The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions from four tribunals in the Tribunals edition of 23 September 2026, one of them headnoted. The lead is a Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal review refusing a structure plan for about 1,000 lots and 2,800 people on a mostly bushfire-prone site: lifting an Urban Deferred zoning is an administrative decision, not a strategic planning proposal within the SPP 3.7 transitional exemption; the broader landscape assessment cannot assume the approval in issue; a suitable destination for evacuation must meet all three criteria, with proximity measured by road rather than as the crow flies; and contested expert modelling whose manual interventions are undisclosed is a black box warranting little weight, with unexplained risk treatments, the irrelevance of tolerable risk and a disjunctive precautionary principle completing the refusal. Also: a VCAT owners corporation framework on discretion and clean hands, an illustrative medical board disciplinary decision carried as a label, and four list-only decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Tribunals Desk: bushfire risk, the distance to safety, and the black box (lead).

• Satterley Property Group Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2026] WASAT 110 - Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) s 241(1)(a); Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA) Sch 2 (Deemed Provisions) cl 22; State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) ss 27(2), 32(1); Metropolitan Region Scheme cl 23; State Planning Policy 3.7 (Bushfire, 2024) cll 7.2, 7.5 and its Guidelines cll 1.3.1, 1.4 and Appendix H: on review under cl 22 the tribunal must be satisfied that the site can feasibly be developed as proposed consistently with policy, or that there is a cogent reason to depart from it, and a local government's past positions and its councillors' motives are irrelevant on de novo review; a WAPC resolution under cl 23 of the MRS lifting Urban Deferred zoning is not an amendment of a region scheme and so not a 'strategic planning proposal', and where the transitional clause applies it exempts only the Broader Landscape Assessment methodology, not the outcome; the Broader Landscape Assessment looks at land outside the site and cannot assume the approval in issue, so a post-development assessment has no proper role; a 'suitable destination' must not be bushfire prone (or must meet the separation distances), must provide protection during and after a bushfire and must be within an urban area or townsite, a listed evacuation centre qualifying only if dedicated by the local government for use in a bushfire, and proximity is measured by road, not as the crow flies (here 14 km); an expert must disclose the facts, assumptions and reasoning behind an opinion in time for testing, and although s 32(1) relieves the tribunal of the rules of evidence it may weigh expert evidence by its compliance with the admissibility rules, so a traffic assessment built on withheld survey data and unexplained adjustments was unreliable; contested evacuation microsimulation whose numerous manual interventions were never identified or justified, with no sensitivity testing, is a 'black box' warranting very little weight, a finding that alone warranted refusal, and a model adjusted until every evacuee escapes shows at most relativities between scenarios; a risk assessment must explain how each treatment reduces risk and by how much, treatments must be enforceable (a restrictive covenant cannot in substance impose positive vegetation maintenance obligations), on-site refuges are not supported for residential uses, and outside vulnerable land uses 'tolerable' risk has no role; the precautionary principle in cl 1.4 of the Guidelines is disjunctive, any one limb warranting refusal. Approval of the structure plan refused rather than modification and resubmission required, the flaws being too basic; refusal does not determine that the site is unsuitable for urban development. Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles and Lang v The Queen applied. Judge H Jackson, Deputy President, and Mr R Povey, Member. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a framework and a label (Illustrative synopses, no outcome stated).

• Rogerson v Vosti & Ors [2026] VCAT 772 - synopsis (framework only, no outcome stated): VCAT's discretionary powers under s 165 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic), including the discretion to make no order at all, and the mandatory considerations in s 167, applied step by step; longstanding communal practice, majority owners corporation resolutions and selective enforcement as factors weighing against orders; the clean hands doctrine, a party's own breaches of the model rules and oppressive behaviour being capable of defeating its application. Decided 6 August 2026. JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Elorza [2026] QCAT 351 - synopsis (carried as a label only, no outcome stated): the professional misconduct definition in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) and sanction principles in health practitioner disciplinary proceedings, in an agreed matter heard on the papers under s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). JADE

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

• Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman v BPS [2026] QCAT 348 - list only (civil procedure, interlocutory orders); carried by letters only. JADE
• Rizk v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 289 - list only (administrative law, judicial review). JADE
• HJT v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAD 286 - list only (administrative law, administrative review); carried by letters only. JADE
• Allchin v Wycombe Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 300 - list only (practice and procedure, interlocutory applications). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Fifteen decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of 23 September 2026. Whether an offence is one 'involving dishonesty' under the firearms regime is decided from the offence-creating provision, not the facts, and concealing a serious indictable offence is not such an offence. Receivers appointed for a proper substantial object are validly appointed despite a collateral purpose; a 542-company property group in administration gets twelve more months to report to creditors; and an owners corporation that concedes the substance remains a proper contradictor. From the Court of Criminal Appeal, an intensive correction order unavailable at law for a federal offence, and the guilty plea discount. Nine decisions listed without a headnote. The two Court of Criminal Appeal decisions also feature 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).

• Casella v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWSC 1141 - leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed (Rigg J). Whether an offence is one 'involving fraud, dishonesty or stealing' under cl 5(1)(f) of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW), so that a person convicted of it is a disqualified person under s 11(5)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) who cannot seek review of a firearms prohibition order (s 75(1A)), is determined from the offence-creating provision without inquiry into the facts of the offending; dishonesty must be an element, or the offence must be clearly and inherently dishonest, as perjury is, and where it is not an element its inherence must be 'abundantly plain'. Concealing a serious indictable offence under s 316(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is an offence of omission that may be committed without dishonesty, and is not an offence involving dishonesty; the absence of a reasonable excuse does not mean the offender acted dishonestly. Nguyen v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATOD 150 not followed. The Appeal Panel's decision set aside and the matter remitted to it to be decided according to law; the Commissioner to pay the plaintiff's costs. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Landco Group Middleton Grange Pty Ltd atf LGMG Unit Trust v Australian Agrivision Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1153 - summons dismissed with costs (Hmelnitsky J). Express notice in writing under s 12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) needs no special form, only to convey that the obligation has been transferred to an assignee; an erroneous statement that notice was previously given is disregarded as surplusage unless it has a genuine tendency to mislead, so a demand letter asserting the assignee's rights under the security documents completed the legal assignment. Where the donee of a power has mixed purposes the test is the substantial object, not 'but for'; a power to appoint receivers, like a mortgagee's power of sale, is granted for the donee's own benefit, so its purpose is distinguished from its motive; a purpose of pressuring the borrower's director over an unrelated venture was incidental to recovering a genuine debt, and the appointment was valid. Obiter: an equitable assignee of a charge cannot appoint receivers out of court unless the charge confers that power (Harpur v Ariadne Australia Ltd would not have been followed). JADE
• In the matter of Universal Property Group Pty Limited (admins apptd) (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1156 - application granted in part (Nixon J). On an extension of the convening period under s 439A(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the Court balances an efficient and expeditious administration against time for administrators to present meaningful choices to creditors; extensions are presumptively brief, but significant extra time may be allowed in complex cases, with substantial weight on the administrators' considered judgment; twelve months (to 20 September 2027) granted for 542 companies with deficient records and incomplete developments dependent on builder licences, six months being rejected on the evidence; one extension across the group, with a Daisytek order and early winding-up or exit relief; the administrators held justified nunc pro tunc in entering urgent loan agreements and relieved of personal liability (ss 443A, 447A); novel relief on a hypothetical basis adjourned sine die. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Keay v The Owners - Strata Plan 3132 [2026] NSWSC 1150 - substantive relief granted (Pike J). A party is a proper contradictor if it has an interest in opposing the declaration, whether or not it actually opposes; an owners corporation conceding the substance remained one, and declarations finally settling a lot owner's exclusive use rights under common property rights by-laws had utility. The power under s 138(3) and (5) of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) to make ancillary orders correcting the Register extends beyond a recording in a folio to a dealing or instrument, here amended consolidated strata by-laws; the Registrar-General's correction power under s 12 does not exclude it and goes only to whether an order is needed. Obiter: an injunction is a remedy, not a cause of action, and non-consent to consolidated by-laws under s 143(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) is not one. JADE

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

• R v Molnar [2026] NSWCCA 148 - Crown appeal allowed, sentence quashed and the matter remitted to the District Court for sentence (Mitchelmore JA, Dhanji and Emmett JJ). An intensive correction order is unavailable for a federal offender under s 20AB(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and s 67(1)(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) where the federal offence necessarily includes a prescribed sexual offence, and the omission of the offence from s 67(2)(e) does not displace s 67(1)(g); possession of child abuse material under s 474.22A of the Criminal Code (Cth) contravened s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), so no order could be imposed. A sentence not available at law falls within the rare category warranting intervention on a Crown appeal without a finding of manifest inadequacy; the s 78B constitutional question was unnecessary to decide; the doubts in Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28 about remittal under s 12(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) do not arise on Crown appeals under s 5D. JADE
• Worrell v R [2026] NSWCCA 149 - leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed (Payne JA, McNaughton and Emmett JJ). Only an offer to plead guilty recorded in a negotiations document engages s 25E of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and s 25A(2) excludes any other utilitarian discount, so 10% under s 25D(2) was the maximum for this plea, entered less than 14 business days before trial; a related offence transferred under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2007 (NSW) falls outside Div 1A and attracts a discretionary discount under s 22(1). Sentencing statistics cannot establish a range, and statistics for one component offence are of limited utility against an aggregate sentence. A judge who accepts deprivation under Bugmy need not treat addiction arising from it as a separate mitigating factor or count factors twice with De La Rosa, and reduced culpability from mental illness may be counterbalanced by community protection. JADE

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

• Gatto v Watson [2026] NSWSC 1145 - list only (amendment). JADE
• Norwest Childcare Investment Pty Ltd v CPD Baulkham Hills Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1161 - list only (costs). JADE
• Goldman v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Armidale & Anor [2026] NSWSC 1158 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Love v The State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1160 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• ABC by her tutor DEF v Irmak and Dagdanasar; ABC by her tutor DEF v Irmak (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 1154 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Zarounas v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1159 - list only (leave to appeal). JADE
• V'landys v The Thoroughbred Report Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1146 - list only (defamation pleadings). JADE
• Sasterawan v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2026] NSWLEC 1632 - list only (subpoenas). JADE
• Para-ere Holdings Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1626 - list only (development consent). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions in the Australian Federal Courts edition of 23 September 2026, four with headnotes: three from the Full Court, carried at depth here and pointed to from the Court of Appeal brief of the same date, and four from single judges. The lead: a unanimous Full Court holds that a doctoral candidate on a Commonwealth-funded research scholarship was not an employee of the University of Sydney, because a contract of service needs a contractual obligation to work whose non-performance would be a breach, and a stipend conditioned on diligent progress is support for a student's education, not wages. Also: the abandoned child provision of the 1948 citizenship Act, where the contrary to be proved is birth outside Australia, not another nationality; non-disclosure certificates, closed sessions and the Court's own look at confidential material in a security assessment appeal; and non-standard discovery, fishing and oppression in a Fair Work claim against Qantas. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Burt v University of Sydney [2026] FCAFC 129 - appeal from the dismissal of a representative proceeding under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 dismissed, no order as to costs: a contract of service requires the supply of labour, for the putative employer's benefit, in performance of a contractual obligation whose non-performance would sound in breach, in exchange for remuneration, and benefit to the putative employer alone does not suffice; a higher degree by research candidate who made no promise to the University to progress his research, diligent progress being only a condition of continued payment, was in no relationship of mutual obligation, and the scholarship stipend was educational support rather than remuneration; leave entitlements and expected hours did not indicate employment; a contractual right of control is relevant only where the work is performed under an obligation owed to an employer or principal; alternative grounds in notices of contention need not be decided where the appeal fails on the primary ground; s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 very likely prohibits a costs order. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Deyanti v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCAFC 126 - appeal dismissed with costs: 'the contrary' to be proved under the abandoned child provision in s 5(3)(b) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is proof of birth outside Australia, not proof of entitlement to another nationality, a construction reading nationality in being circular; the unincorporated Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness cannot displace clear enacted text, s 5(3)(b)(i) enacting only the first element of art 2, even where statelessness results; and (Banks-Smith and Stewart JJ) a Full Court follows a prior Full Court's construction (SZRTN) unless it is plainly wrong or there is a compelling reason not to, even where a new argument is advanced, provided the question was argued and decided rather than assumed, Younan J reaching the same result on construction. JADE
• MJZP v Director-General of Security [2026] FCAFC 127 - appeal on questions of law from the Tribunal's Security Division affirming an adverse security assessment, and a proceeding challenging non-disclosure certificates, dismissed with costs: the Tribunal's documents transmitted under s 46(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 are before the Court without formal tender, so conditions on tender and exclusion under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 have no work to do; a certificate under ss 39A(8) and 39B(2)(a) is legally unreasonable only if the requisite satisfaction could not have been reached logically or rationally on the material; the Minister errs if she treats the public interest as precluding anything but prejudice to security, but not by assessing security as the only significant issue; decision-makers must consider the direct, immediate and statutorily prescribed consequences of a decision, not indirect or contingent ones; once a certificate is given the statute itself excludes the applicant's representatives unless the Minister consents, so a refusal of consent changes no legal rights; s 39B(11) is a source of power to receive information in closed session without a certificate, procedural fairness depending on the circumstances and practical injustice; and the Court may examine confidential reasons and evidence for unreasonableness or a failure to engage. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Sharpin v Qantas Airways Limited [2026] FCA 1399 - non-standard discovery under rr 20.12 and 20.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 ordered in a Fair Work Act claim: relevance is assessed against the pleaded issues without deciding contested questions of construction on the merits (whether a 'medically significant condition' under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 includes pre-diagnosis symptoms left for trial); a live pleaded issue and evidence grounding a suspicion that discovery will aid proof answer a fishing objection; existing consent discovery was no substitute; a party resisting discovery as oppressive ordinarily needs evidence of the extent, cost or difficulty of the searches and the likely volume of documents; costs reserved under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 without any finding of unreasonable conduct. JADE

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

• Finnegan v Kemner (No 3) [2026] FCA 1402 - synopsis: leave to withdraw an admission or amend pleadings on the first day of trial (rr 16.53 and 26.11). JADE
• James v Narang Bir-Rong Aboriginal Corporation, in the matter of Narang Bir-Rong Aboriginal Corporation (Special Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 1408 - list only. JADE
• Clark v Registrar of Titles (No 2) [2026] FCA 1404 - list only. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions from three appellate courts in the Court of Appeal edition of 23 September 2026. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal holds that an intensive correction order was never available to a federal offender whose offence necessarily includes a prescribed sexual offence, allows the Crown's appeal without a finding of manifest inadequacy and remits for sentence, and dismisses a six-ground sentence appeal that reads as a checklist on Bugmy, De La Rosa, counsel's concessions, statistics and the plea discount. The Victorian Court of Appeal refuses leave on a court book dispute over correspondence with ASIC, and refuses a tenant leave in a bid to join the landlord's estate agent. Three Full Federal Court decisions are pointed to the Federal Courts brief. House spot: a word from JADE after the second block.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• R v Molnar [2026] NSWCCA 148 - under s 67(1)(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) an intensive correction order is unavailable where a federal offence necessarily includes the commission of an offence identified in s 67(1)(a) to (f), and the omission of the offence from s 67(2)(e) does not displace that bar; possession of the material also contravened s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a prescribed sexual offence, so no ICO could be imposed on the federal offender through s 20AB(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); the s 78B constitutional question was unnecessary to decide; where the respondent conceded the sentence could not stand and the error produced a sentence not available at law, the Crown appeal succeeded without a finding of manifest inadequacy; and the doubts in Farrugia v The King about remittal do not arise in Crown appeals under s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), remittal under s 12(2) being appropriate so that both parties retain appeal rights and the respondent's treatment can be explored more fully. Appeal allowed, sentence quashed, remitted to the District Court for sentence (unanimous). Reported as legal doctrine only; no view is expressed on the sentence to come. JADE
• Worrell v R [2026] NSWCCA 149 - a judge who reduces moral culpability for childhood deprivation under Bugmy v The Queen need not treat addiction arising from it as a separate mitigating matter or count the same factors twice; a De La Rosa reduction for mental illness may be counterbalanced by community protection where the illness makes the offender more dangerous; an applicant is bound by counsel's concessions below; post-sentence evidence cannot be relied on absent error or exceptional circumstances; whether to accept an expert's opinion of remorse is for the sentencing judge; sentencing statistics cannot establish a range, and statistics for a component offence are of little use against an aggregate sentence; and only an offer recorded in a negotiations document engages s 25E of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), so 10% under s 25D(2) was the maximum discount, the related offence discount being discretionary under s 22(1). Leave granted, appeal dismissed (unanimous). Reported as legal doctrine only; the complainant is not identified. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Hu v Mochizuki [2026] VSCA 235 - including a document in a court book does not make it admissible or public, a dispute about a court book's contents is ordinarily not justiciable, and leave from an interlocutory practice ruling requires error of principle and substantial injustice; an admission of an ASIC investigation and knowledge of it did not make documents about its nature and scope irrelevant to a misleading-silence claim, nor was their volume unfair prejudice or undue waste of time under s 135 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic); s 117 only defines confidential communications, boilerplate markings impose no obligation of non-disclosure, and neither the ASIC Act nor the Corporations Act banning provisions make correspondence with ASIC confidential; the correspondence was not privileged under s 118 absent a dominant purpose of legal advice; an indemnity costs order against a litigant with legal training who pressed a review in disregard of clearly explained law was not disturbed; save in exceptional circumstances a late application to strike out the whole claim is not determined with trial fixed; and a late counterclaim that would have vacated the trial was properly refused under Aon and the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). Leave to appeal refused on both applications (unanimous). JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Myers v Rao [2026] VSCA 234 - VCAT's refusal, after strike-out, to add a landlord's estate agent as a second respondent to a tenant's compensation claim raised no question of law under s 148(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), where no basis for relief against the agent was identified, the claim against the agent was not a consumer and trader dispute within s 182(1) of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), and there was no mistake correctable under s 119; summary judgment on the amended question was correctly given, the relationship of landlord and agent being in no way akin to a partnership; and a proposed appeal with no prospects is totally without merit within s 14D(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). Extension of time granted, leave to appeal refused (Beach JA). JADE

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

• Burt v University of Sydney [2026] FCAFC 129 - pointer: whether higher degree by research candidates holding Commonwealth scholarships were employees of the University; a contract of service requires work performed under a contractual obligation whose non-performance would sound in breach, in exchange for remuneration, and a stipend supporting study is not that; control matters only where the work is owed. Appeal dismissed, no order as to costs. Carried at depth in the Federal Courts brief of 23 September 2026. JADE
• MJZP v Director-General of Security [2026] FCAFC 127 - pointer: an appeal from the Security Division of the Tribunal affirming an adverse security assessment, with a challenge to non-disclosure certificates; the transmitted record is before the Court without tender, and neither the certificates nor the refusals of consent were shown to be legally unreasonable. Appeal and proceeding dismissed with costs. Carried at depth in the Federal Courts brief of 23 September 2026. JADE
• Deyanti v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCAFC 126 - pointer: under the abandoned child provision in s 5(3)(b) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth), 'the contrary' to be proved is birth outside Australia, not entitlement to another nationality; a Full Court follows a prior Full Court construction unless plainly wrong; an unincorporated statelessness convention cannot displace the enacted text. Appeal dismissed with costs. Carried at depth in the Federal Courts brief of 23 September 2026. JADE

R v Molnar and Worrell v R also appear in the New South Wales brief, and Hu v Mochizuki and Myers v Rao in the Victoria brief, of 23 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Edition eight — the sorting fortnight, 10 to 23 September, deduped against edition seven and the daily brief. A five-judge NSW Court of Criminal Appeal revokes the Whyte guideline for s 52A dangerous driving and replaces it with a non-numerical statement of principles that separates objective seriousness from moral culpability. The NSW Court of Appeal holds that 'in the public interest' in the health privacy research exemption qualifies the research, not the disclosure. The Federal Court holds that s 501BA(3) ousts the bias rule as well as the hearing rule, and the Full Federal Court restates the security-review regime for closed material. And Victoria's Court of Appeal holds that an agreed fact on a plea can be displaced only by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Five criminal appeals from Sydney and Melbourne are reported with restraint. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening feature.

Features

Public Law Desk — NEW: Sydney Children's Hospitals Network v FZP [2026] NSWCA 203 ('in the public interest' in HPP cll 10(1)(f) and 11(1)(f) qualifies research, not use or disclosure; a trailing qualifier attaches to the adjacent activity; an objects clause cannot restrike the balance; cognate Commonwealth and Victorian provisions confirm; remittal set aside on an unchallenged alternative finding; the successful network pays a skilled public-interest contradictor's costs under s 98(1); unanimous) · Montenegro v Legal Profession Admission Board (No 4) [2026] NSWCA 199 ('full and accurate minutes' means every decision recorded accurately; validity turns on the meeting, not the minutes; a declared, abstaining member need not leave absent a realistic possibility of stifling debate) · Sciascia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1385 (s 501BA(3) ousts the bias rule, including actual bias, as well as the hearing rule; a time-taken constructive-failure inference needs a clear evidential foundation, and 56 minutes for 19 pages is not one; reliance on departmental summaries orthodox) · MJZP v Director-General of Security [2026] FCAFC 127 (s 46(1) transmission puts the record before the Court without tender; certificates unreasonable only if satisfaction could not logically or rationally be reached; consequences to be considered are direct, not contingent; NBMZ explained; s 39B(11) a source of power; fairness tested by practical injustice; the Court may examine closed material itself; unanimous).

Criminal Law Desk — NEW: Cripps v R (s 52A guideline judgment) [2026] NSWCCA 144 (Whyte revoked and replaced with a non-numerical guideline; objective seriousness and moral culpability distinct; a non-exhaustive objective-seriousness list; a warning ignored goes to objective seriousness; reduced culpability considered separately; age and priors are not objective seriousness; appeal dismissed; five judges, joint) · Forbes v R [2026] NSWCCA 147 (childhood hardship may reduce moral culpability without a causal link; the s 112(3) SNPP a guidepost, not a starting point; a JIRS outlier warrants scrutiny; aggregate reduced to 10 years) · R v Molnar [2026] NSWCCA 148 (s 67(1)(g) disentitles an ICO for a federal offence necessarily including a prescribed sexual offence despite s 67(2)(e); a disposition unavailable at law justifies Crown-appeal intervention without manifest inadequacy; s 12(2) remittal available on Crown appeals; s 78B question not decided) · Nikola Latuhoi v The King [2026] VSCA 231 (a judge may go behind agreed facts on a plea only by an adverse finding open beyond reasonable doubt; such error material where it could realistically affect seriousness; resentenced) · Yarra Valley Park Lane Holiday Park Pty Ltd v The King [2026] VSCA 233 (accident evidence relevant to gravity in a risk-based OHS offence but excluded under s 137 as led; by majority the Baiada burden is insufficiency of the existing system, not a counterfactual; conviction set aside, new trial ordered; Walker JA dissenting as to disposition).

Desk segments

Commercial Law Desk — NEW: Barber v Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] FCA 1378 (no rule a non-resident must give security; adequate in-jurisdiction shares defeat security whatever their form or liquidity; dealing restrictions no bar; a company's undifferentiated joint defence with the majority is a strong countervailing circumstance; dismissed on an undertaking) · ASIC v Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1380 (s 1323 enlivened by three jurisdictional facts; no prima facie case needed; freezing orders in aid as the lesser alternative to receivership; offshore reach in personam; notes characterised as debentures; ex parte interim orders).

The Registry

Wills & Probate — Walley, in the matter of Royal National Capital Alliance Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2026] FCA 1383 (where a company acts solely as trustee, its liquidators recover general costs, expenses and remuneration from the trust assets; an expense-allocation clause is internal accounting and creates no sub-trusts; s 90-15 directions protect on full and fair disclosure).

Held

Constitutional Law, Family Law and Torts & Negligence report nothing new: their entries are edition seven's Roe, Palacio & Ksenia, Helias & Tadeu, Gobbo and Peka (linked below). The s 78B question in Molnar was not decided. No Commercial Law and no Intellectual Property edition this fortnight. A quiet fortnight is itself the report.

Treated in edition seven

Roe (Administrator) v State of Western Australia [2026] FCA 1364 · Hancy v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1195 · DPP v Roderic [2026] VSCA 223 · Dahaby v Cassim [2026] VSCA 224 · TD v R [2026] NSWCCA 139 · R v Grocke [2026] SASCA 96 · The King v Naroldol [2026] NTCCA 8 · Rioli v The King [2026] NTCCA 11 · Vute v R [2026] NSWCCA 141 · Mahoney v R [2026] NSWCCA 142 · Palacio & Ksenia [2026] FedCFamC1A 156 · Helias & Tadeu [2026] FedCFamC1A 161 · Peka (Estate of Ida Hawkins) v Te Hei [2026] NZSC 121 · Gobbo v State of Victoria [2026] VSCA 221.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eight decisions from five tribunals in the Tribunals edition of 22 September 2026, five of them with headnotes. The lead is a Queensland health practitioner disciplinary proceeding: a general practitioner's boundary violations, acceptance of appointment under an elderly patient's enduring power of attorney, prescribing after a personal relationship formed, and financial exploitation of the patient were professional misconduct, the financial exploitation amounting in the tribunal's finding to elder abuse; a reprimand and a 12-month suspension followed, insight and repayment weighed against general deterrence; and a non-publication order protecting the practitioner's identity was made on expert evidence of significant adverse mental health impacts. Then two licences kept alive pending review and appeal (an NCAT interim order continuing an expired building contractor licence, and a QCAT Appeal stay preserving a deactivated real estate agent licence), an ACAT appeal holding that a dispute over a dog after a de facto separation belongs to the courts named in the Family Law Act, and a VCAT planning review on car parking reductions in an activity centre. Three list-only decisions are on the registry.

Tribunals Desk: the practitioner, the patient and the non-publication order (lead).

• Health Ombudsman v MDM [2026] QCAT 355 - Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) ss 103(1)(a), 104, 107, 109; Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s 5; QCAT Act 2009 (Qld) s 66: conduct breaching professional boundaries, exploiting a vulnerable elderly patient financially, accepting appointment as the patient's enduring power of attorney, and prescribing medication after forming a personal relationship constitutes professional misconduct under s 5 of the National Law; most allegations were admitted and the tribunal determines the allegations on the balance of probabilities; a 12-month suspension with conditions, together with a reprimand, are appropriate sanctions for serious professional misconduct involving elder abuse where the practitioner has demonstrated insight and repaid misappropriated funds, general deterrence being a primary consideration; a non-publication order under s 66 may be granted where expert evidence establishes that publication could cause significant adverse mental health impacts to the practitioner, outweighing the public interest in identification (the 'necessary' test in s 66(2)). Orders: professional misconduct found; reprimand; registration suspended for 12 months; conditions effective on cessation of the suspension, reviewable after 12 months; no order as to costs; non-publication order protecting the practitioner's identity. Craig v Medical Board of South Australia and NMBA v Lockie applied. Supplementary Member, assisted by Professor G Duncombe, Doctor P Glazebrook and Doctor N Laukens. JADE

Tribunals Desk: two licences kept alive.

• Arise Solar Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATOD 126 - Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) s 60; Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) ss 20(1)(d), 42(3): renewal of a contractor licence was refused on the basis that a close associate was not a fit and proper person, and the licence, expired, continued in force by s 42(3) until the refusal was affirmed on internal review; s 60(2) empowers the tribunal to make orders otherwise affecting the operation of the decision under review where the licence has expired, extending to orders suspending or qualifying the legal operation of the refusal, so that the licence continues in force pending the review; on the mandatory s 60(3) factors, irreparable financial and reputational damage and an arguable case on insurance requirements favoured an order ensuring the review retains practical effect, subject to conditions protecting the public; application granted in part, the licence continuing subject to a condition prohibiting contracts over $20,000. AVS Group v Commissioner of Police applied; QLD Protection Security v Commissioner of Police followed. JADE
• Galagher v Chief Executive, Department of Justice [2026] QCATA 134 - Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) s 177; QCAT Act 2009 (Qld) ss 58, 142, 145: the statutory stay of a decision pending review under s 177(1) terminates when the tribunal decides the review and does not extend to the appeal; a stay of a review decision pending appeal is determined under s 145 (questions of law) or s 58 (leave to appeal on questions of fact or mixed fact and law); the considerations are a reasonably arguable case, material detriment if the stay is refused, the balance of convenience, and whether refusal would render a successful appeal nugatory; where refusal would risk the licence ceasing to be extant, a stay may be granted to preserve the status quo of a deactivated licence until the appeal is determined. Stay granted, only to preserve the status quo of the deactivated licence. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a dog, and a car park.

• Sebastian v MICHELLE (Appeal) [2026] ACAT 55 - Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 39A, 90RC, 90SM; ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 82: a claim by one former de facto partner to exclusive ownership of property acquired during the relationship, asserted after its breakdown, is a de facto financial cause; a pet dog is property and may be a companion animal within the Family Law Act; s 39A(5) prohibits instituting a de facto financial cause in any court or tribunal other than those specified in s 39A(1), whether or not Family Law Act proceedings have been commenced; s 90RC does not preserve the tribunal's jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. Decided 31 July 2026. JADE
• Luhan v Moorabool SC [2026] VCAT 760 - Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) s 77; Moorabool Planning Scheme cll 34.01-8, 52.06-3, 55, 65.01: council refusal set aside and a permit granted for six shops and six dwellings; in assessing a car parking reduction within an activity centre the tribunal may have regard to surrounding on-street parking, complementary shop and residential demand, and customers already visiting the centre, and a 17-space shortfall was acceptable with 154 public spaces within 200 metres; private on-site waste collection acceptable with conditions; a garage entry can meet the sense of identity objective with design treatment; a s 173 agreement preventing separation of shop and dwelling uses was not warranted where the reduction remains acceptable if the uses operate independently; the test is acceptable, not ideal. JADE

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

• Wilmot v Chief Superintendent B R Martain [2026] QCAT 429 - list only (administrative law, judicial review). JADE
• Websdale v Greyhound Racing Victoria [2026] VCAT 753 - list only (administrative law, statutory interpretation). JADE
• EH [2026] WASAT 109 - list only (review of a guardianship order); carried by letters only. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Four decisions on the Queensland list for Tuesday 22 September 2026, all headnoted. The Court of Appeal holds that English money judgments payable by instalments were properly registered in Queensland for the full outstanding sum before the last instalment fell due: the instalment order deferred enforcement, not liability, registration is not enforcement, and an obvious error in the registration order is corrected by construction without the slip rule. The Supreme Court dismisses a jurisdictional error challenge to a security of payment adjudication: a construction contract found in a course of dealing without a signed subcontract or novation, a reference date agreed by conduct, and further submissions 24 minutes late within the adjudicator's jurisdiction. Then an offer to make amends that answered a defamation claim, and a conviction appeal on inconsistent verdicts and the Criminal Code defences of provocation and prevention of repetition of insult. The three Court of Appeal decisions also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date and are re-aired here with the Queensland angle.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company v FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited [2026] QCA 180 - appeal from the refusal to set aside registration under s 7(2)(a)(ii) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) dismissed with costs, Thomson AJA (Mullins P and Crowley J agreeing): entry of judgment for a fixed sum imposes an immediate liability to pay the whole, and a later order giving time by instalments alters only when it may be enforced, as the award of post-judgment interest from judgment shows [29]-[31]; an amount is payable under s 7(2)(a)(ii) to the extent the judgment creates an immediate liability, even if not immediately enforceable, the provision concerning registration, not enforcement (ss 6(7)(d), 8), so registration for the full sum less the US$2,000,000 paid was not for too much [33]-[37]; alternatively, even if the instalments were contingent, payable means payable now or at a future point, s 6(12) barring registration only of amounts already paid [38]-[54], [64]; it is the registered foreign judgment, not the terms of registration, that has force, so registration does not convert future instalments into an immediately due Queensland obligation and no execution issues for an instalment not yet due [57]-[63]; court orders are construed like other documents and an obvious error (a US$1,000 overstatement of interest) is corrected by construction against the operative order, without rectification or the slip rule (UCPR r 388), with a declaration as to the true figure [65]-[69]. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• CGC Qld Pty Ltd v Ziegel Co Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 224 - originating application to declare an adjudication decision under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) void for jurisdictional error dismissed, Hindman J: an other arrangement within s 64 needs no legally enforceable contract but at least a sufficiently concluded state of affairs which is bilateral, settled enough to claim and value the work, and one existed where the related company did the work at the contractor's request, charged on its schedule of rates, and was paid or part paid on that basis, though no deed of novation was signed [49]-[50], [57]-[58], [61], [63]; monthly reminders to claim before the 25th and a consistent course of conduct fixed an agreed reference date under s 67(1)(a), displacing the default in s 67(1)(b) [65]-[67], [71]-[72]; an adjudicator's time limit for further submissions under s 84(2)(c) is not a basic and essential requirement, whether late submissions are properly made under s 88(2) is within the adjudicator's jurisdiction, and considering submissions 24 minutes late was an implicit determination that they were, supported by s 84(4), with no denial of natural justice [78], [80]-[83]; the Court decides the jurisdictional fact of a construction contract for itself, and the decision is not void if a contract existed even if its scope differed from the adjudicator's finding [48]. Monies in court to the first respondent and costs, subject to the parties being heard. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] QCA 179 - leave to appeal from the District Court (s 118(3), District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)) granted on a real question of substantial injustice, appeal dismissed, Brown JA (Bradley and Doyle JJA agreeing): whether imputations are conveyed and whether an offer to make amends is reasonable each admit one correct answer, so the Warren v Coombes correctness standard applies [25]; taken as a whole, with generosity not parsimony, an online article reporting a former director's account of a travel agency's collapse did not convey the pleaded imputations about the applicant's management, leaving the cause open, and a meaning need not be express but this one needed an over-zealous reading [26]-[46], [38]-[39]; reasonableness of an offer to make amends under s 18 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) is assessed objectively on the correction and any apology together, and removing the linking statements, an editor's note apologising if any adverse inference was drawn, and keeping the modified article online were reasonable where no residual link remained and the complaint came some 30 months later [52]-[60], [64]-[66], [68]; no compensation was needed where no loss was claimed and the ambiguous imputations were not serious enough [67]; a matter not raised below could not be raised on appeal [61]. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• R v BFI [2026] QCA 178 - appeal against convictions on two assault counts and one count of deprivation of liberty, concerning a single complainant, dismissed, Doyle JA (Mullins P and Smith J agreeing): where the jury is correctly directed in the terms of the particulars and no party seeks more, a jury note raising a proof issue common to all counts needs no count-by-count redirection [28]-[31]; guilty verdicts stand against acquittals where there is a rational basis on the evidence for the difference, as there was, including the appellant's own concessions [32]-[39]; provocation and prevention of repetition of insult (Criminal Code (Qld) ss 268-270) must be left only where, on the version most favourable to the accused suggested by the evidence, a properly instructed jury might not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defence was excluded, and there was no foundation on the second assault count [40]-[46]; any failure was immaterial, the jury having excluded both defences in convicting on a count more favourable to the appellant [46]-[47]. Reported as the law of verdicts and jury directions only; the complainant is not identified. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

VietJet v FW Aviation, McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation and R v BFI are also carried in the Court of Appeal brief of 22 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Thirteen decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of 22 September 2026. The Court of Appeal construes the research exemption in the State's Health Privacy Principles: 'in the public interest' qualifies the research, not the use or disclosure of health information, and the successful hospital network pays the patient's costs of a public interest appeal. From the Supreme Court, unpaid admitted trust distributions are a common law debt, unacknowledged entitlements an equitable debt, and neither is recovered as equitable compensation; with frameworks on subrogation and on a trial judge's part-heard disqualification. An interlocutory appeal filed without leave is incompetent. Eight decisions listed without a headnote. The two Court of Appeal decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date.

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

• Sydney Children's Hospitals Network v FZP [2026] NSWCA 203 - leave granted and appeal allowed (Adamson JA; Ward P and Mitchelmore JA agreeing). In the research exemption in cll 10(1)(f) and 11(1)(f) of the Health Privacy Principles (Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW), Sch 1), 'in the public interest' qualifies 'research, or the compilation or analysis of statistics', not the use or disclosure: an adjectival phrase at the end of a clause naturally qualifies the activity it follows; where Parliament intended a balancing of public interests (s 62(3)(a)) it said so; extrinsic materials on cognate legislation (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth); Health Records Act 2001 (Vic)) may identify the mischief and purpose but cannot substitute a stated intention for the plain words. Leave granted because the provisions warranted authoritative construction and the Appeal Panel's error occasioned a reasonably clear injustice; remittal set aside because the Tribunal's unchallenged alternative finding that any use was reasonably necessary for the research stood. Costs: under s 98(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) a successful party may be ordered to pay the unsuccessful party's costs in public interest litigation where the unsuccessful party's representatives acted as a skilled contradictor; the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The Privacy Commissioner intervened as amicus curiae; pseudonym orders made. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Roberts v Mawabe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1149 - discretionary family trust. Distributions calculated and recorded in the trust's financial statements create, to the extent unpaid, a common law debt payable on demand, recoverable in debt or as money had and received, not by equitable compensation; account balances are evidentiary only; payment into accounts jointly owned by the beneficiary is on its face a discharge; an unacknowledged entitlement may be pursued as an equitable debt, not equitable compensation; the maxim that equity treats as done what ought to be done did not remove the beneficiary and appointor where the required deed amendments were never executed. Pleading and practice: do not plead in a statement of claim that the claim is not statute-barred (Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)); limitation, laches and settlement defences cannot found refusal of leave for futility until the defence and reply are articulated; beneficiaries with conflicting interests are removed as co-plaintiffs and joined as defendants with liberty to submit; a claim to make good loss to the trust estate needs leave; a creditor beneficiary may seek removal of the trustee; leave to join a Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79A claim refused at present, the trustee not being a party to the consent orders. Children joined as defendants; the plaintiff's motion otherwise dismissed with costs; the summary judgment motion adjourned pending the final pleading. JADE
• Andrew Sallway and Duncan Clubb as provisional liquidators of Crown North Pty Ltd, Skye Suites Infinity Pty Ltd & Crown Property Agency Pty Ltd v Sathio Investments Pty Ltd atf Sathio Investments Trust and others (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1143 - framework (synopsis): a distilled statement of the equitable principles of subrogation at [51]-[63] (Bofinger v Kingsway Group; Aged Care Services v Kanning Services; State Bank of NSW v Geeport Developments); the surety route under s 3(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW); contemporaneous records against later statements of intention, and intercompany loan ledgers rebutting a presumed intention; guarantor payments made directly versus routed through group accounts (Mitchell v Crane); for receivers and provisional liquidators, a declaration or judicial directions, not a variation of a distribution order under r 36.16(3) UCPR, where entitlement is genuinely disputed. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Prakash v Commonwealth Securities Limited trading as Commsec [2026] NSWCA 202 - (also in the Court of Appeal brief) notice of appeal dismissed as incompetent and leave refused (Leeming and Adamson JJA). Orders dismissing proceedings as an abuse of process, refusing default judgment and refusing recusal were interlocutory, so leave was required under s 101(2)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW); the principal ground assumed default judgment had been obtained by filing a motion for it, contrary to the Court's record; no denial of procedural fairness in hearing only the listed motions; under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) the hearsay rule does not apply in an interlocutory proceeding where the source is also adduced, so reliance on a solicitor's affidavit was orthodox; apprehended bias founded solely on adverse rulings is no basis for recusal. JADE
• V2V Investment Pte Ltd v Green Estate Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1135 - framework (synopsis): how to proceed when a trial judge disqualifies themselves part-heard under s 89 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), de novo or resuming; directions that evidence stand or witnesses be recalled (s 89(2)(a), (b)); the factors: demeanour and its diminished value through an interpreter, distress to witnesses, forensic advantage of repeated cross-examination, prior inconsistent statements, interpreter accuracy, duplicated cost (ss 56-58), and the overriding fairness principle that neither party enjoy an advantage denied to the other. JADE

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

• Application of James Ronald Isbell; In the matter of Isbell v CK Advisory Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1148 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• QL v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2026] NSWSC 1151 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Decision restricted [2026] NSWSC 1144 - list only (restricted judgment). JADE
• Cameron v Woollahra Municipal Council (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 122 - list only (costs). JADE
• Harris v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1620 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Satmell Holdings Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1619 - list only (modification application). JADE
• 356-366 New South Head Road Pty Ltd ATF 356-366 New South Head Road Trust v Woollahra Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1622 - list only (modification of consent). JADE
• Ly v Fairfield City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1618 - list only (development application). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Fourteen decisions from the Federal Court in the Australian Federal Courts edition of 22 September 2026, ten with headnotes and six reported as doctrine. The lead: self-represented borrowers who lost a mortgaged property learn that abuse of process, broader than Anshun estoppel, bars the complaints they could have raised in the State enforcement proceedings. Also: a 130-page defence struck out; natural justice ousted, both rules, in a 56-minute visa cancellation; a start-up's revenue and its directors' duties; and GST on container deposit scheme refunds.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• Borkowski v Westpac Banking Corporation [2026] FCA 1396 - summary judgment for the lender under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 on borrowers' follow-on claims after a mortgagee sale: abuse of process is broader and more flexible than Anshun estoppel (Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589) and bars claims so connected with earlier enforcement proceedings that it was unreasonable not to raise them there, even absent estoppel or any determination on the merits; the test looks to substance, not to whether a provision was named; self-representation neither makes deferral reasonable nor confers an advantage; ss 36 and 83 of the National Credit Code and the Banking Code require specified statements within set times, not proof of every accounting entry to the debtor's satisfaction; an unpleaded basis cannot arrive in post-hearing submissions; costs reserved. JADE
• Mohal v Australian Christian College (Strikeout and Dismissal) [2026] FCA 1388 - in a minor's untested indirect race discrimination claim (a direction to remove a kara), the college's 130-page defence struck out with leave to replead: a pleading must be brief, material and intelligible and answer each allegation in turn; a cross-claim cannot be woven into a defence to join non-parties, and the cross-claim against the parents was dismissed without leave, parents owing a school no duty to disclose a child's religious or cultural status or personality traits so as to indemnify it for its own discrimination; consistently with settled authority, Sikhs are protected by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 on the basis of ethnic origin and inability to comply under s 9(1A) is not confined to physical inability; summary judgment on the defence refused; the pleadings removed from the file on the Court's own initiative (r 2.28(1)(a)(i)); costs against the college. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Sciascia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1385 - judicial review of a personal national-interest visa cancellation under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958, signed 56 minutes after consideration of a 19-page submission began, dismissed with costs: 'the rules of natural justice' in s 501BA(3) oust both the hearing rule and the bias rule with irresistible clearness; an inference of want of active intellectual consideration from the time taken needs a clear evidential foundation, which 56 minutes did not supply, and reliance on departmental summaries not shown to be materially incomplete or inaccurate is orthodox; the rehabilitation finding had an evident and intelligible foundation; and even assuming the bias rule applied, no reasonable apprehension of prejudgment arose. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Big Review TV Ltd (in liq) v FC Securities Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1392 - the liquidators' claims that a start-up's officers breached ss 181 and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 and fiduciary duties by procuring an allegedly uncommercial financing agreement to book debt as revenue and lift the listed parent's share price, with the financiers knowingly concerned, dismissed with costs: pursuing recorded revenue is not an improper purpose where it also serves the company's interest in raising capital in a growth phase; a start-up's commerciality is not shown by short-term cashflow analysis ignoring asset value and future revenue; officers may want their shareholding to rise when pursuing corporate growth; a plaintiff must formulate and prove causation of loss under s 1317H(1) notwithstanding Berry v CCL Secure, and none was shown given the $42 million realised for the video library. JADE

Tax and Revenue Desk.

• IQ Renew Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [2026] FCA 1393 - appeal dismissed: 'for' in s 9-5(a) of the GST Act means 'in order to obtain', an objective connection from the supplier's perspective, a temporal or 'but for' link being insufficient; a recycler that facilitated sampling, cooperated with audits and entered refund sharing agreements to obtain NSW Container Deposit Scheme processing refunds made a taxable supply although its physical recycling was unchanged (no 'before and after' test; AP Group distinguished); assisting a government policy objective can be a benefit, and calling the refund financial assistance or a bounty did not assist; no excess GST. JADE

Also on the docket (headnoted; one line each on air).

• EFT24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1395 - interlocutory injunction restraining removal: officers who fail to deal with a s 48B request as a valid Ministerial Instruction requires arguably exceed executive power; s 197E does not bar relief preserving the proceeding. JADE
• IEG25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1400 - interlocutory injunction restraining removal: after TCXM it is arguable that reasonable practicability of removal under s 198(6) is a jurisdictional fact; a serious question on medical grounds. JADE
• Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations v Cobus [2026] FCA 1391 - default judgment (no need for contumelious conduct) against a director who caused unauthorised payments to an account he controlled: five-year disqualification, $200,000 penalty, compensation and costs. JADE
• Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission v Irabina Autism Services (in liq) (No 4) [2026] FCA 1394 - mid-trial leave to amend granted where the change only recharacterises the same facts, refused for a late substantive amendment showing no oversight. JADE
• CRI23 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1386 - extension of time to appeal refused on the merits; disagreement with credibility findings is not jurisdictional error; fixed costs. JADE

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

• Villawood Management Pty Ltd v Marlton Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1397 - synopsis: withdrawal of admissions under r 26.11(2)(b). JADE
• Lee v Haynes Mechanical Pty Ltd trading as Haynes Labour Hire [2026] FCA 1390 - synopsis: transfer of a Fair Work claim under s 32AB. JADE
• Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission v Irabina Autism Services (in liq) (No 5) [2026] FCA 1398 - synopsis: privilege in draft affidavits and waiver. JADE
• Carrafa v Freeman, in the matter of the bankrupt estate of Freeman [2026] FCA 1401 - list only. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Five appellate decisions from two benches in the Court of Appeal edition of 22 September 2026. The New South Wales Court of Appeal holds that the health privacy research exemption asks whether the research is in the public interest, not whether each use or disclosure is, and orders the successful hospital network to pay the costs of the patient who acted as a skilled public interest contradictor. The Queensland Court of Appeal upholds the ABC's offer to make amends where it kept a modified article online under an editor's note, confirms that a foreign judgment payable by instalments may be registered for the full amount, and dismisses a conviction appeal on inconsistent verdicts, defences not left and redirection. And New South Wales on a notice of appeal from interlocutory orders filed without leave.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Sydney Children's Hospitals Network v FZP [2026] NSWCA 203 - under cll 10(1)(f) and 11(1)(f) of the Health Privacy Principles (Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) Sch 1), the words 'in the public interest' qualify the research, or the compilation or analysis of statistics, not the use or disclosure: an adjectival phrase at the end of a clause naturally qualifies the activity it follows, the conditions in subparas (i) to (iii) already protect the public interest in use, the Act uses express words where it wants a balancing exercise (s 62(3)(a)), and the Commonwealth and Victorian research exceptions it was drawn from confirm the construction; extrinsic material from cognate legislation may show mischief and purpose but cannot displace the text; remittal was unnecessary where the Tribunal's unchallenged alternative finding stood; and under s 98(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) the successful applicant was ordered to pay the costs of a respondent whose representatives acted as a skilled contradictor in public interest litigation. Leave granted, appeal allowed, Appeal Panel orders (4) and (6) set aside (unanimous). JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] QCA 179 - whether a publication conveys defamatory imputations and whether an offer to make amends is reasonable each admit only one correct answer, so the Warren v Coombes correctness standard applies on appeal; taken as a whole by the ordinary reasonable reader, generously but not over-zealously, an article reporting a former director's account of an online travel agency's collapse did not convey that the collapse was due to the applicant's poor and inefficient management; reasonableness under s 18 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) is assessed objectively, and the offer was reasonable where the modified article removed the key statements and carried an editor's note, retention of the article as a matter of record being not unreasonable with no residual link and a complaint some 30 months on, and no compensation being required where no loss was claimed. Leave granted, appeal dismissed (unanimous). JADE
• VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company v FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited [2026] QCA 180 - entry of a money judgment for a fixed sum imposes an immediate liability for the whole, and a later instalment order affects only enforcement; an amount is 'payable' under s 7(2)(a)(ii) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) to the extent of an immediate liability even if not yet enforceable (and, alternatively, if payable in future), so English judgments were properly registered for the full amount less the sum paid, s 6(7)(d) preventing execution on an instalment not yet due; court orders are construed like other documents, so an obvious US$1,000 overstatement of interest in the registration order was cured by construction and declaration without resort to the slip rule (r 388 UCPR). Appeal dismissed with costs (unanimous). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• R v BFI [2026] QCA 178 - reported as legal doctrine only; convictions on two assault counts and a deprivation of liberty count concerning one complainant were not inconsistent with acquittals on other counts where the evidence gave a rational basis for the differentiation (MacKenzie v The Queen); provocation and prevention of repetition of insult (Criminal Code (Qld) ss 268 to 270) must be left only where, on the version most favourable to the accused, a properly instructed jury might not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defence was excluded, and any failure was immaterial where the jury had excluded both defences on a more favourable count; no count-by-count redirection was required on a jury note raising a proof point common to all counts where the particulars had been correctly directed and no further redirection was sought. Appeal dismissed (unanimous). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Prakash v Commonwealth Securities Limited trading as Commsec [2026] NSWCA 202 - a notice of appeal from interlocutory orders filed without the leave required by s 101(2)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) is incompetent; leave requires an issue of principle, a question of public importance or a reasonably clear injustice, and a ground built on the mistaken belief that filing a motion for default judgment had obtained it, contrary to the Court's record, raised none; hearing only the motions listed for the day, with an opportunity to address the others, was not a denial of procedural fairness; under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) the hearsay rule does not apply in an interlocutory proceeding where the party also adduces evidence of the source, so a solicitor's affidavits were admissible; and apprehended bias founded solely on the rejection of a party's arguments is no basis for recusal. Notice of appeal dismissed as incompetent, leave refused, with costs. JADE

Sydney Children's Hospitals Network v FZP and Prakash also appear in the New South Wales brief, and McVicker, VietJet and R v BFI in the Queensland brief, of 22 September 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.