KV Community
Legal Insights & KV Case Updates
Welcome to our updates hub, where we share the latest legal developments, case highlights, and firm news. While this page features key updates, we invite you to follow us on LinkedIn for more frequent insights, commentary, and news from our team.
KV Case Update
Fair Work draws the line between
Dismissal and Restraint Dispute
Is it still a dismissal if everyone agrees to part ways? The short answer is no.
What if you (allegedly) said your employee would be free from their non-competes and then tried to enforce those restraints? Still not a dismissal.
The Fair Work Commission has confirmed that if employment ends by mutual agreement, it is not a dismissal, even where the employer initially intended to terminate the employee. This means that any failure by the employer to follow through on a promise to release the employee from post-employment restraints (such as non-compete clauses), as part of that mutual agreement, does not affect whether a dismissal occurred.
- June 25, 2025
- Workplace law changes from 1 July 2025
KV Case Update
Workplace law changes from 1 July 2025
**KV Workplace Law Update**
As the new financial year approaches, a number of important legislative and regulatory updates will take effect, including adjustments to minimum wages, superannuation contributions, and relevant thresholds.
To assist employers in meeting their obligations, we’ve outlined the key changes set to commence from 1 July 2025…
- July 2, 2025
- Lighthouse v Dale Alcock - Harman Undertaking
KV Case Update
Lighthouse v Dale Alcock
What is the “Harman Undertaking” and why should a business know about it?
Businesses embroiled in litigation need to know “why” they receive documents from the other side, as the purpose for which a document is discovered or disclosed is relevant to how (in what proceedings) it may be used. That is to say; just because you have it doesn’t always mean you can use it!
This issue was recently considered again by the Courts; check out our handy case update, below.
Even straightforward disputes need careful management, especially when it comes to documents and discovery.
Tim Kennedy and the KV disputes team is available to assist businesses and individuals to navigate these issues.
- July 14, 2025
- Ebbott v Arriba Group
KV Case Update
Ebbott v Arriba Group
What happens when an employee negotiates their own exit—can they still claim dismissal?
In a recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision, the answer was a firm no. The employee, who was a lawyer, had agreed to a mutual separation. Despite there being no signed mutual separation agreement, the FWC determined that a binding agreement had been reached. The result? The employee’s claim was knocked out.
Although things ended well for the employer on this occasion, this case is a timely reminder for employers to…
- July 25, 2025
- Lawyers and the FWC
KV Article
Lawyers and the FWC
Considering whether to engage a lawyer to assist your business with a claim in the Fair Work Commission?
A few insights below from Kennedy Vinciullo as to when and how to do so.
Australian Concert and Entertainment Security Pty Ltd trading as ACES Group v Michael Alkan [2025] FWC 1696
This Fair Work Commission (FWC) case is a useful reminder that, although generally a costs free jurisdiction, the FWC can and will order costs against a party or, as in this case, its representative. The respondent (ACES) to an unfair dismissal application has successfully argued that the Applicant’s representative, Mr Michael Alkan (a non-lawyer), should pay its costs, following an application under section 402 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act).
KV Article
McDonald's Franchisees Forced to Bargain for EBA and Unions and Workers are Lovin' it
In 2022, the Albenese Government introduced reforms to the low-paid bargaining stream, now called the supported bargaining stream. Under the amendments, the Fair Work Commission must grant a ‘supported bargaining authorisation’ (allowing employers and employees to bargain together for a multi-enterprise agreement), if the circumstances met certain criteria.
The FWC’s decision was issued on 30 June 2025 and has affected over 5,100 workers, 18 franchisee employers, and 53 McDonald’s restaurants.
- August 21, 2025
- Nothing says 'Spirit of Australia' like a mass sacking
KV Case Update
Nothing says 'Spirit of Australia' like a mass sacking
The Federal Court has ordered Qantas to pay a record $90 million penalty for the unlawful dismissal of 1,800 ground staff during COVID-19, the largest penalty ever imposed under the Fair Work Act.
Justice Lee criticised Qantas’ “wrong kind of sorry” and warned that penalties of this scale are designed to deter, not to be absorbed as a business cost.
- August 29, 2025
- Aliraja v Commissioner of Titles
KV Case Update
Aliraja v Commissioner of Titles
Fraud, trusts, and title loss — who’s really liable?
In a recent WA Court of Appeal decision, Aliraja v Susan Dukes [2025] WASCA 103, the Court confirmed that the State can still be liable for compensation when a person is deprived ownership in land due to fraud even if the person responsible was a registered proprietor acting as a trustee.
The Commissioner of Titles initially rejected the claim, citing a statutory exclusion for trust breaches. But the Court clarified: if the trust only exists because of fraud, it’s the fraud not the trust that caused the loss.
Why does this matter?:
The protections under the Torrens system aren’t absolute
Fraudulent dealings involving trusts don’t automatically shield the State
Compensation may still be available in complex title disputes.
- September 19, 2025
- Aliraja v Commissioner of Titles
KV Case Update
Scyne Advisory Business Services Pty Ltd v Heaney
When it comes to enforcing restraint clauses, timing is everything.
The NSW Supreme Court has made it clear, delay can be fatal to an application for interlocutory relief.
In Scyne Advisory v Heaney, the employer’s bid to stop a former employee from joining a competitor was rejected, not because the restraint lacked force, but because Scyne simply waited too long to act.
The Court treated timeliness as a litmus test for the seriousness of the alleged breach. The message for employers is simple: if you want to enforce restraints, you need to move quickly.
- September 24, 2025
- Mathieson v State Coroner of Western Australia
KV Case Update
Mathieson v State Coroner of Western Australia
In Mathieson v State Coroner of Western Australia [2025] WASC 393, the WA Supreme Court was asked to decide who should arrange the funeral of an 8-year-old boy.
The Court ultimately preferred a solution that was inclusive, timely, and respectful of close relatives, releasing the body to the biological mother, whose proposal allowed the child’s primary carer to be involved.
Without a valid will and executor, disputes can arise at an extremely difficult time; in the event that no will exists, the Court will consider the most appropriate (and timely) outcome.