Hello and welcome to today's episode of The Money Puzzle. I'm your host James Gerard, standing in one more time for James Kirby in the last of our special focus series. This week, we're going to dive into the area where finance and the law meet head on. So get ready for that because legal things can impact your financial life.
So from a state planning to superinnuation, to wills and a state asset protection, the decisions that you make today could have a big implication for your fair nature wellbeing into the future. So in summary, we're going to unpack how the law influences your finances and to do that, today's test has a wealth of legal experience, back dating two nineteen eighty four, which coincidentally is the year that this year's AFL Grand Final performer Katie Perry was born.
Peter Kernan is a lawyer with Aubrey Brown Lawyers on Sydney's Central Coast, and he is well known and well regarded in the area. He acts as an honorary solicitor for local sporting and community organizations, including the local Life Saving Club, and is a board member of the Central Coast Disability Options and not for profit that provides support services for young people living with a disability. Peter Cernin from Aubrey Brown Lawyers, Welcome to the Money Puzzle.
Thank you, James, pleasure to be here.
As is the case with every episode, what we discuss is general advice and not to be taken as personal advice, and listeners should seek professional advice before acting on anything they hear. On today's episode, we're going to break up our discussion into different areas, so let's start by talking about property related legal matters. So the first thing I want to ask you, Peter, is that I've heard recently in the media about people being scammed out of their
property deposits. How does this happen and how can people protect themselves from.
This, James, have been an increased number of these settlements scams, as they're called. Hackers interposed themselves into usually some sort of email chain between people who are instructing solicitor or
conveyancer to act on a property transaction. Often they just change one little bit of an email or one little bit of a number to enable them to then get into the financial aspects of the transaction, so posing as a party that's involved in that transaction and then being able to divert funds not just deposits, but often settlement
funds too for the completion of that transaction. The reason that there's been an increase in these is, of course the increase in property prices, so the amount of money involved that makes an attractive target to hackers is more.
Things done electronically these days. So we have that systems at PEXA where I thought maybe using that type of system to be less chance of this type of fraudulent activity happening, but still seems to occur.
Yeah, the electronic workspace known as PEXA is where all conveyancing matters in New South Wales in particular, but many other states are carried out the days, and yes, there are lots of checks and balances in that system, and there has only been a very few number of PEXA related transactions where that's happened. The main main cause of these, or the main source of these appears to be from hacking by the real estate agents before it gets to the PEXA system. Got it.
So what would you suggest for people, say they're a first home buyer, or maybe they're downsize in and haven't bought a sold a property for forty years are we talking about physically taking checks to real estate agents and conveyances big bags of cash? How do we sidestep the scam?
Is here all potential options, James, for some of them are bit unlikely. I guess that the check thing might be possible, or a bag of cash maybe less. So it's again about being vigilant. Like all scams, it is making sure that you know who you're talking to, making sure that every single number that you've been provided for
to transfer money to is correct, and that's verbally. In legal practice, we insist on when we receive account numbers, we make sure that there is a verbal discussion with that client and just to confirm that number and then we can carry out that transaction. The risks arise basically
when people are put under pressure. For example, if things have been going along okay, and then all of a sudden there's this rush to get to an exchange of contracts, for example, and then you get flustered and people just don't pay enough attention. So it really is about paying attention and making sure that you know who you're talking to. And if you have to go to someone's office to make sure, then that's certainly an option. For you.
Yeah, it rings a bell and resonates when you say that your team will call people when they've received instructions to confirm before payments we have made and receive. We do a similar thing in financial planning world, and that actually was important. It's happened a couple of years ago. One of our clients sent through an email or what we thought was their email, saying, Hey, I've just found a property.
I need ninety thousand dollars out of my self managed super fund bank account transferred over to my conveyances trust account. And we have an internal control where we call our clients before we make withdrawals on their accounts or process it for them. And the difference was that the email address was one letter off or one extra letter. And when we rang the client, he said, what are you talking about. I'm in hospital my wife's son. Well, she's
about to have surgery. And what happened was that that the hackers had got into his computer, and this happened about six months earlier, and they're just monitoring. They're just sitting there and looking at his schedule, understanding where his finances were, and saw that his wife had surgery planned at a certain date, he'd be out of the office for a week, and they thought he's probably not going to be checking his emails. That's the right time to strike.
So they realized I was the advisor that made contact with the bogus email account and the bogus trust account details to send money to. But luckily we picked it up. When we called the client, he freaked out. We sort of put a freeze on his bank account for the super fund, and then he changed his email addressed and had his computer investigated and found that there was some sort of a hacker who's managed to have to find their way in there. So you can't be too careful.
There is scary yeah, indeed, Well let's move on to buying property off the plan, Peter, what are the risks of legal risks if a developer doesn't deliver the property as promised. I've never bought a plan off the property off the plan, I should say myself, so I'm not too sure what happens if, say, the developer is late, if they promised you three bedrooms but there's only two bedrooms,
can you cancel the contract you deposit back? And as a secondary question, I've heard about this inn called a sunset clause, but I'm not really sure what it is. Could you explain that one as well.
Yes, I'll start with a second bit, James, because the sunset clause is very important in that whole discussion. A sunset clause or a sunset date is a period in a contract, usually a couple of years out from for a new build, and the obligation on the developer is to complete and hand over a for example, a completed apartment in accordance with the contract by that date. There is to be position where if that didn't happen, the developer could say, well, we've failed to meet the sunset date.
We're going to terminate the contract. You can have your deposit back, but then you can go and sell it to someone else for a lot more. And so that
was happening. So in December twenty nineteen some reforms came out from the New South Wales government, including the requirement to include firstly a disclosure statement in the contract setting out all the dates and all the ability of developers to terminate contracts and how the process worked in a single maybe two pages, with development consents and all the numbers that people can check easily, so that meant that the developers are under a little bit more obligation to
give as much information to a purchaser as possible. So at that point you enter a contract and if the developer is unable to complete by the sunset date, the developer now has to approach the Supreme Court before he's able to terminate that contract. So in other words, the purchaser is protected because the Supreme Court will only give those sort of orders if there are exceptional circumstances so that the developer has been completely unable to complete that
development due to things entirely outside of his control. So that can be various things that I think COVID might have worked for a while, but there are just generally there's not many cases that get there and that the developers are able to do that.
Got it so that they can't intentionally delay the build because the property market's gone up by twenty percent and they want to effectively resell that property off the plan. And you mentioned New South Wales. Is it the sunset calls just the New South Wales thing or is it around the country.
There are sunset dates in varying forms, but my understanding is, for example, in Queensland, they don't have this obligation for disclosure in these types of contracts. But I also understand that he is coming up there that I couldn't be sure about Victoria or elsewhere, but I think there are various pieces of legislation that are not dissimilar to them in South Wales.
One got it, And then back to the first question around what happens if the developer doesn't deliver the property that they promised. One that I've seen commonly is where there was a say, a cast space or two cast spaces on tidle and now side by side, but due to reconfiguration of the basement, they've had to turn them into tandem so head to toe car spots, which are less desirable. So where there's things like that, some may be minor, there might be one or two square meters difference,
maybe smaller, some of more major. What happens in these type of situations at that point when settlement's.
Ready, there is in the vast majority of contracts a clause that says if the variation to the property, for example in floor space, is more than five percent, then they could resind. Now that's one issue, So if you again had a bedroom that was a certain size and it comes down by ten percent in size just that bedroom, then the overall place obviously comes down by that too.
But the point is that you could resind that because it's not the size of the bedroom that you contracted by it, it does become more difficult when there the issues aren't just size wise, So the cases all revolve
around whether you would have seated with that purchase. If that, for example, and you're using your example that it was a tandem instead of a side by side and you said we were there is if you can show the court that there is no way in the world that you would have purchased an apartment with a tandem car space and have reasons for that, whether it be mobility or the like, then the court will assist you in getting out of that contract or at the very least
getting compensation. And it will all come down to what negotiations happen with the outset, would either developer or the agent. And again if there is a for example, you wanted the car space next to the lift and you were assured of that and it doesn't happen, then again another mobility question I guess is that would be a real issue for you, and therefore you don't want that apartment.
So it's a matter of degree as to how much the contract contracted apartment, for example, differs from that which you thought you were going to get, and hues come into it that you the glossy brochures give a view that goes all a long way up over the other buildings, to the coast or whatever, and all of a sudden, the ultimate viewers of that you are at all.
Right then when it gets to the point of choosing the ownership structure, so barely in mind, our listeners are all around the country, and some of them are all around the world. A lots of Aussie expats listen to this. There's options in your South Wales that I know of, But if they're different interstate, maybe you might want to just highlight that they may be different interstate around tenants
in common versus joint tenancy ownership of property. So my understanding is that joint tenancy there's no identifiable percentage split. It's just joined wholly together. If one person dies, the surviving person takes that property one hundred percent. But tenants in common there's a percentage ownership, So it could be fifty to fifty could be thirty three, thirty three, thirty fourth, there's three people or whatever you determine that split to be.
So I was curious around what's the default structure, is this a national thing? And any commentsal guidance you have around this.
Well, I think you've almost answered your own question. Jatly, joint tenancy operates under the law of survivorship. Yes, the survivor will take and there will be a notice of death. For example, if a deceased joint tenant is there, then the surviving joint tenant will be able to transfer that property to themselves without stamp duty because that law of survivorship overrides any duty transaction. If, however, it's tenants in common,
you're correct. They can be in any number of percentage shares. The front page of the new South Wales Standard Contract the Sale of Land has a capitalized box at the bottom which says joint tenancy. But you have a choice to tick a second box to have a tenants in common and then a further option to say what percentage shares.
That that tendency in common is to be there quite often and you'd be well aware of this through the finance world is that there is often a requirement, often a request to have a one percent ownership of a party with a ninety nine percent to the other as tenants in common. And that's often just for asset protection purposes, so you can, but you can choose any number of percentages that you need to reflect the arrangement between the parties. Got it.
So joint tendency is the default unless you elect otherwise for tenants in common. And is this to your knowledge? I know that you're more an expert in yourself Wales. But across the country, do they have a similar system.
Yeah, they do because it's based on common law, that law of survivorship, so yes they do. The how it comes out in a contract might be slightly different, but the basic, the fundamental law behind it will be national. And I guess the tenants in common aspect is often for parties who are joining together to invest, for example, And there are other aspects of it in a state
planning that can be useful. But but you're correct that New South Wales is a largely joint tendency to fault in contracts, but it's available in all other jurisdictions.
Okay, Now, let's roll our sleeves up. We've got a theoretical property dispute around boundaries. So say we'll call him John. John wants to build a fence, but his neighbor Steve doesn't want to share in the cost so or doesn't want to help with the conveyance in. So how can John build this retaining wall that's in the risk of collapse in And what happens if there's one person on
the higher side or the lower side. Does that make a difference, And just boundaries in general, because that can cause a lot of contention between neighbors.
Yeah, the distinction you need to draw is between a boundary fense and a retaining wall. So in New South Wales again, and there are I'm aware of similar pieces of legislation in other states, so I'm sure that the law is basically the same with different legislation though. But in New South Wales the Dividing Fences Act deals with various definitions, and a dividing fence is basically a fence, whether it's made of color, bond, piling fence, whatever, just
to divide two pieces of land. It can be exactly on the boundary or close enough, so it defines a distinction between the two different lots. A retaining wall is excluded from the definition of dividing fence unless it is supporting a fence. So in your example of higher and lower, if it's only supporting an embankment or a garden of a terrace or a pool or whatever, and it doesn't support an actual fence, so for example, it hasn't got fence posts secured into it, then it isn't covered under
the Act and you'd have to deal with that. You're with the Dividing Fences Act. If you do have a need to make a dividing fence between you and your neighbor, then the idea is to go and get a quote and preferably too, and present those to your neighbor and have the discussion about what you want to put up. Then if that's agreed, then each party would contribute half
the cost and off you go. The key to this type of discussion is not to just go out and do the fence and expect the neighbor to pay half when you've finished, because the Act won't give you any protection there. You'll be left with the whole cost. So if the neighbor, however, is difficult and just says I don't want a fence. Then the person who does want the fence needs to go to a local court local land board to get orders that the neighbor agreed to
construct a dividing fence. Now a lot of disputes arise around what sort of dividing fence is going to be put there. So one party wants a five foot pailing, the otherland wants a fancy lapped and captain this, that and the other, or a color bond. Then there can be dispute about that. The Act says it's got to be a standard fence for the area, so that if you live in a subdivision that's got ninety percent paling fence, then you're not going to get much support from a court.
If you want to put an eight foot color bond fence, it will be a general discussion about what is standard for the area, and you get to a point where you have to prove that by photos and the like to prove, and then a court has to decide whether they think that is or is a standard. Rural properties have another issue surrounding what is required on a dividing fence and what the use of the land is, so you know, do you need something that keeps cattle in
do you not? Is it a full on post and rail which is very expensive, or is it just barb wire and a couple of star pickets. So there are all discussions that you need to have with your neighbor otherwise you can up in court.
Lovely, very clear. I thank you, Peter. Now, before we move on and have a look at retirement and estate plan in, let's take a short break. Hello, and welcome back to the Money Puzzle. I'm James Gerard right, a contributor to the Wealth section of The Australian and also financial advisor with Financial Advisor dot com dot Au. And this week on the show I have Peter Kernan from Aubrey Brown Lawyers. Now, Peter, everyone tells us it's bad to die without a will, but is it really that bad?
What happens if we do die without a will in Australia? How are your assets divided and who decides?
Well, if you'll excuse the pun, James, it's not fatal to your estate planning, but it is certainly going to make life a lot more complicated in more cases than not to have a will will allow you to determine where your estate goes. If you don't have a will, there is a risk that it doesn't go to where
you want, so the term is intestate. If you die without a will, you die and testate, then that brings in a pieces of legislation, being the Succession Act in New South Wales and they're very similar provisions in other jurisdictions, so that there is a statutory order. So if you pass away and your only living relatives are your parents, then they would share equally. Then it goes down to so it goes to spouse, children and then parents and then write down in New South Wales to a first cousin.
But the issues arise it's largely surrounding spouses and children and determining who is a spouse and who is a child. So simple example of a bad result from not having a will is if, for example, a child died in a work accident and received a payout from an insurance company and didn't have a will and there were and didn't have any children, then it would go to the
parents of that child. Now, if those parents are both living together and have been forever, then that's great, But if one parent hasn't been on the scene for ten years and hasn't spoken to that child, for example, for ten years, then it's certainly not ideal because that parent would share in half that insurance pay out without without any real knowledge of the child or any involvement in
that child's life. That's just one pretty simple example. Then the other issues arise is, well, if you are a spouse, then you can still be a spouse even though you've separated. So you might have been separated from your partner for ten years just haven't got around to divorcing, then you're still a spouse. You can be in another relationship completely. If you pass away, then your ex spouse, for example,
can share in your estate. If you don't have a will, then there's the other spouse related discussion is around to facto partners and proving that they are or are not a de facto partner. And once you've been together as a de facto partner for living together as man and wife for say two years, and or there's a child involved or child from that relationship, then it's likely that
there is a de facto relationship. However, there are lots of cases where this hasn't been so clear where there's been periods of cohabitation, periods of breaks in cohabitation, and just generally more than one person potentially suggesting their de
factos with the deceased. Then you have the children problem is determining who is a child, and there are often arguments about that and or children that may potentially come out of the woodwork where that to the other party doesn't know about this child, and so that's another risk and the having a valid will will do it's best to make sure that your estate goes to where you want it to go.
Sounds like that's the case. And something I can add is that my first job was a traineeship with the public Trustee about twenty years ago, maybe a little bit longer than that ago, and my observation I was in the finance and accounting area, but my observation in the estate's administration team was that it's quite a lengthy process. It wasn't something that's happened in a month or two.
It could go into years in some cases to wind up a states if there was no wills, trying to locate that the family members and make decisions and wind up assets, and of course there's costs as well, and they may not be accurate today because my reference point is twenty years ago, but it was a few percent of the state at that time that the government would take as their administration fees to look after the assets and distribute as per the legislation if there's no will
in place. So moving on to writing the will or updating a will, any tips on who you should appoint as an executor. Should it be your spouse, parents, brothers, sisters, your accountant, what do you think they're Yeah.
The executive is from someone who's close to the family. So the obvious and the usual case in a husband wife arrangement or the facto partner arrangement is that each party would appoint the other as their executor. So that's fairly simple. That's not again, it's not essential to have
a valid will. You can, even with a partner, appoint another executor, for example, an accountant or a lawyer, because the spouse has a little aptitude in financial matters and the party making the world decides that won't be very easy on that other spouse. And sometimes there can be the language barriers as well. It might be better to have someone who is a little bit more across financial
matters in the relevant country. The other aspect with executors is how many your point and in the case of the husband wife arrangement, we have appointed one, you have to appoint a substitute. For example, both of you pass and pass away in an accident, so you would normally then appoint, for example, one or two of your children. So that's all fine, and that makes sense because they're
likely to be the beneficiaries. It becomes another discussion if there are no children and who you might choose to be the executor in those cases. Your example of an accountant is clearly one. A lawyer quite often does that role, but it's often best to have someone who is close to the family, for example siblings, and this is particularly so if there are a minor children involved, so that the bit of a knowledge of family dynamics for the executor will help them get the money where you want
it to go. So it's an important role and something that people need to think seriously about because it can mean that there are different outcomes. Despite the fact that the will says where it's got to go, where your estate's got to go, how it gets there would be determined by the attitude of the executive.
Let's move on to blended families. They're becoming more common in Australia. It's a complex area. I'll try and describe this as simply as possible, But let's just say there's a couple, husband and wife, that they're married, they have children, they divorce, the husband moves on, he finds a new partner. This new partner she has children as well. They get married, so they have step children from each former marriage, and
then they decide to have a child themselves. So there's children from the husband's first marriage, he has step children, and he has a child from the second marriage. Now it's difficult for him to set his will because he may want to provide something for his child from the first marriage, but the wife from the second marriage may have different views on that and may want more of the line's share of the wealth to go to their
joint child. And there's the risk that if he predeceases her the second wife, that the second wife could change her will and cut out the child from his first marriage and maybe give money to her daughter, which is not biologically his. So I guess, in a long way of saying, is that if he passes away, his intention of where he wanted his money to go could change. If it's the case of well, I'll leave you everything i e. My spouse, and then when you pass away,
you distribute it as per what we've mutually agreed. But that mutual agreement could change after someone passes away. So how do we protect against this?
Yeah, they're like trust in the relationship is of course very very important. You can just trust your partner to do the right thing. Now, a lot of people don't have any issue with that when you ask the question, but a lot of people, of course do. And as you say, a second spouse, Mike might feel threatened by a child from a previous relationship. There are various ways
to do it. You can, for example, if you have a principal place of residence, you can have that in the previously discussed tenants in common, so that fifty percent of the property would go for exams would go pursue it to your will to whoever you leave it to. So, for example, a husband might leave his half the house to children from his first marriage, and that would enable the wife to do the same. In that case, the primary concern should be for the wife to still have
accommodation and be able to live in that home. So you can leave a life estate in that home to the wife so that or the husband so that they can live there until they no longer are able or willing to, and then the estate can be passed on
that basis. So that's one possibility. You've referred to the changing of the intention of parties after one party dies, and that's common in that the relationship survived because of the influence, for example, the father of a children from a previous relationship, But as soon as the father is not there, then the wife sort of feels less threatened, perhaps able to then perhaps change to what you really always wanted the whole way along was to get rid
of the children from the first marriage. You can do what's called mutual wills, where you are making a contract not to change your will after the party passes away. They are not recommended in common in recent times if it's been a while since have been recommended really because things change too much and it does stop a spouse remarrying, for example, if that's and you might not want to do that and want to put that pressure and or
restriction on a spouse. Then also it has the potential is that the spouse just dissipates the estate anyway, because it doesn't the will doesn't change, but what the will deals with changes a lot because they can just move the assets out of the estate without fear or favor,
and then that doesn't really have any effect. So the only other way, the only other way, but another way is that the use of a testamentary trust in a will where you specify that the spouse is to have the benefit of the estate and it's managed by another
independent trustee. You can manage it the estate for the spouse's benefit and then ensuring that the capital of the estate is at least preserved to a degree so that the children can be nominated as the default beneficiaries after the white passes away.
Thank you, Peter. Very clear from sounds that it's not a case of right your own will if you have a blended family. Really seeks like it's worthwhile getting proper legal advice on that one. So before we go any further, let's take another short break. Hello and welcome back to the Money Puzzle. I'm James Gerard, writer contributor to the Wealth section of the Australian and also Financial advisor with financial advisor dot Com today you and on this week's show,
I have Peter Kernan from Aubrey Brown Lawyers. Now, before we get in to the subject of general taxation, general law matters, well, I just want to say that to all our listeners that this is general advice and not personal advice, so please seek out a qualified advisor before making any decisions. The first one we cover is on family and friends buying investments together. This could be Peter maybe starting a business or buying an investment property together.
They're pulling their resources together to try and start or buy something good or bad idea.
In your experience, it's always a good idea at the start, James. It's these things always start from great ideas and quite often you know, everything works well and the parties are successful and it works really well for everyone's mutual benefit. But there are of course plenty that don't work very well. The critical thing in these is always documenting what the
agreement is between you. A simple example would be that two people want to get together and buy a house which they intend to do a renovation and sell for profit and then move on to actually to do more. The issues there become what happens if one party has something before them that needs meets, they need the money back out. How do you get the money out? And the agreements can deal with that. The main thing, though, is to document how it's to work until you get
to that point. So for example, if one party is going to contribute maybe their expertise in architectural terms, and another one he's a plumber and he's going to contribute his labor, all that sort of stuff is as long as it's documented, then you can at least have a starting point if there any dispute arises as to what
the agreement really was. You can also have a co owners agreement, so for example, people buy a house to a pre existing house, they're just going to rent it and hang on to it and hopefully settle it a profit in the future. You've got to set out who pays the rates, who maintains it, the insurance, what happens if something needs fixing. And then again the critical one is what happens if someone wants to leave the arrangement.
And that's always where the problems arise, because if someone wants their money out of the arrangement and the other one doesn't want to, then there's a stalemate, so that because you can't sell the property without everyone agreeing. So either it's mediation, which you should always have mediation clauses in agreements of this nature, or you have to head to court to have an arrangement approved and or finalized by the court so that one party can get out.
You know, you can of course get someone else in to take over the share of the other party, but it's often the case that that's when the disputes arise. Same in business, if you go to start a company, to run a business, then you should have a shareholder's agreement or a partnership agreement, depending upon the structure, which documents who does what and how money gets spent, and again what happens if someone wants to leave, how do they leave, how do their shares get sold, how do
they get valued? All of those clauses should.
Be in there absolutely and you get the nail on the head with regards to it. All looks good in the beginning but sometimes ends in flames and disaster. What I suggest to people, not legally informally, is that they think about, even though they go into this with best intentions, all of the bad, the worst scenarios that could happen, and pre plan if this was to occur, how do we deal with it? So as much as you can
think about from the beginning. If these circumstances occur, somebody loses interest, they don't have financial capacity anymore, all those type of things, how will we deal with about to deal with it, so there's an agreement before you go into it, so that if these things do happen, that it's less likely that it gets messy. Now, next one,
let's just say that you're a director. You're asked to become a director of a business, so you're an employee, but you've been promoted and something bad happens at the business. So say that the other director has a gambling problem and they're spending all the money out of the company bank account, but they've been saying they've been paying the tax bill. What happens in that case? Are you personally liable for this? If the company's been traded in insolvents?
I guess I'm asking a broader question of although it sounds great to be promoted as a director of a business, there may be some legal liability or obligations attached to that people should think about as well. So could you talk us through that at a high level, Peter, Yeah.
Sure, it's the concept of insolvency you've mentioned that has a training. Insolvently means you are unable to pay your debts as and when they fooled you. Now, once that happens, it's an issue to the directors because they can be personally liable for the debts of the company. In that case. The example of the gambling director is not uncommon, and the risk for the other director is that they'll be left holding the bag for one hundred percent of the
debts of the company. If, for example, the gambling director's been the one who has been running their business day to day and the other director's been just turning up to board meetings, for example, once a month, and hasn't really had his finger on the pulse, then then that is very liable to be a case of well, you didn't know, but you should have known, and then he can be held to be personally liable for one hundred
percent of the debts. For example, if the gambling director goes bankrupt or leaves the jurisdiction, then absolutely you can be personally liable. The idea if a company is to
protect directors from from personal liability. But in the case of insolvent trading, for example, if a company goes into liquidation it's been trading insolvent solvently, then the liquidator is going to look very carefully at the directors to determine what assets they have and whether they should be pursued for insolvent trading to therefore make more money available to creditors. So it's something that liquidators look at very closely.
So for someone who hasn't been a director before but has been asked to become one as part of a promotion, should they seek legal advice? Is there anything that they should do to be prudent and cautious around this if they have also a little experience of being a company director previously.
Yeah, I would always recommend that they have a serious review of the company's past performance whatever there might be publicly available. But if it's a smaller entity, then you would certainly be going to the company accountant, and I would be putting your own account in touch with the company accountant so that they can ask all the pertinent questions.
Once they've had a look at the passed financials, profit loss, the balance sheet, all of those things would need to be looked at, and then you make a decision based on that advice. Then going forward, you just have to have your finger on the pulse. You have to be paying attention. You can't let you're not going to get away with an excuse. Well he was doing that because he was a managing director. I didn't know good advice, all right, Beata.
Well that's a wrap for today. Thank you so much for joining us. That was really interesting. We brought to the surface a lot of legal issues at intersect with finances and our listeners may have been aware of, but now they've got a lot more color around it thanks to your comments. So Peter Kernan from Aubury Brown Lawyers, thank you so much for joining us today on The Money Puzzle.
James, thank you for having me lean a pleasure, my pleasure.
Indeed, now to our listeners, thank you for tuning in too today's episode of The Money Puzzle. Next week we'll return to regular programming. James Kirby, We'll be back from holidays, no doubt, full of energy and ready to tackle the hot topics of the week and sink his teeth into all of the great questions that have accumulated since he's been away. And speaking of that, don't forget to send
us what do you think? Send us your questions and comments by tweeting us using the hashtag the Money Puzzle or one word, or email us on the Money Puzzle at the Australian dot com dot au. Until next time, I'm James Gerard. Talk to you soon.