
Publication
An overview of the Commonwealth’s model litigant obligation
Since the early 20th century, Australian courts have emphasised the obligation for the Commonwealth to act as a ‘model litigant’ in court proceedings.
Global | Publication | May 24, 2016
On 7 May 2015, the Minister of Labour, in her budget vote speech, announced proposed amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA).
The Chief Inspector has provided a forecast on what to expect and the implications for employers.
The following are important features to be expected:
The National Economic Development and Labour Council and the Department of Labour have engaged in internal consultation processes on the provisions of the OHSA Amendment Bill and the COID Amendment Bill. The Minister has emphasised that the legislative process is being fast-tracked to ensure that these Bills are tabled in parliament this year.
The Minister has stated that the purpose of the OHSA Bill is to align OHSA with employment and labour legislation, and to regulate triangular employment relationships, where workers are employed by an agency or contractor and do work for other entities. The COID Amendment Bill intends to align COIDA more closely with other labour legislation, and to provide a legal framework for the Compensation Fund to more effectively promote programmes that facilitate employees’ return to work.
The Deputy Minister of Labour reiterated in his budget vote speech delivered on 10 May 2016, the Department of Labour’s commitment to ensuring that the following objectives are achieved:
Publication
Since the early 20th century, Australian courts have emphasised the obligation for the Commonwealth to act as a ‘model litigant’ in court proceedings.
Publication
The Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Annotation) Regulations 2025 and an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum were published on 14 May 2025.
Publication
In a recent decision, Matco Tools Corporation v. Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court has overturned a Commissioner of Patents (the Commissioner) decision regarding a patent applicant failing to meet the “due care” standard in the context of an unpaid maintenance fee.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025