Six legal changes from 2025 you need to know |
Some people take heart in the idea that the law is resistant to change, arguing that this reinforces its stability. Others delight in its ability to adapt to change, as that reflects its flexibility. In our eyes, the latter view is rapidly gaining ascendancy.
So what changed in Australian law in 2025? Let’s look at six important examples.
In 2025, workers in digital platforms such as Uber, UberEATS, DiDi and DoorDash finally got a reprieve. Before February 26, a rider or driver could open their app and find their account gone, often with little warning, limited explanation, and no right of review.
Today, if workers have been active on a platform for at least six months, they can take an “unfair deactivation” claim to the Fair Work Commission. The commission can order reinstatement or compensation.
It doesn’t change everything, but it opens a door that used to be locked shut by putting a limit on what platforms can and can’t do. Digital food deliverers and drivers no longer have to live with the constant fear that an app can simply “switch them off” for no good reason.
Under the Family Law Act, pets, also referred to as “companion animals”, used to be lumped in with all other property (such as cars, furniture and air fryers) following the breakdown of a marriage or de facto relationship.
In June 2025, the act was amended to deal with the ongoing ownership and care of pets. Now, the court must consider a range of issues when deciding whether the pet should be owned by one party, transferred, or sold. These include how the furry friend was acquired, who provided its care (and future care), who paid vet bills, and the level of attachment of each family member.
The consideration includes whether there has been past cruelty to the pet, and even whether there has been family violence in the home. The laws don’t allow for shared care of a pet, although parties are free to agree this without court orders.
This year the simmering social phenomenon of “pseudolaw” – when people construct legal arguments that suit their own purposes but are in fact wrong – grabbed the headlines.
The antics of this movement initially gained attention during the........