The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

Ten appellate decisions from two courts in the Court of Appeal edition of 28 September 2026. Victoria's Court of Appeal refuses leave to a private prosecutor whose charge-sheet accused the King of genocide: the Magistrates' Court has no jurisdiction over offences under First Peoples' sovereign laws, the common law offence rejected in Nulyarimma v Thompson stays rejected, and, on the Victorian Attorney-General's notice of contention, div 268 of the Criminal Code is the exclusive source of jurisdiction over genocide in Australian courts, so no parallel common law offence can be privately prosecuted around the Commonwealth Attorney-General's consent. The same Court allows three co-offenders' sentence appeals, holding every kidnapping sentence manifestly excessive although no specific error was made out, with guidance on comparables, totality, parity and De Simoni. The eight family appeals from the appellate division are pointed to the Federal Courts brief, where they air at depth. Monday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Thorpe v Magistrates' Court of Victoria [2026] VSCA 239 - leave to appeal is refused on grounds that do not impugn the operative basis of the decision below, and the grounds on hearing management, recusal, amici, joinder and bench constitution had no real prospect; the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court is confined to that conferred by statute, and neither s 25 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 (Vic) nor any other statute confers jurisdiction over offences under the sovereign laws of First Peoples (the Court observing, obiter, that the legislature may expand it in future, including through the treaty process); an intermediate appellate court does not depart from another's decision on the common law of Australia unless plainly wrong, and the majority in Nulyarimma v Thompson (a customary international law norm criminalising genocide is not enforceable by domestic prosecution without legislation) was not plainly wrong and was persuasive; on the notice of contention, jurisdiction over genocide derives exclusively from div 268 of the Criminal Code (Cth), whose offences are co-extensive with the Genocide Convention and art 6 of the Rome Statute, notwithstanding the s 268.120 saving provision (directed to other legislation such as war crimes), because a privately prosecutable common law offence would defeat the s 268.121 requirement of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's involvement from commencement (Taylor v Attorney-General (Cth)); a new ground under s 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) was refused as not raised below and misconceived, the right to prosecute lying only with the Commonwealth Attorney-General; no error in treating s 268.121 as a regular exercise of the external affairs power absent argument. Leave to appeal refused on all proposed grounds (unanimous); the allegations were not considered and no view is expressed on them. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Cole, White & Holden v The King [2026] VSCA 238 - a sentence is manifestly excessive only if wholly outside the range reasonably available, and that conclusion does not depend on identifying specific error; current sentencing practice is one consideration and statistics have limits, but comparable cases and Sentencing Advisory Council data are a useful yardstick, and whether a comparable followed a trial or a plea matters (Hanna of limited comparative utility); the higher-end gravity finding for a 52-hour kidnapping of a vulnerable adult was open, but with no weapons, lethal threats or ransom demands, minor injuries and substantial utilitarian value in the pleas, every kidnapping sentence was outside the range; the aggravated burglary and false imprisonment sentences stood; 3 months wholly cumulative for theft of a replica coin of no special value was manifestly excessive and 1 month concurrent substituted; one interconnected episode requires a significant degree of concurrency between the aggravated burglary and kidnapping sentences; parity requires a marked, unjustifiable discrepancy assessed objectively, and the parity grounds failed; violence used to enforce compliance during a false imprisonment is a contextual circumstance of that offence, not an uncharged aggravating circumstance under De Simoni. Leave granted, appeals allowed, the kidnapping sentences and totals set aside and the three applicants resentenced (total effective sentences of 9 years 4 months, 8 years 5 months and 7 years 7 months). Reported as legal doctrine only; the victim is not identified. JADE

Registry (pointers: aired at depth in the Federal Courts brief of the same date).

• Verissimus & Polycarpe [2026] FedCFamC1A 166 - pointer: Full Court; a failure to resolve a material contested contributions issue is an error of law, a claim raised and joined must be determined, and further evidence is not received merely because it is useful; with an obiter warning on unrepresented parties using AI to prepare notices of appeal. Appeal allowed in part; property and maintenance remitted. JADE
• Mishra & Piatos [2026] FedCFamC1A 171 - pointer: the existence of a de facto relationship is reviewed on the Warren v Coombes correctness standard, not House v The King, and periods may be aggregated without a threshold inquiry into whether a breakdown was temporary. Appeal dismissed. JADE
• Kozlowska & Maiella [2026] FedCFamC1A 170 - pointer: a notice of discontinuance removes the filing party's claim but does not end proceedings in which others seek final orders; no duty to adjourn or invite reconsideration. Appeal dismissed with fixed costs. JADE
• Ackerman & Barsamian [2026] FedCFamC1A 169 - pointer: a s 114Q application brought without the DPP's written consent under s 114T was properly dismissed as filed. Appeal summarily dismissed. JADE
• Gaddy [2026] FedCFamC1A 172 - pointer: leave to appeal under a harmful proceedings order: the applicant bears the onus under s 102QAG, and an appeal without reasonable ground is vexatious. Application dismissed. JADE
• Fierro & Bien (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1A 162 - pointer: an informal day-of-hearing adjournment request on stale medical evidence refused; default of appearance and bare-label grounds. Appeal dismissed. JADE
• Okorie & Myska (No 4) [2026] FedCFamC1A 173 - pointer: no adjournment of a listed appeal for a transcript not essential to identifying error; relitigation grounds an abuse; extensions of time granted. Application otherwise dismissed. JADE
• Verissimus & Polycarpe (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 167 - pointer: an application to protect sale proceeds determined on the papers and summarily dismissed, the substantive judgment being imminent. JADE

Thorpe v Magistrates' Court of Victoria and Cole, White & Holden v The King also appear in the Victoria brief of 28 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eight decisions on the Western Australian list for Thursday 24 September 2026, and all four headnotes come from the Court of Appeal. Consent property orders binding a party with a disability, agreed by his case guardian, miscarried because nobody addressed his best interests: the Family Court Rules requirement is a substantive protection, the court's satisfaction cannot be left to inference, just and equitable is a separate question, and the dispensing rule cannot reach it. Then procedural fairness on a second appeal in a restraining order matter, a jury direction nobody asked for, and the test for bail pending appeal. All four also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date and are re-aired here with the Western Australian angle. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Family Law Desk (lead).

• W v S [No 3] [2026] WASCA 136 - appeal from consent property orders made by a family law magistrate allowed and the notice of contention dismissed, Seaward JA, Bowskill AJA and Solomon J: r 109(1)(d) of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA), the affidavit on the best interests of a person with a disability, is not a mere matter of procedure but reflects the court's inherent obligation not to sanction a compromise binding a person under a disability unless satisfied it is in that person's best interests, and that satisfaction cannot be left to inference [34]-[42]; previously filed affidavits may meet the requirement if they enable the judicial officer to assess best interests, and some explanation or submission would ordinarily be expected [28], [46]; satisfaction under s 205ZG(3) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) that property orders are just and equitable is a distinct and separate requirement, and where the filed material advanced only the party's trial case and nobody addressed best interests, the appointment of a case guardian, solicitors and senior counsel did not supply compliance and the orders miscarried [43]-[45]; the dispensing power in r 12 does not extend to a substantive requirement protecting a person with a disability, and nothing suggested the magistrate consciously dispensed with it [48]-[49]; obiter, a case guardian may negotiate and present consent orders without the party's involvement, subject to the rules, and an unappealed appointment of a case guardian cannot be challenged in an appeal limited to later orders [53]-[54]; the order set aside and the proceedings remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing rather than dismissed, with no view expressed on the merits of the agreement [57]-[58]. The parties are identified by letters. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• SHI v ZHAO [2026] WASCA 137 - second appeal, from the District Court on an appeal from a magistrate's final family violence restraining order, dismissed with no order as to costs, Seaward JA, Bowskill AJA and Livesey AJA: the appeal is conferred by s 79(1) of the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), not s 64(5) of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) or s 42(1) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), with leave required under s 79(1)(b) where the judgment is not final [29]-[31], and there is much to be said for requiring leave for second appeals (obiter; the appeal was assumed to lie as of right) [32]-[36]; procedural fairness is concerned with practical injustice, and determining the merits at a hearing a registrar had indicated would first decide further evidence caused none where the appellant made no objection, sought no adjournment and addressed every matter [39]-[42]; unrepresented parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to make submissions, lead evidence and examine witnesses, but no more, and the magistrate could curtail the hearing to enforce relevance rulings [43]-[46]; an appellate judge may categorise a wide-ranging appeal's issues broadly, provided they are fairly and properly considered [51]-[55]. Reported as procedure only. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Mcdonald (a Pseudonym) v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 133 - leave to appeal against conviction under s 321A of the Criminal Code (WA) refused, Quinlan CJ, Bowskill AJA and Livesey AJA: a trial judge makes no wrong decision on a question of law (s 30(3)(b) Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)) by omitting an unrequested direction on evidence left in by a conscious defence forensic choice, here evidence of the complainant's own conduct after one occasion that the prosecution relied on only for timing, a specific direction risking undue prominence, undercutting the defence and confusing the jury [25]-[27]; any error was immaterial given the directions on proof beyond reasonable doubt, special scrutiny and the Longman warning [28]; no warning was required where there was no perceptible risk of impermissible use, the jury never having been invited to use the evidence to bolster credibility (Akkerman v The State of Western Australia distinguished) [29]-[30]; counsel's failure to seek a direction does not preclude appellate intervention where the omission is material or a miscarriage of justice occurred, but is a relevant consideration where experienced trial counsel had the opportunity [31]. Reported as the law of jury directions only; the complainant is not identified. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE
• Horsman v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 138 - application for bail pending an appeal against conviction dismissed, Thomson P: under Sch 1 Pt C cl 4A of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) bail pending appeal requires exceptional reasons and that a grant be proper, the essential question being whether the appellant shows a strongly arguable case giving rise to real concern that he would suffer injustice by being kept in custody on an unsound conviction, something more than a reasonably arguable case [3]-[5]; no strongly arguable case was shown on any of the three grounds [9]-[12]; difficulty preparing an appeal in custody does not justify bail, though it may warrant an extension of time [14]-[16]. Reported as the test only; the appeal itself remains to be heard. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Registry (no outcome stated).

• Suppressed [2026] WASCA 134 - list only (a suppressed decision, listed without a headnote). JADE
• Suppressed [2026] WASC 408 - list only (a suppressed decision, listed without a headnote). JADE
• Penny v State Coroner of Western Australia [2026] WASC 411 - list only (administrative law appeal). JADE
• The State of Western Australia v Jyd [No 2] [2026] WASC 402 - list only (high risk offenders). JADE

W v S [No 3], SHI v ZHAO, Mcdonald (a Pseudonym) v The State of Western Australia and Horsman v The State of Western Australia are also carried in the Court of Appeal brief of 24 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

A quiet day on the Victorian list, two decisions, both at depth. The Court of Appeal on amending a group costs order after a class action settles early: the House v The King standard of review, a core purpose of protecting group members from windfall returns, the evidence a law practice should file on finalisation, and suppression in group proceedings; the decision also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date and is carried here with the Victorian angle. Then the Supreme Court on when a landscape plan is an engineering plan for council checking fees, when a council has in fact required one, and the conjunctive 'and' in the supervision-fee definition. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd v McCoy [2026] VSCA 236 - group costs orders under s 33ZDA of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic): decisions making or amending a GCO are reviewed on the House v The King standard, and the particular appellate restraint applied to costs orders does not extend to them, because a GCO rewards risk rather than paying for costs incurred; an amendment under s 33ZDA(3) should be made only if it is itself appropriate and necessary to ensure that justice is done, a core purpose of the power being to protect group members against windfall returns on resolution; the enquiry is not a de novo hearing, hindsight is to be avoided, a successful outcome alone does not warrant amendment, and the central question is whether the reward is no longer proportionate to the risk assumed; on finalisation a law practice should give evidence of hours, actual and hourly-rate equivalent costs, estimated and actual ROI and IRR, comparisons with other funded proceedings and the outcome against the realistic settlement range estimated when the GCO was made; no mistake of fact in finding that the corrected IRR, after the firm reported an error in its own modelling, was materially above the returns modelled and contemplated, that finding being the corollary of the firm's own submission, with no evidence that a much higher return from early settlement was contemplated (the rate reduced from an effective 24.66% to 17.392% and then 13.253% on an $87 million settlement); suppression under ss 17 and 18(1)(a) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) has no special rules for group proceedings, the applicant for commercially sensitive material must identify why each item is confidential, adduce evidence of harm and explain why undertakings would not suffice, and after settlement approval and the expiry of appeal periods there was no basis for suppressing the litigation budget, actual expenditure or actual ROI; leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Whittlesea City Council v AV Jennings Properties Ltd [2026] VSC 606 - appeal on a question of law under s 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic): the meaning and construction of the composite phrase 'engineering plan' in s 15 of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) is a question of law, and evidence not before the Tribunal is generally inadmissible on such an appeal; an engineering plan is one whose essential character is to show, by specifications and methodologies, precisely what and/or how the works will be constructed, need not be a scaled drawing or prepared by an engineer, and is identified by its content, not its title or the purpose for which it was prepared, so a landscape plan may qualify ('works' embracing hard and soft landscaping); a checking fee under reg 9 of the Subdivision (Fees) Regulations 2016 (Vic) also requires that the council in fact required the plan under s 15, by a decision made and communicated, which a condition merely requiring a plan to be submitted for approval is unlikely on its own to show; the landscape conditions in nine permits could not on their own show the requirement, while condition 12 of the tenth expressly invoked s 15; the refusal of supervision fees under s 17(2) fell with the Tribunal's error; the developer's new argument that the plans were never required was refused on appeal and may be raised on the rehearing; 'works ... to the land' in s 17(6)(a) includes works within the subdivision and works leading up to it, and 'and' in s 17(6) is conjunctive, so playgrounds in public open space reserves fall outside unless they provide roads or public utility services (a provision the Court described as clumsily drafted); leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, remitted to a differently constituted division of the Tribunal, final orders and costs reserved. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seventeen decisions from two tribunals (TASCAT and three NCAT divisions) in the Tribunals edition of 24 September 2026, seven with headnotes, two reported as doctrine: procedural fairness for a self-represented appellant; confidential inter-jurisdictional firearms information; what the Registrar must disclose on a working with vulnerable people review; what an enduring guardian cannot do; and four health practitioner disciplinary decisions, three of them Tasmanian and sharing one costs rule. Four Illustrative synopses are carried as frameworks and five list-only decisions are on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Tribunals Desk: an affidavit shut out, and a working group's minutes (opening block).

• Hadley v The Owners Strata Plan No 30558 [2026] NSWCATAP 302 - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 36, 80: a denial of procedural fairness raises a question of law, available as of right, and a self-represented appellant's grounds are read generously; the tribunal must give a self-represented litigant sufficient information about practice and procedure, not advice on exercising rights; unfairness may be cumulative, on a realistic reading of the transcript; refusing leave to rely on an affidavit without reading it, weighing it or asking about prejudice, while indulging a respondent that had filed no defence or evidence, denied procedural fairness. Appeal allowed; the compensation claim remitted to a differently constituted tribunal. JADE
• Jenkins v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 292 - Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) ss 13, 14, 54: prejudice to the future supply of confidential information (Table cl 1(c)) is an abstract inquiry on real and substantial grounds, established by the working group's confidentiality terms of reference and participants' consultation responses; deliberative, agency function and law enforcement considerations also weighed; a Commonwealth exemption notice satisfied cl 7(1); the public interest in firearms policy was outweighed. Refusal of access affirmed; confidential evidence protected under a s 64 order. JADE

Tribunals Desk: what a registrar must disclose, and what an enduring guardian cannot do (reported as legal doctrine only).

• KTU v (Delegate of the Registrar) Registration of Working with Vulnerable People [2026] TASCAT 115 - Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 (Tas) s 53(7): the provision modifies procedural fairness only within its categories, and information is not exempt merely because police provided it; intelligence means information purposefully collected and analysed for a strategic purpose, not all police information; a written summary did not satisfy procedural fairness where the Registrar gave the footage heavy weight; view-only access met the risk to others. Interlocutory application granted in part. JADE
• DDS (Application for Guardianship) [2026] TASCAT 123 - Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas) ss 28, 32(5): an enduring guardian's authority carries no power to authorise enforcement, which s 28 confers only through a tribunal guardianship order, so a valid enduring appointment does not preclude a confined order; accommodation necessary for treatment is incidental to consent to treatment; the order confined to the clinical setting and made for substantially less than the statutory maximum. Application granted in part. JADE

Tribunals Desk: the health practitioner lists, and who pays.

• Medical Board of Australia v Chong [2026] TASCAT 117 - Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Tasmania) ss 5, 195: the fit and proper limb of professional misconduct concerns the nature of the conduct, not fitness at the hearing, and inadequate care arising from a boundary violation did not meet it; general deterrence may require suspension even where specific deterrence carries little weight; following Medical Board of Australia v Zhao [2026] VSC 457, costs follow the event, departing from the tribunal's earlier approach. Reprimand; six months' suspension; the Board's costs. JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Kode [2026] TASCAT 120 - National Law (Tasmania) ss 5, 41, 195, 196: an approved code is evidence of the standard, not a binding rule; findings are confined to the particularised allegations; consent in fact is not informed consent, and the performing surgeon must provide the specific risks; an informed consent failure after an earlier Board caution was unprofessional conduct; no suspension being necessary, no fine in substitution; costs follow the event with partial success weighed (60%). Two reprimands and a $2,000 fine. JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Groves (No. 2) [2026] TASCAT 116 - Illustrative synopsis, framework only: costs follow the event under s 195, applying Zhao; lump sum assessment; 75% of costs attributed to the successful allegation. JADE
• Health Care Complaints Commission v Flanagan [2026] NSWCATOD 127 - National Law (NSW) ss 3B, 139B, 139E, 149C: a sexual relationship with a recent patient, begun after therapy was ended for that purpose, and disclosure of patient files without safeguards, were professional misconduct; knowingly misleading the regulator needs actual persuasion of intention and was not established; a referee's friendship does not of itself diminish a reference's weight; registration cancelled, two-year non-review period; a prohibition order needs a substantial risk to public health, a higher threshold, and was refused. JADE

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

• Hardin v Warrumbungle Shire Council [2026] NSWCATAD 290 - synopsis: the s 96(1) leave test as a control filter; the three elements of victimisation; inferring causation from circumstantial evidence. JADE
• HYH v University of Wollongong (No 3) [2026] NSWCATAD 291 - synopsis: interim orders preserving rather than creating rights; res judicata and issue estoppel across related complaints; vexatious collateral purpose. JADE
• Gilbert Street 7307 Pty Ltd v Latrobe Council [2026] TASCAT 124 - synopsis: two-stage joinder in planning appeals (standing, then discretion); joined parties confined to the conditions appealed. JADE
• Keach Securities & Investments Pty Ltd v Launceston City Council [2026] TASCAT 119 - synopsis: the four-factor extension of time test; steps to comply distinguished from steps to challenge. JADE

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

• Platinum Plus Properties Pty Ltd v Hobart City Council [2026] TASCAT 125 - list only (statutory interpretation). JADE
• GM v A Hospitality Venue [2026] TASCAT 118 - list only (administrative appeals); by letters only. JADE
• Goldman v Inner West Council [2026] NSWCATAD 288 - list only (sex discrimination). JADE
• HTB v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2026] NSWCATAD 293 - list only (government decision-making); by letters only. JADE
• Decision restricted [2026] NSWCATAD 287 - a restricted decision, listed without a headnote. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

One decision on the South Australian list for Thursday 24 September 2026, and it is the Court of Appeal on when a lost case stays lost: a former client's application for leave to appeal from summary judgment in her suit against her former lawyers, alleging fraudulent overcharging, refused. The Court holds that a dismissal under a self-executing consent order, with deemed admissions of itemised costs, finally determined the claims and gave rise to res judicata without any reasoned merits determination; that an unpleaded implied representation that the fees were honestly charged merely re-agitated the overcharging allegation and was not fraud in the procuring of the judgment, on evidence that was not fresh; and that the public interest in finality weighed heavily against leave. Carried at depth as a single story on the Practice and Procedure Desk in three blocks with Host question beats. The decision also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead; also in the Court of Appeal brief).

• Steicke v Pederick Lawyers Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] SASCA 111 - application for leave to appeal from summary judgment and strike out (S Doyle JA and Vaughan AJA, joint reasons). A dismissal by default may give rise to res judicata, depending on close scrutiny of the circumstances and of what the judgment can be taken to have decided; a reasoned merits determination following evidence and argument is not always necessary; the dismissal of a costs adjudication action on non-compliance with the February 2018 consent orders (Order 4 deeming undisputed items of the itemised schedule of work admitted in full, Order 5 providing for self-executing dismissal) finally determined the claims, the orders reflecting a binding agreement between the parties, the applicant being deemed to have admitted the itemised claims and the claims dismissed being clear. On setting aside a perfected judgment for fraud (Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (2018) 264 CLR 165), the alleged implied representation that the fees were honestly charged was unpleaded, merely re-agitated the overcharging allegation and was not fraud in the procuring of the judgment, and the evidence relied on was not fresh, because it was, or ought reasonably to have been, available before the dismissal. The proposed appeal was not reasonably arguable and raised no issue of principle or general importance; although the order finally disposed of the applicant's claims, the public interest in finality weighed heavily against leave, the applicant seeking to re-agitate complaints pursued for more than a decade. The respondents' contingent application for leave to cross-appeal did not require determination. Mandeville v Better Lending Pty Ltd (2021) 139 SASR 1 applied. Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed. The allegation of fraudulent overcharging was not tried on its merits. JADE

Registry. None: the edition reports a single decision, carried at depth above. The same decision is carried in The Petal Court of Appeal brief for 24 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Ten decisions from two courts in the New South Wales edition of 24 September 2026, two of them headnoted, and both turn in part on the word 'each'. The Supreme Court holds that the default apportionment of damage policy premiums in the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) reaches a building made up entirely of strata schemes and prevails over an inconsistent strata management statement, and that the Tribunal's power turns on the requirement to insure, not on a compliant policy. In the Technology and Construction List, the $500,000 litigation threshold after expert determination under the State's GC21 (Edition 2) contract applies to each Issue, not the aggregate, and the below-threshold claims are permanently stayed. Eight decisions listed without a headnote. No decision in this edition appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Public Law Desk (opening story).

• PINN 386 Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 67607 [2026] NSWSC 1110 - leave to appeal granted on all four grounds, appeal dismissed and the Appeal Panel's decision affirmed (McNaughton J). In a building comprised entirely of two strata schemes, residential and commercial, with no non-strata part: s 160(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) is confined to a single strata scheme for the whole of a building, and s 160(2) covers every other building with at least one strata part, the words 'each' strata scheme and 'any' other person showing a contrary intention that displaces s 8(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW); the 'other person' in s 162 may be another owners corporation, so s 162 applied; s 162 sets an objective default method, premiums in proportion to replacement value, and clear words would be needed to exclude buildings comprised solely of strata schemes; under s 105(5) of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) a strata management statement has no effect to the extent it is inconsistent with another Act, including Management Act provisions outside Pt 12, so the registered 90:10 allocation was of no effect to that extent; the jurisdictional touchstone for the Tribunal's powers under s 162(3) and (4) is the requirement to insure, not a compliant damage policy, and premiums paid under the policies were relevant evidence; s 232(5) was not engaged, and no resort to the statement's dispute procedure was needed; leave was granted on grounds not clearly raised below in the interests of justice; no House v The King error. The Appeal Panel's orders reducing the residential owners corporation's share to approximately 16.5% (2022-23) and 24.3% (2023-24) stand; the plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Built Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1147 - motion for a permanent stay granted (Rees J, Technology and Construction List). Under cl 71.8.2 of the GC21 (Edition 2) General Conditions of Contract, where one expert determines several Issues the $500,000 litigation threshold applies to the determination of each Issue, not the aggregate: Sch 5 requires answers 'for each Issue' and cl 71.7 refers to 'each determination', and aggregation would make the threshold effectively random and permit bundling small claims with larger ones. A decision is not authority for a point assumed but not argued (Lahey Constructions, at first instance and on appeal). A judge follows an earlier decision of another judge of the Court unless plainly wrong, with particular weight on a widely used standard form: CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWSC 537 followed, so a determination dismissing a money claim 'involves paying a sum of money' and cl 71.8.1 is not engaged; an extension of time claim pursued with delay costs is a money claim. No waiver by filing a cross-claim where the Department expressly reserved its argument and the builder agreed not to rely on the filing. Claims on three below-threshold Issues permanently stayed under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW); costs of the motion payable forthwith under r 42.7(2) UCPR, the motion having decided a discrete issue at the earliest stage. Practice note: where one expert determines several Issues, obtain a separate certificate or distinct determination for each. JADE

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

• Griffey bht Griffey v Griffey [2026] NSWSC 732 - list only (real property, possession). JADE
• Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Rypinski [2026] NSWSC 1084 - list only (tax assessment). JADE
• Amin Homes Hadiqat Woolgen Pty Ltd v Anwar [2026] NSWSC 735 - list only (subpoenas). JADE
• Prosper Land St Georges Crescent Drummoyne Pty Limited v City of Canada Bay Council [2026] NSWLEC 1628 - list only (development application). JADE
• Angel v Pemberton [2026] NSWLEC 1629 - list only (trees dispute). JADE
• Appwam Pty Ltd v Burwood Council [2026] NSWLEC 1627 - list only (modification of consent). JADE
• Jagdish Lal Lodhia v Valuer General of New South Wales [2026] NSWLEC 124 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Environment Protection Authority v Williams [2026] NSWLEC 123 - list only (criminal trial procedure). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Nine decisions from the Federal Court and its Full Court in the Australian Federal Courts edition of 24 September 2026, three with headnotes. The lead: the Full Court holds that a Minister cancelling a restored visa in the national interest may reason from past conduct and decide, without a hearing, on material that is not up to date, and that mandatory detention pending removal is a consequence to be considered. Also: a vexatious proceedings order after seventeen proceedings on one employment claim, with a second proceeding for the same relief held not to be an abuse; and a bankrupt learns that a notice of objection to discharge stands or falls on its compliance with the statute, not on whether its ground is made out. Both Full Court decisions are also pointed to from the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. House spot: a word from JADE after the second block.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Manebona v Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 130 - appeal from the dismissal of judicial review of a personal national-interest cancellation under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958, made without a hearing (s 501BA(3)) on material last dated July 2023 after the Tribunal had revoked an earlier cancellation, dismissed with costs: a decision-maker assessing present risk may reason from past conduct provided the inference remains reasonably open, and a finding that conduct had 'continued' while in immigration detention was historical, not a finding about the present; s 501BA contemplates a decision on material that is not up to date, reliance on it being unreasonable where the Minister proceeds on the positive basis that a past state of affairs persisted; there is no obligation to give an opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation in the community or to seek evidence of conduct after release; s 501BA(2) prescribes no mandatory considerations; the practical realities of the consequences of the decision within the Act's framework may have to be taken into account, depending on the statute and the consequence, and mandatory detention pending removal under ss 189 and 198 was one the Minister had to and did consider; an inference that a matter was not considered requires clear evidence, the onus on the applicant; NZYQ was not engaged absent protection claims or any suggestion of indefinite detention; whether permanent exclusion under s 501E is a mandatory consideration was reserved. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants v Patial [2026] FCA 1403 - vexatious proceedings order made under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, restraining a legal practitioner from instituting or continuing proceedings in the Federal Court without leave: 'frequently' in s 37AO(1)(a) is relative, and a small number of proceedings may suffice where issues already determined are relitigated; 'proceeding' includes interlocutory applications and appeals, and the Court assesses the character of the record, including orders and reasons in other proceedings, without making findings on the facts in issue; the order is protective, not punitive, and the Bankruptcy Act's restrictions on a bankrupt litigant are no reason to withhold it; commencing a second proceeding for relief obtainable in a first is prima facie an abuse of process, but not where concurrent pursuit is excluded by undertaking and the fresh proceeding avoids a controversy whether s 60 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 stayed the first; under s 23 and r 1.32 the events in the earlier proceeding were treated as events in this one, there being no prejudice; costs. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• McEwan v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2026] FCAFC 132 - appeal from the refusal to declare a notice of objection to discharge invalid and to order its withdrawal dismissed with costs: s 149B(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 creates an exception making objection mandatory where the specified beliefs are held, not a precondition to every objection under s 149B(1), and obiter observations to the contrary in Wharton v Official Receiver in Bankruptcy (2001) 107 FCR 28 should not be followed; the validity of a notice depends on its compliance with ss 149B to 149D, not on whether its ground is factually made out, a bankrupt alleging a false ground having review by the Inspector-General and the Administrative Review Tribunal, or relief under s 30 or s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy); identifying a bankrupt's income is a purpose of the Act that can justify maintaining an objection while the information is outstanding; deferring objections to affidavit evidence by consent, and terminating irrelevant cross-examination, denied no procedural fairness; suppression or non-publication of reasons requires necessity on a s 37AG(1) ground, weighed against open justice, and a prompt application. JADE

Registry (synopses and list only; no outcomes stated on air).

• Woods v T&F.S. Woods Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1411 - synopsis: costs under s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 after a discontinuance (an unreasonable act or omission, and causation). JADE
• Raghib v Stantec Australia (Costs) [2026] FCA 1415 - synopsis: s 570 costs and the assessment of lump sum costs in a Fair Work matter. JADE
• Sampi on behalf of the Koongie-Elvire Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2026] FCA 1405 - synopsis: late amendment of a statement of facts, issues and contentions under r 16.53 in native title proceedings. JADE
• Probis Financial Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Kong (No 3) [2026] FCA 1409 - list only (security for costs). JADE
• Brereton (Liquidator) v Gatto, in the matter of Get Concreted Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] FCA 1413 - list only (default judgment). JADE
• Albarran, in the matter of Perennial Enterprise Pty Ltd (in liq) (Service Abroad) [2026] FCA 1407 - list only (service abroad). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Nine decisions from four appellate courts in the Court of Appeal edition of 24 September 2026. The Victorian Court of Appeal holds that group costs orders are reviewed on the ordinary House v The King standard and that, after an early settlement, a law practice's own return modelling may fix the return that was contemplated. The Western Australian Court of Appeal allows an appeal from consent property orders for a party with a disability because no one addressed his best interests, dismisses a second appeal in a family violence restraining order matter, refuses leave in a conviction appeal on a direction nobody sought, and refuses bail pending appeal. The South Australian Court of Appeal refuses leave where a dismissal under a self-executing consent order founded res judicata. Two Full Federal Court appeals are carried at depth in the Federal Courts brief. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd v McCoy [2026] VSCA 236 - decisions making or amending group costs orders under s 33ZDA of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) are reviewed on the House v The King standard, the particular appellate restraint applied to costs orders not extending to GCOs, which reward risk rather than pay for costs incurred; an amendment under s 33ZDA(3) is made only if itself appropriate and necessary to ensure that justice is done, a core purpose being to protect group members against windfall returns, without a de novo hearing or hindsight, the central question being whether the reward is no longer proportionate to the risk assumed; there was no mistake of fact in finding the corrected return within the contemplation of the firm and the Court, the logical corollary of the firm's own submission that its modelled settlement range was contemplated; law practices should put hours, actual and equivalent costs, ROI, IRR and comparisons in evidence on finalisation; and suppression under ss 17 and 18(1)(a) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) follows no special rules in group proceedings, litigation budgets, actual expenditure and ROI ordinarily not being suppressed after settlement approval and the expiry of appeal periods. Leave granted, appeal dismissed (unanimous). JADE
• Steicke v Pederick Lawyers Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] SASCA 111 - a dismissal by default under a self-executing consent order may give rise to res judicata, on close scrutiny of what the judgment can be taken to have decided and without a reasoned merits determination, and here finally determined claims the orders deemed admitted; an unpleaded implied representation that fees were honestly charged merely re-agitated the overcharging allegation and was not fraud in the procuring of the judgment (Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd), and evidence available before the dismissal was not fresh; the public interest in finality weighed heavily against leave to re-agitate complaints pursued for more than a decade. Leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal refused. JADE

Family Law Desk.

• W v S [No 3] [2026] WASCA 136 - r 109(1)(d) of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA) is not a mere matter of procedure: it reflects the court's inherent obligation not to sanction a compromise binding a person with a disability unless satisfied it is in that person's best interests, and that satisfaction cannot be left to inference; previously filed affidavits may suffice only if they enable the assessment; satisfaction that orders are just and equitable under s 205ZG(3) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) is a distinct requirement; the appointment of a case guardian, solicitors and senior counsel does not supply compliance; and r 12 cannot dispense with a substantive protection. Appeal allowed, notice of contention dismissed, the application remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing, no view expressed on the merits of the agreement (unanimous). JADE
• SHI v ZHAO [2026] WASCA 137 - a second appeal from a District Court appellate decision under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) lies under s 79(1) of the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), with leave where the judgment is not final (and, obiter, much to be said for requiring leave for second appeals); procedural fairness is concerned with avoiding practical injustice, and none arose where the appellant, told the further evidence application would be heard first, made no objection, sought no adjournment and addressed every matter; unrepresented parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to make submissions, lead evidence and examine witnesses, but no more; and an appellate judge may categorise a wide-ranging appeal broadly if the issues are fairly considered. Appeal dismissed, no order as to costs (unanimous). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Mcdonald (a Pseudonym) v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 133 - reported as legal doctrine only; a trial judge makes no wrong decision on a question of law (Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 30(3)(b)) by omitting a direction on evidence that neither party requested and the defence left in by a conscious forensic choice, a specific direction risking undue prominence and confusion where the State relied on the evidence only for timing; no warning was required absent a perceptible risk of impermissible use (Akkerman distinguished); any error was immaterial given the directions on proof, special scrutiny and the Longman warning; and counsel's failure to seek a direction is no bar to intervention but is a relevant consideration. Leave to appeal refused (unanimous). JADE
• Horsman v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 138 - under Sch 1 Pt C cl 4A of the Bail Act 1982 (WA), bail pending appeal requires exceptional reasons, the essential question being whether the appellant has shown a strongly arguable case on appeal giving rise to real concern that he would suffer injustice by being kept in custody on an unsound conviction, something more than a reasonably arguable case; none of the grounds reached that standard; and difficulty preparing an appeal in custody may warrant an extension of time but does not justify bail. Application dismissed; the conviction appeal is yet to be determined. JADE

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

• Suppressed [2026] WASCA 134 - a suppressed decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal (9 September 2026), listed without a headnote. JADE

Pointers (aired at depth in the Federal Courts brief of 24 September 2026).

• Manebona v Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 130 - pointer: under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) a decision-maker assessing present risk may reason from past conduct and dated material, need not afford a hearing (s 501BA(3)), and here considered the practical consequence of mandatory detention pending removal; NZYQ was not engaged. Appeal dismissed. JADE
• McEwan v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2026] FCAFC 132 - pointer: s 149B(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) imposes no preconditions on filing a notice of objection to discharge, whose validity turns on compliance with ss 149B to 149D rather than on whether the ground is factually made out; factual challenges go to review or to relief under s 30 or IPS s 90-15; and a non-publication order must be shown necessary on a s 37AG(1) ground and sought promptly. Appeal dismissed. JADE

Maurice Blackburn also appears in the Victoria brief, Steicke in the South Australia brief, and W v S [No 3], SHI v ZHAO, Mcdonald, Horsman and WASCA 134 in the Western Australia brief, of 24 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Six Supreme Court decisions in the Western Australia edition of Wednesday 23 September 2026, and one of them is the day's statutory question: when a liquidator disclaims a commercial strata lot, who is the appropriate person to take it under s 568F(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and must they show an entitlement to it? The Supreme Court says 'appropriate' bears its ordinary meaning and calls for an unfettered evaluative judgment with no entitlement required, vests the lot in the former purchaser over the strata company's competing claim as trustee for sale, and holds that an earlier order directed to the status of the land operated in rem. Carried at depth on the Commercial Law Desk, with five list-only decisions on the registry. No decision in this edition also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Kszh Pty Ltd v Birchwood Consolidated Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Liquidation) [2026] WASC 409 - vesting of disclaimed property (Musikanth J): a vesting order under s 568F of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) requires disclaimed property, an application by a person claiming an interest in or liability for it, and a hearing of such persons as the Court thinks appropriate; 'appropriate' in s 568F(1)(b) bears its ordinary meaning and, once enlivened, calls for an unfettered evaluative judgment; the applicant need not show an entitlement within s 568F(1)(a); the Kalium Lakes considerations (any change of circumstances, return to creditors, windfall to the Crown, or historical or practical connection with the property) are non-exhaustive; a commercial lot in a Perth strata scheme, disclaimed as onerous land by the liquidator of its owner before an earlier order for its conversion to common property, removal from the scheme and amalgamation with the purchaser's adjoining lot was implemented, vested in the former purchaser (whose contract the disclaimer terminated) rather than in the strata company as trustee for sale, because of the purchaser's strong historical connection and the earlier order that would otherwise have been enforced for its benefit, the absence of significant post-appeal delay or of delay for commercial advantage, the want of evidence for the strata company's tax, duty and cost prejudice, and because the strata company's proposal, with its priority waterfall for its own costs and asserted tax liabilities, would frustrate the earlier order and operate as a cost-protection and collateral distribution scheme, inconsistent with the statutory purpose that a disclaimer cause as little prejudice as possible to interested persons; the strata company's adjournment to adduce valuation and administration-cost evidence refused; an order directed to changing the legal status and disposition of identified land operates in rem, binding strangers as well as parties, and does not become merely personal because further acts are needed to implement it, and substitution under O 18 r 7(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) meant the vesting order was not inutile (the abuse of process contention not decided); orders reasonably ancillary to vesting deemed the purchase price paid by deduction from the debt secured to the equitable mortgagee, continued the reduced mortgages and the current leases as encumbrances, and reserved liberty to the strata company to seek administration costs; an order deeming the vesting order to take effect under the liberty to apply in the earlier appeal was deferred to those proceedings. Application granted; costs reserved. JADE

Registry (no outcome stated).

• Iron Horse Machines Pty Ltd v Olmate Holdings Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] WASC 393 - list only (company law, oppression). JADE
• Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [No 6] [2026] WASC 399 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE
• Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [No 5] [2026] WASC 398 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE
• Wayne v WA Police [2026] WASC 405 - list only (criminal appeal, leave to appeal). JADE
• Dimension Agriculture Pty Ltd v Nicoletti [No 2] [2026] WASC 410 - list only (strike out). 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 23 September 2026. The Supreme Court on security for costs against a class action law firm holding a group costs order: no reason-to-believe precondition, a real or material risk assessed inside the right window, and contested security applications confined to one expert a side and half a day. From the Court of Appeal, what a party's lawyers write to ASIC is neither confidential nor privileged and can go in the court book, and a tenant's bid to add the landlord's estate agent at VCAT raised no question of law. Both Court of Appeal decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Two more decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

• DA Lynch Pty Limited v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd (No 2) [2026] VSC 621 - security for costs against a law practice holding a group costs order under s 33ZDA of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic): the power in ss 33ZDA(2)(b) and 33ZF carries no jurisdictional precondition of reason to believe the practice will be unable to pay, the only fetter being whether an order is appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done (Stuart v Said); a GCO practice profits much like a litigation funder, so funder authorities may assist, but is directly exposed to adverse costs orders and security; the risk of inability to pay is an important factor but one only, and a real or material risk will generally warrant an order given the practice's privileged statutory position, unless an order would stultify a genuine claim; the assessment is forward-looking, practical and commonsense, confined to the period in which the adverse costs order in the proceeding would be payable; on the evidence (a strong balance sheet, unchallenged chief financial officer evidence, and expected settlement revenue in another class action that the defendant's third expert report omitted) there was no real or material risk; contested security applications in group proceedings should ordinarily be confined to one expert report a side, limited reply and solicitor affidavits and no more than half a day of hearing, consistently with the overarching obligations in the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), and a late report served without leave to reframe the application was inconsistent with them; obiter, on respecting an expert's independence. Application for security of $6.5 million dismissed. JADE

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

• Hu v Mochizuki [2026] VSCA 235 - leave to appeal two interlocutory County Court decisions refused (Lyons, Richards and Kaye JJA): including a document in a court book does not make it admissible or public, a dispute about court book contents is ordinarily not justiciable, and leave to appeal an interlocutory practice ruling requires error of principle and substantial injustice; an admission of an ASIC investigation and of knowledge of it does not make documents about it irrelevant to a misleading-silence claim; s 117 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) only defines confidential communications and documents and does not itself prevent disclosure, boilerplate confidentiality markings supply no obligation, s 127(1)(a) of the ASIC Act does not preclude the use of documents obtained by subpoena in litigation, and ss 920A, 920E and 920F of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) impose no confidentiality on communications with ASIC; correspondence between a party's solicitors and ASIC is not privileged under s 118; the indemnity costs order undisturbed; a strike-out of the whole claim sought late with trial fixed, and a counterclaim 14 months late that would have vacated the trial, properly refused (Aon; Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 7-9). JADE

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

• Myers v Rao [2026] VSCA 234 - extension of time granted and leave to appeal refused by a single Judge of Appeal on the papers (Beach JA): VCAT's refusal, after striking out a tenant's compensation claim, to correct its order to add the landlord's estate agent as a respondent raised no question of law under s 148(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), no basis for relief against the agent having been identified, the claim against the agent not being a consumer and trader dispute under s 182(1) of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), and the order containing no mistake correctable under s 119; summary judgment on the amended question of law was correctly given, the question being untied to the order under appeal and premised on a partnership when landlord and agent were in no way akin to partners at law; reasons need not address every argument; the application was totally without merit within s 14D(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). JADE

Registry (a synopsis and a list-only decision, no outcome stated).

• Re Bt [2026] VSC 616 - Illustrative synopsis only: a written youth bail decision working through the exceptional circumstances test in s 4A and the high degree of probability test in s 4F of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), and how to assemble the evidence for a youth bail application; framework only, the synopsis states no outcome. Letters only; nothing of the young person is described. JADE
• DPP v Robertson [2026] VSC 607 - list only (sentence appeal). JADE

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