<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for BT Lawyers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.btlawyers.com.au/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.btlawyers.com.au</link>
	<description>BT Lawyers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:33:44 +0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Contact Us by Potential New Workplace Bullying Laws for Queensland &#171; BT Lawyers</title>
		<link>http://www.btlawyers.com.au/contact-us/comment-page-1#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>Potential New Workplace Bullying Laws for Queensland &#171; BT Lawyers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlawyers.inov8design.info/?page_id=48#comment-40</guid>
		<description>[...] Thomas LawyersAbout UsOur ServicesThe TeamNewsContact UsResources and LinksOur Quality PolicyAwards &amp; Community ServicePrivacy Policy  Search [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Thomas LawyersAbout UsOur ServicesThe TeamNewsContact UsResources and LinksOur Quality PolicyAwards &amp; Community ServicePrivacy Policy  Search [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Sapwell –v- Lusk [2010] QSC 344 by Lusk &#38; Anor -v- Sapwell (2011) QCA 59 &#171; BT Lawyers</title>
		<link>http://www.btlawyers.com.au/archives/531/comment-page-1#comment-39</link>
		<dc:creator>Lusk &#38; Anor -v- Sapwell (2011) QCA 59 &#171; BT Lawyers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:37:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.btlawyers.com.au/?p=531#comment-39</guid>
		<description>[...] Decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 1 April 2011.  See our discussion of the primary judgement delivered 15 September 2010 here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 1 April 2011.  See our discussion of the primary judgement delivered 15 September 2010 here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Sapwell –v- Lusk [2010] QSC 344 by LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS FOR INJURIES ARISING OUT OF ASSAULT OF A WORKER – ARE EMPLOYERS THE NEW POLICE? &#171; BT Lawyers</title>
		<link>http://www.btlawyers.com.au/archives/531/comment-page-1#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS FOR INJURIES ARISING OUT OF ASSAULT OF A WORKER – ARE EMPLOYERS THE NEW POLICE? &#171; BT Lawyers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.btlawyers.com.au/?p=531#comment-35</guid>
		<description>[...] during the course of employment through the criminal acts of third parties (see our article on Sapwell v Lusk [2010] QSC 344).  This class of case is now becoming more and more common and this causes concern for employers [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] during the course of employment through the criminal acts of third parties (see our article on Sapwell v Lusk [2010] QSC 344).  This class of case is now becoming more and more common and this causes concern for employers [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

