreasonable to interpret s 60AA(1)(b) literally and suggested a more sensible interpretation would be to consider whether driving services more broadly were undertaken by the worker prior to his injury.

While Member Seaton acknowledged that on a practical level the worker’s argument was compelling, the wording of the legislation was clear. Because the worker did not transport his children himself before the injury (because they were not born) the worker could not meet the requirement in s 60AA(1)(b).

The Member confirmed that while the term ‘domestic assistance’ could encompass transportation of children to and from school and other activities, s 60AA(1)(b) was not met. The worker was therefore unsuccessful in his claim and the Member entered an Award for the Respondent.

Implications

This decision serves as a good reminder of the requirements under s60AA(1) pertaining to domestic assistance claims. Section 60AA(1) is interpreted strictly and every statutory requirement must be satisfied.

Where a worker’s circumstances change after an injury, it may be difficult for them to establish the requirement in s 60AA(1)(b). Respondents and insurers should carefully examine each claim for domestic assistance and question whether all requirements of s 60AA(1) are met, including whether the worker performed the domestic assistance themselves prior to the injury.

*From 1 October 2026, ‘reasonably necessary’ will be replaced by ‘reasonable and necessary’ wherever occurring in s 60AA(1) per the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2025.

Employer and Occupier Found Equally Liable for Workplace Injury

david-to@turkslegal.com.au (David To) — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 23:00:00 GMT

Smith v Visy Pulp and Paper Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 685

Key takeaways

The worker suffered physical and psychological injuries after hitting his head on a protruding metal pipe whilst working at a third-party Paper Mill.

The worker sued both his employer, D.M.E. Engineering Services (the employer), and Visy Pulp and Paper (Visy) who owned and operated the Paper Mill.

The employer and Visy were found equally negligent with a finding of contributory negligence at 20% as the worker could have conducted visual checks to ensure his own safety.

Brief facts

On 6 August 2019, the worker sustained neck, arm and psychological injuries after striking his head on a protruding metal pipe while working at Visy Pulp and Paper’s Tumut paper mill.

The worker’s employer had a contract with Visy to provide mechanical and process piping maintenance to the Visy Pulp and Paper Mill in Tumut, New South Wales (the Paper Mill).

On the date of the incident, the worker attended the Paper Mill to inspect repair work to a paper machine in an area of the Paper Mill known as the VP9 Area. His team were conducting repairs between a motor and a power box (the work location). There was only a single entry and exit point with no direct line of sight or passage between the entrance point and the work location.

The worker previously attended the Paper Mill and the VP9 Area travelling alongside the northern wall, passing a blue motor on his left to complete inspection work. Using this path, the worker could see the metal pipe on his way out, and he did not have to be concerned about his footing.

The worker took a new path and turned left past the blue motor (rather than taking his usual route, walking straight ahead parallel to the northern wall). On his return from the repair location, he walked along the length of the motor directly towards the northern wall and the metal pipe elbow. Since he was watching his footing, he was met with the protruding metal pipe in his path.

As a result, the metal pipe struck the worker’s helmet, and his head and neck were forced suddenly backwards.

Arguments raised

The worker claimed that his employer and Visy (as the occupier and operator of the Paper Mill) owed him a duty of care to protect him from foreseeable risks of injury or harm.

The worker alleged that Visy breached their duty by failing to install the pipe at a high height, failing to conduct regular inspections, and a failure to ensure a clear walkway.

With respect to his employer’s liability, the worker alleges his employer was negligent for its failure to provide a safe system of work, failure to take precautions for his safety and a failure to install the pipe at a higher height along the walkway.

The defendants both contended that there was no breach of duty as the metal pipe was easily avoided, raising a defence of contributory negligence. Visy brought a cross-claim against the employer including a contractual indemnity claim.

The employer disputed that it was liable duty or in the alternative that the primary liability rested with Visy as the plant was under ‘direct and exclusive control’ of Visy.

The employer also filed a cross-claim against Visy, including a claim under s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The worker submitted (which was accepted by the Court) that the employer’s OHS officer, Ms CD, who was present that day knew of the hazard because a number of people had previously identified it as a hazard. Ms CD was not called as a witness and as such the Court inferred that her evidence was not have helped either defendants’ case.

Decision of Supreme Court

Justice McNaughton of the Supreme Court held that the employer was negligent for the following reasons:

The installation of the metal pipe was undertaken by the employer (under the direction of Visy) and the position of the metal pipe did not comply with regulations.
The employer should not have installed the metal pipe in its hazardous location knowing that workers used that walkway to access the work area.
The employer should have had a proactive (rather than a reactive) approach to hazards in the workplace to prevent hazard to workers using the walkway to access that area.
The employer should have arranged for the metal pipe to be relocated to a height of at least 2,000mm in accordance with the regulations and such measures were not expensive or complicated to undertake.

In addition, his Honour also held Visy negligent due to:

Visy, as the owner and occupier, had the overall coordination of all activities and control of the configuration of all machines and equipment.
The employer’s personnel (including the worker) were subject to Visy’s overall direction, supervision and control regarding work done. This was also confirmed in the contract between Visy and the employer which stated that the employer’s maintenance team was to follow Visy’s workflow processes and procedures for maintenance and to complete works required in coordination with Visy.
The replacement of the plastic pipe with the metal pipe was fully undertaken by the employer but was subject to an initial vetting and allocation process conducted by Visy.
There were relevant and foreseeable risks of harm and the risk of hitting one’s head was ‘not insignificant’.
Visy should have adopted various precautions including raising the pipe to an appropriate height which was a ‘simple and uncomplicated’ task and implementing warning markers to alerted workers to the height and location of the pipe.
The Court ultimately found both defendants equally liable in the circumstances. On the question of contributory negligence, Justice McNaughton held that the worker could have performed a quick visual check and identify his surroundings to ensure his own safety. His Honour, therefore, concluded with a finding of contributory negligence at 20%.

Implications

This decision is a reminder that an employer’s duty of care to its workers is non-delegable, even where work is performed on third-party premises under the significant direction and supervision of the occupier.

Where an employer has ongoing site access and shared responsibility for safety, its obligation to take reasonable precautions runs in parallel with, not in substitution, of the occupier’s own duty.

Turks Announces New Senior Appointments

tarah-mones@turkslegal.com.au (Tarah Mones) — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 23:00:00 GMT

We are pleased to announce a number of senior appointments across the firm.

These promotions reflect the depth of expertise across our practice areas and the contribution each of these individuals makes to our clients and the continued growth of Turks.

General Insurance

Tarah Mones (Special Counsel)
Mohammad Abdullah (Senior Associate)
Melanie Carr (Senior Associate)
Anna Skelly (Senior Associate)

Commercial

Kamil Aydinlioglu (Senior Associate)

Employers Liability

Lachlan McTackett (Senior Associate)

Life Insurance, Superannuation and Financial Advice

Mathilde Warne (Senior Associate)

Turks congratulates Tarah, Mohammad, Melanie, Anna, Kamil, Lachlan and Mathilde on their well‑deserved promotions.

Major NSW Workers Compensation Reforms in Force from 1 July 2026

Adele Fletcher — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 23:00:00 GMT

NSW workers compensation law has undergone significant reform, with two new Acts - the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2025 and the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Act 2026 - now proclaimed and taking effect in stages.

Today, Friday 26 June 2026, the Government proclaimed that a number of the major changes to be implemented by the amendment Acts will come into force on 1 July 2026.

Significantly, the definition of what is a compensable primary psychological injury is being redefined for injuries from 1 July 2026 - a significant shift for employers and workers alike.

In addition, the Industrial Relations Commission gains exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes arising from whether certain conduct constitutes "relevant conduct" in new primary psychological injury claims - covering matters such as bullying, harassment, and excessive work demands.

These reforms represent some of the most consequential changes to the NSW workers compensation scheme in over a decade.

Turks will continue to keep clients informed as the reforms progress. For advice on how these changes may affect your organisation, please contact us.