The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

Ten decisions from three tribunals (four NCAT divisions, QCAT and WASAT) in the Tribunals edition of 25 to 27 September 2026, four with headnotes and all four reported as doctrine: the elements of a contempt referral from NCAT's Enforcement Division; when consideration of a matter commences, so that a differently constituted tribunal cannot decide it without the statutory replacement process; why calling a ground an error of law does not make it one, and why a tribunal need not guess at loss; and whether cultural rights under Queensland's Human Rights Act reach a commercial fishing quota formula. Three Illustrative synopses are carried as frameworks and three list-only decisions are on the registry.

Tribunals Desk: a contempt referral, and what it takes (lead).

• HHR v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2026] NSWCATEN 10 - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 38(3)(a), 50(2), 73(5): an order dispensing with a hearing removes only the oral hearing, not genuine consideration of the merits; because the rules of evidence apply in the Enforcement Division, a referral applicant must identify the alleged contemptuous conduct clearly enough for it to be met and adduce admissible evidence capable of proving contempt beyond reasonable doubt; breach of orders requires, beyond reasonable doubt, a clear and unambiguous obligation, knowledge, service, a wilful breach, objective seriousness, and other enforcement pursued or unavailable; interference with the administration of justice turns on objective tendency, not intention, and needs pending proceedings where a particular case is concerned; the s 73(5) discretion is exercised sparingly, and the applicant must show referral is the only realistically available remedy. Hearing dispensed with; all referral applications dismissed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: the Appeal Panel on constitution, and on labels (YWK reported as legal doctrine only).

• YWK v YVN [2026] NSWCATAP 305 - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 27(2), 52, 80(2)(b): 'proceedings' and 'matter' are not synonymous; consideration of a matter commences with any careful thought or deliberation on a substantive issue, however negligible, but not with pre-hearing reading of unadmitted material or, of itself, a decision to adjourn; once consideration has commenced, a differently constituted tribunal lacks authority unless the s 52 replacement process is followed, and its decision is wholly lacking in legal force; on appeal as of right the question of law must be identified with precision. Appeal allowed; the review of the enduring power of attorney to be redetermined by the first tribunal. JADE
• Ahmed v Phase Projects Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 303 - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 80(2), Sch 4 cl 12(1); Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 79U: a ground framed as an error of law does not thereby raise a question of law, and factual challenges need leave; an earlier finding that the consideration was entire and indivisible did not carry a full refund on remitter where the remitted question was whether a refund was available and, if not, what damages; a tribunal need not guess damages where readily available evidence of loss is not called, but must do the best it can on the evidence; a 14-month causative delay could not be inferred from the chronology alone; procedural fairness does not require disclosure of a calculation resting on unchallenged evidence. Appeal dismissed; leave refused. JADE

Tribunals Desk: cultural rights and a quota formula.

• Perry v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries [2026] QCAT 433 - Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ss 13, 28(2)(d), 48, 58; Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 21; Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld) s 191: there was no evidence that the 'economic relationship' protected by s 28(2)(d) extends to commercial fishing; s 21 does not authorise reading words into an instrument to redraft it within power; s 48 does not permit an interpretation inconsistent with a provision's purpose or limits absent from a regulation-making power, and any incompatibility was reasonable and demonstrably justified; on internal and external review the reviewer is bound to apply the statutory formula and cannot rely on s 58(1) to go beyond it; a preliminary question answered under s 62 of the QCAT Act can avoid a contested hearing on issues that may prove irrelevant. Preliminary question answered no. JADE

Tribunals Desk: frameworks (Illustrative synopses; no outcome stated).

• Troy v Transport for NSW [2026] NSWCATOD 129 - synopsis: the fit and proper person test for a bus driver authority under s 11(2) of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (NSW) and the Saadieh factors; driving records assessed for pattern; hardship to the applicant cannot be considered. JADE
• Kaempfe v University of New South Wales [2026] NSWCATAD 295 - synopsis: legitimate forensic purpose, oppressiveness and abuse of process on summons applications; when electronic document searches become oppressive (system scope, undefined keywords, temporal breadth); personal knowledge, not organisational hierarchy, for witness compellability; the fishing prohibition. JADE
• Blanco and Local Government Standards Panel [2026] WASAT 96 (S) - synopsis: the multi-factor test for sanctioning minor breaches under s 5.110(6) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA); jurisdiction depends on status at the time of breach, not sanction; when a compelled apology from a former office-holder lacks corrective purpose. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated).

• Peak Manufacturing Pty Ltd t/as Metal Roofing Warehouse v A Network Production Engineering Pty Ltd t/as Auto Gates & Fencing [2026] NSWCATAP 301 - list only (procedural fairness). JADE
• O'Sullivan v National Roads and Motorists Association Limited [2026] NSWCATAD 294 - list only (administrative appeals). JADE
• Dhillon and Platinum Homes & Construction Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 111 - list only (building contract variation). JADE

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Three South Australian Court of Appeal decisions in the weekend edition of 25 to 27 September 2026, all headnoted, and each decided on the whole picture. A single judge orders an impecunious personal injury appellant, acting by a litigation guardian, to provide $40,000 security for the costs of his appeal: the discretion under the Uniform Civil Rules is unfettered, with no special circumstances threshold. Two judges of the Court dismiss a self-represented appellant's third application to disqualify the President for apprehended bias. And the refusal of home detention did not make a sentence for aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving manifestly excessive: sentencing remarks are read as a whole. All three also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend.

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Chattaway v Lloyd & Anor [2026] SASCA 114 - security for the costs of an appeal under r 215.3 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA): the discretion is unfettered and not conditioned on the special circumstances once required by r 95.13(b) of the Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA), the ultimate issue being the interests of justice, and security is more readily ordered on appeal where the appellant was the moving party below and has had a judicial determination [15]-[16], [23], [43]; an impecunious appellant, no basis to infer that third-party support would extend to an adverse costs order, and a litigation guardian with no costs liability unless the Court orders otherwise under r 23.10(4), who contested any, gave a real risk of non-recovery [29]-[35]; a mere risk of stultification does not weigh heavily, and a supported appellant needs evidence, not bare assertion [20], [37]-[38]; the appeal bona fide with some, but not strong, prospects after a lengthy trial [21], [26]-[28]; the reluctance to order security in personal injury claims keeps some force on appeal but carried reduced weight here [42]-[47]; the respondent's insurance does not bar security but reduces the weight of the risk, which remained significant [52]-[54], [56]; quantum assessed in a robust and summary fashion, $40,000 against an estimate of $80,000 to $118,500 [58]-[61]. Application granted; the parties to be heard on the terms of the order. McVicar v S & J White Pty Ltd and Remm Construction (SA) Pty Ltd v Allco Newsteel Pty Ltd reconciled. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• DU v Wang (No 6) [2026] SASCA 110 - a self-represented appellant's third application to disqualify the President for apprehended bias, maintained after the President declined to step aside and so determined by the remaining members of the coram [13]-[14]: a pending application to set aside the judge's own interlocutory rulings did not make him a judge in his own cause, interlocutory rulings usually being open to review [4]-[5], [16], [18]; adverse interlocutory rulings and adverse provisional observations do not usually give rise to an apprehension of bias, and a provisional observation made to assist a self-represented litigant was not prejudgment [7]-[8], [12], [17], [19]; individually and collectively, the matters would not lead a fair-minded lay observer reasonably to apprehend a want of impartiality [12], [20]-[21]; waiver was not relied on, so consent to the coram did not matter [9]-[10]. Application dismissed. QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs applied. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• LOHF v The King [2026] SASCA 112 - permission to appeal granted, appeal dismissed: home detention under s 71 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) is a two-stage inquiry, suitability turning primarily on the offender's subjective circumstances, then a broader discretion in which personal circumstances remain relevant alongside the overall objectives of sentencing (s 71(3)(c)), and suitability was conceded [20]-[23]; sentencing remarks are read as a whole and a judge is not generally required to repeat the offender's circumstances at each stage (R v Hevko distinguished) [29]-[32]; refusing home detention for aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving under s 19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), maximum penalty life, was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given gross intoxication, a restricted line of sight, acceleration close to swimmers and severe injury, home detention not providing condign punishment or meeting general deterrence and the paramountcy of community safety [25]-[28], [33]-[34]. The injured person is not identified. JADE

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Ten decisions in the Queensland weekend edition of 25 to 27 September 2026, all headnoted. The Supreme Court strikes out a claim against the other side's lawyers: no duty of care or fiduciary duty to an opponent, no civil action for breach of duties to the court, caveat compensation only against the caveator, and advocates' immunity against suits by the opposing party. A litigation funder that paid more than $20 million in legal bills is held to its costs agreements, and non-disclosure goes to discretion, not validity. The Court of Appeal puts a registered after-acquired property security ahead of a later assignee of a tax refund, and past a deed of company arrangement. Then two criminal appeals reported as doctrine only, and five registry-length decisions. The eight Court of Appeal decisions also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend and are re-aired here with the Queensland angle.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• Yang v Gao [2026] QSC 191 - claim against the opposing party's solicitors, two law practices and an unserved barrister struck out (UCPR rr 16(i), 171; inherent jurisdiction), Sullivan J: a legal representative owes no duty of care to the client's opponent save in very limited exceptions, and no fiduciary duty, which would conflict with the duty to the client [45], [51], [133]; fraud must be distinctly alleged, particularised and proved [49]-[50], [81]; the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) gives no damages action against a practitioner over a caveat, s 130 compensation lying solely against the caveator [61], [69]-[73]; ethical duties to the court (ASCR rr 3.1, 19.1) create no civil cause of action for an opponent, the remedies being discipline and the Court's costs jurisdiction [74]-[80], [105]-[113]; a knowledge plea must plead the facts, and practitioners could not have known the law to be the opposite of existing authority [84]-[94]; advocates' immunity protects barristers and solicitors, for acts and omissions in court and in work intimately connected with it, against suits by an opposing party in all forms of action [135]-[148]; leave to replead refused [96]-[102], [149]; an unserved defendant may be struck out of the Court's own motion [153]-[155]. The strike out implies no impropriety by any defendant [156]-[157]. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• LCM Operations Pty Ltd v R Kelly & Ors Trading as Clyde & Co Australia [2026] QSC 214 - questions referred by a costs assessor answered, Smith J: a funder that paid the costs is a third party payer entitled to assessment under s 335(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) and bound by the costs agreement to which it is party [32]-[38]; a costs agreement is construed objectively and as a whole, so an arithmetical error in an estimate table does not override express terms confining the uplift to professional fees [49]-[54]; the agreements were not void under s 327, and the uplift was never payable, there being no recovery [42]-[45], [58]; s 318 required clear written disclosure of substantial changes in estimates, not ordinarily made by delivering bills, and timely disclosure was arguably not made [61]-[64]; non-disclosure does not void a costs agreement but is one factor in the s 328 discretion, and unfairness was not established [65]-[73]; a proportionate reduction under s 316(4) is for the assessor [74]-[76]; the firm's solicitors may be heard, and interest on any refund is for the Court [79]-[84]. The assessment proceeds on the costs agreements. JADE
• Kirk v Moreton Resources Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 186 - receiver's appeal allowed, Boddice JA, Thomson AJA and Crowley J: an expectancy (a contested R&D tax refund) that produces a right to payment is after-acquired property within an all-assets security [43]-[44], which attaches automatically under ss 18-20 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and is enforceable against the assignee [46]-[49]; a later assignment for value does not take the property out of the prior registered security, Re Anroma Pty Ltd governing only company against secured creditor [60]-[69]; a DOCA release of the secured debt under s 444D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) does not release the security, which remains enforceable for that debt against after-acquired property, Re Bluenergy not adopted [90]-[93]. The receiver may conduct the tribunal proceedings for the company. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• R v LBQ [2026] QCA 181 - appeal against two convictions of indecent treatment of a child allowed and a new trial ordered, Johnstone J (Bowskill CJ and Henry J agreeing): verdicts are inconsistent only if no reasonable jury could have reached them, and an acquittal on a count requiring an additional intent was reconcilable [52]-[66]; once the evidence raises an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief under s 24 of the Criminal Code (Qld), the Crown must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt as well as proving each element, and the jury must be directed on the defence, the onus and its bearing on wilfulness [74]-[79]; the omission was material although no redirection was sought [72], [80]-[82]; the remedy is a new trial, whether the prosecution proceeds being for the prosecuting authority [83]. Reported as doctrine only; the complainant is not identified; the presumption of innocence applies. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE
• R v NAJ [2026] QCA 182 - conviction appeal dismissed and leave to appeal against sentence refused, Doyle JA (Brown JA and Kelly J agreeing): choosing between a Foley direction and recalling the complainant is a forensic decision for trial counsel [35]-[38]; a judge may have the jury review a witness's evidence as a whole [37]; a juror's volunteered remark did not meet the fair-minded lay observer test for discharge [50]-[52]; the verdicts were not unreasonable [53], [98]-[116]; a forensic disadvantage under s 132BA of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) must be real, identifiable and significant [122]-[128]; exceeding the prosecution's range is not itself error [131]-[149]. Reported as doctrine only; the complainant is not identified. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Registry (headnoted Court of Appeal decisions, one clause each on air).

• Kerr v Legal Services Commission [2026] QCA 184 - leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) refused, Bond, Boddice and Doyle JJA: engaging in legal practice under s 24(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) requires neither multiple clients nor remuneration, and multiple acts for one person, including written legal opinions, by an admitted lawyer without a practising certificate sufficed [16]-[19]; a $4,000 fine with convictions recorded was not unreasonable or plainly unjust [20]-[23]. JADE
• Antai Solar Australia Pty Ltd v Towers [No 2] [2026] QCA 188 - costs of the appeal, Brown, Bradley and Doyle JJA: UCPR r 766(1)(a) empowers the Court of Appeal to vary a costs order below not separately appealed, but a consent costs order is disturbed only for a particular reason, and none was shown [6]-[7]; respondents to pay 50 per cent of the appellant's costs [8]-[9]. JADE
• Jason H Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jason H Family Trust v Habchi [No 2] [2026] QCA 189 - costs of the appeal, Brown, Bradley and Doyle JJA: an offer to settle made after all submissions were prepared and offering none of the appellants' costs to date was not shown to be unreasonably declined, and seven days was not shown to be sufficient [9]-[12]; the appellants' costs of the appeal are their costs in the proceedings below [13]-[15]. JADE
• R v Kennedy [2026] QCA 183 - application for leave to appeal against sentence refused, Bond and Doyle JJA and Cooper J: a sentence application does not permit the Court to go behind guilty pleas or the agreed facts [6]-[7], and a marked difference from other sentences does not alone establish manifest excess [26]-[27]. JADE
• Donaci v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2026] QCA 185 - appeal against refusal to vary bail conditions dismissed and fresh evidence refused, Brown JA, Gotterson AJA and Cooper J: review is for House v The King error [1]-[2]; parole monitoring and police bail monitoring are distinct regimes, so there was no double loading [32]; human rights points not raised below were not an error to leave unaddressed [36]-[41]; fresh evidence under UCPR r 766 failed the three requirements [59]-[66]. The charges are untried; the presumption of innocence applies. JADE

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Twenty-five decisions from four courts in the New South Wales edition of 25 to 27 September 2026, the state weekend. An owner who endorses sheet piling against the geotechnical advice keeps her duty of care to the neighbour, and the statutory duty of support is one of reasonable care, owed by builders too; proportionate liability left unpleaded means the whole loss; approving settlements for a person under legal incapacity; a conditional stay of a judgment on arbitral awards; leave refused on a fragmented costs assessment challenge; when an occupation certificate application is made; and two sentence appeals. Eighteen decisions on the registry. CR v R, Mehieddine v R, Martinus Rail and DLaw also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend; here they get the New South Wales angle.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Rayman v Brown [2026] NSWSC 731 - judgment for the plaintiff against the owner and the builder (Ward P). An owner who, knowing of contrary geotechnical advice, agrees to the builder's choice of shoring without considered expert advice does not take reasonable care (s 5B Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)), despite the builder's exclusive possession. The duty under s 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) is to take reasonable care, not non-delegable; it binds builders too, and requires a positive act removing support, not an omission. A defendant who does not plead Pt 4 proportionate liability is liable for the whole loss. Breach of the Solicitors' Conduct Rules may be impropriety under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); a sole director is a 'party', and the rules apply while judgment is reserved; limited leave to reopen. JADE
• Martinus Rail Pty Ltd v Qube RE Services (No 2) Pty Ltd atf Moorebank Industrial Terminals Assets Trust [2026] NSWCA 204 - conditional stay granted (Price AJA; also in the Court of Appeal brief). No automatic right to a stay (s 135 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)); an arguable but not strong appeal, not rendered nugatory where neither side suggested the other could not repay; the finality objects of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) weigh where the award is unchallenged; enforcement stayed on condition that about $26.4 million is paid into court within 14 days. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Snaidero v Snaidero; Snaidero v Cater & Blumer Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 733 - settlements and release approved (McHugh JA). Approval under s 76(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) is protective: does the risk of losing what has been agreed outweigh the possibility of more at a hearing. The s 77(3) discretion to depart from payment into court is not confined; the touchstone is best interests, including dignity and autonomy; family members as private trustees require caution and good reason, here an independent appointor, regular payments and lower cost than the NSW Trustee and Guardian. A family provision release under s 95 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) approved as part of a beneficial bargain from arm's length mediation, with independent advice. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• DLaw Pty Ltd v Croft Developments Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 205 - leave to appeal refused with costs (Kirk, Stern and McHugh JJA; also in the Court of Appeal brief). The principle, public importance or clear injustice formulation is not applied like a statute; whether an application for costs assessment under s 198 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) may be amended, important and plainly arguable, left undecided; leave too late where the assessment had been made and reviewed, and premature where one assessment's issues were split across three proceedings; judicial review relief may be declined where an equally effective statutory remedy is available and pursued. JADE
• Street of the Fishing Cat Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1631 - appeal upheld (Washington C). An occupation certificate application is made when it satisfies s 37 of the certification regulation, which requires no fee. A construction certificate is prospective; a modified consent does not require a modified certificate, and one validly issued for the plans at the time satisfies s 6.10(2)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW); a construction making lawful occupation impossible rejected. JADE

Criminal Law Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief).

• CR v R [2026] NSWCCA 150 - leave granted, appeal dismissed (Stern JA, Fagan and Chen JJ). The aggravating factor in s 21A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) cannot aggravate an offence of which violence is an element; collective remarks will not be read distributively in line with the Crown's submissions; ground upheld. By majority (Fagan J dissenting), reasons that make tolerably clear the factor was applied to all offences are adequate though they disclose error. No lesser sentence warranted in law on the undisputed findings. JADE
• Mehieddine v R [2026] NSWCCA 151 - leave granted, appeal dismissed (Ward P, Hamill and Fagan JJ). For Commonwealth offences (s 16A(2)(g) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)) the judge is not bound by s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) to allow 25% for Local Court pleas; 20% was open for delay and disruption from a belated revision of agreed facts, not a penalty for correction; signalling a lower discount in oral submissions affords procedural fairness; manifest excess not shown. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated; one Illustrative synopsis).

• Boscolo v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWSC 1170 - list only (leave to appeal). JADE
• Demasi v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1167 - list only (leave to appeal). JADE
• Mitchell v Roads and Maritime Services (now known as Transport for New South Wales) (No 5) [2026] NSWSC 729 - list only (representative proceedings). JADE
• Haiyong Su v 5 Blackman Cres Macquarie Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1169 - Illustrative synopsis: the Calvo v Ellimark criteria for departing from costs following the event; a successful but overreaching plaintiff limited to 50% of his costs; Calderbank offers need evidence. JADE
• Onakoya v The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network (No 7) [2026] NSWSC 1164 - list only (extension of time). JADE
• Onakoya v The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 1163 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• DPC v Trustees of the Marist Brothers & Anor [2026] NSWSC 730 - list only (pleadings). JADE
• R v Marshall [2026] NSWSC 1165 - list only (sentence). JADE
• Muts v Ly & Ors [2026] NSWSC 1171 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Hodder v Wilkinson [2026] NSWSC 734 - list only (default judgment). JADE
• Eleftheriou v The Trustee for Southern Han Construction Unit Trust t/as Southern Han Construction Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1174 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• TransAsia Private Capital Limited v Miller [2026] NSWSC 1173 - list only (costs). JADE
• Abedin v Joty and Anor [2026] NSWSC 1168 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Buffier v Ball [2026] NSWLEC 1635 - list only (tree dispute). JADE
• Upscale Developments Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1634 - list only (development appeal). JADE
• Tuggeranong Valley Rugby Union and Sports Club Limited v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council [2026] NSWLEC 1638 - list only (development application). JADE
• Beyond Vision Design Pty Ltd trading as Beyond Vision Design Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1633 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Barnes v Wollondilly Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1630 - list only (development control order). JADE

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

One decision in the Federal Courts edition for the weekend of 25 to 27 September 2026, and it is a unanimous Full Court of the Federal Court on counting a casual's long service leave. Hours worked under the South Australian statute are hours actually performing duties, or required to be available and subject to the employer's direction, not the hours by which a minimum call out payment is calculated, and an enterprise agreement clause deeming employees on duty for the minimum period does not change them. A casual who elects to be unavailable is on unpaid leave only if leave was in fact granted, and no approval is inferred from the absence of a leave system. And a State long service leave claim run in the same matter as Fair Work Act claims is heard in federal jurisdiction, with the appeal to a Full Court of the Federal Court. Carried at depth as a single story in three blocks with Host question beats. The decision also appears in the Court of Appeal edition of the same weekend, whose brief points here.

Commercial Law Desk (lead; the jurisdiction holding on the Practice and Procedure Desk; also pointed to from the Court of Appeal brief).

• Flinders Ports Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime and Energy Union [2026] FCAFC 131 - appeal from the South Australian Employment Court on a casual's long service leave pay (Abraham, O'Sullivan and McDonald JJ, unanimous). A claim under s 13 of the Long Service Leave Act 1987 (SA) formed part of the same matter as claims under ss 545(3) and 546(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), a matter arising under a Commonwealth law, so the Employment Court exercised federal jurisdiction over the whole matter, its state jurisdiction excluded by s 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) although it retained the powers in s 13, and the appeal lay to a Full Court under s 565(1) of the Fair Work Act. The number of hours worked per week in s 3(2)(b) of the Long Service Leave Act refers to hours in which the worker was actually performing duties, or was required to be available and subject to the employer's direction, not to the hours by which a minimum payment is calculated, so the hours of a minimum call out period remaining after the worker was dismissed were not hours worked; the Act is legislation of general application, not construed by reference to particular industrial instruments, and general explanations of the ordinary weekly rate of pay (Jongewaard v Dall) cannot displace its specific method; a long service leave payment substantially below usual weekly earnings is not contrary to the Act's purpose. The enterprise agreement's considered to be on duty clause, grammatically ambiguous, deemed an employee on duty even on the union's construction only for the limited purpose of fixing the minimum payment, and did not alter the hours actually worked. A casual who elects to be unavailable is not thereby on leave within s 3(4); a period is unpaid leave only if leave was in fact granted by the employer, and an employer's failure to maintain a leave system does not deem leave approved. No tacit approval was inferred for a November 2020 absence (the manager believed casuals had no leave entitlement, not rostering the worker was consistent with ordinary unavailability, and there was no evidence he was unfit for work), and for a May to June 2023 absence the worker lodged no application and his report of illness, though consistent with an entitlement, did not permit an inference that leave was granted. Appeal allowed; the Employment Court's declarations and orders set aside and, in lieu, the union's applications dismissed. JADE

Registry. None: the edition reports a single decision, carried at depth above. The same decision is carried in The Petal Court of Appeal edition for 25 to 27 September 2026, and the Court of Appeal brief points here.

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Sixteen appellate decisions from five courts in the weekend edition of 25 to 27 September 2026. The Queensland Court of Appeal holds that a registered all-assets security beats a later sale of a company's hoped-for tax refund, and survives the deed of company arrangement. Sydney on a conditional stay of an arbitral-award judgment and Adelaide on security for appeal costs. Three criminal appeal courts on counsel's forensic choices, juror discharge, the mistake of fact direction, a violence aggravating factor counted twice, a Commonwealth plea discount and home detention. Brisbane on bail conditions and the Human Rights Act. The Full Federal Court's long service leave decision is carried at depth in the Federal Courts brief of the same weekend.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Kirk v Moreton Resources Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 186 - joint reasons; an expectancy that becomes a right to payment is after-acquired property, and a security over all present and after-acquired property attaches automatically when it arises (Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) ss 18-20); a later outright assignment for value of the expectancy does not defeat the prior registered security; the Re Anroma interception analysis applies between a company and its secured creditor, not between two third parties claiming at the same instant; a DOCA releases the secured debt but not the security, which s 444D(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) preserves over after-acquired property up to the released debt (Re Bluenergy doubted); appeal allowed, the receiver declared entitled to conduct the tax review proceedings. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Martinus Rail Pty Ltd v Qube RE Services (No 2) Pty Ltd atf Moorebank Industrial Terminals Assets Trust [2026] NSWCA 204 - a single judge; no automatic right to a stay of enforcement pending appeal (Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 135; UCPR r 51.44), the applicant bearing the onus of a basis fair to all parties; an arguable but not strong case; enforcement would not render the appeal nugatory where repayment was possible; finality and limited curial intervention under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW) weigh where the award is unchallenged; stay granted on condition that about $26.4 million be paid into court within 14 days. JADE
• Chattaway v Lloyd & Anor [2026] SASCA 114 - a single judge; the discretion to order security for appeal costs under r 215.3 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) is unfettered and needs no special circumstances; a litigation guardian carries no costs liability absent an order under r 23.10(4), so the risk of non-recovery was real; stultification needs evidence where the litigation has been supported; the personal-injury reluctance weighs less on appeal after a lost trial; the respondent's insurance reduces but does not bar; $40,000 ordered. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• R v NAJ [2026] QCA 182 - conviction appeal dismissed, leave to appeal sentence refused; the choice between a Foley direction and recalling a witness is a forensic decision for trial counsel; the judge may replay the whole of a witness's evidence; juror discharge turns on whether a fair-minded lay observer, aware of the corrective direction, might apprehend the jury would not decide according to law; a forensic disadvantage under s 132BA of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) must be real, identifiable and significant; a sentence above the Crown's range is not for that reason an error. Survivor-sensitive register, doctrine only; no complainant identified. JADE
• R v LBQ [2026] QCA 181 - verdicts reconcilable where the acquitted count required an additional element; where the evidence raises an honest and reasonable mistaken belief, s 24(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) is engaged and the Crown must disprove it, and a direction that did not explain the defence or the onus was a material error not cured by the absence of a request for redirection; convictions set aside and a new trial ordered. Presumption of innocence; doctrine only. JADE
• CR v R [2026] NSWCCA 150 - s 21A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) cannot aggravate an offence of which violence is an element, and collectively-stated factors will not be read distributively; by majority, reasons that make the error tolerably clear are adequate (Fagan J dissenting on that ground); no lesser sentence warranted; leave granted, appeal dismissed. JADE
• Mehieddine v R [2026] NSWCCA 151 - Medicare fraud; s 25D does not bind a Commonwealth sentence and the s 16A(2)(g) discount is discretionary; a reduction from 25 to 20 per cent for the delay and disruption of a belated revision of agreed facts was open; a judge who signals a lower discount in oral submissions affords procedural fairness; leave granted, appeal dismissed. JADE
• LOHF v The King [2026] SASCA 112 - home detention under s 71 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) is a two-stage inquiry, suitability then a broader discretion in which personal circumstances remain relevant; remarks are read as a whole; refusal of home detention for aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving of a boat not manifestly excessive; permission granted, appeal dismissed. JADE
• R v Kennedy [2026] QCA 183 - a sentence application cannot go behind guilty pleas or the facts on which the applicant was sentenced; a marked difference from other sentences is not itself manifest excess; leave refused. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Donaci v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2026] QCA 185 - bail variation reviewed for House v The King error; the s 11(5) Bail Act 1980 (Qld) criterion correctly applied; parole and bail monitoring are distinct regimes; Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) points not raised below; the s 32(1) presumption of innocence concerns the trial; parole revocation plus a bail offence is not double punishment under s 34; fresh evidence refused, appeal dismissed. Charges untested. JADE

Registry (one-line items).

• Kerr v Legal Services Commission [2026] QCA 184 - engaging in legal practice without a practising certificate needs neither multiple clients nor remuneration; leave refused. JADE
• Antai Solar Australia Pty Ltd v Towers [No 2] [2026] QCA 188 - power under r 766(1)(a) UCPR (Qld) to vary a costs order below not separately appealed, but a consent costs order is not disturbed without a particular reason; 50 per cent of the appeal costs. JADE
• Jason H Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jason H Family Trust v Habchi [No 2] [2026] QCA 189 - non-acceptance of a late offer that offered none of the appellants' costs not unreasonable; costs of the appeal their costs below. JADE
• DU v Wang (No 6) [2026] SASCA 110 - the coram decides a maintained recusal application; a provisional observation to assist a self-represented litigant is not prejudgment; application dismissed. JADE
• DLaw Pty Ltd v Croft Developments Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 205 - leave refused as too late and premature where one costs assessment was fragmented across three proceedings; the power to amend an assessment application left undecided. JADE

Pointer (aired at depth in the Federal Courts brief of the same weekend).

• Flinders Ports Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime and Energy Union [2026] FCAFC 131 - hours worked for a casual's long service leave under the Long Service Leave Act 1987 (SA) are hours actually worked or on call, not minimum call-out hours; unavailability is not unpaid leave unless leave is granted; federal jurisdiction over the whole matter; appeal allowed. JADE

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

One state, every court: the Victoria edition of 28 September 2026. The Supreme Court undoes a winding up, and the default judgments behind it, for a company that never saw the claim: an appeal from a judicial registrar is heard de novo, solvency is judged by commercial reality, a failure to superintend the registered office does not foreclose leave to dispute the debt, and the successful company still pays indemnity costs. From the Court of Appeal, no private prosecution for genocide in the Magistrates' Court, and kidnapping sentences found manifestly excessive without any specific error. Both Court of Appeal decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Four more decisions on the registry. Monday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

• Kypri v HNWM Developments Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 625 - appeal from a judicial registrar's winding up order allowed, the winding up application dismissed and two default judgments set aside (M Osborne J): an appeal from a judicial registrar's winding up order is heard de novo, so a company that did not appear below may adduce new evidence to rebut the presumption of insolvency in s 459C(2)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); the company bears the onus and must ordinarily adduce the fullest and best evidence, but what suffices varies with its circumstances, and solvency is assessed by commercial reality; for a company with one asset and, in substance, one debt, audited special purpose accounts and an estate agent's appraisal (supported by the plaintiff's related company's own $6.5 million offer) sufficed, the land being worth more than double the judgment debt, and a director's non-current loan not intended to be called up was of no significance; a director's failure reasonably to superintend the registered office does not foreclose leave under s 459S(1), and a company that contends it is solvent either way may still engage s 459S(2) by an alternative case that the disputed debt is material to its solvency (Switz distinguished); a regularly obtained default judgment was set aside on arguable defences (uncertainty of the settlement term, no express entitlement to the fee, arguably no repudiation and no accepted termination, a possible fiduciary conflict from the introducer's undisclosed interest in the purchaser, and non-registration under the Land Agents Act 1994 (SA)), arguable not meaning likely to succeed; the successful company, having sought an indulgence and caused the wasted costs by failing to monitor its registered office, pays indemnity costs; and relief was not conditioned on a payment into court or subordination of the director's loan, which would elevate an unsecured plaintiff to something akin to a secured creditor. JADE

Public Law Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief).

• Thorpe v Magistrates' Court of Victoria [2026] VSCA 239 - leave to appeal refused on all grounds (Emerton P, Orr and Osborn JJA): the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court is confined to that conferred by statute, and no statute confers jurisdiction over offences under the sovereign laws of First Peoples (the Court observing that the legislature may in future expand it, including through the treaty process); an intermediate appellate court will not depart from another's decision on the common law unless plainly wrong, and the majority reasoning in Nulyarimma v Thompson, that a customary international law norm criminalising genocide is not enforceable by prosecution in a domestic court without legislation, was not plainly wrong; on the Victorian Attorney-General's notice of contention, jurisdiction over genocide derives exclusively from div 268 of the Criminal Code (Cth), notwithstanding the saving provision in s 268.120 (directed to other legislation such as war crimes laws), because s 268.121 requires the Commonwealth Attorney-General's involvement from commencement and a parallel common law offence open to private prosecution would defeat it; a Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 10 ground not raised at trial was refused and misconceived. The charge-sheet's allegations were never tested. JADE

Criminal Law Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief).

• Cole, White & Holden v The King [2026] VSCA 238 - leave to appeal against sentence granted and the appeals allowed (Emerton P and Jane Dixon AJA): a sentence is manifestly excessive if wholly outside the range reasonably available, and that conclusion does not depend on identifying specific error; current sentencing practice is only one consideration, but comparable cases and Sentencing Advisory Council data are a useful yardstick, and whether a comparable sentence followed a trial or a plea is important; the higher-end finding for the kidnapping was open given the victim's vulnerability and the length of detention, but sentences of about seven years had been reserved for kidnappings with weapons, extreme violence or retributive motives, and with no lethal threats, no ransom demands, minor injuries and pleas of substantial utilitarian value the kidnapping sentences were wholly outside the range; the aggravated burglary and false imprisonment sentences were within range; three months wholly cumulative for theft of a replica coin with no special value was manifestly excessive; no parity error; violence used to enforce a false imprisonment is a contextual circumstance of that offence, not an uncharged aggravating circumstance (De Simoni). Kidnapping sentences reduced from 7 years to 5, 6 years 2 months to 4 years 2 months, and 5 years 6 months to 4 years, with new total effective sentences and non-parole periods. The victim is not identified. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions, no outcome stated).

• Victorian Legal Services Board v Guss (Penalty) [2026] VSC 529 - list only (contempt; penalty), 20 August 2026. JADE
• Re Drake St Brighton Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 627 - list only (summary judgment). JADE
• Land v Prideland Equity Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] VSC 618 - list only (non-party costs). JADE
• Ross v VLA (Costs and other matters) [2026] VSC 617 - list only (costs). JADE

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Twenty-five decisions from five tribunals (QCAT and its Appeal division, VCAT, three NCAT divisions, ACAT and SACAT) in the Tribunals edition of 28 September 2026, eight with headnotes, three reported as doctrine: frustration and a point not run below; merits review on current evidence; a home buyer concession and an unforeseen job loss; a share-house tenancy; late service and lost cross-examination; an unsearched paper archive; Cabinet documents; and a nurse's duty to notify a charge. Seven Illustrative synopses are carried as frameworks; the registry lists eight list-only decisions and two nursing referrals as labels. Monday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Tribunals Desk: the case you ran, and the evidence you brought (opening block).

• Kline Industries International Pty Ltd v Cross & Anor [2026] QCATA 139 - QCAT Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(3)(b): a party is bound by its case below, so frustration not run at first instance could not fairly be raised on appeal; a contract with its own mechanism for the supervening problem is not frustrated, and increased cost does not make performance radically different; a post-hearing challenge to readiness came too late, and fairness does not require the tribunal to perfect a party's case; readiness and willingness need not be proved unless put in issue. Leave refused on ground 1; appeal otherwise dismissed. JADE
• Drynan v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy [2026] QCATA 141 - QCAT Act ss 20(2), 142(3)(b), 147(2): merits review is a fresh hearing on the evidence and law at the time of review, and the Vegetation Management Act looks to the vegetation's current status; unexplained, untested fresh evidence refused; findings of fact disturbed only if glaringly improbable. Leave refused; appeal otherwise dismissed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a home buyer's concession, and a share house.

• Craven v COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE (Administrative Review) [2026] ACAT 56 - ACAT Act 2008 (ACT) s 68(2): review of a reassessment reaches every function on the concession's eligibility pathway, even one not independently reviewable; advice about review rights confers no jurisdiction and raises no estoppel; an unforeseen circumstance is judged objectively, and job loss on probation was not shown to be unforeseeable without corroboration; a published Revenue Circular is policy ordinarily applied. Decision confirmed. JADE
• Baker v Rowell; Rowell v Baker [2026] NSWCATAP 307 - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ss 3, 13; CAT Act 2013 (NSW) ss 64, 80: the essential elements of a residential tenancy agreement, for which exclusive occupation is not required; an unanswered rent text was not accepted; failing to engage with a substantial, clearly articulated case is an error of law; a pseudonym needs more than a party's wish, even unopposed. The owner's appeal dismissed; the occupant's allowed and remitted. JADE

Tribunals Desk: late evidence, missing records and Cabinet.

• Efremov v NSW Health Administration Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 306 - GIPA Act 2009 (NSW) s 60; CAT Act s 80(2): a procedural fairness breach is material if a different outcome could, not would, have resulted; late service of voluminous evidence that denied a self-represented applicant any real chance to cross-examine was material, not cured by a written reply or a reasonable refusal of an adjournment; evidence of a contemplated claim established demonstrable importance without pleading or expert evidence. Appeal allowed; remitted. JADE
• Adams v Hornsby Shire Council [2026] NSWCATAD 296 - GIPA Act ss 53, 80, 105: the agency bears the onus and chooses its witnesses; review is confined to existing information; no adjournment for cross-examination the applicant did not prepare; reasonable electronic searches, but no evidence about the hard copy archive, so the decision that information was not held was not justified. Set aside and remitted. JADE
• Davis v Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action [2026] VCAT 765 - Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) s 28: a document is a Cabinet document if submission to Cabinet was its sole, dominant or a significantly contributing purpose, and consultants' reports prepared at Cabinet's request were exempt in full; provision to Cabinet does not of itself reveal its deliberations; obiter, the public interest override is stringent. Refusal affirmed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a nurse before the tribunal.

• Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v ITL [2026] VCAT 785 - National Law (Victoria) ss 5, 130, 196: the fit and proper limb of professional misconduct extends to conduct outside practice, and criminal family violence was inconsistent with fitness to hold registration; failing to notify a charge within seven days was unprofessional conduct, disclosure to the employer no excuse; workforce impact and financial hardship do not ordinarily make a warranted suspension inappropriate. Reprimand, education conditions and two months' suspension. JADE

Tribunals Desk: frameworks (Illustrative synopses; no outcome stated).

• Baran v Grammenos t/as GGG Motors [2026] QCAT 438 - synopsis: acceptable quality and major failure for a second-hand vehicle; extended warranties no shield against refund liability. JADE
• Holman v Trinity Motors Pty Ltd t/as Trinity Ford Cairns [2026] QCAT 439 - synopsis: hidden defects in motor vehicles; damages for cosmetic defects. JADE
• Department of Housing and Public Works v Duxbury [2026] QCATA 140 - synopsis: mandatory considerations for tenancy repair orders; inadequate reasons as error of law. JADE
• den Heijer v Yarra CC [2026] VCAT 782 - synopsis: ResCode standards weighed against planning scheme objectives. JADE
• BCA Asset Management Group Pty Ltd v Benalla Rural CC [2026] VCAT 703 - synopsis: extractive industry permits; repeat appeal principles. JADE
• Graeme Neil Allott v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 297 - synopsis: duty exemption on a de facto breakdown needs an agreement under the specified Family Law Act provisions; a later deed cannot cure it. JADE
• Hogan v Wood [2026] NSWCATEN 11 - synopsis: contempt referral for non-compliance with a summons, proved beyond reasonable doubt. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions and labels, no headnote, no outcome stated).

• DQ v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 437 - list only; by letters only. JADE
• Anneok Pty Ltd v Zhang [2026] QCAT 440 - list only (trees and boundaries). JADE
• The Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland v Nastasi [2026] QCAT 442 - list only (professional discipline). JADE
• Blundell v Nissen [2026] QCAT 441 - list only (interlocutory). JADE
• DixonBuild Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Ors [2026] QCAT 436 - list only (direction to rectify). JADE
• Gurkin v Stonnington CC (No 2) [2026] VCAT 788 - list only (interlocutory). JADE
• Davidson v Hepburn SC [2026] VCAT 784 - list only (permit amendment). JADE
• Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v FBV (Corrected) [2026] VCAT 702 - a nursing disciplinary referral, listed as a label; by letters only. JADE
• Zaman Greenacre Pty Ltd v Antoun (No 2) [2026] NSWCATEN 12 - list only (procedural fairness). JADE
• Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Leach [2026] SACAT 74 - a nursing disciplinary referral, listed as a label. JADE

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Four Supreme Court decisions in the New South Wales edition of Monday 28 September 2026, and one of them carries a real question of criminal law. In a pre-trial ruling in a Commonwealth terrorism prosecution, reported as legal doctrine only, the Supreme Court holds that the intentions in paras (b) and (c) of the definition of 'terrorist act' in s 100.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) bear their ordinary subjective meaning, that an accused charged as the actor must be proved to have held both of them personally, and that, because those intentions are circumstances of the conduct element rather than fault elements, s 7.3(6) does not confine psychiatric evidence to the mental impairment defence. Carried at depth on the Criminal Law Desk, with three list-only decisions on the registry. No decision in this edition also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Monday house spot: a word from JADE after the second block.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• R v SN [2026] NSWSC 974 - reported as legal doctrine only; a pre-trial ruling (Boulten J) in a Commonwealth terrorism prosecution in which the accused pleaded not guilty and the presumption of innocence applies: 'intention' in paras (b) and (c) of the definition of 'terrorist act' in s 100.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) bears its ordinary subjective meaning and is not determined objectively by the manifest character of the conduct; for most Div 101 offences the Crown need not prove the accused's own intention but must prove that some contemplated actor held both intentions, and where the accused is charged with undertaking or attempting the action personally the Crown must prove that he personally held both; those intentions are circumstances characterising the conduct element, not fault elements of offences under ss 101.1 and 101.5, so s 7.3(6) did not confine the defence psychiatric evidence to the mental impairment defence; because the accused was charged as the actor, the evidence was relevant to the substantive defence to both counts as well as to mental impairment; no limiting direction under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) was warranted, the evidence not being unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing, its reliance on self-report being testable in cross-examination, and juries being able to use evidence for dual purposes with clear directions (Lodhi v The Queen followed). Evidence admitted for the mental impairment defence and for the substantive defence to both counts. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated).

• R v Sn (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1005 - list only (evidence admissibility). JADE
• Lee v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2026] NSWSC 1175 - list only (administrative law, judicial review). JADE
• Houston v Shiels (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1178 - list only (strike out). JADE

Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Eight decisions from the appellate division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in the Australian Federal Courts edition of 28 September 2026, all family law, all with headnotes, and reported as legal doctrine only. The lead: the Full Court holds that a judge who records a contest about a party's initial contributions and inheritances, but neither resolves it nor explains how it features in the contributions assessment, makes an error of law, and that a spousal maintenance claim raised and joined must be decided; the property case goes back for rehearing. Also: the correctness standard for findings that a de facto relationship existed, two appellate warnings about grounds of appeal prepared with artificial intelligence, and what a notice of discontinuance ends, and what it does not. Monday house spot: a word from JADE after the second block.

Family Law Desk (lead).

• Verissimus & Polycarpe [2026] FedCFamC1A 166 - Full Court; a failure to make findings on a material contested issue about initial contributions and inheritances under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975, or at least to explain why findings could not be made, is an error of law that vitiates the discretion (even the husband's affidavit conceded at least $613,000); a claim for ongoing spousal maintenance raised and joined must be determined, if only by dismissal with reasons; a party is bound by concessions and forensic choices made at trial, and applications not pressed below cannot be revived on appeal; a judge need not ordinarily consider parenting options neither party advanced, the exception being rare, for a significant or obvious issue and on notice, and the parenting orders stood; further evidence under s 35(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 must show that the order under appeal is erroneous, not merely be useful; costs certificates where the appeal succeeds on a question of law; and, obiter, the use of artificial intelligence by unrepresented parties to prepare notices of appeal is not prohibited but should be avoided, such documents often carrying non-existent or irrelevant propositions and authorities. Further-evidence application dismissed; appeal allowed in part; the property and maintenance orders set aside and remitted for rehearing, the balance of the sale proceeds held on trust meanwhile. JADE
• Mishra & Piatos [2026] FedCFamC1A 171 - single judge; whether a de facto relationship existed, and for what periods, is an evaluative finding with only one legally permissible answer, reviewed on the correctness standard (Warren v Coombes), not as a discretion (House v The King), so challenges to weight have no part to play; no threshold inquiry into whether a breakdown was temporary or final is required before periods are aggregated under ss 4AA and 90SB(a); counsel's agreed limits on cross-examination and the absence of objection to a late affidavit bound the appellant, who appealed in person; grounds that were prolix, repetitive and evidently generated with generative AI obscured the identification of error, and self-representation was no answer. Appeal dismissed. JADE
• Kozlowska & Maiella [2026] FedCFamC1A 170 - single judge, on appeal from final parenting orders of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia; a notice of discontinuance under r 162 of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA) removes the discontinuing party's claim for relief but does not end the proceedings where other parties seek final orders; procedural fairness is an opportunity, and there is no duty to adjourn or invite reconsideration when no adjournment is sought; final orders may be made before the evidence is complete where the remaining issues are limited, no adjournment is sought and the discontinuing party does not oppose, on an adequate foundation; interventions in cross-examination, taken in context, disclosed no apprehended bias; further evidence under s 35(b) refused; impecuniosity is no bar to costs under s 114UB. Appeal dismissed, with costs fixed. JADE

Registry (headnoted; one line each on air).

• Verissimus & Polycarpe (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 167 - Full Court, in chambers; an application to protect the proceeds of sale of property pending judgment determined on the papers (rr 13.37, 13.38) and summarily dismissed under s 46(2), the imminent appeal judgment dealing with its subject matter. JADE
• Gaddy [2026] FedCFamC1A 172 - leave to appeal sought under s 102QAE by a person subject to a harmful proceedings order: the applicant bears the onus under s 102QAG, an appeal instituted without reasonable ground is vexatious (s 102Q(1)), and no ground had merit. Application dismissed. JADE
• Ackerman & Barsamian [2026] FedCFamC1A 169 - an application alleging a breach of s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 needed the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions under s 114T; the court determines the application as filed, and an appeal complaining that orders never formally sought were not made has no reasonable prospects. Appeal summarily dismissed. JADE
• Okorie & Myska (No 4) [2026] FedCFamC1A 173 - adjournment of a listed appeal refused where the asserted errors could be identified without the transcript; relitigating finally determined matters is an abuse of process; a short extension for the transcript, with dispensation in default so the appeal is not deemed abandoned (r 13.22(2)); an interpreter at the applicant's own cost absent evidence of need. Application dismissed save for extensions. JADE
• Fierro & Bien (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1A 162 - an informal emailed adjournment request on the day of the hearing, without current evidence or an explanation of why the appellant could not appear remotely, refused; his default was a sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal, and grounds stated only as bare labels of error are incompetent. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. JADE

All eight decisions also appear in the Court of Appeal edition of 28 September 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.