The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

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.

Send us Fan Mail

Three decisions in the Queensland weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026, two of them headnoted. The Supreme Court sets aside the Parole Board's refusal of exceptional circumstances parole to a prisoner with terminal kidney disease: weight is for the Board, interrogating the adequacy of custodial care is what the guidelines require, and comparison with other prisoners is not irrelevant, but reduced life expectancy from a terminal illness not apparent at sentence is an obvious relevant consideration that must be actively considered, and the Board's reasons never mentioned it. The Court of Appeal refuses leave in a personal injury damages appeal where surveillance footage tendered mid trial was never put by the plaintiff to her own expert: the rule in Browne v Dunn does not shift the onus. One Attorney-General application is listed without a headnote. Bullock v Wraight also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Vakameilalo v Parole Board Queensland [2026] QSC 223 - judicial review of a Parole Board Queensland refusal of exceptional circumstances parole under the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 17; Ministerial Guidelines to the Parole Board Queensland cl 5.7): the weight given to the burden of dialysis and diet was for the Board and its conclusion was not unreasonable, particularly with no material on how management would differ on parole [50]-[63]; where the applicant contends custody is not adequately addressing his condition, interrogating the adequacy of care is precisely what cl 5.7 mandates, and acting on the clinicians' opinions was reasonable [64]-[67]; comparison with other prisoners with health conditions was not an irrelevant consideration given the Board's broad discretion [69]-[70]; but reduced life expectancy from a terminal illness not apparent at sentence is an obvious relevant consideration that must be actively considered, not merely acknowledged (the explanatory notes give a terminal illness with short life expectancy as an example of exceptional circumstances), it was raised in the submissions and addressed in the medical material, and the Board's reasons made no reference to it [71]-[84]; application granted, the decision of 18 March 2026 set aside, costs and further orders to be heard. Leggett v Queensland Parole Board considered; Dranichnikov referred to. The applicant's condition is described only as far as the doctrine requires. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Bullock v Wraight [2026] QCA 176 - application for leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) from a District Court personal injury judgment ($34,858.27 on a claim exceeding $510,000) dismissed with costs, Bond JA (Mullins P and Boddice JA agreeing): leave for a judgment below the Magistrates Courts limit requires a clearly articulated substantial basis for contending error [64]-[65], [107]; the rule in Browne v Dunn does not oblige the opposing party to put surveillance footage to the plaintiff's own expert, the party bearing the onus must prove the facts underlying its expert's opinion, and the respondents could instead cross-examine the plaintiff and invite adverse credit findings [70]-[74]; no unfairness in the absence of cross-examination on resolution of the injuries where the pleaded defence asserted full recovery and the footage was deployed on it [75]-[79]; reliance on unexplored toll records was de minimis [80]; credit-based findings stand unless glaringly improbable, contrary to compelling inferences or inconsistent with incontrovertible facts [67], [82]-[88]; expert opinions (a forensic accountant, an occupational therapist) resting on rejected self-reporting may be given little weight [90]-[96]; pre-accident commercial assistance is no bar to an award, the question being causation [94]-[95]; general damages under the Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) are reviewable only on the House v The King standard, and the shoulder (item 98) was properly the dominant injury over the cervical spine (item 89) [68], [97]-[106]. Also in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend. JADE

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

• Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Crutch [2026] QSC 222 - list only (listed by the edition under Criminal Law, Sentence Appeal; Treston J). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eight decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of 18 to 20 September 2026, the state weekend. A five-judge bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal revokes the R v Whyte guideline for dangerous driving offences under s 52A of the Crimes Act and replaces it with a non-numerical statement of sentencing principles; a seventeen-year aggregate for an armed club robbery, the highest in the JIRS statistics, comes down to ten; a double-punishment error that changed nothing on resentence; a Crown interlocutory appeal that could not resurrect an argument disavowed at trial; and the Court of Appeal on why criminal totality does not translate to councillor discipline under the Local Government Act. From the Land and Environment Court, a framework on positive covenants as access arrangements, and one decision listed without a headnote. Cripps, Thaler, Douglas, Forbes and Crook also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend; here they get the New South Wales angle.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• Cripps v R (s 52A guideline judgment) [2026] NSWCCA 144 - five-judge bench, joint reasons: the R v Whyte guideline for dangerous driving offences under s 52A of the Crimes Act 1900 is revoked and replaced with a non-numerical statement of sentencing principles (ss 36, 42A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act); objective seriousness (the crime and matters causally related to it) and moral culpability (the offender's blameworthiness) are distinct, and Whyte's 'critical component of the objective circumstances' language does not reflect the current law; the 'plea of limited utilitarian value' characteristic is potentially inconsistent with the Div 1A Pt 3 and s 25D fixed discount scheme; the typical case has changed; standard non-parole periods have diminished the role of guidelines; no finding that Whyte depressed sentencing. New guideline: close attention to the s 3A purposes, s 5 and the maximum penalty; regard to s 21A factors without double counting s 52A(7); a non-exhaustive list of matters going to objective seriousness (extent of injuries, number of people put at risk, speed, intoxication, erratic or competitive driving, length of the journey, ignoring warnings, failing to stop); reduced moral culpability (mental illness, cognitive impairment, deprived childhood, youth) considered separately where raised and not an automatic discount; a failure to heed a warning goes to objective seriousness; past decisions and JIRS statistics remain of limited assistance and fix no boundaries; an ICO remains available for a head sentence of two years or less (aggregate three) and may suit a brief lapse of attention. On the appeal: the judge took age and prior convictions into account under the objective seriousness heading, error shown; on re-exercise the Court would have gone slightly higher; leave granted, appeal dismissed. JADE
• Forbes v R [2026] NSWCCA 147 - manifest excess: sentencing statistics are a blunt instrument but a yardstick, and the highest recorded JIRS sentence for s 112(3), a significant outlier, required careful scrutiny; a sentence wholly disproportionate (not merely markedly different) to the offending, compared with R v Musa, was plainly unjust, reflecting excessive accumulation and a failure to apply totality; on resentence, significant childhood hardship may reduce moral culpability absent a causal link; the standard non-parole period is a legislative guidepost, not a starting point; leave granted, appeal allowed, the aggregate of 17 years with a non-parole period of 10 quashed, resentenced to 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 (ss 86(2)(a), 112(3) Crimes Act; ss 5, 21A, 44, 54A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act). JADE
• Crook v R [2026] NSWCCA 146 - the objective seriousness of a charged offence cannot be elevated by reference to other offending in the same sentencing exercise (double punishment; Tadrosse, Courtney); materiality is whether the error could realistically have affected the reasoning process, not whether the sentence would have differed (Farrugia, Brawn); on a Kentwell re-exercise the fresh sentence was not lower than 6 years 4 months; leave granted, ground made out, appeal dismissed (s 33B Crimes Act; s 5 Criminal Appeal Act). JADE
• R v Douglas [2026] NSWCCA 145 - Crown interlocutory appeal under s 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, doctrine only, prosecution not yet tried: a party who expressly disavowed an argument at trial may not advance it on appeal (Metwally (No 2)); the disavowed argument did not render the appeal incompetent; where the Crown declines to prove either actual age or any mental element as to age, proof that the child was in fact under 16 is the only way the s 272.9(2) attempt (ss 11.1, 11.1(6A), 272.9(4) Criminal Code (Cth)) is an offence known to law, so the trial judge was correct; obiter, proof of intention that the child be under 16 would have sufficed had the point been open; no Suitors' Fund certificate; appeal dismissed. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure v Thaler [2026] NSWCA 200 - Leeming JA (Ball JA and Price AJA agreeing): the criminal sentencing principle of totality for a 'single episode of misconduct' does not translate in any closely analogous way to disciplinary action under the Local Government Act 1993, because each Code contravention is misconduct, the purposes differ and s 275(1A) disqualifies for five years on a third suspension regardless of length; totality is still relevant so a councillor is not in substance dealt with twice, but there is no implied 'time for reflection' constraint on the Secretary; a reprimand, cease order, apology and training were manifestly inadequate for sustained and deliberate abuse of two councillors and two members of the public in conscious disregard of earlier misconduct and without contrition; the Tribunal's s 440L task is the correct and preferable decision; leave granted, appeal allowed, NCAT orders set aside, remitted for determination on up-to-date evidence, the Secretary's decision stayed for six weeks under s 440L(3A); cross-appeal dismissed with costs. JADE
• Paro Planning Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2026] NSWLEC 1617 - framework (synopsis): construction of a public positive covenant under s 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (text, context, purpose; Westfield, Jeshing, Theunissen), distinguished from an easement and enforceable by council under s 88E(5), as the basis for 'adequate arrangements' for vehicular access under cl 6.9 of a LEP; parking variations need a survey or documentary support, not high-level assertions, particularly beyond 800 m of rail or metro; s 7.11 contributions for a parking shortfall quantified per space ($40,449.82) and DCP parking credits; cl 4.6 requests and the design excellence framework (Toga Penrith), expert agreement alone insufficient. JADE

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

• Decision restricted [2026] NSWCCA 129 - list only (criminal appeal, restricted). JADE
• Nowra Investments No. 1 Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1615 - list only (development application). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Six Federal Court decisions in the weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026. A Singapore-resident shareholder resists security for costs in his oppression suit because his shares in the company he is suing are an available asset within the jurisdiction, and the company's joint defence alongside its directors counts against security. ASIC obtains interim asset preservation orders without notice over an unregistered property investment scheme: no prima facie case is required, a freezing order is the lesser alternative to receivers, and the power reaches property offshore. The Full Federal Court settles the form of the remittal order in the Far West Coast sea claim and declines to reopen a finding never challenged on the appeal. Three decisions listed without a headnote. The Full Court's native title remittal also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend, which points here.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• Barber v Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] FCA 1378 - security for costs under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) against a non-resident plaintiff in an oppression suit (ss 233, 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)): the discretion exists to secure a fund within the jurisdiction against which a costs judgment can be enforced, and there is no rule that a non-resident must give security; the plaintiff's 28.33 per cent shareholding, located in Australia by the share register (s 1070A(4)(a)) and conservatively worth nearly $100 million on the company's audited accounts, was an adequate available asset, liquidity not being the inquiry and the defendants having adduced no evidence of value; contractual restraints on dealing did not defeat adequacy; unfair to require the plaintiff to liquidate or borrow against the asset in suit; a company's funds are not to be used to defend the majority against the minority, and the company's joint, undifferentiated pursuit of security was a strong countervailing circumstance; application dismissed subject to an undertaking not to further encumber the shares without 14 days' written notice, failing which initial security of $500,000. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1380 - ex parte interim orders under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in an ongoing ASIC investigation into an unregistered property investment scheme (about $19.1 million from about 111 investors on promissory and convertible notes): jurisdiction is enlivened by an investigation into a suspected contravention, actual or potential liability to aggrieved persons and the Court's opinion that an order is necessary or desirable; ASIC need not establish a prima facie case; freezing orders are permitted in aid of s 1323 (with s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act and r 7.32 of the Federal Court Rules) as the less intrusive alternative to receivership; the power extends to property outside Australia through jurisdiction in personam; ex parte relief requires good reason and full and frank disclosure; travel restraint and passport orders framed to take effect on return; non-publication orders under ss 37AF and 37AG until service; substituted service by email under r 10.24; application granted, inter partes hearing listed 23 September 2026, costs reserved. Interim orders on suspected contraventions only; no finding of liability. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Richards v State of South Australia (Far West Coast Sea Claim) (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 128 - form of orders on remittal under s 28(1)(c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) after the Full Court set aside the answer to who holds native title in the sea claim (Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 225): where all parties support remittal as a continuation of the trial and none seeks more than the usual direction, the order takes the usual form; an appellate court will not fetter the primary judge's case management by procedural directions where it lacks that judge's familiarity with the evidence, including on-country Aboriginal evidence; a submission on the form of remittal cannot obtain variation of the appellate orders to set aside the existence of native title, a finding never challenged on the appeal, without denying procedural fairness; separate question (b)(i) remitted, variation refused. Joint reasons of Burley, O'Bryan and Longbottom JJ. JADE

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

• Groom v State of South Australia [2026] FCA 1384 - list only (summary judgment). JADE
• Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1379 - list only (visa refusal). JADE
• Bilal v Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1382 - list only (leave to appeal). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eleven appellate decisions from five courts in the weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026. A five-judge bench of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal revokes the Whyte guideline for dangerous driving and replaces it with a non-numerical statement of sentencing principles; the same court cuts a seventeen-year armed robbery sentence to ten, dismisses a sentence appeal despite a successful ground, and holds the Crown to an argument it disavowed at trial. Melbourne on inconsistent verdicts and delay, on departing from agreed facts on a plea, and on intention for criminal damage. The Court of Appeal on why criminal totality does not translate to councillor discipline, and Queensland on surveillance footage and the expert who never saw it. The Full Federal Court's native title remittal is carried at depth in the Federal Courts brief of the same weekend.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• Cripps v R (s 52A guideline judgment) [2026] NSWCCA 144 - five-judge bench, joint reasons; the R v Whyte guideline revoked and replaced with a non-numerical statement of sentencing principles for s 52A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (ss 36 and 42A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act); objective seriousness (the crime and matters causally related to it) distinct from moral culpability (the offender's blameworthiness); a non-exhaustive list of objective-seriousness factors (injuries, people put at risk, speed, intoxication, erratic driving, length of journey, warnings ignored, failing to stop); no double counting of s 21A with s 52A(7); reduced moral culpability (mental illness, cognitive impairment, deprived childhood, youth) considered separately where raised and not an automatic discount; a failure to heed a warning goes to objective seriousness; JIRS statistics a guidepost, not a boundary; ICOs only within the two-year head sentence / three-year aggregate limits; the judge erred by weighing age and priors under objective seriousness, but a fresh exercise would have gone slightly higher; leave granted, appeal dismissed. JADE
• Forbes v R [2026] NSWCCA 147 - manifest excess: sentencing statistics are a blunt instrument but a yardstick, and the highest recorded s 112(3) sentence was a significant outlier; a sentence wholly disproportionate to the offending (compared with R v Musa) discloses manifest excess; on resentence, significant childhood hardship may reduce moral culpability without an established causal link; the standard non-parole period is a guidepost, not a presumptive starting point; aggregate 17 years / NPP 10 quashed, 10 years / NPP 7 imposed. JADE
• Crook v R [2026] NSWCCA 146 - the objective seriousness of a charged offence cannot be elevated by reference to other offending in the same sentencing exercise (double punishment; s 33B Crimes Act); materiality is whether the error could realistically have affected the reasoning, not whether the sentence would have differed (Farrugia; Brawn); on Kentwell resentencing the fresh sentence was not lower than 6 years 4 months; leave granted, appeal dismissed. JADE
• R v Douglas [2026] NSWCCA 145 - Crown interlocutory appeal under s 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW); a party who expressly disavowed an argument at trial may not advance it on appeal (Metwally (No 2)); the appeal remained competent; where the Crown declines to prove either the physical element (child under 16, absolute liability under s 272.9(4) of the Criminal Code (Cth)) or any mental element as to age, the actual age must be proved for the attempt (s 11.1) to be an offence known to law; obiter that proof of intention as to age would otherwise suffice; appeal dismissed. Prosecution not yet tried; presumption of innocence; doctrine only. JADE
• Jianmin Yang (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] VSCA 230 - inconsistent verdicts: the applicant must show no reasonable jury could have arrived at the different verdicts, and a proper reconciliation is generally accepted; an acquittal on a single complainant's evidence does not entail disbelief of the complainant; the second incident was supported by an independent witness, immediate complaint, presentation and forensic evidence; no Liberato error; egregious non-culpable delay of more than eight years is a powerful mitigating factor warranting a sentence at the bottom of the range; 5 years on charge 3 outside the range, resentenced to 4 years, total 4 years 6 months, NPP 2 years 9 months. Survivor-sensitive register, doctrine only; no complainant identified. JADE
• Nikola Latuhoi v The King [2026] VSCA 231 - a sentencing judge may go behind agreed facts on a plea provided procedural fairness is afforded and the offender may deal with the new facts or seek to withdraw the plea, but an adverse finding contrary to the agreement must be open beyond reasonable doubt; the 'well before' finding of knowledge of the rifle rested on an evidentiary void; the error was material (planning, premeditation, opportunity to withdraw); a 14-month extension of time granted on the merits; resentenced for manslaughter to 10 years 6 months, NPP 7 years 8 months (Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(2)(b), 6AAA; Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 281). JADE
• Kyle Anthony Magee v The King [2026] VSCA 232 - s 197(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) deals exhaustively with intention for criminal damage: purpose to damage the particular property charged, or knowledge or belief that such damage was more likely than not; Eade and Vanstone does not require intention to damage to substantially the extent caused; damage need not be permanent or significant; the Question Trail read with the directions was correct; not tendering the epoxy-coating quote was an explicable forensic decision; leave to appeal conviction and sentence refused. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure v Thaler [2026] NSWCA 200 - councillor discipline under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW): the criminal totality principle for a 'single episode of misconduct' does not translate in any closely analogous way to disciplinary action (each Code contravention is misconduct; s 275(1A) disqualifies for five years on a third suspension regardless of length); the Tribunal's 'single episode' characterisation was a material error; totality still requires that a councillor not be dealt with twice for the same conduct, but there is no implied 'time for reflection' constraint on the Secretary; a reprimand, cease order, apology and training were manifestly inadequate for sustained, deliberate abuse without contrition; leave granted where necessary; the Tribunal's task under s 440L is the correct and preferable decision; orders set aside, proceedings remitted, the Secretary's decision stayed six weeks under s 440L(3A); cross-appeal dismissed with costs. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Bullock v Wraight [2026] QCA 176 - personal injury damages appeal framework: leave under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) needs a clearly articulated substantial basis for contending error; the party bearing the onus of the facts under its own expert's opinion must adduce that proof, and Browne v Dunn does not oblige the opponent to put surveillance footage to that expert; no unfairness where the pleaded defence put resolution of the injuries in issue; credit-based findings stand unless glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences; expert opinion dependent on unreliable self-reporting may be given little weight; general damages under the Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) reviewed on the House v The King standard; leave refused with costs. JADE

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

• Decision restricted [2026] NSWCCA 129 - list only (Criminal Appeals; N Adams CJ at CL, Cavanagh and Sweeney JJ); a restricted decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal listed without reasons; no outcome stated. JADE

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

• Richards v State of South Australia (Far West Coast Sea Claim) (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 128 - pointer: the form of orders on remittal of separate question (b)(i) under s 28(1)(c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); the usual order where all parties support remittal as a continuation of the trial; no fettering of the primary judge's case management discretion; no variation of the appellate orders on an unargued basis. Carried at depth in the Federal Courts brief of 18 to 20 September 2026. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Edition seven — the province fortnight, 3 to 16 September, deduped against edition six and the daily brief. The Full Federal Court holds that the unfair contract terms regime reaches a click-through arbitration clause on its practical operation, and that a class action will not be stayed on the applicant's personal obligation without notice to group members. Victoria's Court of Appeal recalibrates probative value under s 137, declining to follow Tuite: contamination is the jury's question. The Full Court of the family jurisdiction holds that a restricted practising certificate does not qualify the s 55B right of appearance. And the Supreme Court of New Zealand declines to grow the mental-harm tort. Eight criminal appeals across four jurisdictions are reported with restraint. Friday chair house spot: a word from JADE after the opening feature.

Features

Commercial Law Desk — NEW: Plus500AU Pty Ltd v AghaeiRad [2026] FCAFC 125 (unfairness judged on the particular contract, not strangers; transparency assessed objectively, no imputed comprehension from a click-through acknowledgment; significant imbalance is practical operation, not formal symmetry; arbitration policy does not immunise the clause; a term void as unfair cannot ground a s 8(1) stay; no stay of a whole class action on the applicant's personal obligation without notice to group members and an opportunity for substitution; Karpik applied; unanimous) · UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Wollongong Coal Limited (No 5) [2026] FCA 1336 (CISG applies under Art 1(1)(b) despite a reservation; Art 14 is the exhaustive definiteness rule displacing domestic certainty; Art 55 cannot rescue a per-transaction bargain; Art 8 reads connected instruments and subsequent conduct together; an agreement to agree that good-faith negotiation cannot cure).

Family Law Desk — NEW: Palacio & Ksenia [2026] FedCFamC1A 156 (s 55B Judiciary Act entitlement turns on the s 55C Register, not State certificate conditions; a supervision condition does not qualify the right of appearance; certificate breaches are for the State regulator; legal aid panel arrangements are a private contract the Court does not police; supervisory restraint confined to exceedingly rare cases; personal costs orders set aside; unanimous) · Helias & Tadeu [2026] FedCFamC1A 161 (no presumption for time orders from the absence of unacceptable risk; detriment to a primary carer's capacity may outweigh the benefit of a relationship; parenting cases are future-focused; the court is not bound by a Family Report if reasons are given; a fall-back not run at trial cannot be raised on appeal).

Criminal Law Desk — NEW: DPP v Roderic [2026] VSCA 223 (s 137 probative value taken at its highest, reliability not evaluated; Tuite and Dupas not followed, Riley adopted; contamination a jury question unless acceptance is not rationally open; correctness standard on admissibility review; inherent power to amend grounds; s 65(2)(b) proximate pressure; s 70 goes to contents, not form) · Dahaby v Cassim [2026] VSCA 224 (where no appeal lies, reasons need only identify the grounds; a bare denial needs no separate rejection) · R v Grocke [2026] SASCA 96 (R v D flexible and influential without a formal position of trust; Crown appeals rare and exceptional; Bleby and David JJA found the starting point manifestly inadequate yet refused permission on double jeopardy) · The King v Naroldol [2026] NTCCA 8 (manslaughter range restated; disproportionate aggression explanatory, not exculpatory; Crown must negate the residual discretion) · Rioli v The King [2026] NTCCA 11 (notice required before departing from a written Crown concession; miscarriage only on practical injustice; Huntingford J dissenting) · TD v R [2026] NSWCCA 139 (reduced moral culpability generally requires a stated effect on deterrence; silence not automatically error) · Vute v R [2026] NSWCCA 141 (s 5 threshold and ICO refusal reviewable only for House v The King error; a concession below stands) · Mahoney v R [2026] NSWCCA 142 (adverse facts must be reasonably open and proved beyond reasonable doubt; an uncontested matter may be assumed not in dispute; JIRS a blunt instrument).

Desk segments

Public Law Desk — NEW: Roe (Administrator) v State of Western Australia [2026] FCA 1364 (a circumstances-of-each-plaintiff extension of time is not a common question absent demonstrated commonality; commencement of a representative proceeding as an anterior common question; s 33Q samples chosen for the variation they expose; the Kable-based Ch III claim added by leave, unopposed) · Hancy v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1195 (fairness requires notice of the critical issues, not exposure of mental processes; materiality governs; illogicality needs an irrational finding on a critical point; cumulative lapses only where intelligible justification is lost).

Practice & Procedure Desk — NEW: Gobbo v State of Victoria [2026] VSCA 221 (s 48 breach assessed prospectively, never with hindsight; social utility in recruiting an informer who can lawfully supply unrelated information, later misuse notwithstanding; voluntary assumption of risk needs no belief the risk will materialise; general releases restrained by text, context, purpose and the disputes in contemplation; delay explained for the whole period) · Peka (Estate of Ida Hawkins) v Te Hei [2026] NZSC 121 (no extension of the mental-harm tort to secondary victims without a recognisable disorder and proximity; no novel tort on a sense of justice; exemplary damages do not survive death, Re Chase kept; remittal set aside; unanimous).

The Registry

Constitutional Law — its sole entry is Roe (above): the Kable-based challenge to the fines registrar's warrants of commitment is pleaded and goes to the initial trial; nothing decided on it.

Held

Corporations Law and Wills & Probate report nothing new: their entries are edition six's Seafarms Group Ltd v McKinnon [2026] QCA 169 and Juratowitch (Administrator), in the matter of A&S Wholesale Fruit and Vegetables Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1317. No Intellectual Property edition this fortnight. A quiet fortnight is itself the report.

Treated in edition six

VRRQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 117 · Hunter Water Corporation v The Owners of Strata Plan 16460 [2026] NSWCA 184 · Seafarms Group Ltd v McKinnon [2026] QCA 169 · Juratowitch (Administrator) [2026] FCA 1317 · Macsteel International Australia Pty Limited v Oliver [2026] FCA 1300 · WS v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2026] NSWCA 178 · Skinner v R [2026] NSWCCA 131 · Pagliari v R [2026] NSWCCA 133 · AW v R [2026] NSWCCA 134 · ST v R [2026] NSWCCA 136.

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