The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

A quiet day on the Victorian list, one decision, and it is the Court of Appeal on a workplace safety prosecution after a death at a camping park: the offence under s 26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act is risk-based, so the accident was relevant to the gravity of the risk but, as led, ought to have been excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act, and the court divided two to one on whether the verdict was open. Conviction set aside, new trial ordered. Carried at depth as a single story on the Criminal Law Desk with two Host question beats. The decision also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Tuesday is a control day: no house spot.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• Yarra Valley Park Lane Holiday Park Pty Ltd v The King [2026] VSCA 233 - conviction appeal from a jury trial on a single charge under s 26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) after a branch fell on a tent and killed a camper; the prosecution particularised an annual arborist assessment as the only measure, it was common ground that measure would not have reduced the risk from the branch that fell, and the case concerned the other trees. (1) OHSA offences are risk-based, not outcome-based; death or injury is not an element but may bear on the existence, likelihood and gravity of the risk. (2) Evidence of the death was relevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) to the degree of harm if the risk eventuated (s 20(2)(b) OHSA) and was not made irrelevant by an informal pre-trial concession short of a formal admission (unanimous). (3) Its probative value was low, the emphasis on the death extensive and emotive, and the evidence as led ought to have been excluded under s 137; an appellate court assesses the evidence as ultimately led, not merely the pre-trial ruling; the volume of the accident evidence and directions that did not guard against sympathy created a real risk the jury misunderstood its task, a substantial miscarriage of justice (unanimous); failure to renew the objection at trial weighs against leave but was not determinative where the failed pre-trial application dictated the forensic course. (4) By majority (Boyce and Kidd JJA), where the accused has an existing system the prosecution's burden under Baiada Poultry is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the system was insufficient, assessed against the actual state of the workplace, not to prove counterfactually that its measure in isolation would have reduced the risk more than the accused's system in isolation; the post-accident arborist's report proved insufficiency and the verdict was open. (5) Walker JA, dissenting as to disposition, would have held that on the particulars as framed the jury had to be satisfied the specified measure alone would reduce the risk more than the existing system alone, which no witness addressed, and would have entered an acquittal. Leave granted, appeal allowed, conviction set aside, new trial ordered; the sentence application not determined. Care: a workplace fatality; the deceased is not named on air; a new trial is pending and nothing here prejudges it. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twelve decisions from four tribunals in the Tribunals edition of 21 September 2026, one of them with a headnote. The lead is a Victorian freedom of information review over two ministerial briefs on the Suburban Rail Loop sought by a Member of Parliament: routine deliberative advice in the corporate plan brief was not exempt as an internal working document, but the managing contractor's variation pricing was exempt as business undertaking information, the Authority's risk pricing and budget allocations were exempt as internal working and agency commercial documents, and the public interest override did not require disclosure, the significant public interest in scrutinising the project's expenditure being outweighed by unreasonable commercial disadvantage in a highly competitive market. Seven further Signal entries are Illustrative synopses carried as frameworks with no outcome stated: interim orders and non-publication orders in a discrimination complaint against a university, proportionate costs in a strata appeal, the timing of a firearms prohibition order, leave for a declined anti-discrimination complaint, a prisoner's discrimination complaint and the internal complaints precondition, and direct and indirect disability discrimination in the ACT. Four list-only decisions are on the registry. Tuesday control day: no house spot.

Tribunals Desk: the rail loop briefs (lead).

• Department of Treasury and Finance v Rowswell MP [2026] VCAT 719 - Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) ss 28(1)(c), 30, 34(1), 34(4), 50(4): paragraph 7 of the corporate plan brief was not exempt under s 30, being routine advice of a type expected from a public agency whose release would not impede frank and fearless advice; the variation pricing proposals in the variation brief (paragraph 11 table 1) were exempt under s 34(1) as information acquired from Laing O'Rourke, a business undertaking, about costs and margins, disclosure of which would expose it unreasonably to competitive disadvantage by letting competitors benchmark pricing and refine bids (the legend rows not exempt); paragraph 20 of the variation brief was exempt under s 30 as financial information and extracts from a highly sensitive Cabinet briefing revealing the Authority's risk pricing, and table 3 within it under s 34(4) as commercial information revealing budget allocations and weakening the Authority's bargaining position; the s 50(4) public interest override did not require disclosure, the significant public interest in scrutinising Suburban Rail Loop expenditure being outweighed by unreasonable commercial disadvantage to Laing and the Authority in a highly competitive market; applications dismissed in part, the decision under review affirmed except for the specified parts of the variation brief; Tucker, Davis and Osland applied. Single member. JADE

Tribunals Desk: frameworks (Illustrative synopses; no outcome stated beyond what the synopsis states).

• HYH v University of Wollongong [2026] NSWCATAD 282 - synopsis: the three limbs of s 105(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for interim orders (status quo, preserving rights, returning the parties to pre-contravention circumstances); s 105(1)(b) is limited to preserving existing statutory rights and does not create new entitlements or override academic standards; the connection test between interim relief, the harm averted and the final relief claimed (Dhillon v RailCorp); template procedural orders for s 64 non-publication applications under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). JADE
• HYH v University of Wollongong (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAD 283 - synopsis: s 64 non-publication and non-disclosure orders decided on the papers; the 'desirability' test and how it differs from the higher threshold in courts; prohibiting disclosure of names as distinct from publication of reasons or evidence; open justice balanced against privacy in health information; the evidence sufficient for suppression orders. JADE
• Selkirk v The Owners-Strata Plan No 2661 [2026] NSWCATAP 299 - synopsis: r 38(2)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) applies to proceedings rather than to separate claims within them; proportionate costs where a party succeeds on some issues and fails on separable issues (Bostik v Liddiard (No 2)), quantified by a broad brush (60% awarded, as the synopsis records); misconduct (false documents) affects the award without depriving the successful party of all costs; single claims seeking multiple remedies distinguished from multiple separate claims. JADE
• Islam v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 284 - synopsis: a firearms prohibition order takes effect only on personal service under s 73(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), not when signed; 'disqualified person' under s 75(2) is assessed at the date of the application for review by reference to the AVO history under s 11(5)(c); AVO history provable by police COPS records and court orders, admissible under s 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW); jurisdictional dismissal under s 55(1)(b) where the applicant lacks standing as a disqualified person. JADE
• Bozkurt v Department of Communities and Justice (Homes NSW) [2026] NSWCATAD 285 - synopsis: the five-part framework for the s 96(1) leave discretion under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for declined complaints, 'fair and just' with the onus on the applicant; the four-element checklist for direct discrimination under ss 7, 49B and 49ZYA including the causal link (Aldridge; Seltsam v McGuiness); the two-element test for indirect discrimination under ss 49B(1)(b) and 49ZYA(1)(b); unsatisfactory conduct distinguished from unlawful discrimination, inferential evidence beyond 'poor conduct' required. JADE
• Meehan v State of Queensland (West Moreton Hospital and Health Service) [2026] QCAT 432 - synopsis: s 319E(1) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) requires prisoners to exhaust the internal complaints procedure before making an external discrimination complaint; the five-factor test for hearing out-of-time complaints under s 175(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (length of delay, explanation, prejudice to each side, merits); the evidentiary burden for statutory preconditions and the consequences of failing to controvert a strike-out application; Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31 compatibility; a non-compliant complaint as a lack of jurisdiction and an abuse of process supporting strike-out under s 47 of the QCAT Act. JADE
• Applicant 35/2025 v Apple Pty Ltd (Discrimination) [2026] ACAT 54 - synopsis: direct discrimination requiring unfavourable treatment 'because of' disability under s 8(2) of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT); the indirect discrimination framework (condition or requirement, disadvantage, reasonableness under s 8(3)-(4)); evidence for discrimination and compensation, including medical evidence and the factors affecting quantum for psychological harm; applicant anonymisation where sensitive health information is central; complaint periods, jurisdiction and the interaction between the ACT Human Rights Commission and ACAT. JADE

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

• Decision restricted [2026] NSWCATAP 296 - list only (civil appeals, appeal grounds); a restricted decision of the Appeal Panel, listed without reasons. JADE
• NMB v Mental Health Tribunal [2026] VCAT 778 - list only (interlocutory application); a mental health matter, carried by letters only. JADE
• VEJ [2026] VCAT 773 - list only (appointment of guardian and administrator); carried by letters only. JADE
• Melton CC v Singh (Costs) [2026] VCAT 776 - list only (costs orders). 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 Monday 21 September 2026, and it is the Court of Appeal on how a tribunal finds facts when the allegation is grave and the account is imperfect: a locum doctor's appeal against findings of professional misconduct and the cancellation of his registration, dismissed. The Court settles that an appeal from SACAT in a health practitioner matter is an appeal by way of rehearing requiring material error, holds that the contemporary understanding of trauma and memory is developed forensic experience a fact finder may use rather than judicial notice while cautioning against deploying the Lehrmann observations as a treatise, and deals with consistency of prior statements, the rejected hypothesis and the onus, Briginshaw, and good professional standing put in issue. Carried at depth as a single story on the Public Law Desk in three blocks with Host question beats. The decision also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Tuesday is a control day: no house spot.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Cheema v Medical Board of Australia [2026] SASCA 109 - appeal by way of rehearing from the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Bleby, David and B Doyle JJA, joint reasons): where s 6B(2) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA) excludes s 71(3a) of the SACAT Act 2013 (SA) and nothing else prescribes the nature of the appeal, r 218.17(a) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) makes the s 71(1) appeal one by way of rehearing, requiring material error, a real review of the record with restraint on credibility findings, and materiality for any want of procedural fairness; the common law accepts as a matter of experience informed by contemporary understanding of trauma that inconsistency of detail is not necessarily antithetical to the credibility or reliability of allegations of sexual assault, a matter of developed experience rather than judicial notice, but the Lehrmann observations ((2024) 422 ALR 507 at [117]) are not to be deployed as a totemic short-form treatise; no denial of procedural fairness where the Tribunal confined their use to trauma possibly (not necessarily) explaining inconsistency of detail; a tribunal not bound by the rules of evidence (s 39) may weigh consistencies in properly admitted prior statements as much as inconsistencies, credit not being fragmented to admit only discredit; rejecting a respondent's hypothesised explanation is not a reversal of the onus where the reasons as a whole show a comprehensive evaluative exercise; Briginshaw does not require an intermediate finding on every evidentiary frailty, adequacy being assessed on the reasons as a whole; a practitioner who puts his good professional standing in issue lets in his admitted unprofessional conduct as circumstantial evidence, which is not tendency reasoning; a partly unwarranted criticism in the finding of lies was not material error. Appeal dismissed. Reported with care: the patient is not identified and nothing of the alleged conduct is described beyond the categories of the allegations. JADE

The same decision is carried in The Petal Court of Appeal brief for 21 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

A single decision on the Queensland list for Monday 21 September 2026, and it is a practitioner's checklist for judicial review in the State. The Court of Appeal on a self-represented applicant who named a builder as a respondent to his review application while seeking nothing from it: joinder by form and service, the summary dismissal of the application against the builder under s 48 of the Judicial Review Act, the slip rule as against an appeal, and the substantial-injustice gate for practice-and-procedure appeals. Carried at depth as a single story on the Practice and Procedure Desk with a Host question beat. The case also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Tuesday is a control day: no house spot.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• Repine v Antech Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 177 - a person named as a respondent in the heading and notice of a review application and served with it is joined as a party although no relief is sought against them; the s 48(1) Judicial Review Act power to dismiss an application under ss 20, 21, 22 or 43 may be exercised on a party's application or of the Court's own motion (s 48(3)), and the judge need not identify which; the respondent builder being incapable of making a decision of an administrative character to which the Act applied, summary dismissal was no error and accorded with the s 48(2)(b) preference for dismissal at the earliest appropriate time, the alternative of removal under UCPR r 67 or r 69(1)(a) notwithstanding; r 667(2)(d) (the slip rule) is not engaged where the order accurately reflects the intention expressed in the reasons, and an application under it that is in substance an appeal may be declined; a judge's prompt appreciation of a difficulty is not a denial of natural justice, and an appeal from a practice-and-procedure decision cannot succeed absent substantial injustice (s 48(5); Adam P Brown Male Fashions v Philip Morris); an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal (r 748) is refused where there is no substantial injustice and no prospects, however short the delay; affidavits about events postdating the decision under review are not received where they cannot alter the nature of the claims before the primary judge; extension of time refused with costs, appeal dismissed with costs, leave to rely on the fresh affidavits refused. JADE

Repine v Antech Constructions is also carried in the Court of Appeal brief of 21 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions from two courts in the New South Wales edition of 21 September 2026, a quiet day with one loud story. The Supreme Court's Technology and Construction List on a $78 million power station contract: a principal that directs the superintendent to decide an extension of time claim on its merits elects, waives the contractor's non-compliance with the conditions precedent, and cannot hide behind a no waiver clause; the prevention principle survives a reserve power expressed in absolute discretion; the float belongs to the contractor; delay costs include margin, overheads and profit; a government pandemic order not in evidence cannot be judicially noticed; and superintendents owe a sophisticated contractor no duty of care. Two frameworks from the Practice Desk, on security for costs and on an interlocutory injunction in civil enforcement proceedings under the Biodiversity Conservation Act. Four decisions listed without a headnote. No decision in this edition appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Clarke Energy (Australia) Pty Ltd v Alinta Energy Transmission (Roy Hill) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1124 - EPC contract for a gas-fired power station in Western Australia; where the superintendent's determinations are not final or binding the Court decides the underlying dispute on all the evidence, retrospectively, including whether the Guarantee Test alarms were in fact satisfactory; removal of the existing underground services was the principal's task, and accepting 'Site Conditions' at the contract date did not accept the site as left after excavation; the implied duty to cooperate governs a sole-discretion notice to proceed (no breach of cl 2.3 on the facts), but the principal breached its obligation to give notice of its own delay; the float belongs to the contractor where the extension equals the delay to Practical Completion and the contractor's ability to finish early is disregarded, though loss of activity float off the critical path earns neither extension nor delay costs; a principal that asserts non-compliance with EOT conditions precedent and then directs the superintendent to determine the claim substantively elects between inconsistent rights and waives the non-compliance, a 'no waiver' clause not precluding waiver by election; an epidemic or quarantine order is a Force Majeure Event, and alleged non-compliance with a notice condition precedent failed where the government instrument was not in evidence and could not be judicially noticed under s 143(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); 'reasonable additional costs and expenses directly incurred' include usual margin, overheads and profit absent clear excluding words; a relocation direction was a Variation but the contractual claim was barred for want of a Variation Order in the required form, while promissory estoppel gave $69,000; Practical Completion required the Guarantee Tests passed with a satisfactory level of alarms, not an optimised plant (Date of Practical Completion 10 November 2022); the prevention principle is not excluded by a discretionary 'reserve power' exercisable 'in absolute discretion' absent words removing any obligation to consider exercising it; ACL and EOT 1 estoppel points obiter; no duty of care in tort owed by superintendents to a sophisticated, well-advised contractor lacking vulnerability; liquidated damages calculated under cl 19.1 with early generation revenue deducted from the sum, not the cap. Extensions of time totalling 142 days declared; judgment for the plaintiff for $7,192,414 (subject to variation after the parties confer); $2,502,365 in liquidated damages set off against milestone amounts. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Antymniuk v Davies [2026] NSWSC 1139 - framework (synopsis): security for costs under r 42.21 UCPR, with the r 42.21(1A)(a)-(n) discretionary factors applied one by one; the 'broad brush' quantum principles from Haselhurst v Toyota at [12]-[16]; a checklist of defects in a solicitor's costs schedule (estimates for work already done, wrong number of hearing days, unsupported hourly rates); foreign-resident plaintiffs and the absence of evidence about ease of enforcement in the home country (Li v New South Wales); the distinction between an impecunious corporate plaintiff, where security may stifle proceedings, and a foreign individual plaintiff, against whom security was ordered. JADE
• Save Wallum Incorporated v Bayside Brunswick Pty Ltd [2026] NSWLEC 121 - framework (synopsis): the two-limb interlocutory injunction test (ABC v O'Neill; Beecham v Bristol Laboratories) in an environmental restraint context; civil enforcement proceedings under s 13.14 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) and the s 2.4(1) offence with the 'damage habitat' and 'threatened species' definitions in s 1.6; the planning approval defence in s 2.8(1)(a)(i) against development consents under the EP&A Act; how reinstatement undertakings and cross-undertakings as to damages mitigate the balance of convenience and defeat the 'nugatory appeal' argument; the effect of concurrent Federal Court proceedings (Save Wallum v Clarence Property Corporation (No 5) and (No 6)) on a fresh application in a separate jurisdiction. JADE

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

• Wright v Trustees of the Patrician Brothers [2026] NSWSC 1142 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Hughes-Mason v SES Village Pty Limited t/as SES Village Pty Limited & Ors [2026] NSWSC 1140 - list only (interlocutory applications). JADE
• Mallia v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1623 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Pertsinidis v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2026] NSWLEC 1624 - list only (development consent). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Six decisions in the Federal Courts edition of 21 September 2026: two Federal Court decisions at depth, one substituted-service framework, and three family appeals from the appellate division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court, carried at depth in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date and linked below. A law lecturer who signed a deed of release, then said he had assumed the payment came tax free and his employment ran on to late December, learns that a deed means what a reasonable person would take from its words and the parties' conduct, not what one side assumed. The liquidators of a company that was only ever a trustee recover their general costs from the one fund that produced any money, without apportionment. And a checklist for substituted service by messaging app. Tuesday control day: no house spot.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Gussen v Swinburne University of Technology [2026] FCA 1389 - separate question in the Fair Work Division answered that a Deed of Release of 18 September 2024 (resignation, $67,493 taxed according to law, mutual releases, entire-agreement and acknowledgment-of-advice clauses) is valid and enforceable in three proceedings: contractual rights are determined objectively and accord and satisfaction requires objective agreement on the substituted performance, the asserted 'Date Representation' (employment to 24 December 2024) and 'Payment Representation' (tax-free treatment under Div 83 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) being assumptions not reasonably open (Toll v Alphapharm; Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas; McDermott v Black); misleading conduct by silence requires a duty to disclose and is assessed as a whole against clear terms and disclaimers, Swinburne having rejected the proposed 'voluntary early retirement scheme payment' wording as not correct and the public VERP material disclosing ETP taxation; unilateral mistake requires a serious mistake as to a fundamental term known to or objectively apparent to the other party and unconscientious conduct (Taylor v Johnson); allegations of prior adverse action under ss 340 and 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 do not without a vitiating factor invalidate a later deed, and a deed conferring a benefit is not itself adverse action, no arguable duress; under ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 the operation of the deed as a bar to particular pleaded claims was returned to the docket judges, costs reserved. JADE
• Walley, in the matter of Royal National Capital Alliance Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2026] FCA 1383 - directions under s 90-15(1) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) granted: a direction protects an external administrator who has made full and fair disclosure where a legal issue or the propriety or reasonableness of a proposed decision is raised, and the liquidators of a corporate trustee were justified in not conducting public examinations, in discontinuing recovery proceedings against insolvent guarantors and in distributing the trust property; earlier orders are construed by their terms read as a whole with the reasons and, instructively, the transcript, and the 2021 orders confining investment-specific costs to that investment's proceeds did not govern general costs (no slip rule under r 39.05 needed); where a company acts solely as trustee and has no other activities its liquidators and receivers recover their costs, expenses and remuneration, for trust administration and general liquidation work alike, from the trust assets, the winding up being part and parcel of the administration of the trust (Suco Gold; AAA Financial Intelligence; Re Krejci); an expense-allocation clause is internal accounting between members creating no sub-trusts and no basis to apportion, so general costs of $370,121.09 and the costs of the application are payable from the Southport proceeds. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• CLZ26 v State of Victoria (Substituted Service) [2026] FCA 1370 - framework (synopsis): substituted service under r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 requires that personal service is not sensible or realistic and that the proposed method will in all reasonable probability bring the documents to the party's attention; the evidentiary checklist of affidavit evidence of skip trace searches, process server attempts and subpoena results, proof of ownership of the number through prior official communications and of continued use through an active service and delivered messages, and screenshots of WhatsApp delivery status (grey versus green ticks), applying Commissioner of Taxation v Caratti (No 2) and Royal Express v Huang (No 3) to a modern platform. The applicant is pseudonymised. JADE

Family appeals (pointers: these three decisions of the appellate division are carried at depth in the Court of Appeal brief of 21 September 2026).

• Rehova & Rehova [2026] FedCFamC1A 165 - appeal from property adjustment orders dismissed with the application to adduce further evidence: the s 35 discretion is directed to demonstrating error and a different result; a judgment is presumed correct and the appellant bears the House v The King onus; procedural fairness requires only an adequate opportunity to be heard and cannot be evaluated absent a transcript; dissatisfaction with single-expert valuations identifies no appellable error; s 79(3)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 requires identification of interests including overseas property. JADE
• Naisby [2026] FedCFamC1A 164 - leave to appeal granted in part to an applicant subject to a harmful proceedings order: the s 102QAC restraint extends to appeals and leave under s 102QAG requires reasonable prospects, onus on the applicant; the challenges to the 52/48 contributions assessment and to the 15 per cent s 75(2) adjustment had reasonable prospects; grounds not identifying specific evidence or error failed; time to file the Notice of Appeal extended. JADE
• Fhaolain & Fhaolain [2026] FedCFamC1A 168 - review of an appeal judicial registrar's refusal of an extension of time to appeal, determined on the papers, dismissed: review under Pt 5.3 of the Family Law Rules is de novo; an applicant must show a substantial issue, and interlocutory discretionary orders require House v The King error; an extension is refused where the proposed appeal lacks utility because its grounds duplicate a pending appeal. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Six appellate decisions from four benches in the Court of Appeal edition of 21 September 2026. Victoria's Court of Appeal sets aside a camping park's safety conviction over a fallen branch and orders a new trial: the accident evidence was relevant but, as led, should have been excluded, and by majority the prosecution proves that the employer's existing system was insufficient, not that its own measure would have done better in isolation. South Australia's Court of Appeal dismisses a doctor's appeal from disciplinary findings, holding that the impact of trauma on memory is brought to bear as developed forensic experience rather than judicial notice, with a caution against treating the Lehrmann observations as a short-form treatise. Three family appeals from the appellate division on further evidence, harmful proceedings orders and extensions of time, aired at depth here and pointed to from the Federal Courts brief of the same date. And Queensland on joinder by form and service, and why the slip rule cannot carry an appeal. Cheema, Yarra Valley and Repine also appear in the South Australia, Victoria and Queensland briefs of the same date.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• Yarra Valley Park Lane Holiday Park Pty Ltd v The King [2026] VSCA 233 - OHS Act s 26 offences are risk-based, not outcome-based; evidence of the death was relevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act to the degree of harm (s 20(2)(b)) and not neutralised by an informal concession; but as led at trial, extensive and emotive about a single tree the specified measure would not have touched, it should have been excluded under s 137, and the directions did not guard against the jury treating the case as responsibility for the death: a substantial miscarriage (unanimous); by majority (Boyce and Kidd JJA), where a charge particularises a single measure and the accused has a system, the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the existing system was insufficient (Baiada Poultry), not a counterfactual comparison of its measure in isolation, so the verdict was open; Walker JA would have held the verdict not open. Leave granted, appeal allowed, conviction set aside, new trial ordered; the charge is untested and no view is expressed. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Cheema v Medical Board of Australia [2026] SASCA 109 - appeal from SACAT findings of professional misconduct and cancellation of registration on allegations of sexual misconduct and a breach of professional boundaries, and the supply of an unrecorded tablet; reported with restraint. Where s 6B(2) of the HPRNL Act excludes s 71(3a) of the SACAT Act, r 218.17(a) of the Uniform Civil Rules makes the appeal one by way of rehearing requiring material error; inconsistency of detail is not necessarily antithetical to the credibility of an allegation of sexual assault, a matter of developed experience informed by contemporary understanding of trauma, not judicial notice, but the Lehrmann observations are not a totemic short-form treatise; no denial of procedural fairness where the Tribunal used them only as a possible explanation; a tribunal not bound by the rules of evidence may weigh consistencies in properly admitted prior statements as well as inconsistencies; rejecting a hypothesised explanation is not reversing the onus; Briginshaw does not require an intermediate finding on every frailty; admitted unprofessional conduct may rebut good standing put in issue without tendency reasoning. Appeal dismissed (unanimous). JADE

Family Law Desk.

• Rehova & Rehova [2026] FedCFamC1A 165 - Full Court; further evidence under s 35 of the FCFCOA Act is received to demonstrate error and a different result, and a valuation available at trial but not tendered, deficient as to instructions and authentication, is refused; the judgment is presumed correct, the appellant bears the onus of House v The King error, and the court will not fossick through broad contentions to construct grounds (r 13.23); a procedural-fairness complaint that cannot be evaluated without a transcript fails, and active trial management is not unfairness; dissatisfaction with single expert valuations is not error; s 79(3)(a) requires identification of interests in overseas property absent res judicata or enforcement concerns. Further-evidence application and appeal dismissed. JADE
• Naisby [2026] FedCFamC1A 164 - Full Court; a harmful proceedings order under s 102QAC applies to appeals, and leave under s 102QAG requires that the appeal is not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse and has reasonable prospects, the onus on the applicant; of fourteen grounds, the challenge to the 52/48 contributions assessment as unreasonable and the challenge to the 15 per cent s 75(2) adjustment (a 30-percentage-point differential worth about $497,000 on a $3.3 million pool divided 67/33) had reasonable prospects; grounds identifying no specific evidence or error failed; time to file the Notice of Appeal extended where the leave application was filed within the 28 days. Leave granted in part. JADE
• Fhaolain & Fhaolain [2026] FedCFamC1A 168 - single judge; review of an appeal judicial registrar's decision under Pt 5.3 of the Rules is de novo and may be determined on the papers (rr 13.37, 13.38); an applicant for an extension of time to appeal (r 13.03) must show a substantial issue, that inquiry being central, with delay, explanation, prejudice and finality then informing the discretion; the orders were an interlocutory exercise of broad discretion and a differing view of the evidence discloses no House v The King error; grounds duplicating a pending Full Court appeal lack utility. Application in an Appeal dismissed. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Repine v Antech Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 177 - a person named as a respondent and served is joined as a party although no relief is sought against them; the s 48 Judicial Review Act power to dismiss may be exercised on application or of the Court's own motion without identifying which, and summary dismissal against a private builder incapable of making a reviewable decision was not in error notwithstanding the removal alternative under rr 67 and 69 UCPR; an extension of time to seek leave is refused with no substantial injustice and no prospects (r 748, s 48(5)); affidavits about later events that do not alter the claims are not received; r 667(2)(d) is not engaged where the order reflects the judge's expressed intention, and an application that is in substance an appeal may be declined; prompt disposition is not a denial of natural justice. Extension of time refused with costs; appeal dismissed with costs. JADE

The three family appeals are also listed in the Federal Courts brief of 21 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 weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026, and one of them is the weekend's statutory question: when the State Administrative Tribunal makes interim orders in a discrimination complaint, can it create a new state of affairs, or only preserve the one that exists? The Supreme Court says preserve, not create, and along the way restates the leave test for appeals from the Tribunal on a question of law and settles what a recognition certificate does and does not confer. Then a family farming partnership and estoppel framework, and four decisions on the registry. No decision in this edition also appears in the Court of Appeal brief for the weekend.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice v Sd [No 2] [2026] WASC 388 - appeal from the State Administrative Tribunal on a question of law (s 105 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)): leave is granted where the question is significant, attended by sufficient doubt and relevant to the relief sought; the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) is beneficial, but s 126 is construed to its own purpose, preserving the effectiveness of the complaint process including the Tribunal's ability to grant final relief under s 127(b); 'the rights of the parties to the complaint' in s 126(b) means any right recognised by Australian law, within or outside the Act and of any party including a respondent, but not moral entitlements; rights that depend on a future grant of relief under s 127(b) cannot be preserved, because a right that has never existed cannot be preserved; Millar (s 46PP Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)) applied and Dhillon (s 105 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)) not followed; s 126(a) may preserve a status quo that depends on no right and in some circumstances restore one that changed before the complaint (Wauchope not accepted to the contrary); a recognition certificate under s 16 Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA) is conclusive evidence of sex and confers a pre-existing right to be recognised as female, preservable by requiring the CEO's internal systems to record the respondent as female; but it creates no free-standing right to be treated according to the certified sex, no prisoner has a right to be confined in a particular prison or part of one, and any placement right could only arise from final relief. Leave granted, appeal allowed, the Tribunal's interim orders set aside and, in lieu, an order to classify the respondent as female on internal systems at least pending determination of the complaint; parties to be heard on orders and costs. The respondent is a court pseudonym; the complaint remains before the Tribunal; reported as the statutory question only. JADE

Commercial Law Desk (framework).

• Capper v Barbara Aimee Burrows as Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Frederick Capper [2026] WASC 396 - framework (synopsis, no outcome stated): proprietary and promissory estoppel applied across three alleged representations (1993, 1994/95 and 1999), each assessed for representation, detrimental reliance, unconscionability and contractual promise; under the Partnership Act 1895 (WA) a partner's share is a fluctuating, unascertained, non-specific interest (s 33; Rojoda), the death of a partner dissolves the partnership and a new partnership arises among the continuing partners (s 44; Atwell v Roberts), and profit allocation, often tax-driven, is distinct from the underlying partnership shares (ss 29, 57), financial statements not being determinative; documentary and accounting records weighed over reconstructed memory in a long-running family dispute (Plunkett v Bull). JADE

Registry (no outcome stated; the two high risk serious offender matters are listed as doctrine only).

• The State of Western Australia v Lewandowski [2026] WASC 390 - synopsis only, doctrine label: an application under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA); the synopsis records the two-step s 7(1) test (unacceptable risk; necessity of a restriction order), the Garlett checklist, the s 7(3) factors, the s 30 substantial-compliance test for supervision orders with the onus on the offender, the high-degree-of-probability standard and the s 7(4) direction to disregard temporary custodial restraints. No outcome stated here. JADE
• The State of Western Australia v Acw [No 7] [2026] WASC 392 - synopsis only, doctrine label: contravention proceedings under ss 53 and 55 of the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA); the synopsis records the ten-factor substantial-compliance checklist (CF [No 2]), the least-restrictive-order principles (Lewis [No 3]), the s 74 report and performance-report evidence base, and that on a s 55 application the court may assume the respondent remains a high risk serious offender (CA [No 3]). The respondent is a court pseudonym. No outcome stated here. JADE
• Baker v WA Police [2026] WASC 400 - list only (sentence appeal). JADE
• Haskett v Jago [2026] WASC 332 (S) - list only (costs). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Three criminal decisions from the Victorian Court of Appeal in the weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026, all handed down on the Friday. A jury that acquitted on one incident and convicted on the next, and why the verdicts are reconcilable when the supporting evidence differs, with a rape sentence cut for more than eight years of delay that was no fault of the offender; a sentencing judge who went behind the facts negotiated on a manslaughter plea, and the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard any adverse finding contrary to the agreement must meet; and a protester, a fire extinguisher of paint and a billboard at Flinders Street station, on the statutory meaning of intention and damage, the Question Trail and evidence not called. All three decisions also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend; here they are carried at depth with the Victorian angle. No house spot on a weekend roll-up.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• Jianmin Yang (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] VSCA 230 - inconsistent verdicts under s 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic): the applicant must show that no reasonable jury, applying their minds properly to the facts, could have arrived at the different verdicts, and a proper reconciliation will generally be accepted; an acquittal on charges resting on a single complainant's evidence does not compel the conclusion that the jury disbelieved her, a jury being entitled to believe a witness is likely telling the truth yet require something more before convicting to the criminal standard; the verdicts on charges of rape and attempted rape (Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 38(1), 321M) were reconcilable because the second incident was supported by an independent witness, immediate complaint, presentation and forensic evidence while the account of the first was equivocal; no Liberato error in the use of the record of interview; the attacks on credit did not compel rejection; egregious delay of more than eight years between offending and sentence, no fault of the applicant, is a powerful mitigating factor that may warrant a sentence at the bottom of the range, and 5 years on the rape count was outside the range reasonably open; leave to appeal against conviction refused, leave against sentence granted and appeal allowed, resentenced to 4 years on charge 3, total effective sentence 4 years and 6 months, non-parole period 2 years and 9 months. Reported as doctrine only; the complainant is not identified. JADE
• Nikola Latuhoi v The King [2026] VSCA 231 - fact-finding on a plea of guilty: a sentencing judge may go behind facts agreed on a plea, in the protection of the public interest and the performance of the judicial function, so long as the offender is afforded procedural fairness and an opportunity to deal with facts outside the agreement or to seek leave to withdraw the plea, but an adverse finding contrary to the agreement is justified only where it is open on the evidence beyond reasonable doubt; the finding that the driver in a manslaughter by complicity knew of the rifle well before arrival at the scene, contrary to the agreed matter-of-seconds position, was not open on an evidentiary void (no evidence of who entered the vehicle first or of the cabin's layout); the error was material because it permitted an inference of planning, cut across the submission of surprise and extended the opportunity to withdraw; extension of time under s 281(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), 14 months out of time, granted on the compelling merits despite a less than satisfactory explanation; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(2)(b), 6AAA; appeal allowed on ground 1, sentence set aside, resentenced to 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 7 years and 8 months. Reported as sentencing doctrine only; the deceased is not identified. JADE
• Kyle Anthony Magee v The King [2026] VSCA 232 - criminal damage under s 197(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic): s 197(4) deals exhaustively with intention, requiring a purpose to damage the particular property charged or knowledge or belief that such damage was more likely than not, and Questions 3A and 3B of the agreed Question Trail adopted that language accurately; Eade and Vanstone requires intention to damage the particular property charged, not a direction that the offender intended damage to substantially the extent caused, and the direction to that effect sought by defence counsel could only have favoured the applicant; damage need not be permanent, significant or irremediable, any alteration to the physical integrity of the property sufficing; a Question Trail supplements the oral directions and is not read in isolation; the failure to tender a quote recording an epoxy coating on the replacement screen was an explicable forensic decision that founds no substantial miscarriage, the evidence undermining rather than supporting the defence; leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Four decisions, all from the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in the weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026: two with headnotes, both from the Appeal Panel, and two illustrative synopses carried as framework. The lead is a self-represented appellant's internal appeal against the Commissioner of Police on an information-access refusal: the Appeal Panel exercises administrative, not judicial, power on GIPA appeals but is not confined to merits review; a question of law is the subject matter of an appeal as of right, not merely a qualifying condition; an appeal that names no ground and seeks no leave is misconceived and dismissed; and a misconceived appeal with unfounded allegations of serious misconduct and repeated non-compliance is a special-circumstances costs case. Also: a shopping-centre lessor that won its interim-relief appeal in June cannot have the reserved costs now, because the 'event' is judged by the final outcome and an interlocutory win may prove pyrrhic; and two frameworks, on whether an unsuccessful joinder applicant has standing to bring an internal appeal, and on leave to proceed with a disability discrimination complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act. Weekend roll-up, no house spot.

Tribunals Desk: the appeal without a ground, and costs that wait for the event (lead).

• Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 297 - when NCAT exercises its internal appeal jurisdiction under the GIPA Act it exercises administrative power, not judicial power, but that does not confine it to a merits review: it may exercise all its statutory powers, including determining appeals on questions of law (ss 32, 80 NCAT Act); an appellant must identify one or more grounds to enliven the jurisdiction, the existence of a question of law being not merely a qualifying condition but the subject matter of the appeal, with no right of appeal 'on the merits' as of right; an appeal identifying no ground on a question of law, with no leave sought on other grounds, is misconceived and is dismissed under s 55(1)(b), and late submissions will not be treated as grounds where that would be procedurally unfair to the respondent; special circumstances for costs under s 60 exist where the appeal is misconceived with no tenable basis in law, the appellant has made unfounded allegations of serious misconduct, and has failed to comply with procedural directions necessitating multiple compliance hearings; at first instance the Tribunal had rejected a Burns v Corbett jurisdiction objection based on the appellant's residence in Tasmania; appeal dismissed, the appellant's costs applications dismissed, the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis; affirms [2025] NSWCATAD 204; Wojciechowska v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2023] NSWCA 191 applied. Care: a self-represented litigant, not named on air. JADE
• Stanhope SC Pty Ltd atf Stanhope SC Investment Trust v Sharetea Leasing Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 298 - an application to vary an order reserving the costs of interlocutory proceedings pending final hearing will be declined where the interlocutory success may be rendered a pyrrhic victory by the final outcome; the concept of the 'event' for costs purposes must be assessed in light of the final outcome of the proceedings (s 81 NCAT Act; rr 38, 38A NCAT Rules); the lessee had sought urgent interim relief under s 72 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 (stay of forfeiture, resumption of possession) for a kiosk lease in a western Sydney shopping centre, the primary member granted relief against forfeiture and reinstated the lease, and on 10 June 2026 the Appeal Panel set those orders aside as final relief granted without procedural fairness, remitted the matter for an expedited final hearing and reserved the costs of the appeal (order 9); the lessor's contentions that the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000 and that the lease provided for indemnity costs did not warrant varying order 9 now; costs of interim relief appeals will generally remain reserved until the substantive rights are finally determined; application to vary order 9 declined and dismissed. JADE

Framework (Illustrative synopses, no outcome stated).

• Cameron Hotels Pty Ltd v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 295 - synopsis (framework only, no outcome stated): the interpretation of s 80(1) of the NCAT Act, specifically whether unsuccessful joinder applicants have standing to bring internal appeals; 'party to the proceedings in which the decision is made'; the distinction between the underlying proceedings and interlocutory decisions for standing purposes; r 27 of the NCAT Rules 2014 on who constitutes a party; alternative remedies (judicial review) when internal appeal standing is denied; comity to earlier Appeal Panel decisions. JADE
• Schwedler v Employers Mutual Ltd [2026] NSWCATAD 281 - synopsis (framework only, no outcome stated): leave applications under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the 'fair and just' test (Ekermawi; Norbis v Norbis); criteria for a complaint 'lacking in substance'; the elements of direct disability discrimination under ss 49B and 49D; evidence taken at its highest at the leave stage (Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises); the relevance and weight of the President's reasons under s 92(1)(a)(i); the meaning of 'services' under s 4 in a workers compensation context. Care: carried as a framework line under restraint; the applicant is not identified and nothing of the complaint's facts is aired. JADE

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