ND Legal

Directions Website

ND Legal Online Lawyer for Australian individuals, entrepreneurs and small business owners assisting with private and business legal matters and disputes.

18/09/2026

“Clinical Pilates” is a common and legitimate term when the class is genuinely delivered by a registered physiotherapist, in which case that instructor likely sits under their own separate AHPRA obligations on top of whatever your studio’s general compliance looks like.

The problem arises when the term gets used more loosely than that.

Describing an instructor as a physiotherapist, or describing a class as physiotherapy or rehabilitation treatment, when the person delivering it isn’t a registered physio, isn’t a marketing grey area.

Under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, holding an unregistered person out as registered or qualified in a health profession is a criminal offence, not just a misleading claim.

If your studio uses “clinical,” “rehab,” or similar language anywhere in its marketing, it’s worth checking who’s actually delivering those classes.

Full explanation in bio.




















This is one of the most common gaps we find during a review. The intake form itself is usually well designed, sensible q...
17/09/2026

This is one of the most common gaps we find during a review.

The intake form itself is usually well designed, sensible questions, clear layout, sometimes even digital.

What happens to that information afterwards, how it’s stored, who can access it, and whether there’s an actual Privacy Policy covering it, is far less often thought through.

Because a PAR-Q form collects health information, the usual small business exemption from the Privacy Act generally doesn’t apply, regardless of how small the studio or PT business actually is.

That means broader obligations than most owners assume they’re carrying.

Swipe through this checklist and see how many boxes your current intake process actually ticks.

Link in bio to get it properly reviewed.




















16/09/2026

These three documents get treated as interchangeable, and they aren’t.

A disclaimer limits what you’re representing about the advice you’re giving, that a program isn’t personalised medical advice, for instance.

A consent form confirms a client understood and agreed to a specific activity, with the relevant risks actually explained to them beforehand.

A waiver attempts to limit the business’s liability for harm, within whatever the law actually allows in your state.

A single generic “sign here” form handed over at check-in rarely does all three jobs properly, and the real Australian case we’ve referenced this month shows what can happen when the underlying system, not just the paperwork, doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Worth checking whether your current intake documents are actually doing what you think they’re doing.

Full breakdown in bio.



















15/09/2026

The small business exemption under the Privacy Act is based on annual turnover, and most gyms, studios, and PT businesses assume it covers them by default.

That assumption generally stops being reliable the moment a business collects health information, regardless of turnover.

Fitness businesses that collect injury history, medical clearances, or PAR-Q screening forms are squarely in this category.

That’s most of the industry, not an edge case.

It means a proper Privacy Policy, and stronger handling of that information than a general customer database would need.

If you’ve assumed you’re exempt because of your size and you’re collecting anything health-related, it’s worth checking that assumption properly.

Link in bio for the full picture.




















A waiver that hasn’t been tested against a real claim isn’t necessarily a good waiver. It might just mean nothing has go...
14/09/2026

A waiver that hasn’t been tested against a real claim isn’t necessarily a good waiver.

It might just mean nothing has gone wrong yet, not that the document would actually hold up if it did.

The real case we’ve referenced this month, a gym found negligent despite having a signed waiver, is a useful reminder that the paperwork and the underlying system are two different things.

Run your current waiver through these seven questions.

If it’s a generic template that hasn’t been touched since you started the business, or if it’s handed over after a client has already begun training, those are the two most common gaps we find during a review.

Not sure how your current waiver stacks up?

Link in bio to book a Strategy & Advice Consult.



















12/09/2026

Most small businesses in Australia are exempt from the Privacy Act’s obligations because of their annual turnover.

That exemption generally disappears the moment a business collects health information, and it doesn’t matter how small the business actually is.

A standard PAR-Q form, the pre-exercise screening questionnaire almost every gym, studio, and PT business uses, collects exactly that: information about medical conditions, injuries, and health history.

That means a single-location Pilates studio or a solo personal trainer can end up carrying the same privacy obligations as a large gym chain, purely because of what’s being collected, not how big the business is.

If your intake process collects any health information and you haven’t checked whether you need a proper Privacy Policy, that’s worth doing before your next intake round.

Full explanation in bio.




















11/09/2026

WA’s Civil Liability Act can protect a fitness business where an injury comes from the obvious risk of a genuinely dangerous recreational activity, the kind of risk that’s inherent to the activity itself, like the physical exertion of a boxing class or the impact of a jump.

It generally does not protect a business against a risk it created or allowed to continue, such as a cluttered training floor, unmaintained equipment, or a hazard nobody bothered to fix.

The distinction sounds subtle, but it’s exactly what decided a real Australian case against a gym, where a court awarded $551,097.62 in damages after finding the injury came from the gym’s own housekeeping failure rather than an inherent risk of exercising.

Knowing which category your business’s typical injury risks fall into is worth more than any waiver wording.

Full case breakdown in bio.



















Powell v JFIT Holdings is a real, decided Australian case, and one of the clearest lessons available in why a waiver on ...
10/09/2026

Powell v JFIT Holdings is a real, decided Australian case, and one of the clearest lessons available in why a waiver on its own isn’t a risk management strategy.

The gym had a signed waiver.

It had a system that let members leave weights scattered on the floor, and no evidence of anyone enforcing housekeeping standards before the injury occurred.

The court’s reasoning matters more than the outcome alone: it wasn’t that waivers don’t work at all, it’s that a waiver protects against risks inherent to an activity, not against harm the business’s own conduct or systems allowed to happen.

That distinction cost this gym $551,097.62 at first instance, confirmed on appeal in 2021.

If your waiver hasn’t been tested against a scenario like this, it’s worth finding out where it would actually stand.

Link in bio to book a Strategy & Advice Consult.




















09/09/2026

A lot of fitness businesses assume that because what they offer involves physical exertion, they automatically get the benefit of liability protections built for “recreational services” or “dangerous recreational activities.”

WA’s Civil Liability Act does allow a business to exclude liability for harm from the obvious risk of a genuinely dangerous recreational activity, but that protection is narrower than most owners assume, and it tends to apply only to risks inherent to the activity itself.

A risk the business created or allowed to continue, a cluttered training floor, unmaintained equipment, poor supervision, generally sits outside that protection entirely, no matter how the waiver is worded.

A real Australian court case turned on exactly this distinction, and it cost a gym over half a million dollars. We break down the full reasoning in this month’s blog.

Link in bio.




















08/09/2026

A gym member was hurt lifting a weight off the floor while clearing space, after other members had left weights scattered around the training area.

The court found the gym negligent for failing to enforce its own housekeeping rules, not because exercising is inherently dangerous.

The gym argued its signed waiver and the member’s own contributory negligence should reduce or defeat the claim.

Both defences were rejected.

This is a real, decided Australian case: Powell v JFIT Holdings Pty Ltd t/as New Dimensions Health and Fitness Centre [2020] NSWDC 264, with damages of $551,097.62, upheld on appeal in 2021.

It’s the clearest illustration we’ve seen of why a waiver on the wall isn’t the same thing as a system for managing a foreseeable risk.

If your business relies on a waiver template without much else behind it, this case is worth understanding properly.

Full breakdown, including what actually would have changed the outcome, in bio.



















Address

Level 25, 108 Street George’s Tce
Perth, WA
6000

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when ND Legal posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category