Regulatory Radar

Practitioners considering whether to raise a judge's membership of an airline lounge or similar commercial loyalty programme as a ground for recusal may find it useful to note the threshold the Court applied here, which required evidence of a logical connection between the membership and the issues to be decided, rather than mere association with a party or a related entity. The decision is a reminder that apprehended bias arguments based on commercial memberships generally need more than the fact of membership itself, and that an unsupported assertion of favouritism is unlikely to succeed.

Employers managing long absences for medical incapacity may wish to review how show cause letters are framed, ensuring they invite a genuine response rather than reading as a predetermined outcome, and to keep clear contemporaneous records of the operational and medical reasons behind any termination decision. Where in house or external advisers are closely involved in preparing a dismissal, it may be worth considering how their role is documented, given the Full Court's attention to the line between an adviser and the actual decision maker. The decision also confirms there is no standalone damages claim for misuse of Victorian workers compensation information, which may be relevant when assessing exposure in similar disputes.

Employers that use non-compete clauses, co-worker non-solicitation terms or cascading restraints in employment contracts, particularly for staff earning below the high income threshold, may wish to review those clauses against the exposure draft ahead of any final legislation. Businesses negotiating sale of business agreements that rely on restraint of trade clauses should note the draft Bill does not currently extend the non-compete ban to those arrangements, though definitions and scope may change before introduction. Businesses with no-poach or wage-fixing arrangements with competitors could consider the implications of those arrangements being treated as cartel conduct.

Workplace health and safety teams could check which approved codes of practice their safety management systems, inductions and contractor documents currently reference, and confirm those references still match the current Queensland list following this amendment. Where an approved code relevant to the business's operations has been added, varied or withdrawn, procedures, training materials and audit checklists built around the previous code may need updating. Officers with due diligence obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act may also wish to confirm that board or management reporting on safety compliance reflects the codes now in force, rather than a superseded version.

Businesses operating an existing employee share or incentive scheme could check whether the scheme was established under the superseded class orders referred to in RG 49, in which case the legacy guide remains relevant, or whether it should instead be assessed against the Division 1A framework introduced in 2022. Before issuing further offers under an existing scheme, it may be worth confirming which regime governs ongoing obligations, since relying on RG 49 alone could overlook requirements introduced by the 2022 reforms. Employers establishing a new scheme are likely to need to work primarily from the Division 1A provisions rather than the legacy guide.