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.

In this week's episode, Dave inquired about disputing child support assessments, and Nick advised formal reviews through Services Australia or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, emphasising evidence gathering. Dylan's public pool injury raised questions about operator duty of care and the Civil Liabilities Act's impact on pain and suffering claims, with Nick highlighting a high monetary threshold for compensation. Marie sought advice on a car service center's misleading quote, and Nick suggested reviewing contract terms or pursuing a consumer protection claim. Anthony discussed responsibility for a damaged reticulation system, and Nick recommended contacting the strata company first. Veronica sought legal guidance on an opaque property option agreement, with Nick strongly advising a property lawyer. Robert queried a workers' compensation settlement offer, and Nick urged consultation with a workers' compensation lawyer before signing. Finally, Martin provided clarity on car service schedules, explaining the importance of time-based maintenance alongside mileage.

In this week's episode, Gail sought clarity on the legality of neighbours entering her property to trim trees, with Nick confirming it is trespass and a civil/criminal offence. The discussion then shifted to Brittany Higgins' defamation payout to Linda Reynolds, highlighting the legal complexities of recovering funds from a personal injury trust if Higgins declares bankruptcy. Chris raised concerns about a shire's negligence due to lack of signage at roadworks, resulting in damage to his truck, and Nick advised pursuing a minor case claim in the magistrate's court. Katherine inquired about an executor holding funds for unpaid debts, and Nick clarified the executor's duties and beneficiaries' rights. Lastly, Dylan discussed a swimming pool accident caused by a hidden step, and Nick offered to investigate aquatic regulations and Australian standards.

In this week's episode, Nick shared advice on protecting assets from will contests, including utilising superannuation, trusts, joint tenancy, and statutory declarations. Kim inquired about the timing of these techniques and potential court intervention, to which Nick advised legal consultation due to potential pitfalls and existing clawback laws in Eastern states. Matthew asked about binding multi-page wills, and Nick suggested spiral binding or stapling, ensuring page numbering and no tampering. The "sovereign citizen" movement was discussed, with Nick confirming its invalidity and negative consequences for adherents. Al sought clarity on executor duties, specifically regarding his sister acting as executor and giving herself assets, with Nick clarifying that executors have duties to beneficiaries and cannot act unilaterally. Brian raised concerns about his brother's property held in joint tenancy with an ex-partner, and Nick stressed the importance of severing the tenancy to avoid automatic inheritance. Finally, Matthew asked about enforcing a divorce financial settlement where his ex-wife hadn't refinanced the house, and Nick recommended applying to the court for contravention orders to force the sale of the property.

In this week's episode, Nick Marouchak clarifies that landowners are typically fully responsible for fences bordering Crown land used for public purposes, as advised to Rick whose fence was damaged. John queries about an interview request from the Insurance Commission of WA regarding his daughter's pedestrian accident, and Nick advises that it's voluntary unless subpoenaed and suggests requesting questions in writing. Rob seeks guidance on compelling his neighbour to pay their half of a damaged fence; Nick outlines the formal procedure under the Dividing Fences Act, including written notice and potential Magistrates Court action. Anton asks about the legality of a 12-year-old daughter's bedroom camera at her father's house; Nick explains it could be a breach of the Surveillance Devices Act if hidden or against consent, recommending written communication and potential Family Court intervention. Finally, the discussion touches upon the McCusker report into the WA election, noting that inadequate staffing, rather than Purcell Kelly's performance, was the primary issue, though their recruitment practices were criticized, and the possibility of the government terminating or not renewing their contract is explored.

In this week's episode, Nick discusses the appeals process for Children's Court decisions, emphasising rehabilitation over detention for youth offenders, and the lack of formal performance reviews for judges due to their required independence. He also addresses age discrimination in the workplace, noting it's hard to prove but employers must avoid discriminatory language in job ads and unnecessary fitness tests. Des shares a past experience of trying to speak to a youth offender, with Nick clarifying that direct contact is rare and highly structured. Liz seeks clarification on amending her late brother's death certificate due to incorrect medical information, while Alex asks about preventing challenges to a will, with Nick suggesting a detailed letter outlining reasons for disinheritance and exploring options like superannuation to minimise contestable assets.

In this week's episode, Nick clarifies that smoky vehicles built after 1930 are unlawful if they emit visible exhaust for over 10 continuous seconds, and while reports lead to a gentle nudge letter, police involvement can result in fines or yellow stickers. Bob queries about enforcing a court judgment against a former tenant who caused damage and fled, and Nick advises on applying for substituted service via email or text message to pursue wage garnishment. Jason asks about trees on a neighbor's property blocking his ocean view; Nick explains that there are very limited legal avenues to protect a view unless there's a restrictive covenant or building code violation. Carol's son-in-law damaged his car in a nursing home carpark due to an air conditioner bracket, and Nick suggests checking building codes for a negligence claim. Finally, Lyn raises concerns about a lifestyle village changing her utility billing to include a service fee, and Nick advises checking the retirement villages code and making an internal complaint before potentially escalating to consumer protection or the state administrative tribunal.

In this week's episode, Nick discusses the process of pressing criminal charges, including prosecutorial discretion, factors influencing decisions (like minor offences or mental impairment), and how victims can challenge non-prosecution decisions. Margaret queries about a neighbor who dismantled her fence without notice and is now being taken to court; Nick advises on disputes under the Dividing Fences Act, stressing the importance of written notice and whether the old fence was "adequate," noting Margaret has photos to support her case. Mark raises concerns about a private parking ticket from Wilson's, and Nick clarifies that these companies generally lack authority to fine and often don't pursue claims in court, recommending Mark consider ignoring the letters, and Tom, a previous caller, shares his experience of successfully ignoring a similar ticket. Finally, Tammy brings up a situation regarding a littering infringement notice issued to her partner based on a witness description that contains discrepancies, and Nick advises on disputing such notices, highlighting the need to challenge witness evidence and the potential risk of court costs if unsuccessful against a council.

In this week's episode, Nick dispelled the myth of Facebook and Google secretly recording conversations for one of the show’s producers, explaining legal prohibitions and technical reasons why it's unlikely. He then advised an unnamed listener on remedies for an unreasonably delayed will execution, including demanding a "passing of accounts" or seeking executor removal. Nick also addressed Ben's parcel theft incident, explaining the police's discretion to prosecute and the role of circumstantial evidence. Additionally, he discussed with Troy the legality of employers placing cameras in work vehicles (requiring consent and reasonableness), Michael's right to a refund for denied concert entry due to ticket scanning issues, Jordan's query on the legality of filming in public places like gyms (unless it's a private activity), and Daniel's concerns about the timeframe for sorting an estate. Brendan also inquired about the legality of filming Wayne Carey in a public toilet (deemed a private activity), and finally, Sam questioned limitations on freedom of speech at council meetings, which Nick clarified are reasonable regulations.

In this week's episode, Pete queried the legal standing of email disclaimers and his right to medical information, with Nick confirming that such information is generally covered by the Privacy Act and should be disclosed. Les sought clarity on the legality of informal long-term rental arrangements, to which Nick advised that the Residential Tenancy Act could apply for arrangements over six months, triggering obligations for written agreements. Peter asked about recording phone calls without consent, and Nick explained this is generally illegal under the Surveillance Devices Act, advising a Privacy Act request for call recordings and an APRA complaint for medical organisations. Karen raised concerns about a storage unit break-in despite contractually guaranteed security, and Nick advised pursuing a claim under Australian Consumer Law for breach of duty of care and skill, and potentially a minor case claim in Magistrates Court. Finally, Kevin called in seeking advice on his deceased father's estate which his brother, the administrator, was delaying, and Nick suggested applying to the Supreme Court to have him removed and to compel him to provide accounts.

In this week's episode, the team discussed the retrospective application of laws concerning Brendan Abbott's escape charge and additional sentencing, noting that generally, laws don't apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated. Tony inquired about the formula for sentencing, and it was explained that the Sentencing Act outlines maximum penalties, with judges determining the appropriate sentence based on various factors and plea in mitigation. Sean raised concerns about a solar battery quote where the company increased the price due to changes in government rebates after a contract was signed, with the advice focusing on contract terms and unfair contract legislation. Crystal's message highlighted the severe and lasting impact of armed robbery on victims. Agnes questioned who is responsible for ambulance fees when a call is made for someone not in a total emergency, with the response clarifying that the recipient of treatment is responsible. Finally, a listener inquired about a lawyer increasing their fees mid-proceeding, with the advice stressing the need for clear cost agreements and client consent for fee changes.

In this week's episode, Nick and Simon discussed the legal ramifications of challenging parking infringements in court, learning it could result in a criminal record if unsuccessful, though judges often grant spent convictions for minor, first offences. Another discussion revolved around an ABC contractor's unfair dismissal case, where she was awarded $70,000 for health damages due to termination over a political opinion, which is a protected right, and ABC's failure to follow its own enterprise agreement. Chris shared a frustrating experience with a private car park fine from Wilson's, which Nick clarified is a civil breach of contract rather than a criminal offence, and often doesn't lead to court action. Finally, a new Australia-wide law was introduced, granting individuals the direct right to sue for serious privacy breaches without needing to prove losses, applicable in scenarios like unauthorised recording or data breaches.