The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

Twenty decisions across the weekend, one state, every court: integrated development is an objective jurisdictional fact proved on evidence the council never saw, a medical assessor's unreferred certificate falls with everything built on it, a stay until costs are paid, relief-against-forfeiture instalment orders, a directors' side deal tested for intention to be bound, and Friday's two Court of Criminal Appeal decisions.

Public Law Desk.

• Friends of Bucketty Incorporated v Buckettys Brewery Pty Ltd [2026] NSWLEC 118 - whether a development is integrated development is a jurisdictional fact for the Court on all the material, extrinsic evidence admissible; Div 4.8 mandatory, not electable; not integrated on the survey evidence despite the ticked box; consideration of a proposed instrument distinct from dealing with it correctly; micro-brewery ancillary; koala-habitat satisfaction not legally unreasonable. Proceedings dismissed. JADE
• AAI Limited trading as AAMI v Agyei [2026] NSWSC 1087 - a medical assessor has no jurisdiction over an unreferred matter; conclusive certificates reopened only through the four s 7.24 preconditions; consequential invalidity of the referral and review panel certificate; materiality and no acquiescence (actual knowledge required); no remittal needed. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Jaworski v Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand [2026] NSWCA 190 - state angle: fresh proceedings on the same conduct with prior costs unpaid stayed as an abuse of process; impecuniosity not decisive; researcher relationships do not found apprehended bias. JADE
• Valor and Pride Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Ord Developments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 1096 - template instalment and default-machinery orders for relief against forfeiture; the Sneakerboy ten-point summary reproduced. JADE
• Alta Vale Residential Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Rec Apptd) v STM123 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1094 - pre-judgment interest runs from accrual (services claims accrue on performance); costs apportioned only for a separable issue; capacity-based orders rejected. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Gallo v Saad [2026] NSWSC 1066 - objective intention to create legal relations; collateral contracts inconsistent with the main agreement unenforceable; post-contractual conduct to prove a partly oral contract; form-only attacks on default interest fail. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• TD v R [2026] NSWCCA 139 - state angle: a reduced-moral-culpability finding generally requires the judge to say how it bears on deterrence; resentenced to seven years. JADE
• Pearce v R [2026] NSWCCA 138 - circumstantial case weighed as a whole; no resiling on appeal from an 'evening out' concession on parity. JADE
• R v Billings [2026] NSWSC 1088 - sentencing judgment for a domestic violence murder (Olbrich, s 23A, Form 1, comparative cases); registry line only. JADE
• R v Tammer-Spence [2026] NSWSC 1090 - sentencing judgment for manslaughter by excessive self-defence (s 421; Bugmy/De La Rosa; s 21A); registry line only. JADE

Registry.

• 50 Cowan Road St Ives Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1598 - cl 4.6 variation to a height standard under SEPP Housing; s 4.15(3A) flexibility; lay submissions. JADE
• Altis Frasers JV Pty Ltd as Trustee of ARET Frasers Project Trust v Sydney Water Corporation [2026] NSWSC 1100 - noted (Civil Procedure—Discovery). JADE
• Guo v Option Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1093 - noted (Civil Procedure—Interlocutory Applications). JADE
• Shepherd v Concierge Services Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1099 - noted (Tort—Trespass to Land). JADE
• State of New South Wales v Matthew White (Preliminary) [2026] NSWSC 1101 - noted (Criminal Law—High Risk Offenders). JADE
• Pertinax (Aust) Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1594 - noted (Planning And Development—Development Application). JADE
• Fabcot Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2026] NSWLEC 1599 - noted (Planning And Development—Development Application). JADE
• Shankar v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1600 - noted (Planning And Development—Development Application). JADE
• Prior v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1597 - noted (Planning And Development—Development Consent). JADE
• Mourad v Inner West Council [2026] NSWLEC 1595 - noted (Planning And Development—Development Control Order). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Five Federal Court decisions across the weekend: petroleum leases are 'leases' under the Native Title Act so prior extinguishment cannot be disregarded over them, a deed of cross-guarantee lodged in time but scanned single-sided is rescued under s 1322, and a taxpayer who won one alternative-assessment appeal and lost the other pays 85 per cent of the Commissioner's costs.

Public Law Desk.

• Doyle on behalf of the Iman People #4 v State of Queensland (No 2) [2026] FCA 1334 - an authority a State law calls a lease is a 'lease' under s 242(1) and a 'mining lease' under s 245(1); the unqualified 'lease' in s 47B(1)(b)(i) includes mining leases; alternatively a permission under which land 'is to be used' for production; an unconstructed road is a public work, not a prior interest; every separate question answered 'No'. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• W Cosmetics IP Pty Limited, in the matter of W Cosmetics IP Pty Limited [2026] FCA 1342 - s 1322(4)(d) extension granted on the papers; interested-person standing from a real financial interest; inadvertent lodgement errors promptly addressed; no substantial injustice; liberty to apply. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Larmar v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2026] FCA 1345 - one consolidated lump-sum costs order across proceedings heard together; 85 per cent to the Commissioner on a broad-brush basis; r 25.14(3) presumption rebutted by a contingent offer; a sub-24-hour Calderbank offer not unreasonably refused. JADE

Registry.

• EIC20 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1338 - noted (Administrative Law—Judicial Review). JADE
• Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1339 - noted (Immigration—Visa Refusal). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twelve appellate decisions from six courts across the weekend: cold-case DNA evidence goes back before a jury, Lawyer X's negligence claim fails on every ground, a doctor's findings of guilt are restored on the law of reasons, mixed verdicts stand in Brisbane, a Crown appeal splits the Adelaide court, and a Sydney sentence is redone for silence on deterrence. Then partnership accounts, a stay until costs are paid, and a jury verdict that produced nothing.

Criminal Law Desk.

• DPP v Roderic [2026] VSCA 223 - admissibility rulings reviewed for correctness; s 137 probative value taken at its highest, contamination a jury question unless no rational jury could accept the evidence (Tuite no longer followed); deceased complainant's notes and statement admissible under s 65(2)(b); labels under s 70 without the originals. Prosecution not yet tried; presumption of innocence. JADE
• Dahaby v Cassim [2026] VSCA 224 - where no appeal lies, reasons need only identify the basis of the decision; a bare denial needs no separate explanation once the complainants' evidence is accepted; findings of guilt restored. JADE
• R v CEF [2026] QCA 171 - inconsistent verdicts: the MacKenzie test; differing complainant reactions rationally explain mixed verdicts on mistake of fact; a hung count is not an acquittal. JADE
• R v Grocke [2026] SASCA 96 - R v D standard flexible and influential without a formal position of trust; Crown appeals only in the rare and exceptional case; 2:1 on manifest inadequacy but permission refused on double jeopardy. JADE
• TD v R [2026] NSWCCA 139 - a reduced-moral-culpability finding generally requires the judge to say how it bears on deterrence; resentenced to seven years; cumulative Bugmy, mental-health and youth factors need not be separately quantified. JADE
• Pearce v R [2026] NSWCCA 138 - circumstantial case weighed as a whole; an innocent hypothesis not raised at trial was not reasonably open; no resiling on appeal from an 'evening out' concession on parity. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Gobbo v State of Victoria [2026] VSCA 221 - breach assessed prospectively, not with hindsight; social utility in lawful informer recruitment; voluntary assumption of risk made out; general release construed by text, context and purpose bars the claims; extension of time refused. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Jason H Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jason H Family Trust v Habchi [2026] QCA 172 - partnership relief without an express plea where the facts were litigated; the duty to render accounts survives termination and is unconditional; deciding on a basis not pressed without inviting submissions denied procedural fairness; Question 5A remitted. JADE
• Jaworski v Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand [2026] NSWCA 190 - fresh proceedings on the same conduct with prior costs unpaid stayed as an abuse of process; impecuniosity relevant but not decisive; former-researcher relationships do not found apprehended bias. JADE
• Townley v Woolpack [2026] VSCA 222 - civil jury damages set aside only where no reasonable jury could have reached the figure; the jury advantage on credit extends to history-dependent psychiatric opinion; $21,000 under the threshold, no damages. JADE
• Enyo Lawyers Pty Ltd v Island Resorts (Facilities and Equipment) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] QCA 173 - costs not sought below are not awarded on appeal; three Calderbank offers, none unreasonably refused; standard costs of the appeal. JADE
• Residential Reports Pty Ltd v Shannon [2026] ACTCA 32 - appeal listing vacated where security, stay and set-aside applications could not be heard first; timing of the security application left to that hearing. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Edition six — the onus fortnight, 27 August to 9 September, deduped against edition five and the daily brief. The Full Federal Court splits on when an illogical finding is material, and the dissent is the part to file. The NSW Court of Appeal runs the reformulated nuisance test through a burst water main. Queensland holds that a deed of company arrangement is a statutory instrument, so a refund clause dies with the deed and a mixed fund is no trust. The Court of Criminal Appeal's closing week is brought current in a clause each, and the Registry prices the rest.

Features

Public Law Desk — NEW: VRRQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 117 (illogicality is jurisdictional only if material; an intermingled evaluative finding is not immaterial merely because other matters supported the conclusion; no separate 'critical' threshold; LPDT distinguished; Lenehan J dissenting — the critical-fact analysis is one inquiry, not two) · Lee v Victoria Police [2026] VSCA 218 (DFDA-gathered evidence not quarantined from a State prosecution; a search warrant is an administrative act; no admissibility challenge on review where none was taken at trial).

Practice & Procedure Desk — NEW: Hunter Water Corporation v The Owners of Strata Plan 16460 [2026] NSWCA 184 (Hunt Leather applied: plaintiff proves substantial interference, defendant carries the onus on common and ordinary purpose and 'conveniently done'; purpose at the right level of generality; means calibrated to the magnitude of risk; latent defect excuses only as sole cause; s 43A Civil Liability Act not engaged where no statutory power need be proved; costs discretion intact; no ratio in Hunt Leather on where construction works fall).

Commercial Law Desk — NEW: Seafarms Group Ltd v McKinnon [2026] QCA 169 (a DOCA binds by force of ss 444D and 444G and is construed as a statutory instrument; a termination-contingent refund right is not preserved by s 445H; no primary or Quistclose trust over a proponent contribution mixed into a single deed fund; administrators and liquidators as proper parties get their costs) · Juratowitch (Administrator), in the matter of A&S Wholesale Fruit and Vegetables Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1317 (s 447A(1) extends the 45-business-day adjournment cap in s 75-140(3) IPR on convening-period principles). Settles: Macsteel International Australia Pty Limited v Oliver [2026] FCA 1300 (aired 26 Aug; prima facie misuse inferred from mass downloads; targeted forensic imaging).

Criminal Law Desk (settles) — ST v R [2026] NSWCCA 136 (the s 294G pre-recorded evidence hearing is the 'first day of the trial' for the s 25D discount; plead 14 days before it) · Skinner v R [2026] NSWCCA 131 (findings that attenuate culpability must reduce the sentence) · AW v R [2026] NSWCCA 134 (mental impairment and objective seriousness; no double counting; quantify the reduction) · Pagliari v R [2026] NSWCCA 133 (united force of the whole evidence; a hypothesis first raised on appeal is not reasonable because possible). One clause: The State of WA v Matanga [2026] WASCA 121 (carried in edition five; harsh conditions mitigate only on personal evidence).

Registry (settles) — Family: WS v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2026] NSWCA 178 (aired 8 Sep; parens patriae fills procedural gaps only; discontinuing the statutory appeal does not cure abuse; a third party cannot raise another's procedural fairness). Intellectual property: Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v OZI4x4 Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 1215 (drop-shipped goods are not used in the course of trade by the local retailer; additional and exemplary damages for trade mark infringement, not for ACL or contract). Held: Wills & Probate (its sole entry is Seafarms); commercial, corporations, migration and the family Full Court otherwise brought current in edition five: Bergsma & Hyde · Cadwgan & Cadwgan · Ibragimov & Izquiredo · Nunez · Ranavue · Discover Nursing · ASIC v Venture 5 Group · Woodman Beenleigh v Bunnings · Scidera v MLA (No 4) · Timor Sea Oil & Gas (No 2) · Vitnell v Vellenga (No 2) · Rouse (a pseudonym) v The King.

Full analyses in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions from the Supreme Court, three of them worked examples carried as illustrative guidance (outcomes not stated): an extended custody order under the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 and its two-stage test; leave to file a writ for a litigant under a Federal Court restriction order; and security for costs in a defamation claim. Four registry lines. Thursday: no house spot.

Criminal Law Desk.

• Attorney General for Western Australia v Ah by His Next Friend the Public Advocate [No 2] [2026] WASC 373 (Gething J) - illustrative: a consolidated ten-point statement of the principles governing extended custody orders under s 110(3) Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) (DAMD), the two-stage test (unacceptable risk of a serious offence to a high degree of probability, then necessity as against a community supervision order under s 110(4) or discharge under s 265(6)), the Book of Materials under s 123, expert reports under s 106(3), the analytical headings, and the s 254 transitional conversion of Repealed Act custody orders. Reported as the framework only; nothing is said of the person concerned. JADE

Practice & Procedure Desk.

• Re Frigger; Ex Parte Frigger [2026] WASC 376 (Lundberg J) - illustrative: leave to file a writ under O 67 r 5 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), the three-limb frivolous / vexatious / abuse of process test (Ex parte Gates), the mandatory supporting affidavit under sub-rule (4) and the s 6(3) disclosure requirements of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), the derivative engagement of s 8 by a s 37AO Federal Court restriction order, and the stay / prohibition distinction (Frigger v WA [2026] WADC 84). Carried at insight level; outcome not stated. JADE
• Daniel v GRAY [2026] WASC 372 (Howard J) - illustrative: the Ogbonna security for costs guidelines (promptness, strength and bona fides, causation of impecuniosity, oppression, frustrating the right to litigate) applied to a defamation and intentional infliction of harm claim; the interplay of O 25 and the inherent jurisdiction, including a stay across related proceedings; special caution in defamation given the one-year limitation period (s 15 Limitation Act 2005); pleading deficiencies (imputations not arising from the words, qualified privilege, rolled-up causation on statute-barred publications, special damages); elements of intentional infliction of harm (McFadzean; Giller v Procopets). Carried at insight level; outcome not stated. JADE

Registry.

• Tronox Management Pty Ltd v Cokic [No 3] [2026] WASC 381 (Lundberg J) - indemnity costs. Listed without headnote. JADE
• Gold Valley Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Peckitt [2026] WASC 379 (Cobby J) - criminal appeals, sentence appeal. Listed without headnote. JADE
• Eliana Saje and Lisa Saje v The Owners of 36B Third Avenue, Mount Lawley Strata Plan 21602 [2026] WASC 294 (S) (Lundberg J) - costs orders. Listed without headnote. JADE
• Suppressed [2026] WASC 377 - civil procedure, other. Listed without headnote. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Three decisions and a quiet day. The Court of Appeal's refusal of leave to the Medical Board, taken in full in today's Courts of Appeal brief and returning with the Victorian angle: whether penalty privilege applies in VCAT is a question the court declined to answer until a case turns on it. Two Trial Division decisions in the registry. Thursday: no house spot.

Public Law Desk.

• Medical Board of Australia v Gibbs [2026] VSCA 220 (Niall CJ, Richards JA, Gray AJA) - leave to appeal under s 148 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 from an interlocutory procedural order requires a real and significant question of law attended by sufficient doubt and substantial injustice if the order is left unreversed; an unopposed order within VCAT's power vacating a statement-of-facts direction caused none; leave refused where the appeal would in substance seek an advisory opinion on whether ss 105-106 extend penalty privilege to a pt 8 National Law referral, VCAT being able to reflect the privilege as a matter of fairness under s 98(1)(b) in any event; the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty rests on the principle that a party alleging breach of the law must prove it without the accused's assistance and has been applied to disciplinary tribunals (Hulls applied). Leave to appeal refused. The disciplinary allegations are untested and not described. JADE

Registry.

• Dal Broi v Nicholas James Lawyers Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 574 (K Judd J) - trusts, trust account misuse. Listed without headnote. JADE
• Zhang v Owners Corporation SP 432870J [2026] VSC 584 (Quigley J) - civil procedure, leave to appeal. Listed without headnote. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Four decisions from NCAT, VCAT and the intellectual property offices. A former tattooist refused a new licence, and what "fit and proper" means where the offending ran through the business itself; a portable Wi-Fi design that survived examination because the prior art did not show its underside; a real estate agent's duty to account; and a trade mark opposition in the registry. Thursday: no house spot.

Tribunals Desk.

• Betchwaty v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATOD 121 (L Bryant, Senior Member) - time to lodge the review extended under s 41(1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), unopposed; the "fit and proper person" test under s 16(3)(c) Tattoo Industry Act 2012 (NSW) is a holistic assessment of character, criminal history, associations, credibility and rehabilitation; false invoices purporting to document tattoo work to legitimise the proceeds of crime established a direct link between the offending and the licensed occupation; assertions of remorse and the passage of time do not prove rehabilitation absent objective evidence of changed character and treatment; the s 16(3)(e) public interest test is distinct and prioritises community protection. Decision under review affirmed. Convictions and associations reported only as the tribunal found them. JADE
• UAB Orbio World [2026] ADO 5 (Louise Tuohy, Delegate) - under s 19 Designs Act 2003 (Cth) the design and citation are compared as a whole, similarities weighed more than differences, having regard to a well-developed and crowded prior art base and the freedom to innovate; where the citation disclosed no underside or left-hand views, the design's port and access aperture could not be inferred from it, and the citation's internal border and verbal element were minor details; not substantially similar in overall impression. Certificate of examination to issue. JADE
• Interlandi & Ors v Eastern Central Real Estate Pty Ltd [2026] VCAT 723 (Deputy President R Wilson) - illustrative: an agent's fiduciary duty to account, indemnity for legal costs versus entitlement to remuneration, written authorisations and time records, trust account obligations under the Estate Agents Act 1980 (Vic), and interest on wrongfully withheld money at the cash rate plus 2%. Carried at insight level; outcome not stated. JADE

Registry.

• Burk Pty Ltd v Solo Oil Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 163 (Justin Williams) - trade mark opposition. Listed without headnote. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Five decisions. A running-collision contest the Supreme Court holds is a combat sport, and the ordinary meaning of "strike" and "hit"; a daughter's claim to half the waterfront property her father left her only in part, and how a proprietary estoppel must be pleaded; the Court of Appeal's gross sum costs order with the state angle; a probate hearing that proceeded without the defendant; and a registry line. Thursday: no house spot.

Public Law Desk.

• Run Nation Championship Pty Ltd v Combat Sports Authority of New South Wales & Anor [2026] NSWSC 1089 (Coleman J) - "strike" and "hit" in Sch 3 Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW) bear their broad ordinary meaning of forceful contact or collision, not blows within a fight; dictionaries are a starting point, not a substitute for context; a mandatory body-to-body "tackle" from which all scoring flows makes striking the primary objective of each combatant, shared by runner and defender; the cl 5(1)(d) exclusion requires all strike zones to be "fully protected" and substantial compliance is insufficient; characterisation regulates, it does not ban; commercial loss irrelevant to construction. Amended summons dismissed with costs. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Sellar v Ryan [2026] NSWSC 1086 (Kunc J) - "my principal place of residence as at the date of my death" construed by the armchair principle as the dwelling with the land on which it stands, here both adjoining lots as one functioning property; proprietary estoppel requires a clear and unequivocal promise, and a promise of an undefined share "amounting to most" of the property is not one; a spouse's words bind the testator only with actual or ostensible authority, and acquiescence by silence requires a pleaded duty to speak; reliance not established, the plaintiff having known from December 2015 the mutual wills could not change; no express trust from statements of future or testamentary gift; no common intention or joint endeavour constructive trust; no Morris v Morris charge; quantum meruit failed on five bases, the benefit of the unpaid work having gone to the family company; conceded debt of $128,700 recoverable, amounts paid by the company not; representations are pleaded as material facts, not verbatim conversations (UCPR rr 14.7-14.9). Declaration; judgment for $128,700; otherwise dismissed with costs. JADE

Practice & Procedure Desk.

• Bolton v WAM Active Ltd (No 4) [2026] NSWCA 189 (Leeming JA) - payment out of security for costs turns on a secured liability exceeding the security, not the lawyers' entitlement to their bills; an undertaking secured by money in court excludes set-off by clear implication (s 21(3) CPA does not assist); costs of a reply affidavit necessitated by an overstated affidavit in chief excluded; gross sum costs under s 98(4)(c) fixed by the work reasonably required (Pasade) under s 60 proportionality at $6,500. Whole $25,000 security released. Litigant in person. Full treatment in today's Courts of Appeal brief. JADE
• Smith v Pallister [2026] NSWSC 1091 (Bennett J) - illustrative: proceeding in a party's absence under UCPR r 29.7 (Lester v Brown; NSW Trustee and Guardian v Gregory), the evidentiary steps establishing notice, ss 56-60 CPA on adjourning or proceeding, exclusion of NCAT reasons under s 91 Evidence Act (Bale; Quach), and revocation of a grant and removal of an executor for delay. Carried at insight level; outcome not stated. JADE

Registry.

• Australian Mortgage Finance Services Pty Ltd v Patel [2026] NSWSC 1085 (Fagan J) - mortgages. Listed without headnote. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions from the Federal Court, four of them doctrine. A bankrupt's employee shares are income while they remain shares and after-acquired property once sold; a twenty-million-dollar coal dispute decided under the Vienna Convention's own rule of certainty; a seafarer past pension age who still qualifies for a year of incapacity compensation; and a personal visa cancellation that survived every argument built on the months in which nobody detained the applicant. Then a freezing order, a suppression order after settlement, and a registry line. Thursday: no house spot.

Commercial Law Desk.

• Taylor (Trustee), in the matter of Behennah (Bankrupt) v Behennah [2026] FCA 1332 (Needham J) - shares vesting for no consideration by reason of employment are "income" in its ordinary meaning under s 139L; income does not become after-acquired property merely because it exceeds the Div 4B contribution liability; income in specie converted into money by sale is after-acquired property divisible among creditors under s 58(1)(b) (Ambrose distinguished; Meriton obiter); income valued at market close the day before vesting, any realised gain being additional income triggering s 139Q review; an unexplained salary deduction did not affect the calculation; s 63 Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) is picked up in federal jurisdiction by s 79 Judiciary Act, but s 90-15 IPS was the appropriate vehicle. Declarations made. JADE
• UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Wollongong Coal Limited (No 5) [2026] FCA 1336 (Bennett J) - the CISG applies under Art 1(1)(b) where private international law leads to the law of a contracting State, irrespective of that State's reservation; Art 14(1) is an exhaustive rule of minimum content (goods, quantity, price) displacing domestic certainty doctrine (Art 7 uniformity); Art 55 cannot save a contract where the parties intended price to be agreed per transaction and no general market price existed; under Art 8 the coal sale agreements, read with the JSPL purchase agreement and subsequent conduct, were framework agreements to negotiate, not sales; "unwashed coking coal" without specification did not indicate the goods and the price was neither fixed nor determinable; estoppel failed on assumption, inducement, reliance and unconscionability; ACL applied to JSPL via s 5(1)(g) CCA but no representation was made absent proof of no intention or capacity to perform; alternative findings on termination and damages. Originating application dismissed; applicant to pay costs. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Colgrave v TT-Line Company Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1232 (Horan J) - "has reached" in s 38(1) and (2) Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) denotes a past event creating a continuing status; s 38(2) is an express exception to s 38(1) turning on age at injury, so an employee injured at 68 is entitled to up to 52 weeks of incapacity compensation; remedial legislation construed beneficially; the ART erred by reading s 38(2) as a one-year window. Appeal allowed; remitted with a direction that compensation is payable under s 38(2). JADE
• Mukhtar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1337 (Cheeseman J) - procedural fairness does not require disclosure of an obvious evaluative inference ("cost to the community in terms of law enforcement") drawn from disclosed criminal history; the s 189(1) duty to detain turns on an officer's knowledge or reasonable suspicion, a jurisdictional fact distinct from the s 501A(2) risk assessment, and no evidence identified anyone holding that state of mind; legal unreasonableness is assessed at the time of decision and post-decision non-detention cannot render it unreasonable; a false premise founds error only if expressed in or necessary to the reasoning; s 501A(2) carries no implied temporal limitation (XMBQ, binding); hypothetical finding on the 14½-month delay declined. Application dismissed with costs. Criminal history described only as the court described it. JADE

Practice & Procedure Desk.

• Yu v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCA 1344 (Wheatley J) - parties subject to a freezing order who seek to draw on restrained assets for reasonable legal expenses bear the onus of proving no other assets are available, whether or not the application requires a change of circumstances (Manners and Terrule; Karas); an alleged unregistered security over New Zealand trust properties was not proved, the evidence being inconsistent on date, loans, properties, quantum and authority; a charge requires identified property appropriated to an identified debt; unchallenged affidavit evidence may be rejected where internally inconsistent; the Commissioner's urgent adjournment application on delivery of judgment refused. Interlocutory application dismissed with costs. JADE
• JYE26 v KAB26 [2026] FCA 1250 (Meagher J) - illustrative: suppression orders under s 37AF Federal Court of Australia Act after early confidential settlement; the s 37AG(1)(a) necessity test, pleadings versus originating applications, non-party employees and AHRC complaint confidentiality, indefinite duration and open justice. Carried at insight level; outcome not stated. JADE

Registry.

• Hodgson (Liquidator) v Commissioner of Taxation, in the matter of ACN 009 068 473 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2026] FCA 1266 (Vandongen J) - voidable transactions. Listed without headnote. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eight decisions, five of them from the Northern Territory's Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal, reported in one sitting. A tendency evidence appeal from Canberra ending in a permanent stay on one count and a new trial on another; three Territory criminal appeals on a juror, a Crown concession and the range for manslaughter; a gross sum costs order in Sydney, two costs judgments in Darwin and a leave application in Melbourne refused as an advisory opinion. Thursday: no house spot.

Criminal Law Desk.

• McGary v DPP [2026] ACTCA 29 (Muller, White and Charlesworth JJ) - leave to raise an unopposed tendency ground under r 5531 where no forensic advantage explained the omission; multiple-complainant tendency evidence has significant probative value under s 97 only where some feature links the offending, and a tendency framed as a bare restatement of the elements across incidents four years apart lacked it; under s 101(2) the prejudice doubles where the tendency evidence replicates a charged act; a permanent stay may follow from foreseeable and avoidable investigative and prosecutorial choices short of impropriety where the accused's forensic choice to give evidence about an uncharged allegation was illusory (Strickland); verdict on count 3 not unreasonable (majority; Charlesworth J dissenting on De Silva); verdicts not inconsistent. Convictions on counts 1 and 3 set aside; count 1 permanently stayed; new trial on count 3. Reported as the law of evidence and abuse of process only; the presumption of innocence applies. JADE
• Rioli v The King [2026] NTCCA 11 (Huntingford, Burns JJ, Hiley AJ) - the choice between a non-parole period and a partially suspended sentence is a wide discretion rarely disturbed; where the Crown concedes a lesser option is within range, a judge minded to impose a non-parole period must put the offender on notice (DL v The Queen), the non-parole period being the more punitive disposition; failure to do so was error but no practical injustice arose, everything the offender would have said being already before the judge (Burns J and Hiley AJ); Huntingford J dissenting (practical injustice and manifest excess made out). Extension of time and leave granted; appeal dismissed. JADE
• The King v Naroldol [2026] NTCCA 8 (Grant CJ, Burns J, Riley AJ) - Crown appeal for manifest inadequacy requires a sentence so clearly inadequate as to demonstrate error in principle; sentences under seven years for manslaughter arise only in defined categories (youthful or subjectively strong offender, battered woman, single non-weapon blow, genuinely mutual fight); deliberate violence attracts a starting point of eight to ten years; disproportionate aggression by the deceased is explanatory not exculpatory in a spousal context; the Crown negated every reason for the residual discretion, including expiry of the non-parole period. Appeal allowed; resentenced to eight years, non-parole four years six months. Reported as sentencing doctrine only. JADE
• Wilson v The King [2026] NTCCA 9 (Grant CJ, Burns J, Riley AJ) - where a juror is not discharged and a guilty verdict follows, the appeal lies against conviction under s 411 Criminal Code (NT); the HCF retrospective test requires a positive apprehension with an objective basis, not idle wondering; a juror's niece employed by the complainant's support service, one step removed, gave rise to none; the answer "possibly" cannot be read in isolation and the trial judge's assessment carries significant weight; after almost three years' delay an extension needs exceptional circumstances, a manifest miscarriage or probable success (Green). Extension refused; leave refused. Reported as juror-bias doctrine only. JADE

Practice & Procedure Desk.

• Bolton v WAM Active Ltd (No 4) [2026] NSWCA 189 (Leeming JA) - on payment out of security for costs the question is whether a secured liability exceeding the security is established, not whether the lawyers are entitled to their bills; only post-stay costs have the benefit of the security; an undertaking secured by payment into court excludes set-off by clear implication (Gilbert-Ash; s 21(3) CPA does not assist); costs of a reply affidavit necessitated by an overstated affidavit in chief excluded; gross sum costs under s 98(4)(c) fixed by what work was reasonably required (Pasade), consistently with s 60 proportionality, at $6,500. Whole $25,000 security released. Litigant in person. JADE
• Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) (Costs) [2026] NTCA 7 (Grant CJ, Huntingford J, Riley AJ) - costs follow the event and the event is the substantive relief obtained (the compensation assessment set aside and remitted), notwithstanding that the legal basis was determined in a separate proceeding; no differential order for losing an ancillary contention on the forum for remittal absent unreasonable persistence. Respondent to pay the appellant's costs on the standard basis. JADE
• Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Young & Anor (Costs) [2026] NTCA 8 (Grant CJ, Huntingford J, Riley AJ) - where a slip rule summons was rendered otiose by the High Court's consent orders without any adjudication on the merits, the discontinuance principles (Lai Qin) apply by analogy; the interlocutory "costs in the proceeding" rule does not govern an appeal; a slip rule application in the originating court while special leave is pending is not an abuse and is strongly preferable; both parties acted reasonably. Summons dismissed; no order as to costs. JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Gibbs [2026] VSCA 220 (Niall CJ, Richards JA, Gray AJA) - leave under s 148 VCAT Act from an interlocutory procedural order requires a real and significant question of law attended by sufficient doubt and substantial injustice if left unreversed; an unopposed order within power vacating a statement-of-facts direction caused none; leave refused where the appeal would seek an advisory opinion on whether penalty privilege applies automatically in VCAT, the tribunal being able to reflect the privilege as a matter of fairness under s 98(1)(b) in any event. Leave to appeal refused. The disciplinary allegations are untested and not described. JADE

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