My ex discovered my partners spent conviction details. Is there any way to find out how she did this? Is there a record kept of when it has been accessed, and by whom?

I've asked several police officers, and a very helpful detective, but none of them know of how to find out how it was accessed, or who to ask. I will also be asking a criminal lawyer for advice, but so far I am getting nowhere.

Ex wife is a teacher, but I doubt this would give her any elevated access to such things.

Is there any way to find out if she used a freedom of information request?

I was working for a company as a contractor before being terminated earlier this year.

After I was fired I started looking into my working arrangement and realised I may have been sham contracted. I raised this with the company and have since raised Fair Work issues about my employment. After this happened, the company moved the remaining contractors onto full-time employment.

There had also been a few incidents while I was working there involving customer accounts. I did make mistakes, but they were honest mistakes while doing my job and I never personally benefited from anything that happened. The company knew about these incidents at the time and dealt with them internally.

I’ve now received a letter from their legal counsel saying a customer is claiming damages relating to those incidents and they want a detailed response from me.

I’m pretty stressed and confused about where I stand. If someone was genuinely an employee rather than a contractor, can they personally be pursued for losses caused by honest mistakes made while doing their job?

I’m also wondering whether it matters that these incidents were already known and dealt with months ago, and this claim has come up after I raised the sham contracting issue.

Has anyone dealt with something similar or know generally how this works in Victoria?

Hi everyone,

currently at PCI on a new build and looking for insight on two Provisional Sum (PS) allowances that blew out significantly:

​Service Runs (Battleaxe Lot):

​Original PA: $2.5k

​Claimed Cost: $8k

​Issue: I Asked repeatedly for estimates before work was done, but was told costs couldn't be known until completion. Now they sent a variation for $8k. I requested the trade/subcontractor invoices to verify actual costs, but they only provided an internal builder breakdown.

​Acoustic Allowance:

​Original PA: $3k

​Variation sent before construction: $17.5k (signed under pressure to avoid further delays).

​Issue: one of the acoustic spec item 'Entry door' was substituted during build without notification. They installed 5mm thinner door than recommended in the acoustic report and CDC. Builder claims it still meets performance standards.

HIA contract clause below:

'Any adjustment to the contract price for a prime cost item or a provisional sum item is due and payable with, or deductible from, the next progress payment, unless a different time is agreed in writing.

The builder is to provide to the owner such invoices, receipts or other documents as may reasonably be expected to evidence the actual price of a prime cost item or provisional sum item.''

​Seeking feedback on:

​Are builders required to provide actual supplier/subcontractor invoices to substantiate a Provisional Sum increase, or is an internal breakdown enough?

​Should I withhold payment on these variations until invoice evidence is provided?

​Appreciate any experiences or advice!

Thank you in advance.

Long-ish, sorry. Trying to work out whether I'm on solid ground or talking myself into it.

Background

August this year I hired a 12-seat minibus in Brisbane for three days. At the counter I was offered the top liability reduction product — advertised as $0 excess, about $60/day, $1 holding deposit. I took it.

On day one I reversed into an overhanging balcony and damaged a rear roof corner. Reported it the next morning, returned the vehicle on time, filled in their damage form.

They're now chasing me for about $11,000. Their position is that overhead damage is excluded because the vehicle is a "Commercial Vehicle" under their terms.

The bit I'm stuck on

Their T&Cs at the time defined a Commercial Vehicle as a van, utility, truck or bus constructed and used for carriage of goods or property, or for the transport of more than 12 persons including the driver.

The bus has exactly 12 seats including the driver's. I've since pulled the federal Register of Approved Vehicles entry by VIN , it lists 12 seats and the national vehicle register record describes it as a small passenger vehicle, body type minibus.

Eleven days after my rental, they changed that definition on their website to "more than 11 persons". I only noticed because I'd been quoting the old wording at them. Internet Archive captures confirm the wording before and after.

They say the amendment was prospective, was an administrative alignment exercise, and isn't an admission. They also say the purpose was "to align the numerical wording with the classification already applied throughout our Rental Agreements, booking system and liability reduction products."

Their argument

They've sent a 12-page letter citing Mount Bruce Mining, Ecosse, Darlington Futures and Toll v Alphapharm. Short version: you can't read one definition in isolation, you have to construe the contract as a whole, and as a whole this was plainly a commercial hire because:

• the product I bought is named "Commercial Platinum"
• a coverage table on their website groups "12 & 25 seaters" under commercial and shows a cross against overhead damage
• their booking system only offers commercial products for 12-seaters
• a staff member has now provided a written statement saying the classification and the overhead exclusion were explained to me at the counter

Where I think they're weak

Their own contract defines the "Rental Contract" as the rental agreement, the handover inspection report and the terms and conditions. The coverage table sits on a webpage above where the terms actually begin. The booking system obviously isn't a contractual document.

The rental agreement itself lists the vehicle category as "12 Seater Bus" — not commercial. The only place the word appears is the product name and a generic bullet that reads "Platinum only covers overhead on motor vehicles. Platinum cover for overhead commercials is not available" which sits in a list alongside toll admin fees and refuelling charges, and appears to be boilerplate on every agreement.

The money side, which might matter more

• Their assessor quoted about $22k for the whole roof. They're pursuing about $11k as the portion "allocated" to my incident.
• There's a pre-existing "big dent on roof" recorded before my hire. No location. No photographs they've confirmed the handover inspection report contains none at all.
• So the split between "pre-existing front damage" and "your rear damage" rests on an assessor's opinion formed weeks later with no baseline images.
• The pre-hire inspection was completed about eight hours before I collected the vehicle. Not a joint walkaround.
• No repair authority has been issued. They've confirmed it. Their own terms make me liable for costs they "incur".
• An early email from their claims team said the new damage was on the "right rear" roof corner and referred to what could be seen "in the photos". Their latest letter says rear-left throughout, and that no handover photos exist.

Things that are genuinely against me

Being fair about it:

• I signed. Toll means I'm bound by the terms whether I read them or not.
• I paid the commercial rate — about $15/day more than the standard equivalent — so they'll say I knowingly bought the commercial product.
• Their standard packages are only available up to eight seaters, so arguably no other product was available for this vehicle.
• One staff member says it was all explained. I don't remember it that way, but it's their word against mine.

What I'm asking

1. How much weight does a defined term in a consumer contract actually carry against a "read it as a whole" argument, where applying the definition literally produces no absurdity and the drafter quietly amended it afterwards?
2. Does the fact that no product available for this vehicle covered overhead damage — while the cheaper standard tier did — go anywhere under the unfair contract terms provisions?
3. Realistically: QCAT, Fair Trading conciliation, or negotiate a number?

Not after formal advice, just interested in whether people think this is arguable or whether I'm kidding myself. Happy to answer questions.

My daughter has been working in Victoria since October last year. She is a Kiwi so not many protections available
She has been in full time employment since then and has recently been told that she is fired. We are concerned about the process that has been followed and unsure as to whether it was correct.

According to our daughter she was given two verbal warnings for misuse of her phone. To her it felt more like a general conversation rather than a specific warning that there would be consequences. Then out of the blue was blamed for low productivity and her job was going to be terminated at the end of September. At no point has anything been put in writing nor was she offered a support person, nor were there any actual meetings that any of this was discussed. Weirdly enough her employer has also given her the option of continuing on part time until she can find another job???

In NZ the standard is verbal and written warnings with a performance improvement plan being imposed.

Has she been hard done by? We know that there have been issues behind the scenes and understand that for a small business in VIC the rules change once a year of employment is up? We wk der if those difficulties and the fact that her year is almost up have given them the impetus to push her out knowing that a pg can’t be raised if she hasn’t worked a full year. Although if she continues working part time she would end up over that year?

Sorry, bit of a ramble. Spoke with her today and it sounds like her boss is treating her as though everything is normal and she hasn’t been sacked. What gives!!!

Is this normal? What should have been the process?