LSB September 2021 LR

EVENTS
Successful country conference
held on Kangaroo Island
ALAN OXENHAM, MEMBER OF THE COUNTRY PRACTITIONERS COMMITTEE
The disastrous bush fires that occurred
on Kangaroo Island in early 2020 are
still fresh in the memories of all South
Australians.
The bushfires burned over 211,000
hectares; almost the entire western half of
the Island.
When the fires were finally contained
on 21 January, 2020, two people were
dead, as were 59,000 head of livestock.
Many hundreds of thousands of native
animals also perished. Over 400 buildings
were destroyed along with thousands of
kilometres of fencing.
The flow-on effects to the Kangaroo
Island economy were equally disastrous.
With that memory to the fore and with
a view to doing something to assist with the
economic recovery on Kangaroo Island,
the Country Practitioners’ Committee of
the Law Society decided to hold its 2021
Country Conference on the Island.
The Conference was convened at the
Aurora Ozone Hotel, Kingscote from 12
to 14 March, 2021 and was sponsored by
Leap, Legalsuper and BankSA.
The Conference was attended by about
50 participants from as far afield as Mount
Gambier, Port Pirie and the Riverland,
together with their accompanying persons
such as spouses and children. As always,
the Conference was a great social event
commencing with welcoming drinks and
dinner at the Ozone Hotel from 6.30pm
on Friday, 12 March. This was a welcome
respite, particularly for those who had
travelled long distances to attend.
The Conference was officially opened
the following morning by the longtime
chair of the Country Practitioners’
Committee, Phil Westover of Tindall Gask
Bentley.
34 THE BULLETIN September 2021
The first session was chaired by Phil
Westover and presented by the Honourable
Justice David Berman of the Family Court
of Australia. His Honour gave a paper
entitled “Unpaid Present Beneficiary
Entitlements and Credit Loan Accounts”,
in which he expanded upon some of the
issues that the parties to a matrimonial
property dispute would need to consider in
situations where parts of the matrimonial
asset pool are held by a company or a trust.
Those issues include whether or not to
bring any post separation income stream
into account and the consequences of the
transfer out of an asset from a company
or trust to one of the parties.
His Honour went on to give a useful
summary, by reference to recent case
law, on the manner in which the Family
Court and the High Court have dealt with
unpaid present beneficiary entitlements
and credit loan accounts in the context of
determining family law property settlement
disputes.
The next session was chaired by Alan
Oxenham and presented by Rachael
Shaw of Shaw Henderson Criminal and
Commercial Lawyers. Rachael addressed
the Conference on the topic of “Bail –
Home Detention”. Rachael’s paper was
expansive.; she provided participants
with a summary of the types of bail
arrangements available and provided
some useful tips in relation to contested
bail applications and on negotiating bail
agreements with the prosecution.
Following a short morning tea, Paul
White chaired the next paper, which
was presented by Brian Austin of Shell
Chambers. Brian spoke to his paper
entitled “Unfair Dismissal v Redundancy
in the COVID-19 Climate”.
Brian provided a summary of
the COVID legislative arrangements
(particularly relating to amendments to
the Fair Work Act and industrial awards)
which were swiftly instituted to deal with
the threats that the pandemic posed to
employment, health and wellbeing.
Brian reviewed the current legal tests
in relation to genuine redundancy as
opposed to unfair dismissal disguised as
a redundancy, noting that once a case of
genuine redundancy has been established,
a dismissal cannot be unfair. He also
looked at issues relating to the standing
down of employees, the jurisdiction of the
Fair Work Commission in relation to the
high income threshold for the hearing of
unfair dismissal claims, and wage theft.
The final session of the day was
chaired by Peter Westley. Enzo Belperio of
Bar Chambers presented his paper entitled
“Minority Interest Holders - Companies
and Real Estate”.
Enzo’s paper looked at what the court
would consider when adjudicating an
application for oppression of a minority
shareholder in a company. Oppression
is said to be conduct by the majority
shareholder consisting of a lack of probity
and fair dealing, however such conduct
need not be illegal of itself.
Examples of oppressive conduct
include withholding information from the
minority shareholder and excluding the
minority shareholder from involvement in
the affairs of the company.
Remedies available to the court include
making orders to bring the oppressive
conduct to an end and to compensate
the minority shareholder. The court
could order that the company be wound
up, its constitution be amended or that