Business Know How

Melissa Bush
  • 5.0 (3)
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Updated Weekly

"Business Know How: Practical Legal Insights for Australian Businesses" is your go-to source for understanding the legal landscape of business, property, and estates law in Australia. Hosted by Melissa Bush, an experienced lawyer, each episode breaks down complex legal concepts into clear, actionable information. From navigating commercial leases and succession planning to understanding court judgments that impact your operations, this podcast provides the insights you need to protect and grow your business. Whether you’re managing day-to-day operations or planning for the future, Business Know How gives you the legal knowledge to make informed decisions.

  1. 1 Sept

    76 - Who are you actually suing

    You Can’t Sue a Shopfront Sign: Lessons from Wang v Loh on Naming the Right Defendant The episode explains that NSW court proceedings must be brought against legal persons (individuals or companies), not trading names, under UCPR 7.19, with unregistered business names usable only temporarily under rules 7.20 and 7.22 while the plaintiff must identify and amend to the real defendant; service can be effected on an unregistered business name under rule 10.9. Using Wang v Loh (NSW District Court, 2025), it shows how plaintiffs suing “Tofu King” over alleged trespass and nuisance from exhaust ducting faced months of searches, subpoenas, and disputes to identify the proper defendants: the lessee Mr Ting Ting Wu and Ozlong Enterprises Pty Ltd, which owned the business and trademark. The court upheld service, allowed substitution and amendment despite breach of rule 7.22, and highlights lessons on identifying the correct party early, pleading properly, serving strictly, and understanding business structures and liability. 00:00 Suing a Shopfront Name 01:36 Podcast Welcome Disclaimer 02:41 Legal Persons Rule 03:48 Business Names and Service 05:05 Wang v Loh Facts 07:01 Finding the Real Defendant 08:15 Service Dispute in Court 09:36 Judge Answers Three Questions 13:34 Key Lessons for Disputes 18:02 Final Takeaways and Links Wang v Lo [2025] NSWDC 413:  www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2025/413.html Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr.7.19–22:  https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/ucpr2005305/ Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s.14:  https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa2005167/ ASIC business name and company search:  https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/bn/SearchBnRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=17suze8s17_18

    76 - Who are you actually suing

  2. 25 Aug

    75 - When a client list goes walking

    When a client list goes walking This episode recounts the 2026 NSW Supreme Court decision Body Sculpting Clinics v Palmer, where clinic manager and part-shareholder Ms Palmer resigned, emailed herself nearly 4,000 client and lead records from the clinic’s Mindbody system, and then worked at a nearby competing business, Defined Aesthetics, alongside former staff, with evidence including emails, forwarded scripts and sales data, and a text describing a “sneaky little marketing tactic.” Host Melissa Bush explains Australian restraints of trade are presumed void unless reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests, and outlines interlocutory injunction requirements, including the usual undertaking as to damages. The court granted injunctions restraining use of the confidential leads list, client and staff solicitation, and a five-kilometre non-compete, but refused a 15-kilometre restraint due to inconsistency with a five-kilometre franchise deed, delay in suing, potential harm to the new business, and the employer’s weak capacity to meet damages (declining profits and $166,000 tax debt). 00:00 Manager Turns Rival 01:28 Podcast Intro Disclaimer 02:35 Restraint Basics 04:09 Injunctions Explained 05:10 Case Facts Timeline 08:04 Orders Granted 10:29 Why 15km Failed 13:55 Eight Key Lessons 17:12 Final Takeaway Outro Read the case here

    75 - When a client list goes walking

  3. 18 Aug

    74 - The $83,000 mistake in a commercial lease

    Hoang v Hungry Jack’s: How One Word in a Lease Decided $83,000 a Year The episode explains the 2026 Supreme Court of New South Wales case Hoang v Hungry Jack’s, a dispute over an $83,000 annual rent gap caused by differing interpretations of how market rent should be assessed under a registered commercial lease for a Hungry Jack’s drive-through in Taree. Hungry Jack’s argued the valuer should assess only bare land because it built the restaurant, claiming “premises” meant land only, the building was not a fixture or was a lessee’s fixture, and alternatively that charging rent on the building was unconscionable under the ACL. Justice Pike rejected all arguments, holding the lease defined “premises” to include the building, the restaurant was a fixture owned by the landlord, it was not removable as a lessee’s fixture, and the earlier 2004 agreement for lease was excluded by the registered lease and entire agreement clause. The episode draws seven lessons on definitions, rent review drafting, ownership of improvements, registered documents, entire agreement clauses, due diligence, and getting terms right at the start. 00:00 The $83K Dispute 01:21 Podcast Intro Disclaimer 02:27 Deal Setup 2004 Lease 03:21 New Owner Rent Review 05:12 Hungry Jack's Three Arguments 08:06 Court Rejects Arguments 12:13 Seven Lessons Breakdown 17:55 Final Takeaways Outro Hoang v Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 775:  www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2026/775.html

    74 - The $83,000 mistake in a commercial lease

  4. 11 Aug

    73 - Use it or lose it - trade mark non-use

    Australia Trademark Non-Use Removal: Use It or Lose It (Trade Marks Act s92) The episode explains that Australian trademark registration is conditional on genuine use and can be removed under the “use it or lose it” principle via a non-use removal application to IP Australia under s92 of the Trade Marks Act 1995. Any person can apply, three years after the filing date, and the decision assesses use in Australia during a three-year lookback window; even a single genuine use can be enough, but token or overseas use does not count, and the application can target all or some goods/services. Two grounds are covered: s92(4A) lack of genuine intention to use at filing, and s92(4B) actual non-use in the relevant period, with owners needing evidence to rebut non-use. Recent 2025 cases (Whiplash/Whiplash’d and Butterful & Creamorous) show removal can’t be limited by state, use anywhere in Australia can defeat removal, and the intention-to-use evidentiary bar is low, making s92(4B) more practical. The host advises documenting Australian use, ensuring authorized user arrangements are recorded, and targeting removal applications carefully by class. 00:00 Trademark Not Set-and-Forget 01:23 Podcast Intro and Disclaimer 02:30 Use It or Lose It Basics 03:37 Timing and Use Requirements 05:02 Two Grounds Under Section 92 06:18 Whiplash Case Lessons 10:24 Butterful Case on Intention 13:48 What Counts as Genuine Use 16:31 Protect Your Mark With Evidence 18:18 Challenging a Competitor Strategically 19:51 Key Takeaways and Wrap-Up https://ipfirstresponse.ipaustralia.gov.au/options/trade-mark-non-use

    73 - Use it or lose it - trade mark non-use

  5. 4 Aug

    72 - Dying without a Will - what happens with your business

    Intestacy and Your Business: What Happens If You Die Without a Will in NSW Melissa Bush explains how dying without a valid will in New South Wales triggers the Succession Act 2006 intestacy formula (spouse/de facto, then children, parents, siblings, and potentially bona vacantia), which ignores business continuity. She outlines how a surviving spouse may receive personal effects plus a CPI-indexed statutory legacy (noted as $615,054.96 as at 13 July 2026), with the remainder split with children from a prior relationship, creating pressure to sell business assets within 12 months to avoid interest. She details impacts by structure: sole trader operations can freeze until letters of administration; company shares pass to relatives, risking disputes without a shareholders’ agreement; partnerships may dissolve on death under the Partnership Act 1892 unless agreed otherwise. A checklist covers making a business-aware will, enduring power of attorney, shareholder/partnership agreements with buy-sell and insurance, and reviewing personal licences. 00:00 What Happens Without a Will 01:23 Meet Your Host 02:30 Intestacy Rules Explained 03:26 Spouse and Children Split 05:38 Business Meets Statutory Legacy 06:51 Sole Trader Shutdown Risk 08:30 Company Shares After Death 10:02 Partnerships Can Dissolve 10:53 Letters of Administration Delay 12:43 Succession Planning Checklist 15:20 Final Takeaways and Wrap

    72 - Dying without a Will - what happens with your business

  6. 28 July

    71 - Dealing with flexible working arrangement requests

    Flexible Work Requests Under Australia’s Fair Work Act: Lessons from Talaugon v Alight (2025) Melissa Bush explains how flexible work requests under s65 of the Fair Work Act became a tightly regulated process after mid‑2023 reforms, requiring genuine discussion, attempts to reach alternatives, consideration of refusal consequences, and a detailed written response within 21 days, with disputes now able to go to the Fair Work Commission. She reviews the Federal Court case Talaugon v Alight (2025), where a contracts officer and primary carer sought a split-shift, largely work-from-home arrangement; the employer engaged through a formal policy, ultimately refused the proposal on efficiency/productivity and customer service grounds, offered an alternative that was accepted, and later terminated employment amid documented performance concerns. The Court dismissed claims about flexible work, carer’s leave, and adverse action, highlighting consistent treatment of other carers, service-length limits, correct NES carer’s leave scope, and the importance of contemporaneous performance documentation. 00:00 Flexible Work Requests Rise 01:14 Podcast Welcome Disclaimer 02:20 Who Can Request Flexibility 03:36 New Employer Process Rules 05:42 Talaugon v Alight Story 08:32 Court Findings Explained 11:18 Six-Step Employer Checklist 15:09 Wrap Up Resources Next Steps https://www.businessknowhow.com.au/blog/flexibleworking_0526 https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/flexibility-in-the-workplace/flexible-working-arra...

    71 - Dealing with flexible working arrangement requests

  7. 21 July

    70 - Consumer guarantees & warranties - what you must understand

    Consumer Guarantees vs Warranties: Refund Policies, ACCC Enforcement, and What’s Changing in the ACL Melissa Bush explains Australian Consumer Law consumer guarantees and how they differ from voluntary warranties, stressing guarantees apply automatically, can’t be excluded, and may outlast warranty periods. She outlines key guarantees for goods and services, who qualifies as a "consumer", and how remedies depend on minor versus major failures, including compensation for consequential loss. Using Mazda Australia’s $11.5 million penalty for wrongly insisting repairs were the only remedy, she highlights the risk of misleading representations. She lists ACCC-targeted statements found in a sweep of 2,000 retail websites (e.g., “no refunds", strict return windows, “final sale", “no returns on opened items", “out of warranty", or shifting responsibility to manufacturers), citing Koala Living penalties and proceedings against Mosaic Brands. She flags proposed ACL reforms to penalise simply refusing required remedies and provides a compliance checklist for policies, terms, signage, and staff training. 00:00 No Refunds Can Be Illegal 01:19 Show Intro and Disclaimer 02:26 Consumer Guarantees Explained 05:10 Guarantees vs Warranties 06:48 Major vs Minor Failures 08:21 Mazda Case Lessons 09:56 ACCC Targets Bad Policies 13:54 Law Reform on Enforcement 16:19 Compliance Checklist 18:23 Wrap Up and Resources

    70 - Consumer guarantees & warranties - what you must understand

  8. 14 July

    69 - Watch what you say: cartel conduct

    Anti-Competitive Conduct: Cartels, Competitors and the Five Rules for Small Business Host Melissa Bush explains how Australian competition law under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 applies to businesses and individuals of every size, with no small business exemption, and warns how informal chats with competitors can create criminal cartel risk. She outlines the four illegal cartel types – price fixing, output restrictions, market allocation, and bid rigging and highlights severe civil and criminal penalties, including up to $100 million per contravention for corporations and up to 10 years’ prison for individuals, citing ACCC enforcement examples (QTech, Bingo Industries/Aussie Skips, crane hire WhatsApp chats, and fresh produce suppliers). She stresses no written contract is needed; an “understanding” and later parallel conduct may suffice, and ACCC can compel messages and documents. She distinguishes lawful industry discussion from prohibited topics and gives five rules: never discuss prices or customers/territories/bids, clearly object and leave if those arise, assume communications are discoverable, and seek legal advice promptly, including considering ACCC immunity. 00:00 Cocktail Chat Trap 00:57 Episode Purpose and Host 02:53 Cartel Conduct Basics 04:50 Penalties and Real Cases 06:33 How Cartels Really Start 08:32 Informal Agreements Count 10:28 What You Can Discuss 12:04 What You Cannot Discuss 13:40 Five Rules to Follow 15:49 Summary and Next Steps https://www.accc.gov.au/business/competition-and-exemptions/cartels https://www.accc.gov.au/business/competition-and-exemptions/associations-and-professional-services/i...

    69 - Watch what you say: cartel conduct
See All (77)

Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

"Business Know How: Practical Legal Insights for Australian Businesses" is your go-to source for understanding the legal landscape of business, property, and estates law in Australia. Hosted by Melissa Bush, an experienced lawyer, each episode breaks down complex legal concepts into clear, actionable information. From navigating commercial leases and succession planning to understanding court judgments that impact your operations, this podcast provides the insights you need to protect and grow your business. Whether you’re managing day-to-day operations or planning for the future, Business Know How gives you the legal knowledge to make informed decisions.

Information

  • Creator
    Melissa Bush
  • Years Active
    2024 - 2026
  • Episodes
    77
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Business Know How
  • Show Website
    Business Know How