In this week’s episode, Carol sought advice on a dividing fence and retaining wall dispute with her neighbor who had dug away soil, and Nick advised she could make a claim under the Dividing Fences Act or for retaining wall damage in the Magistrate’s Court. Dee queried about the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract as a WA government employee, and was informed by Nick that she is covered by state legislation like the Public Sector Management Act, not the Fair Work Act. Danni raised a question on how her son's criminal charges could be removed after the ex-partner changed her mind, with Nick clarifying that the ex must voluntarily retract her witness statement to the police prosecutor, who holds the final decision. Mark brought up a question on why a charged person is referred to as an "alleged shooter", and Nick explained it is a convention based on defamation law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Finally, Jean brought up a property issue regarding water ingress and flooding from a neighbour's place, and Nick recommended pursuing a claim for common law nuisance or trespass if the neighbour interfered with the natural water flow, or contacting the local council.

In this week's episode, Nick first shared details about MKI Legal's tech-focused approach to legal services. Caller Jodie sought clarity on her rights as a full-time worker being forced to take annual leave during a Christmas shutdown with insufficient notice, where Nick advised checking the modern award and contacting the Fair Work Ombudsman regarding the breaches. Nick then outlined several traps for landlords under the WA Residential Tenancy Act, including limits on bond/rent upfront, pet refusal rules, and fines for non-compliance. Caller Eddie asked for advice on his grandfather's property damage caused by a neighbour's trees, and Nick recommended using the Dividing Fences Act procedure and pursuing a civil trespass claim for the root damage. A question from Rick clarified the liability for property managers versus owners in civil and criminal disputes, and finally, caller Paul asked for recourse after losing $48,000 in a bank scam via a stolen phone, to which Nick advised taking the complaint to AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority).

In this week’s episode, Terry sought urgent advice about building defects (lack of insulation) and the risk of the 6-year complaint period expiring, with Nick advising immediate lodgement with the Building Commission and noting the option for compensation via the State Administrative Tribunal. The conversation then shifted to construction noise laws, where Nick outlined permissible work hours, the extra requirements for after-hours work, and the enforcement powers for non-commercial noise breaches. Following this, Veronica queried the process for a guardian/administrator to get an exemption from mandatory finance reporting, which Nick confirmed is possible via the State Administrative Tribunal. Finally, Nick detailed the framework of credit reports, explaining what information is recorded, and offering tips on getting free reports and how to place a credit freeze in cases of identity theft.

In this week's episode, Nick first detailed the fines and strict supervision rules for childcare centres after a three-year-old with autism escaped, citing the penalties as a deterrent and noting that fines go to the state. Caller Rick thanked Nick for assistance with a property dispute, which Nick used as a lesson on documenting assets to avoid complexities like a legal claim for constructive trust when property is held in another's name. Lynn, a co-executor and beneficiary, queried whether she needed separate lawyers for a will contest, and Nick advised that one lawyer is usually sufficient as long as there is no conflict, and recommended pursuing a settlement to avoid costly court proceedings. Nick also discussed the risk of criminal defamation, comparing strict international laws to Australia's greater freedom of speech but noting WA still has the law on its books. Finally, Nick advised Ken that without a Binding Financial Agreement (prenup), his daughter's separately-owned, newly built property would be subject to division in the event of a separation from her engaged partner.

In this week’s episode, Nick first detailed the use of Binding Financial Agreements (prenups) to protect assets like inheritances and super, clarifying their use for second relationships and confirming they remove the matter from Family Court jurisdiction. Caller Monica sought advice on suing an Australian driver for a motor scooter accident in Indonesia, and Nick advised she could sue in Australian courts by applying Indonesian law. Brad queried about an elderly de facto wife being disinherited by her late husband's old will, and Nick advised she has the right to challenge the will in the Supreme Court. Finally, David asked for a way to protect his children's future inheritance from being divided in a divorce, and Nick recommended his children get a simple prenup to quarantine the money.

In this week’s episode, Nick outlined a series of tips for people entering into residential building contracts, covering the need for licensed builders and insurance for work over $20,000, the legal requirement for contracts to be in writing, and the cap on upfront deposits at 6.5% under the Home Building Contracts Act. Caller Greg queried whether the local council is exempt from contributing to a dividing fence on reserved land, and Nick confirmed that the Dividing Fences Act in WA does not apply to council-owned land. Moe asked about the details required for a Power of Attorney, and Nick advised the individual's name and address are needed, and that the original signed document must be kept by the donor to prevent premature action. Finally, Nick discussed the rising popularity of prenuptial agreements (Binding Financial Agreements) as a way to protect inheritances and formalise financial expectations, noting they can be made at any stage of a relationship.

In this week's episode, Danny queried the division of three dogs between her son and his de facto partner, with Nick advising that pets are treated as property in family law disputes and the son should negotiate for their return. Marie then asked about the legality of physically crossing out names on her will, to which Nick strongly recommended creating a whole new will or a formal codicil to avoid future probate issues. Following this, Andy inquired about including enduring powers of attorney and guardianship in simple will kits, and Nick clarified they are separate documents, easily accessible as kits from the WA government website. Nick also discussed Priya’s Law, a recent change preventing employers from unilaterally cancelling paid parental leave in the event of a stillbirth or infant death.

In this week's episode, Nick first detailed a record WorkSafe penalty of $975,000 for a Perth company following the death of a 16-year-old worker, clarifying that the fine is a corporate punishment and the victim's family must make a separate workers' compensation or common law claim. Caller Sam sought advice on an unexpected $2,000 charge for extra floor grinding, and Nick advised disputing it based on misleading conduct and implied contract terms, a stance later nuanced by a call from timber flooring expert Jeff who defended the necessary grinding work. Keith queried on behalf of a friend who lost a $140,000 accident payout due to her Sydney solicitor's bankruptcy, and Nick recommended pursuing compensation through the Law Society of New South Wales's Fidelity Fund and the solicitor's professional indemnity insurance. Finally, Jenny asked about her rights after her kitchen builder stopped work mid-contract, with Nick advising her to check the contract's termination clause, find new finishing quotes, and consider a complaint to the Building Commission.

In this week's episode, the difficulty of performance reviews for judges and magistrates was explored. Irene sought clarity on whether a signing error invalidated her Power of Attorney, with Nick advising it would likely hold up but recommending re-signing for certainty. The program also detailed a serious case of financial elder abuse involving an attorney's misuse of funds and the legal avenues to challenge it through the State Administrative Tribunal. Mark asked if he was legally forced to store his original Will with his lawyer and pay a fee for its return, and was informed this was not the case and that he had a right to the document. Finally, Carl confirmed that his previous consent court orders concerning his children still stand despite cancelling a financial trial, as court orders are only removed by explicit revocation. The segment concluded with a review of a successful Fair Work complaint by an Uber driver against his deactivation under new digital platform labor laws.

In this week's episode, Mark sought to know if he could use a gift card to buy another gift card and was advised that it generally depends on the vendor’s terms and conditions, which often prohibit it. Dennis queried his rights when he struggled to understand his truck driving instructor due to a language barrier; Nick suggested this could be a breach of the "due care and skill" requirement under Australian Consumer Law, and Dennis should request a refund or new instructor in writing. Finally, Patricia asked about the time limit for claiming a strata reimbursement for a repair she paid for 10 years ago, and Nick clarified the statutory limitation period is six years but she may be able to seek an extension under the Limitation Act by arguing her prior misunderstanding as "special circumstances".

In this week's episode, Bernice inquired about prepaid funeral arrangements and was advised to review her policy for cancellation provisions and contact her financial advisor or the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). Brad asked about his neighbor's palm trees damaging his pool paving, and Nick suggested cutting encroaching roots or sending a formal letter. Ed raised concerns about a protected gum tree on his verge, and Nick recommended contacting the Western Australian Ombudsman or the State Administrative Tribunal. Finally, Anthony sought advice on recovering a party boat bond after a medical emergency, with Nick advising him to review the contract and consider legal action if necessary.

In this week's episode, Julie inquired about an inheritance taken by a stepmother, and Nick advised that the beneficiary, having mental capacity, is entitled to the money and can take legal steps if it's not distributed within a year. Anthony thanked Nick for previous legal advice that resolved a property damage issue with a contractor. A listener asked about notifying neighbours when building a band practice room, to which Nick suggested informing them if noise might be an issue. Veronica sought advice on subdividing a strata property, and Nick explained the need for consent from all owners and the involvement of the WA planning commission. Finally, another listener, Nick, questioned the legality of annual pool levy inspections, which Nick Marouchak offered to investigate further.

In this week's episode, John sought advice on a landlord dispute regarding sewage problems and a retaliatory eviction notice, with Nick advising on the Residential Tenancies Act and the option to challenge the eviction in the Magistrate's Court, also suggesting contacting Circle Green Community Legal Center. Ben queried his rights after receiving a blank property condition report upon moving out of a rental, to which Nick explained the landlord's obligation to provide a proper report within 14 days and the right to complain to consumer protection. Jean raised concerns about rainwater flooding from a neighbour's higher property, and Nick clarified the law of nuisance, advising Jean to write to the neighbour before pursuing court action. Finally, Eddie inquired about serving court documents to a former club treasurer who embezzled funds and whose address is unknown, with Nick suggesting checking the electoral roll or applying for substituted service.

In this week's episode, Julie sought advice on a missed doctor's appointment fee for her daughter, which Nick clarified falls under contract law, suggesting that while the practice is entitled to the fee, they are unlikely to pursue legal action for a small amount. Sarah inquired about the legality of a cancelled free ticket for an event, where Nick explained the concepts of contract law, consideration (personal details as exchange), and misleading/deceptive conduct under Australian consumer law. Dominic asked about the enforceability period of a family court judgment for money owed, with Nick estimating 6 to 12 years and offering to confirm via email, also suggesting the option to vary the judgment. Finally, Brian, a rideshare driver, questioned the level of notification required for audio surveillance in his vehicle, to which Nick advised on implied consent through clear signage at all entrances and verbally informing passengers, while also recommending checking the rideshare company's terms and conditions.

In this week's episode, Nick discussed a record $2.85 million settlement for an abuse survivor, explaining how damages were calculated. Pat called in about an insurance company retaining her personal details despite her never being a policyholder, to which Nick advised on privacy rights under the Privacy Act and the option to lodge a complaint with the Australian Privacy Commissioner. Dave sought advice regarding his 18-year-old daughter's workers' compensation claim after a traumatic incident at work, with Nick recommending engaging a specialized lawyer for a potential lump sum settlement. Finally, Andrew inquired about disputing a speeding fine where his car's speedometer and GPS showed a lower speed than the police radar, and Nick suggested requesting a review but cautioned about the risks of challenging it in court.