Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill

The Hon. H.J. GUMBYS (16:33): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill 2026. The bill amends the Encroachments Act 1944, the Magistrates Court Act 1991 and the Summary Offences Act 1953. It deals with two separate areas of law, but the practical purpose is consistent: ensuring that legal processes operate clearly, fairly and at a cost proportionate to the matter being resolved.

The first reform concerns building encroachments. An encroachment occurs when a substantial and permanent part of a building crosses onto neighbouring land. It may be visible above ground, such as an overhanging structure, or it may be below ground. These disputes can involve homes, retaining structures, foundations and other improvements built close to a boundary.

At present, proceedings under the Encroachments Act are generally heard in the Supreme Court. Other courts can deal with an encroachment issue when it arises as part of proceedings already before them, such as a fencing dispute. A standalone encroachment claim, however, will ordinarily need to be commenced in the Supreme Court. That can create an obvious imbalance. The cost and formality of Supreme Court litigation may be disproportionate to the value of a relatively modest boundary dispute. A person should not face legal costs approaching or potentially exceeding the value of the land or structure in dispute simply because of the court in which the matter must begin.

The bill addresses this by allowing the Magistrates Court to hear encroachment proceedings valued at $100,000 or less. This figure matches the Magistrates Court's current statutory limit for civil claims. Proceedings filed there will be treated as minor statutory proceedings and can be heard in the civil (minor claims) division. The legislation also recognises that encroachment matters vary considerably in value and complexity. A proceeding can move to the civil (general claims) division where the value exceeds $12,000 or where a party elects to be excluded from the rules governing minor civil actions.

The existing power to transfer proceedings between courts will also be preserved. This allows a court to consider the actual character of the dispute, including its complexity, value and the remedy being sought, rather than forcing every matter into the same procedural path. This is a sensible jurisdictional change. The Supreme Court remains available for larger or more complex disputes, while people with lower value claims gain access to a forum that is generally more proportionate and accessible.

The second reform concerns the claim farming offences passed by parliament in 2025. Claim farming involves obtaining the identifying details of people who may have a legal claim and selling those details for profit. It often relies on cold-calling, unsolicited approaches and contact with people at particularly vulnerable points in their lives. The practice has caused particular concern in relation to survivors of child sexual abuse pursuing civil claims.

The 2025 amendments created offences covering two forms of conduct. The first is making unsolicited personal contact to solicit or induce a person to bring a personal injury claim where the person making the approach expects to receive a benefit. The second is giving or receiving a benefit in exchange for the personal details of someone who has or may have a personal injury claim.

Those offences were designed to target predatory commercial conduct without interfering with legitimate legal practice. Appropriate exceptions were included for regulated referral arrangements between law firms, contact with existing or former clients in suitable circumstances, and contact with people who may be eligible to participate in a class action. The provisions have not yet commenced, as several technical issues needed to be resolved and supporting regulations prepared.

This bill makes the necessary clarifications. First, it confirms that the referral exceptions allow the law firm accepting a referral to provide the permitted benefit to the law firm making the referral. Second, it clarifies that unbilled legal costs, including disbursements, are not treated as a prohibited benefit. A firm transferring a matter will therefore remain able to recover the legitimate costs it has already incurred. Third, it protects existing contractual arrangements for the sale of a law practice where the agreement was entered into before commencement but has not yet been fully performed. This avoids retrospectively disrupting lawful commercial arrangements.

These amendments do not reduce the protection provided by the claim farming scheme; they clarify its intended operation before the offences commence. That precision matters for legal practitioners, for regulators and, most importantly, for the people the legislation is intended to protect. The bill is practical, measured and legally coherent. It improves access to justice in encroachment disputes and ensures that the claim farming offences can commence with the necessary clarity. I commend the bill to the council.