Until recently, the view, at least in Western Australia under the old Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), was that lump sum settlements paid in return for an injured worker foregoing further entitlements to compensation for their injury, were paid without deduction of taxation by the employer/insurer and generally accepted as an amount which did not need to be declared by the worker as part of their taxable income.

A recent class ruling from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in relation to the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA) (WCIM Act 2023) (Ruling) changes the approach to one component of lump sum settlements – the amount paid for income compensation.

Under the Ruling, the following compensation components are not assessable as ordinary income:

1. Medical and health expenses compensation;
2. Miscellaneous expenses compensation;
3. Workplace rehabilitation expenses;
4. Permanent impairment compensation; and
5. Dust disease impairment compensation.

If a lump sum is paid pursuant to a settlement agreement under s149 of the WCIM Act 2023, the component which is attributable to income compensation is assessable as ordinary income under taxation legislation.

There are two practical effects of this Ruling. Firstly, injured workers engaged in compensation negotiations will now need to consider the income tax implications on the component paid for income compensation. Workers are being advised to seek the grossed up amount to compensate them for this tax obligation. This has resulted in higher overall settlements and has also removed an important incentive that employers and insurers previously had to settle claims early (in that they were previously able to reduce overall claim costs by negotiating on net terms).

Secondly, PAYG tax is normally deducted from a worker’s income by the employer and remitted to the ATO on the worker’s behalf. Generally, lump sum payments for workers’ compensation are paid by the insurer to the worker directly, so will insurers have the capacity and information needed to deduct an appropriate amount of PAYG tax and remit it to the ATO? If not, will the income be taxed in the hands of the worker? Or will insurers now pay the lump sum to the employers to deduct the PAYG tax before paying the balance to the worker? Both options present difficulties.

The expectation of grossed up or higher income compensation and possible administration expenses of managing the tax obligations for the income component of lump sum payments may then have an impact on premiums. It has also seen some insurers pause settlement negotiations which involve the payment of income compensation while a solution is found.

We have not yet seen the full impact of the Ruling on workers’ preparedness to settle their workers’ compensation claims and their expectation about the amount of income compensation, but early indications are that it is taking some time for workers, their representatives and insurers to digest the Ruling.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CERTAINTY

When settling an employment claim with an employee who has, or may have, a claim for workers’ compensation, it is very important to ensure exactly what claims the employee is releasing the employer from.

As a general rule, employers and employees cannot contract out of workers’ compensation provided for in workers’ compensation legislation and it is very common to have this exclusion noted in the release provision in a deed of settlement. It is not always clear, however, exactly what ‘workers’ compensation’ claim is excluded.

This issue was recently considered by the Queensland Supreme Court. This decision concerned a settlement deed signed in 2017 by an employee (Ms Bakhit) and her former employer (Hartley Healy, HH). Ms Bakhit alleged that she had been sexually harassed in her employment and had made a claim for workers’ compensation. She then withdrew this claim and pursued her employer through a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

During conciliation in the AHRC, Ms Bakhit reached a settlement with HH which included a payment to her of $30,000.00. Relevantly, the settlement deed included a release from all claims except for any claim for statutory benefits under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

In 2021, Ms Bakhit commenced proceedings against HH alleging a breach of duty of care and breach of contract because of the same sexual harassment allegations. She argued that because the workers’ compensation legislation controlled who can sue employers and the calculation of damages for workplace injuries, then her claims were ‘statutory benefits’ and so within the settlement’s exception.

The Court rejected Ms Bakhit’s argument, finding that the workers’ compensation act distinguished between compensation (amounts payable under the legislation for no-fault weekly payments, medical expenses and lump sums allowed for under the act) and damages (money owed where an employer’s legal liability created an obligation to pay damages).

Compensation under workers’ compensation legislation is a statutory benefit created under that legislation, common law damages are not.

Ms Bakhit’s attempt to seek common law damages which were not within the exception expressly included in the settlement meant that her claim was barred by the settlement deed. She was also required to pay HH’s legal costs because the settlement deed included an indemnity clause for legal costs. The legal costs she was required to pay would almost certainly exceed the $30,000.00 settlement sum that she had previously received.

This case illustrates the importance of a well-drafted settlement deed, particularly in ensuring that the exclusion of workers’ compensation claims from the release is limited to what the law requires. An effective indemnity clause to recover all legal costs is also important in the event of a barred claim being pursued.

This article was written by Erica Hartley, Partner, Bronte Lawrence, Partner and Rochelle Airey, Special Counsel.

The post Workers compensation in WA – Important update on tax position on settlement payment and the need for certainty on what the release covers appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

On 3 February 2026, the Deed Administrators of Bedford Services & Advisory Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (BSA) completed the transaction contemplated by the Deed of Company arrangement and The Disability Trust (as Proponent) became the sole member of BSA. This acquisition signals a significant milestone in the complex restructure of the entities within the Bedford Group.

BSA provides disability employment services across South Australia and is the second-largest employer of people with a disability in Australia. The transaction secured the ongoing employment of more than 1,100 employees, including over 800 NDIS‑supported employees, allowing BSA to continue its role as a leading employer in the disability services sector.

Wendy Jones (Partner) and Emmalee Pacillo (Special Counsel) led the restructure and were supported by Jamie Restas (Chair of Partners), Sam Pitman (Special Counsel) and Adele Brookes (Solicitor) from our Corporate team; Adam Ludlow (Partner), Nick Black (Special Counsel) and Austin Tavian (Law Graduate) from our Property team; Clare Raimondo (Partner) and Chris Morey (Special Counsel) from our Employment team; Timothy Stokes (Partner) and Connor Eglinton (Senior Associate) from our Tax team; and Daniel Kiley (Partner) and Bellarose Watts (Law Graduate) on the IP and IT aspects.

Commenting on the deal, Wendy Jones said: “We are pleased to have supported McGrathNicol in achieving this important milestone and fantastic outcome which ensures the continued employment of people with disability across South Australia following a complex restructure process.“

Note to Editors:

HWLE is the largest legal partnership in Australia according to the most recent partnership surveys published by the Australian Financial Review.

The firm comprises 1,840, staff including 279 Partners, 1,138 other legal staff and 423 support staff across offices in nine locations – Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Melbourne, Hobart, Norwest (Northwest Sydney), Perth and Sydney.

HWLE is an independent, nationally integrated, full service commercial law firm, providing tailored and commercially oriented legal services.

HWLE operates a different business model to the other leading national law practices, and this allows us to offer unrivalled value for money without compromising quality and service. Our low ratio of solicitors to partners ensures that our clients receive optimal access to partner resources for all matters.

For further information, please contact:

Russell Mailler, Chief Executive Partner (03) 8644 3569 or rmailler@hwle.com.au

Angelique Kear, Head of Marketing (02) 9334 8541 or akear@hwle.com.au

The post HWLE Lawyers advise Administrators and Deed Administrators of Bedford Group Entities appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

HoseCo Australia is a leading supplier of hose assemblies and associated services, offering one of the most comprehensive product and service ranges in the industry. The company supports a diverse portfolio of sectors, including oil and gas, mining and mineral processing, drilling, agriculture, manufacturing and transport and operates from five sites across Australia.

The HWLE team was led by Jamie Restas (Chair of Partners), Samantha Reidy (Special Counsel), Patrick Cook (Special Counsel) and Adele Brookes (Solicitor) with assistance from Sarah Minns (Senior Associate) and Cam Horsell (Solicitor). Paul Wilson (Partner), supported by Nathan Evans (Senior Associate) and Benjamin Moran (Solicitor) advised on the property aspects. Daniel Kiley (Partner), Kayla Costa (Associate) and Christopher Power (Solicitor) assisted with IP aspects and Clare Raimondo (Partner) and Alana De Ieso (Solicitor) from the employment team advised on industrial relations.

Note to Editors:

HWLE is the largest legal partnership in Australia according to the most recent partnership surveys published by the Australian Financial Review.

The firm comprises 1,840, staff including 279 Partners, 1,138 other legal staff and 423 support staff across offices in nine locations – Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Melbourne, Hobart, Norwest (Northwest Sydney), Perth and Sydney.

HWLE is an independent, nationally integrated, full service commercial law firm, providing tailored and commercially oriented legal services.

HWLE operates a different business model to the other leading national law practices, and this allows us to offer unrivalled value for money without compromising quality and service. Our low ratio of solicitors to partners ensures that our clients receive optimal access to partner resources for all matters.

For further information, please contact:

Russell Mailler, Chief Executive Partner (03) 8644 3569 or rmailler@hwle.com.au

Angelique Kear, Head of Marketing (02) 9334 8541 or akear@hwle.com.au

The post HWLE Lawyers advises ATOM Group on the purchase of HoseCo Australia appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

The Strategy is intended to replace the earlier South East Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy 2020-2025, with the Minister seeking feedback from industry on it, including the proposed conservation focus areas, a revised strategy timeframe of 10 years, and amendments to the relevant statutory instruments which govern the protection of Koala Habitat throughout South East Queensland.

Focus Areas

The Strategy outlines four (4) key focus areas which will inform the relevant conservation targets and the proposed legislative amendments.  Specifically, they consist of the following:

1. protecting and restoring habitat;
2. reducing threats;
3. working together; and
4. enhancing monitoring, reporting and mapping.

The Strategy does not explicitly talk about how the key focus areas will impact on industry, however it does include commentary that provides an insight into the potential for benefits to industry.

By way of example, it is acknowledged that it presents an opportunity for State and National governments to align their various vegetation offset requirements, which would undoubtably provide a level of consistency and predictability around offsets, as well as additional opportunity for the State to ensure that local governments are likewise aligned.  The process associated with the Strategy is open for public comment, thus giving industry an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure that the practicalities of the Strategy are properly considered.  In this regard, the State has said that feedback is particularly encouraged from stakeholders on an updated mapping methodology and improved habitat reporting.

Legislative Amendments

Feedback about the proposed legislative amendments that were put forward in the 2024 Decision Post Implementation Impact Analysis Statement: Improving South East Queensland’s Koala habitat regulations (IAS) is also invited.

In terms of the proposed amendments, the IAS outlines the following proposed amendments to the Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld) and supporting information for feedback:

• Updated thresholds: The existing thresholds for exempted clearing are to be updated such that a landowner is able to clear 500m² for lots 1ha or less (being the current exemption), and 800m² for lots 1ha or greater.

• Partial exemptions: Clarification will be provided regarding where interference occurs that exceeds a threshold, assessment is not solely limited to the extent of interference that exceeds the threshold, but rather the total area of the interference.

• Consequential interference: Where consequential interference (eg a fence or road) is required as part of a development and falls within an exemption, this will still be assessed as part of the development application.

• Restriction on cumulative exemptions: Restrictions will be implemented to limit the use of several exemptions cumulatively.

• Parent and Child Lots: Clarity will be provided that a Reconfiguration of a Lot (ROL) cannot be used to generate additional habitat interference by applying the exemption to new lots arising out of an approval for an ROL.

• Vegetation categories: Amendments will be implemented to ensure consistency across all vegetation categories where exemptions are applied.

• Koala safe movement: A new definition for ‘Koala Safe Movement’ is proposed.

• Fire management: Clarification that clearing exemptions for multiple purposes cannot be joined and that fire management exemptions only apply to existing infrastructure.

Additional amendments which are of note include the following:

• Where a Material Change of Use (MCU) or ROL approval is obtained, and where a subsequent operational works (OPW) approval would currently be required, the assessment of the OPW matters will be incorporated as part of the MCU or ROL application and therefore, providing the proposal is maintained as consistent with the MCU or ROL approval, a subsequent OPW application will not be required.

• Additionally, where a subsequent application is required and it is consistent with an approval in effect for an earlier stage of a development, then it may be accepted even where it has become prohibited (eg due to a mapping change).

• Clarity will be provided that building and plumbing works do not require an additional development application.

As you would expect, the Strategy and IAS  talk about the  proposed amendments at a high level, and therefore it will be necessary to consider the detail in the actual amendments as well as any supporting documents, to better understand the amendments and to ensure that they are consistent with the position of the State set out in the Strategy.

Submissions about the Strategy may be made up to close of business on 15 March 2026.

We will monitor the government’s implementation of the proposed legislative amendments, and keep you updated on any important matters.

This article was written by Peter Bittner, Partner, Chris Haywood, Senior Associate, and Jeremiah Woolcock, Law Clerk.

The post Proposed Changes to Queensland’s Koala Legislation appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

What does this mean for franchisors?

In addition to ensuring that its own payroll and finance processes are updated to reflect the new rules, franchisors should:

1. Educate Network: Ensure that franchisees are informed of the new superannuation payment cycles and are taking steps to prepare for the resulting short term cash flow impacts. Time is critical to ensure that franchisees are adequately aware and positioned for these changes.
2. Upgrade Software: To the extent that franchisees are required to use specific software to manage and regularise employee entitlement payments, franchisors should engage with its software vendors to ensure necessary upgrades are built into the software. Where franchisees use their own software to manage payroll, franchisees should be encouraged to reach out to its software vendors to ensure necessary changes are made in readiness for 1 July 2026.
3. Audit: Update its internal audit processes to ensure that it can adequately identify non-compliance with the new superannuation payment requirements. Any non-compliance observed from an audit should be followed up with clear information regarding employer’s obligations vis-à-vis superannuation payments and clear next steps on how to rectify such non-compliance.
4. Revise Documentation: Review its franchise documentation, manuals and policies and procedures and consider whether changes are required to reflect updated changes to superannuation contribution payment cycles.

Why does this matter for franchisors?

1. Franchisee Financial Pressure: As noted above and factoring in increases to the cash rate, it is anticipated that, at least in the short term, the transition from the current quarterly contribution cycle to a requirement to pay superannuation within seven business days after payment of employees’ salaries and wages will place pressure on franchisees’ cash flow. As a result, franchisors may observe temporary difficulties among franchisees in meeting other financial obligations. Where franchisees are already experiencing cash flow constraints, franchisors ideally need to be working constructively with those franchisees to develop and implement a robust plan to manage the impact of these forthcoming changes. Regrettably, insolvency options may need to be explored for dire situations. Franchisors should be aware of, and where possible actively manage, rental obligations (particularly where the franchisor holds the lease!) and credit accounts (with all suppliers, including the franchisor or related entities) to ensure liabilities do not expose franchisors.
2. Potential Reputation Risks: In our experience, strict compliance with superannuation obligations by franchisees is frequently overlooked. In fact, in many cases, franchisees use superannuation as a ‘temporary’ cash flow source to pay other business liabilities. There is increasing public pressure on franchisors to ensure that their networks meet employment related obligations owed to employees – a trend that has been amplified by enforcement action taken by the Fair Work Ombudsman against well-known Australian franchise brands. Negative publicity arising from non-compliant franchise systems remains widespread and continues to present material reputational risks for franchisors.
3. Franchisor Liability: It is well-known that the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017 confers obligations on ‘responsible franchisor entities’ to be held liable for some instances of non-compliance with employer duties. Historically, ‘responsible franchisor entities’ were not exposed to breaches of superannuation obligations. However, since 1 January 2024, superannuation has been included in the National Employment Standards. This not only makes it easier for employees to take court action for unpaid super against its employer (franchisees) but also means franchisors can now be held responsible for non-compliance, exposing franchisors to increased penalties.

HWLE’s Franchising & Retail Team, together with our other well-integrated national specialist teams in Workplace Relations and Taxation are here to ensure you get the right advice, the first time around.

For more information about the new rules, the main changes, the opportunities, and the risks that require employers’ attention, please see our firm’s further briefing here.

For more information about a franchisor’s responsibilities in relation to contraventions of workplace laws by its franchisees, please see the Franchisor Responsibility Fact Sheet published by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

This article was written by Sean O’Donnell, Partner, and Emily Lucas, Special Counsel.

The post Warning to Franchisors: Do your franchisees and you understand the new superannuation rules? appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

The opportunity is enormous, but so are the risks. Used well, AI can drive productivity, accuracy and process improvement. Used poorly, it creates regulatory risk, reputational exposure and operational inconsistency – particularly when it comes to Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) and Australian Privacy Principles (APP) compliance.

The organisations that will see genuine return on investment are not those experimenting at random. They are the ones putting structure around AI – understanding where it can help, creating guardrails for its use, and ensuring data and systems are sound.

A practical approach involves four key stages:

1. Map where AI will meaningfully improve business processes

The starting point is not the selection of tools. It is understanding where AI could create real efficiency or uplift. This involves mapping internal processes, identifying repetitive or resource-heavy tasks, and determining which pain points would benefit from automation or AI-assistance. The CSIRO’s AI Investment Decision Checklist highlights this approach: strategy first, technology second.

This is principally an operational exercise rather than a legal one. It requires understanding workflows, data flows, user needs and organisational priorities. Without this stage, AI adoption risks becoming fragmented – a collection of uncoordinated experiments rather than a structured productivity driver.

2. Strengthen data quality before relying on AI

AI is only as good as the data behind it. If underlying information is duplicated, outdated or inaccurate, AI will amplify those issues. Before scaling AI across the organisation, there is often work to do on core data.

This can involve cleaning and de-duplicating records, reviewing retention practices, and ensuring data is up to date and reliable. It also aligns with legal obligations under APP 10 (data quality) and APP 11 (security and retention). If flawed or outdated data is used to train or feed AI tools, businesses risk making decisions on incorrect data as well as compliance breaches.

Good data governance gives AI something solid to work with. Poor data simply produces faster mistakes.

3. Establish an AI governance and fair use framework

Once there is clarity about how AI might be useful and data quality is confirmed, the next step is to ensure AI can be used safely. At present, many organisations are relying on generative AI tools without any policy in place, meaning employees may be inputting personal, commercial or confidential information into public platforms without realising the legal or business consequences. The unregulated use of AI in a business raises a number of risks, including:

• Misuse or loss of control of commercially sensitive or client information;
• Potential breaches of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) – especially APP 3 (collection), APP 6 (use and disclosure), APP 8 (sharing data overseas) and APP 11 (security);
• Inaccurate outputs being relied on in business decisions;
• Reputational harm if a client learns that their data was used in a public AI environment; and
• Shadow IT: unapproved tools being used without oversight or security assessment.

An AI governance and fair use policy should set out clear roles and responsibilities for AI decision making, establish boundaries on how and when AI can be used, including prohibiting the input of personal, commercially sensitive and client information into public platforms. It should draw on the OAIC’s guidance on the use of commercially available AI products and automated decision-making, as well as the AI ethics guidance from the Department of Industry Science and Resources, which emphasise transparency, accountability and human oversight.

A well-designed policy should also be practical: written in plain language, embedded into induction and training processes, and supported by reasonable monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

Any monitoring of employee use of IT assets and software, including AI, must also sit within the parameters of applicable workplace surveillance laws, which vary across states and territories and impose specific notice requirements.

The purpose of this framework is not to restrict innovation, but to enable it confidently. Employees can adopt helpful tools without risking compliance breaches or data leakage, and leadership can authorise AI use with clear parameters.

4. Implement procurement and oversight of AI

The fourth step is ensuring AI tools themselves are deployed in a controlled, secure and cost-effective way. Many organisations are discovering that multiple teams or employees have independently purchased AI products, each with separate licences, limited oversight and inconsistent security practices. This increases spend, duplicates effort and creates unmanaged data, privacy and cyber security risks.

A structured procurement and oversight process can address this problem by:

• Requiring tools to undergo a security and privacy assessment prior to purchase;
• Ensuring contract terms address data storage, ownership, deletion, confidentiality and export of data overseas;
• Centralising licence management so that tools are used consistently and efficiently; and
• Considering more secure configurations, such as internal GPT environments or closed enterprise models that keep data within the organisation.

This work can be supported by involving legal and IT early on in the procurement process and embedding good governance at the start of your AI journey.

What success looks like

The organisations that will see the strongest ROI from AI are those that treat it as both an innovation opportunity and a governance project. They do not block tools entirely or allow uncontrolled experimentation; instead, they build guardrails that allow AI to be used safely, effectively and at scale.

When these elements are in place, AI genuinely valuable. Teams know how and when it can be used, risks are managed. procurement is streamlined and AI adoption aligns with real business goals rather than hype.

If your organisation is at the point where employees are experimenting with AI, or where leadership is considering a broader rollout of a specific tool, now is the time to put structure around it. A deliberate, risk-aware approach does not slow innovation – it makes it sustainable.

This article was written by Amber Cerny, Partner and Lucy Hannah, Special Counsel.

The post 4 steps to manage risk and get ROI on your AI appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

What are TLDs?

A TLD is the last element of a domain name and functions as a foundational layer of the Domain Name System (DNS). Popular examples of legacy TLDs include .com, .org, .au or .shop. Beneath each TLD sits a second‑level domain (SLD), which forms the familiar domain structure used by businesses and consumers. For example, in netflix.com, ‘netflix’ is the SLD and ‘.com’ is the TLD.

Today, TLDs serve as distinctive markers of identity and function. They are strategic assets capable of shaping user trust, reinforcing brand identity, and enabling more coherent naming. For example, a TLD such as .paris signals geographical relevance, whilst .tech immediately situates a business within the technology industry. Brand‑exclusive TLDs (such as .nike or .google) add a further level of differentiation, enabling companies like Microsoft and BMW to operate secure, tightly controlled namespaces. Brand-exclusive TLDs are particularly effective for reducing ambiguity amongst users and enhancing trust in digital environments.

What’s on offer?

The 2026 round will include two main categories of applications:

• .brand TLDs, which are exclusively available to trade mark owners (who satisfy the eligibility conditions in specification 13 of the Registry Agreement); and
• generic or industry‑based TLDs, which may be operated as open or restricted registries.

A .brand TLD confers full control over the namespace to the brand owner, allowing them to create SLD registrations solely for their own benefit and purposes. In contrast, generic TLDs offer opportunities for registry operators (including existing registrars) to build a profitable business model around licensing fees for related SLDs.

Strategic value of .brand TLDs

A key distinction between generic and .brand TLDs relates to security exposure. Independent analyses of DNS abuse consistently show that open, low‑cost generic TLDs account for disproportionately high levels of phishing, malware and spam when compared with legacy TLDs and .brand TLDs. Moreover, brands who utilise generic TLDs often engage in the costly process of acquiring SLDs in an effort to proactively defend against fraud. In contrast, abuse is virtually non‑existent in .brand TLDs because only the brand operator (and authorised affiliates) can register related SLDs.

Operationally, .brand TLDs also enable clean, consistent naming across products, regions, and functions. They also allow organisations to segregate high‑risk content, enforce security standards, and reduce reliance on crowded legacy domains.

It is important to note that a .brand TLD is not owned as property. ICANN grants a contractual right to operate the TLD under a Registry Agreement, typically for 10 years (with presumptive renewal). Registrars also cannot sell .brand domain licenses to the public; at most, they may act as technical provisioning channels under the brand owner’s control.

Lessons from the last round

The last expansion of the DNS in 2012 resulted in more than 1,200 new TLDs being delegated. Some of these became runaway successes:

• the .app TLD quickly became a favourite among software developers because it offered a clean, intuitive namespace for application‑related websites (for example, ‘cash.app’);
• the .xyz extension gained global recognition after being adopted by major tech companies and startups (for example, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, which famously uses ‘abc.xyz’);
• city‑based TLDs like .london and .nyc gave local businesses and cultural institutions new ways to signal their geographic identity (for example, ‘visitlondon.london’); and
• .brand TLDs allowed companies to build secure, trusted digital environments that reduce phishing risks and strengthen customer confidence (for example, ‘.barclays’).

The 2012 round offers two practical takeaways. First, early adopters gained a competitive advantage by securing memorable, meaningful namespaces before their competitors. Second, successful applicants aligned their TLD strategy with long-term business goals relating to search engine optimisation, enhanced brand protection, and community engagement. The 2026 round presents similar opportunities — but with a more rigorous ecosystem and clearer guidance for applicants.

Registry service providers

A key change since 2012 is ICANN’s Registry Service Provider (RSP) Evaluation Program. RSPs operate the technical backend of a TLD, including DNS resolution, security extensions, registration systems, data escrow, and compliance tooling.

In 2026, RSPs are pre‑evaluated by ICANN. This means that applicants can rely on an approved provider rather than having to prove technical capability from scratch. This significantly reduces risk but also makes RSP selection one of the most important early decisions.

ICANN has now published an initial list of approved RSPs, with further providers assessed during the application window. Capacity will be limited, and organisations that delay may find their preferred provider unavailable.

How applications are evaluated

Each 2026 application will be subjected to two core assessments:

• String evaluation, which checks whether the applied‑for TLD is confusingly similar to existing TLDs or other applications. This includes visual similarity, plural/singular variants, geographic name rules, and safeguards for high‑risk strings. ICANN estimates this stage alone can take around six months.
• Application evaluation, covering the applicant’s financial stability, operational readiness, technical capability (usually via an RSP), and policy compliance. Applications are also exposed to public comment and formal objections from rights‑holders, communities, or governments.

The 2026 rules also introduce clearer appeals mechanisms and more predictable timelines — but the process remains extensive and detailed.

Objections, contention, and auctions

Applicants must be prepared for objections, which are heard by specialist dispute providers. Potential objections to an application include:

• legal rights objections (based on existing trade mark rights);
• string confusion objections (based on confusing similarity to an existing or other applied-for TLD);
• community objections (based on substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community represented by the TLD); and
• limited public interest objections (based on international legal norms of morality and public order).

Where multiple applicants seek the same or similar strings, a contention set arises. Auctions of last resort are the final resolution mechanism for unresolved contention sets, with auction proceeds reserved for public benefit uses.

The new rules allow applicants to nominate a replacement string shortly after applications are revealed — a valuable risk‑mitigation tool for those facing likely contention.

Rights protection mechanisms

The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) remains the cornerstone of trade mark protection during TLD launches. The TMCH is a centralised database of verified trade marks, designed to protect trade mark owners from infringement when new TLDs are launched by ICANN.

Trade mark holders that verify their marks with the TMCH gain priority access to register matching domains during the ‘sunrise period’. The sunrise period is a mandatory pre‑launch phase where trade mark owners can register matching domains before the public and must last at least 30 days.

Following sunrise, the trade mark claims period operates for at least 90 days. During this phase, attempted registration of a domain that exactly matches a TMCH‑verified mark triggers an immediate warning to the applicant. If the applicant proceeds, the trade mark owner is notified. This mechanism does not block registrations but deters opportunistic or bad faith registrations by ensuring early transparency.

These obligations do not generally apply to .brand TLDs, which operate as closed namespaces. Nonetheless, brand owners should ensure their marks are TMCH‑verified before submission to streamline evaluation of brand eligibility and to enhance protection across all open TLDs launched by other operators.

Fees and budgeting considerations

The evaluation fee for 2026 is USD $227,000 per application, with additional fees for certain application types (including .brand eligibility assessments).

Successful applicants must also plan for the full lifecycle of operating a TLD. Organisations should budget for:

• annual ICANN registry fees;
• RSP service fees;
• dispute and objection costs;
• ongoing compliance, security, and audit obligations; and
• potential auction exposure (if a contention set arises).

2026 round timeline

The 2026 Applicant Guidebook and initial approved RSP list is now published. Applications will open in April 2026 and remain open for approximately 12–15 weeks. Evaluation, objections, and contention resolution will run through 2027, with delegation expected in 2027–2028.

Next steps

The 2026 TLD round offers technical and strategical opportunities — and the window to act is already open. The application process is a detailed demonstration of capability, compliance, and stewardship of a significant piece of internet infrastructure.

Organisations considering applying should:

• confirm brand and trade mark readiness;
• assess security and digital architecture goals;
• identify and engage an RSP; and
• prepare a compliant, defensible application.

HWLE Lawyers’ intellectual property team has extensive experience in advising businesses regarding domain names. If you are interested in applying in ICANN’s 2026 TLD round, please contact us for further information on how we can assist you.

This article was written by Luke Dale, Partner, and Jasper Dowdell, Law Clerk.

The post The devil is in the .tail appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

New payday super rules will apply from 1 July 2026, with the Federal Government introducing major reforms to the timing and administration of employer super contributions. Under the new rules, employers will be required to pay employees’ super at the same time as paying their salary and wages, replacing the current quarterly contribution cycle. The Government says that the reforms should address the growing problem of unpaid super and allow the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to intervene faster to collect super for employees.

New rules

The new rules make major changes to the existing system. Although we anticipate the new rules will cause additional compliance and cash-flow pressures for employers and adjustments will be required in the short term, our observation is that certain draconian parts of the old rules have been abolished.

The main changes

• Employers will now be required to pay employees’ super within 7 business days after the day of payment of the employees’ salary and wage. Crucially, the super must be received and able to be allocated by the fund for it to be considered “on time”. Practically speaking, this means that super should be paid by employers as part of the ordinary pay run. All new employees’ super must be paid within 20 business days after the day of the first payment of the employees’ salary and wage. Further extensions are available in limited circumstances.
• Late payments of super, including payments of the super guarantee (SG) charge will now be tax deductible for employers. This includes payments made under a payment arrangement with the ATO. Payments of the ATO’s general interest charge (GIC) on outstanding SG charge will not be tax deductible.
• SG charge statements will be abolished and replaced by voluntary disclosure statements. Employers will be required to lodge voluntary disclosure statements with the ATO to obtain the benefit of any reductions or remissions of the administrative uplift (see below). The precise form of the voluntary disclosure statement has not yet been published by the ATO, but we anticipate it will be more sophisticated than the present spreadsheet format.
• Penalties of up to 200% which applied under the old rules for failing to pay super on time or not at all will be abolished and replaced by a “late lodgment penalty” of up to 50% of the SG charge (Late Lodgment Penalty). If the SG charge remains outstanding for at least 28 days, the ATO will be required to issue the employer with a notice warning the employer that if the charge remains unpaid for a further 28 days, the Late Lodgment Penalty will apply. Although the ATO will not have any power to remit the Late Lodgment Penalty, it appears that the penalty will reduce as the SG charge is paid. We consider this a substantially fairer and proportionate outcome for employers. Finally, although the 200% penalty will be abolished and replaced as mentioned, the penalties for misstatements to the ATO are not changing.

Other changes

• The distinction between ordinary times earnings and salary and wages will be abolished and replaced with one streamlined concept called “qualifying earnings“. Qualifying earnings will be the same for most employees to the existing definition of ordinary times earnings. Further, eligibility for higher income earners to opt-out of super altogether will be simplified and expanded.
• New taxing concepts “base SG shortfall” and “final SG shortfall” will be introduced. A base SG shortfall arises if an employee’s super is not paid on time. It is equal to the amount of super owing to an employee for a pay period less any amount paid on time. A final SG shortfall also arises if an employee’s super is not paid on time. However, it is calculated as the base SG shortfall less any further amount of super paid to an employee’s fund before the ATO makes a SG assessment. Similar to the existing system, all payments of assessed SG must be made to the ATO.
• The nominal interest charge will be abolished and replaced by “notional earnings“. Notional earnings are calculated by reference to the base SG shortfall described above and the GIC rate. We consider that this is a substantially fairer calculation for employers because notional earnings are calculated based on actual amounts of outstanding super owing to an employee. This is unlike the old system that calculated the nominal interest charge to lodgment of the SG charge statement without any regard to payments of super.
• The $20 administrative component will be abolished and replaced by a 60% “administrative uplift“. The administrative uplift is calculated as 60% of the final SG shortfall. It will also be possible to further reduce the uplift by disclosing shortfalls to the ATO. However, the disclosure rules have not yet been published as at the date of this briefing note. Similar to the above, we consider this is a substantially fairer and proportionate outcome for employers.

Overall, it will be crucial for employers to ensure that payroll and finance processes are updated to reflect the new rules. In particular, in three key areas. First, super processes must be fully and electronically integrated into ordinary pay runs so that employers can at least attempt to meet the strict 7 business day deadline. Second, employee data and election/choice records must be up to date and refreshed regularly to maintain currency and reduce the risk of rejected payments/bounce backs. Third, all updates and changes made to comply with the new rules must be permitted by the relevant employment contract, enterprise agreement, or award.

Impact on payroll and employment obligations

All Australian employers should be familiar with the complexity of payroll processes, and the potential for errors caused by this. The changes outlined above will increase this complexity and potential for error in a few ways.

First, it will require the employer to have robust systems in place to determine whether particular payments are superable or not.

Second, it will require the employer to determine from one pay period to the next whether an employee has reached their maximum superannuation contribution base or any other limit on the employer’s obligation to make superannuation contributions.

Changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA) in January 2024 have allowed the Fair Work Ombudsman, employees, and, in relevant cases, their unions to pursue unpaid superannuation contributions through the courts (previously only the ATO had the right to oversee compliance with these obligations). This has created an extra option for recovery of superannuation which may be easier and quicker for some employees.

The combined effect of all of these changes is both to make it harder for employers to ensure compliance with superannuation obligations, and to make it easier for employees and others to pursue any contravention of these obligations.

Employers should be planning now for ensuring that they have robust and reliable systems to comply with these obligations.

Employers may have to upgrade their payroll systems to ensure compliance with these obligations, and also to avoid paying superannuation on elements of an employee’s remuneration that is not part of their “qualifying earnings”.

Some employers may seek to move to a longer pay period (say monthly rather than fortnightly) in order to reduce the number of superannuation and other remuneration payments that are required each year. Employers do not have an unfettered right to change the pay periods for their employees, and should be aware of rules regulating employees’ pay periods, which may arise from the FWA, applicable awards and/or enterprise agreements, employment agreements with individual employees, and even possibly the employer’s own policies and procedures.

Further, as superannuation is now regulated under the National Employment Standards in the FWA, employers who fail to comply with the reforms may also face potential scrutiny from the Fair Work Ombudsman, exposure to civil penalties, and the risk of claims from employees.

Cashflow pressure can result in personal liability for directors

For businesses already facing cash flow pressure, these changes will increase that pressure and may create solvency issues.

A company is insolvent if it is unable to pay its debts when they are due. As such, a persistent cash flow issue can mean that the company is insolvent. Directors have a duty to prevent a company from trading while it is insolvent. Where a company is insolvent and continues to trade, directors can face personal liability for the company’s debts as well as fines and other potential liability.

Where a company is insolvent, a director has a few options, the key ones being to appoint an external administrator (such as a voluntary administrator or a liquidator), or to seek to restructure the company. Where restructuring is pursued, it is common for the directors to seek the protection of safe harbour, which provides an exemption from liability under the insolvent trading laws if certain requirements are met and safe harbour is properly deployed. In the context of the transition to payday super, it is important to note that a company’s failure to pay employee entitlements, such as super, generally disentitles a director from relying on safe harbour.

As such, it is imperative that directors concerned about cash flow solvency of their business should seek restructuring advice on how to restructure the business and mitigate the personal risk they face as a director, as soon as possible.

12 months’ administrative reprieve will be granted by the ATO

The ATO will have real-time oversight of super payments once the new rules start. It will therefore be able to intervene faster, for example using audits, against non-compliant employers. In response, the ATO published its interim compliance guide called “Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2026/1 – Payday Super – first year ATO compliance approach” (Guide). It applies from 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027.

The Guide classifies employers’ compliance with the new rules into a “green zone“, “amber zone” and “red zone“, and then indicates how the ATO will respond to employers in the different zones. Obviously, the ATO will apply its resources to behaviours which it perceives to be higher risk. It will also monitor movement within the zones.

The following table paraphrases the Guide for readability and brevity.

Having regard to the Guide and the ATO’s pre-existing compliance mandate, our observation is that the ATO will likely use educative resources, such as letter campaigns, for employers in the green and amber zones, and enforcement resources, such as audits, for employers who do not comply with the super rules at all. The issue that we foresee is the accuracy with which the ATO deploys its resources, noting the new super rules are major reforms and full implementation must happen quickly. Further, the Guide is not binding on the ATO and therefore, an employer who is not compliant for a particular employee or pay period, but is otherwise in the green zone, may not necessarily be given a free pass. The employer’s zone may also change from pay period to pay period or be different for different employees. We hold a watching brief on how these and other implementation issues as they play out over the next 12 to 24 months.

HWLE Lawyers national tax and workplace teams help clients to implement the new rules in their businesses, including to update their payroll and finance processes. We advise on all aspects of the new and old law, particularly for employers defending claims brought by the ATO or employees. Our national litigation team has restructuring and insolvency expertise and regularly advises directors on restructuring and mitigation of personal liability for insolvent trading and safe harbour. 

This article was written by Vincent Licciardi, Partner, Melissa Ferreira, Partner, Tim Frost, Partner, and Isabelle Smith, Senior Associate.

The post “Mayday. It’s Payday” – Employers urged to be 1 July ready for historic payday super rules appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

In our first article, we looked at how the consumer guarantees apply to trailer supply arrangements. We now shift gears to transport services, revisiting the changes to s63 of the ACL and exploring what they mean for providers, business customers and consignees (receivers of transported goods).

In December 2018, we published an article on the changes to the previous s63(a) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).¹ As noted in our previous article, these changes were intended to ensure that consumers receive the full protection of the ACL’s consumer guarantees regime where goods are delivered, transported or stored for personal use (for example, where personal effects are lost or damaged by a transport provider while in transit).

Our article highlighted, however, one of the potentially unintended consequences of the changes, which was that they may actually do more to protect business customers (such as retailers) than they do to protect the non-business receivers of those goods.

In this article, we revisit those changes and consider the broader implications for transport providers.

A recap on reforms to s63 of the ACL

Before the enactment of the new s63 of the ACL, s63(a) of the ACL stated that the consumer guarantees relating to services do not apply to:

“services that are, or are to be, supplied under a contract for or in relation to the transportation or storage of goods for the purposes of a business, trade, profession or occupation carried on or engaged in by the person for whom the goods are transported or stored” (the Exception).

The rationale for the Exception was that parties transporting or storing goods for a business purpose are likely to have other ways of protecting themselves in the transaction (such as insurance arrangements or an agreed liability regime with the service provider) and therefore should not need to rely on the consumer guarantees relating to services.

However, it was thought that the wording of the Exception was ambiguous, particularly the words “by the person for whom the goods are transported or stored“. It was unclear whether the word “person” was a reference to the consignee or the consignor. To address this, s63 was amended on 25 October 2018 by renumbering s 63(a) as s 63(1)(a) and adding the following clarification:²

“(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1)(a) does not apply if the consignee of the goods is not carrying on or engaged in a business, trade, profession or occupation in relation to those goods.”

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Act 2018 (Cth) explained that the transport and storage exemption from the consumer guarantees regime was intended to apply only in a business to business context, and not where the recipient of the services (the consignee) is a consumer who was acquiring the transported goods for non-business use. For the purposes of this article, we will refer to such consignees as a “non-business consignee”.

Let’s consider an example to illustrate the impact, and the questions raised by, the 2018 changes to the ACL.

The $12 delivery that cost a fortune

Sam runs an eBay store selling delicate, Italian-made home décor. He sells a handcrafted Italian glass vase to Lucy for $2,000. Lucy loves all things Italian and couldn’t wait to place the vase on her mantlepiece. The vase cost Sam a measly $15 giving him an expected profit of $1,985.

Sam books Thrifty Transport (TT), a low budget courier company that exclusively services online retailers. TT charges Sam $12 to deliver the vase. During unloading, the driver drops the box and the vase shatters. When Lucy opens the box, she is heartbroken to see the shards. She contacts Sam and Sam immediately refunds her the full amount.

Sam then demands $1,997 from TT being $1,985 in lost profit and the $12 wasted delivery fee.

TT replies:

“You paid us $12, and you expect us to compensate you nearly two grand? Our terms cap liability at $100 and exclude loss of profits. You should have taken out insurance. It’s not our fault your vase is so delicate.” Sam argues the cap is unlawful because Lucy, the consignee, acquired the vase for a non-business use, so the consumer guarantees under the ACL apply to his contract with TT. TT insists the clause stands and points to a limitation that purports to confine its liability for consumer guarantee breaches to the cost of resupplying the services under s64A of the ACL.

Can Sam rely on the consumer guarantees?

The 2018 change means that TT can’t rely on the Exception in s63(1)(a) and Sam can rely on the consumer guarantees that the delivery service provided by TT must be carried out with due skill and care. This is because Lucy is a consignee who is not carrying on a business in relation to the goods, so the consumer guarantees apply to Sam’s contract with TT.

What about TT’s limitation clauses?

If the services provided by TT are of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption (PDH), then a term that purports to limit TT’s liability to resupplying the services (or paying the cost of resupply) is not available under s 64A and will not be effective to restrict the consumer guarantees remedies. By contrast, where the services are not of a kind ordinarily acquired for PDH purposes, s64A permits a term limiting TT’s liability for a breach of consumer guarantees relating to services to the resupply (or the cost of the resupply) of the relevant services, provided the clause meets the statutory requirements. The assessment looks to the ordinary nature of the service, not merely the particular use in Sam’s transaction. One view is that last mile delivery to household recipients is a consumer facing service and therefore would support a PDH classification and preclude reliance on s64A. The competing view is that these services are a low cost logistics solution acquired by sellers to fulfil orders and therefore not of a PDH kind, making s64A more arguable. The position is therefore not clear cut and may depend on the particular features of the service offering and the market in which it operates.

Does Lucy also have consumer law rights against TT?

The CAANZ Report, which informed the reforms to the ACL implemented in 2018, recommended changes to ensure that individual consumers “do not have to rely on traders to raise issues with the shipper or transporter” but can instead “exercise rights and remedies directly against the third party” (ie the transport provider).³

Despite the stated intention of the 2018 amendments to strengthen consumers’ rights against transport providers, the changes arguably confer little additional protection on consumers like Lucy whose goods are lost or damaged in transit, except in limited circumstances. This is due to the earlier High Court decision in Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 72 (Castlemaine), which confirmed that where goods are purchased for delivery, the customer does not separately acquire delivery services. Rather, the customer acquires delivered goods from the seller. In this example, Lucy has been made whole by Sam and is therefore not asserting any claim against TT; however, had Lucy sought to pursue TT directly, TT could argue (relying on Castlemaine) that it did not supply services to Lucy for the purposes of the ACL.

Takeaways

The amended s63 of the ACL significantly narrows the circumstances in which transport and storage providers can avoid the consumer guarantees regime. Where goods are delivered to non business consignees, transport providers may be unable to rely on contractual exclusions or liability caps for consumer guarantee breaches, regardless of their terms. A limited exception may exist where the delivery services are properly characterised as non PDH, in which case a compliant s64A limitation may be available.

In light of this, transport providers should step back and consider at a strategic level how their business model, customer mix, and service offerings expose them to consumer guarantee risk. This may include reassessing the types of consignments they accept, the segments they service, and how operational practices and pricing structures manage the realities of this expanded liability. Where appropriate, providers should also evaluate whether reliance on s64A of the ACL is supportable for particular offerings and ensure that any limitation clauses align with that characterisation.

How can we help?

We have a dedicated contracting and consumer law team that can assist you with contract preparation and review and can provide you with advice on your rights and obligations under the ACL, particularly in the case of transport and logistics contracts. Please contact us if you would like more information about the services we provide.

This article was written by Teresa Torcasio, Partner.

¹ Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 (‘Australian Consumer Law‘ or ‘ACL‘)
² See the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Act 2018 (Cth).
³ final-report-australian-consumer-law-review-2017.docx

The post Offloading the ACL – Article 2: What the consumer guarantees mean for transport providers appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

The Standing Committee heard evidence from 51 people and organisations. These included the ACT Government, peak bodies for insurers, lawyers, brokers, unions, community groups and a variety of local businesses and interested individuals.

The Standing Committee’s report was tabled and published in September 2025 and contained recommendations to the ACT Government about ways in which the ACT insurance scheme could be improved to decrease expense.

The ACT Government has now published its response to the Standing Committee’s recommendations. In general terms, the ACT has agreed to investigate limiting claim costs in the ways suggested by the Standing Committee, but does not agree to interfere with the insurer’s prerogative to assess risk and set premiums, or interfere in the market by providing information or services to insurance customers.

In summary:

1. The Standing Committee made a number of recommendations to achieve the outcome of reducing claim costs.

The ACT Government agreed to undertake a review of those elements of claims ‘in principle’, with a caveat that any policy reform would follow a process of development, stakeholder consultation and budgetary analysis. Those elements are:

1. 1. whether a statutory cap should be introduced for personal injury claims;
   2. whether a statutory cap should be introduced for legal fees relating to insurance claims;
   3. the introduction of proportional liability to claims for workers compensation (that is, that an employer who causes 50% of an injury, say, would only be liable for 50% of the damages arising from that injury);
   4. contributory negligence, particularly in statutory workers’ compensation claims;
   5. aligning ‘journey’ claims to other Australian jurisdictions, that is removing them from the workers compensation scheme and leaving them in the motor accidents injuries scheme except where there is a ‘real and substantial’ connection between employment and the circumstances of the injury;
   6. the viability of subsiding workers compensation premiums that cover apprentices; and
   7. ways to strengthen access to, and engagement in, alternate dispute resolution for workers compensation claims.

The ACT Government agreed to investigate policy options that would allow or facilitate ‘insurance pooling’ for community organisations using public facilities

The ACT Government also agreed that there ought not be a blanket rule that $20 million in public liability insurance is required before government facilities are accessible, saying that this was the government’s existing policy.

2. The Standing Committee recommended a number of ways that, in its view, premiums could be reduced directly, and more information could be supplied by the government to assist people to procure insurance. The ACT did not agree to these recommendations. They were:
   1. a cap on increases to insurance premiums. The ACT Government rejected this recommendation as it may have ‘unintended consequences’ including cross-subsidisation and reduce the incentives of performance-based pricing;
   2. equalising insurance premiums for taxis and rideshare vehicles (which was rejected for the same reason) and making changes to data collection in relation to motor vehicle accidents; and
   3. establishing both an insurance literacy program and website allowing a comparison between insurers. The response cited the existing support given to small businesses and said that these efforts would not yield benefits in proportion with the cost of the exercise.

3. A number of other recommendations were noted without any commitment to take further action. These were:
   1. whether any advertising for legal services on a ‘no win no fee’ basis must include a statement that the customer is liable to pay disbursements and potentially third-party costs;
   2. requiring insurers to explain premium calculations to purchasers, on the basis that it was beyond the legislative power of the ACT Government to impose such a requirement. The ACT Government noted that information relating to the consideration of risk measures was reported in the annual workers compensation scheme review, and quarterly Motor Accident Injury scheme reports;
   3. providing more funding to community organisations to cover the cost of increasing premiums; and
   4. reviewing the operation of the statutory bar in the Limitation Act 1985.

What is apparent from the Inquiry and the Government’s response is that scheme change in the ACT is likely to be a slow process with the risk, in the interim, that small businesses may not procure any (or adequate) insurance in the ACT to protect them from the risks inherent in their commercial operations.

This article was written by Sarah McJannett, Partner, Adrian Hearne, Senior Associate, and Jessica Evans, Solicitor.

The post The ACT Insurance Crisis: What you need to know about the Government’s response appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

What are favicons?

Favicons (short for ‘favourite icon’) are tiny graphic images that are displayed within a web browser to represent a website or web page. Favicons are usually 16×16 pixels and are often displayed on a web browser’s search results, address bar, bookmark lists, tabs, reading lists, and favourites menu. Whilst favicon images are fundamentally square, favicons are displayed within a circular mask to maintain consistency across search engines, web browsers, and operating systems.

A favicon image may be coloured or monochrome, and can include pictures, logos, letters, numbers, or other abstract designs. However, the small size of favicons creates significant legibility restraints. Furthermore, any designs that feature in the corners of a favicon image are likely to be cut off by the web browser’s circular mask. It is therefore incumbent upon website owners to thoughtfully select colours, words, and imagery that are distinctive, recognisable, and legible within a web browser format.

The specific composition of a favicon is usually related to a website owner’s logo, goods, or services. It is often a condensed or simplified version of a larger word or picture format. Ultimately, it provides context as to who or what the user can expect to encounter on the website. Consider, for example, Target’s bullseye favicon. The word ‘Target’ is purposefully omitted from the favicon due to legibility constraints. However, the distinctive bullseye favicon is immediately recognisable amongst consumers and helps them to identify Target’s website. The use of red and white reinforces the favicon’s connection to Target’s iconic brand identity. Target’s favicon is therefore an effective and strategic tool for establishing identity and building trust amongst consumers in their online presence.

Why are favicons important?

Favicons are primarily used to identify and differentiate certain websites from others. Favicons enhance consumer recognition by transforming websites from text and URLs into memorable visual symbols. This makes brand identities easy to spot amongst competitors on the internet. With up to 14 billion Google searches carried out every day, favicons allow brand identities to capture online traffic and direct customers to their website. Amid countless search engine results, a favicon acts as a visual cue, guiding users straight to the brand they recognise.

Similarly, favicons displayed in tabs, bookmarks, and favourites allow users to quickly distinguish and differentiate websites. Favicons depict authority and professionalism, and the recognition of a favicon creates confidence in the user that they have located and are interacting with the desired website or web page. Studies confirm that favicons have a significant impact on brand recognition, trust and credibility, and even search engine optimisation. Favicons have also been validated as a useful tool in distinguishing legitimate brand identities from potential phishing scams. Ultimately, customers are much more likely to engage with a favicon-bearing website due to the perceived professionalism and authority associated with a high-quality favicon.

For example, consumers attribute Amazon’s favicon (a condensed version of the Amazon logo featuring an ‘a’ underlined by an arrow) to the Amazon brand identity. Recognition of Amazon’s favicon helps to ensure that customers are choosing the correct, legitimate website to shop online. This is particularly important where the customer provides sensitive or personal information on the website. Amazon’s favicon also facilitates instantaneous recognition due to the similarity of the favicon with the brand’s logo. The Amazon favicon is therefore a useful tool for fostering trust and security amongst customers, and maximising online traffic to their website.

How are favicons protected in Australia?

Favicons are not registered or recorded on a central database. However, favicons are a form of intellectual property and may be protected in Australia in two distinct ways.

Copyright

Under section 32 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), copyright automatically subsists in original artistic works at the time of creation. Copyright confers a bundle of exclusive economic rights that relate to the original artistic work. In the context of favicons, this includes the exclusive right to reproduce, publish, communicate, or adapt the work for the duration of the copyright.

Importantly, copyright is not a registrable form of intellectual property and is not formally recognised on a comprehensive, publicly accessible register. This reflects the instantaneous subsistence of copyright upon creation of a work. However, whilst subsistence of copyright is free and automatic, enforcement of exclusive economic rights is achieved through legal action. This can be an expensive and time-consuming process. Moreover, there may be a legitimate dispute over whether copyright actually subsists in a particular work.

This is an important consideration for the protection of favicons. For copyright to subsist in a favicon, the favicon must be original. Due to the vast number of favicons that exist across the internet, it is highly likely that multiple favicons exhibit similar, unoriginal characteristics. Indeed, it is impossible to precisely state the number of favicons in existence due to their association with billions of websites, each potentially using multiple file icons. It is therefore conceivable that disputes may arise alleging that a favicon is an authorised copy, reproduction, or adaptation of another favicon.

Similarly, the size constraints of favicons reduce the scope for creating truly original artistic works. In pursuit of legibility and recognition, favicons often feature variations of established symbols, pictures, or designs (such as YouTube’s ‘play’ symbol). Consider, for example, favicons that rely upon the use or variation of a single alphabetical letter. Whilst stylised designs such as Disney’s ‘D’ and Google’s ‘G’ may satisfy the originality requirement, simpler and less distinctive uses of alphabetical letters (such as Wikipedia’s ‘W’) may not. Similarly, favicons that merely utilise a combination or gradient of colour may not meet the threshold of original artistic expression.

The practical result of these inherent vagaries is uncertainty. An entity may falsely believe that their favicon is adequately protected as an original artistic work, when in reality it is not. The free and automatic nature of copyright subsistence may induce incorrect assumptions of protection. Whilst copyright confers valuable protection of exclusive economic rights, there is a degree of risk in solely relying upon copyright protection for favicons in Australia.

Trade mark

A favicon may also be protected in Australia as a trade mark. A trade mark is a sign used to distinguish goods or services. It indicates the trade origin of goods or services, and protects the goodwill of the trade mark owner.

Registration offers the strongest legal protection for a trade mark in Australia. Registration confers exclusive rights of use in Australia, the legal right to place the ® symbol next to the favicon, and the ability to sell or license the favicon as a business asset. A registered trade mark is also publicly searchable and visible on the IP Australia register. This publicly accessible information displays the protection status of a mark and can be effective in deterring misuse.

To be protected as a registered trade mark, a favicon must be distinctive, used to identify specific goods and services, and not confusingly similar to an existing mark. Trade mark registration offers the certainty of protection, enforceability of rights, and deterrence of misuse. However, it is important to note that trade mark registration will need to be sought in every country where protection is required.

Next steps

Favicons may be small in scale, but their influence on digital identity is substantial. They distil brand recognition into a compact image, guiding users through crowded online spaces with clarity and trust. Their design demands careful attention to legibility and distinctiveness, while their legal protection in Australia highlights the complexities of intellectual property in the digital age.

Whether safeguarded by copyright or trade mark law, favicons are more than decorative symbols: they are strategic assets that reinforce brand identity and foster consumer confidence. In an era defined by billions of daily web searches and heightened concerns about legitimacy online, favicons demonstrate how even the smallest icons can carry profound weight in shaping digital interactions and securing brand presence.

HWLE Lawyers’ intellectual property team has extensive experience in advising businesses regarding copyright and trade mark protection. If you are concerned about the protection of your favicon, please contact us for further information on how we can assist you.

This article was written by Luke Dale, Partner, and Jasper Dowdell, Law Clerk.

The post Small icons, big rights: Protecting favicons as intellectual property appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.

The transaction, completed on 23 December 2025, marked Nikken’s entry into the Australian rental market via the acquisition of 100% of shares in CFL.

CFL, established in 2003 and headquartered in Victoria, has built a strong reputation for its forklift rental and maintenance services across the Victorian market. Nikken plans to leverage its expertise developed in Japan, to enhance CFL’s value proposition while maintaining its focus on safety, sustainability, and community engagement.

The HWLE M&A team was led by Thomas Kim (Partner) and Kenneth Lee (Special Counsel) with valuable assistance from Jack England (Solicitor).

Shane Mathias, CEO of Chadwick Forklifts, said that “We are extremely excited and looking forward to a positive collaboration of people, knowledge, capabilities and shared culture to create a stronger future for all our stakeholders.”

Note to Editors:

HWLE is the largest legal partnership in Australia according to the most recent partnership surveys published by the Australian Financial Review.

The firm comprises 1,813, staff including 287 Partners, 1,122 other legal staff and 404 support staff across offices in nine locations – Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Melbourne, Hobart, Norwest (Northwest Sydney), Perth and Sydney.

HWLE is an independent, nationally integrated, full service commercial law firm, providing tailored and commercially oriented legal services.

HWLE operates a different business model to the other leading national law practices, and this allows us to offer unrivalled value for money without compromising quality and service. Our low ratio of solicitors to partners ensures that our clients receive optimal access to partner resources for all matters.

For further information, please contact:

Russell Mailler, Chief Executive Partner (03) 8644 3569 or rmailler@hwle.com.au

Angelique Kear, Head of Marketing (02) 9334 8541 or akear@hwle.com.au

The post HWLE advises Chadwick Forklifts on their sale to Nikken Corporation appeared first on HWLE Lawyers.