The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

Four decisions, one territory, every court. The Court of Appeal's tendency evidence appeal, taken in full in today's Courts of Appeal brief and returning with the territory angle; leave to subpoena counselling records before a claim is filed, and a proceeding that was not a proceeding; a Victorian order for possession of Canberra apartments that could not be enforced here; and a sentencing decision in the registry. Thursday: no house spot.

Criminal Law Desk.

• McGary v DPP [2026] ACTCA 29 (Muller, White and Charlesworth JJ) - leave under r 5531 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) to challenge unopposed tendency evidence where no forensic advantage explained the omission; under s 97 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) multiple-complainant tendency evidence has significant probative value only where some feature links the offending; under s 101(2) prejudice is doubled where the tendency evidence replicates a charged act; a permanent stay may follow from foreseeable and avoidable choices of the DPP and AFP 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 (Muller and White JJ; Charlesworth J dissenting); verdicts not inconsistent; redacted-documents ground rejected. Convictions 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. Full treatment in today's Courts of Appeal brief. JADE

Practice & Procedure Desk.

• Coffison v ACT [2026] ACTSC 345 (Muller J) - "proceeding" in Div 4.4.3 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) means a proceeding of substance with a pleaded cause of action; a personal injury claim notification under Ch 5 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) is not one, nor is an originating application seeking only leave under s 79D; no leave is required to seek or disclose protected confidence evidence in the pre-court phase, an unavoidable consequence of the legislation (Hall considered). Application dismissed; each party to bear its own costs. Reported as procedure only. JADE
• Pepper Finance Corporation Ltd v The Barrow-Yu Trading Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 346 (Muller J) - registration and enforcement under s 105 Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) extend only to a "judgment" as defined in s 3, which excludes a non-money judgment for possession of land; under s 105(5) a registered judgment is enforceable only to the extent enforceable in the court of rendition, and s 85 Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) confers no jurisdiction to make orders in rem over land beyond Victoria; exercise of cross-vested jurisdiction not shown on the material (and doubtful for a prothonotary under r 13.10); possession of Territory land requires a fresh application complying with rr 1118, 1119 and 1124 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). Application dismissed; no order as to costs; fourteen days to file a compliant application. No appearance for the defendant. JADE

Registry.

• DPP v Brown [2026] ACTSC 340 (Stewart AJ) - sentencing principles. Listed without headnote. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions. The three Court of Appeal decisions are taken in full in today's Courts of Appeal brief and re-aired here with the state angle. The Victoria-only work opens with the day's one Doctrine entry: a strike-out application that asked whether Victoria follows New South Wales on proportionate liability pleadings, and the answer, on a strike-out, is that the debatable point goes to trial. Then three Illustrative worked examples on default judgments, restrictive covenants and bail. Wednesday: house spot (David V) after the lead.

Features.

• BlueCross Community Care Services Group v Buxton Constructions [2026] VSC 581 (Goulden AsJ) - r 23.02(a) is enlivened only where the pleading is futile, fanciful or without real prospect of success, and a contentious question of law, particularly one whose answer may depend on the facts, is usually not for a strike-out; the Victorian rule does not mirror the NSW rule considered in Pafburn; whether s 24AH Wrongs Act requires an apportionable claim to be pleaded against the putative concurrent wrongdoer is unsettled (Hunt & Hunt did not require it; Trani apportioned against fraudulent actors; LM Investment and Zervas caveated), so the defence was arguable; whether a claim is apportionable may be informed by trial findings (Tanah Merah: "an", not "the", essential determinant). Application dismissed; costs reserved. JADE
• Chiarelli v Angad Trans Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 217 (Beach, Kaye JJA, Hannon AJA) - state angle: by s 17A(6) Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) no appeal lies from an order giving unconditional leave to defend, and the dismissal of a summary judgment application under r 22.08(1)(a) is equivalent to such an order; on the claim, a construction dispute ascertainable from text, context and purpose may be decided summarily, and no term is implied contrary to an express settlement date. Leave granted, appeal allowed on the claim; counterclaim appeal incompetent. Vendor "M" as printed. JADE
• Lee v Victoria Police [2026] VSCA 218 (Boyce JA) - an ex post facto admissibility challenge fails on judicial review where no objection was taken at trial and no factual inquiry engaged the exclusionary discretion; nothing in the DFDA precludes State use of military-collected evidence (s 190(2); no s 6DD-type prohibition; concurrent systems); the service tribunal authorities concern jurisdiction to try, not investigatory material; a search warrant is an administrative act. Leave refused. Self-represented. JADE
• Webber (a pseudonym) v The King [2026] VSCA 219 (Taylor and Orr JJA) - a close friendship is not a relationship of trust whose breach is a specific aggravating factor, though the relationship may explain how the offending came about and how the victim was rendered vulnerable (Gorgulu); the judge made no finding of a relationship of trust; manifest excess is stringent, comparative cases selected for verdict are of limited assistance, and a non-parole period at 62% was within range. Leave refused. Reported as doctrine only; no facts voiced. JADE
• Lenn Financial Services Pty Ltd v Kamber (Appeal) [2026] VSC 576 (Matthews J) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: the four-factor Lei v Zhang test for setting aside a regular default judgment (r 21.07); an appeal from an Associate Judge under r 77.06 is a rehearing requiring House v The King error; the Clark v Stingel / Chiodo divergence on fresh evidence; evidence required for a s 77(1) TLA / s 420A defence; indicative refinancing terms are not an unconditional tender. JADE
• Northern Investment Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sezai [2026] VSC 585 (Ierodiaconou AsJ) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: s 84(1)(c) Property Law Act "substantial injury" principles (Jiang v Monaygon; Hivance); evidence to discharge the onus (planning report, beneficiary analysis, judicial view); s 84(4) and earlier findings; neighbourhood as a question of fact at hearing (Vrakas); drafting mechanics of the modification. JADE
• Re Akdag (No 2) (Bail Application) [2026] VSC 578 (Gorton J) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed; presumption of innocence applies: the two-stage ss 4C and 4E Bail Act test on a renewed application; the effect of a charge moving from murder to manslaughter after committal (exceptional circumstances to compelling reason) and of completed committal evidence; an eight-factor compelling reason analysis; a detailed schedule of witness-interference conditions (single identified phone, no encrypted or disappearing messaging, no-contact orders, curfew, surety, family undertaking); Rodgers. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions from New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. A practitioner who won back his registration and still pays the regulator's costs, because the "event" in a reinstatement case is the misconduct that made it necessary; a home owner who could not join the builder's director and supervisor; and two worked examples on contractor licensing after liquidation and freedom of information redactions. Three registry lines. Wednesday: house spot (David V) after the opener.

Features.

• Moussa v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 2) [2026] NSWCATOD 119 (Hennessy ADCJ DP, Dr C Newberry, Dr D King, R Wellington) - in reinstatement proceedings the event for costs purposes is the disciplinary proceeding that led to cancellation, not the reinstatement application, so a successful applicant remains liable for the Commission's costs under cl 13(1) of Sch 5D to the National Law; the Commission's decisions as statutory contradictor not to brief a competing expert and to confine cross-examination were fair forensic judgments that did not disentitle it to costs. Costs ordered. Nothing said of the underlying conduct. JADE
• Anderson v Granda Venture Pty Ltd trading as Butopia [2026] NSWCATAP 286 (Balla ADCJ PM, Merrick SM) - refusal of leave under s 44 CAT Act to join a supervisor and director to a home building claim was a proper exercise of discretion where the contract was with the company alone, s 84 CCA deems the company liable for its employees' conduct, and complete relief was available against the company; the member did not confine personal ACL liability to special cases; an interlocutory practice-and-procedure appeal faces a high hurdle (error of principle, irrelevant matter, insufficient weight); costs follow the event above the r 38 threshold. Appeal dismissed with costs. JADE
• Kozakiewicz v Secretary Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATOD 118 (Falk SM) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: the three-part s 33C(3) Home Building Act discretion (no evident risk, all reasonable steps, sufficient mitigation) after company liquidation; "reasonable steps" judged objectively from when the applicant should have been aware of insolvency (Clarke); director diligence beyond reliance on accountants; logically probative evidence (Meacham); individual versus company licences and the s 33C(4) contract limit. JADE
• Davis v Department of Transport and Planning [2026] VCAT 740 (Member de Zilwa) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: the s 33(1) FOI personal affairs exemption and the seven-factor Tucker unreasonableness balance; VPS6-and-above versus non-executive staff for redaction (Coulson); page-by-page redaction methodology; s 33(2A) endangerment and its evidentiary requirements; s 33(9) personal affairs information. JADE

Registry (listed without ledger headnotes).

• McNally v Resolution Life Australasia Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 285 (Titterton OAM SM, Merrick SM) - costs. JADE
• Faraj v Hanson [2026] NSWCATAD 264 (van der Plaat SM) - summary judgment. JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Dey [2026] QCAT 349 (Judicial Member Jones, assisted by Prof P Baker, Dr J Cavanagh, Ms K Brady) - professional discipline. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twenty-six decisions, the week's largest state list. The eight appellate decisions are taken in full in today's Courts of Appeal brief and re-aired here briefly with the state angle. The New South Wales-only work: a tiny home on a trailer (caravan, building, or premises?), the Stolen Generations reparations scheme and what fairness requires of a minister deciding under non-binding guidelines, a trust that funded one side of a family fight, and a class action settlement worked through line by line. Fourteen registry lines. Wednesday: house spot (David V) after the opener.

Features.

• Kelly v Bega Valley Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1588 (Espinosa C) - a structure is a caravan and moveable dwelling where it is moveable and capable of registration, not only where "easily transportable"; a demolish works order may issue only against a building, and a moveable dwelling is expressly not a building, so that order was invalid; a stop use order applies to "premises or a building", the tiny home was premises, and use for residential accommodation is development requiring consent; the LG Act caravan regime and an exemption from s 68 approval do not displace the need for consent for the use; public interest in the integrity of the planning scheme. Stop use appeal dismissed; demolish works appeal upheld. JADE
• Duncan v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty [2026] NSWSC 1081 (Sirtes J) - reviewability of a non-statutory scheme assumed by agreement; procedural fairness requires an opportunity to be heard on the critical issues but no free-standing duty to disclose the proposed path of reasoning or draft reasons, and none was denied where the refusal letter identified the criteria and the deficiency and comprehensive submissions addressed them; the Scheme's intent is inferred from what it provides and excludes, and a beneficial construction cannot enlarge the eligibility categories; "otherwise came to be in the care of the Board" requires a transition into the Board's care attended by control or compulsion mirroring removal or committal, not mere residence on a mission; the Minister's reasons are the documents he signed, not a letter he was not shown to have seen; no merits review of sufficiency of evidence; a report republished by the executive on its own website is not a proceeding in Parliament for Art 9. Summons dismissed; no order as to costs by agreement. Reported as the law of the scheme only. JADE
• John Goubran & Associates Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan 57150 [2026] NSWCA 188 (McHugh and Free JJA, Price AJA) - state angle: below the $100,000 District Court threshold, an overlooked claim is among the clearest occasions for UCPR r 36.16, and an unexplained failure to apply within 14 days weighs heavily against leave. Leave refused with costs. JADE
• Talevski v Perpetual Corporate Trust Limited [2026] NSWCA 187 (Mitchelmore JA) - state angle: a s 7 Contracts Review Act defence needs an arguable case that the guarantee was unjust when given and that relief would be just; vulnerability evidence relating to the earlier Charub guarantees did not reach the Perpetual guarantees; relief would likely be conditioned on repaying about $732,000 of prior securities discharged. Motion dismissed with costs. JADE
• Coorey v Moruben Nominees Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1082 (Scruby J) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: the "beneficiaries dispute" principle (Alsop Wilkinson v Neary); a restraining order framed to catch all trust expenditure was too broad; a payment-into-court order to restore depleted trust funds is not an interlocutory injunction and needs no undertaking; defendants justifying past use of trust funds bear the onus. JADE
• Liprini v Thirdi William Street Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1078 (Pike J) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: partial settlement approval methodology in a construction defect class action; costs deduction allocated across defendants over time; inter partes / inter se fairness; evidence package; funding equalisation factor; suppression orders. JADE
• Costantino v Hillier [2026] NSWSC 1073 (Muston J) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: limitation extension in medical negligence; discoverability (s 50D(1)(b) fault limb) first, then the s 62A(2) cap and the long-stop, then each s 62B(1) factor; unexplained post-discoverability delay undermines an application. JADE
• ST v R [2026] NSWCCA 136 (Adamson JA, Chen and McNaughton JJ) - state angle: the "first day of the trial" for the 10% discount is the pre-recorded evidence hearing; pleas in child sexual offence matters must be entered at least 14 days before it. Appeal dismissed. Pseudonymised. JADE
• Jacono v R [2026] NSWCCA 120 (Kirk JA, Lonergan and Weinstein JJ) - first NSWCCA application of Farrugia: practical injustice ground; compelling explanation for late disclosure. Appeal allowed, resentenced. Reported as procedure only. JADE
• AW v R [2026] NSWCCA 134 (Price AJA, Cavanagh and Rigg JJ) - double counting of mental impairment; post-offence conduct limits; extent of reduction in moral culpability must be determined. Appeal allowed in part, resentenced. Pseudonymised. JADE
• Skinner v R [2026] NSWCCA 131 (Hamill, Rigg and Coleman JJ) - findings of attenuation must actually reduce the sentence. Appeal allowed, resentenced. JADE
• Pagliari v R [2026] NSWCCA 133 (Price AJA, Cavanagh and Rigg JJ) - a hypothesis first raised on appeal is tested on the whole of the evidence. Appeal dismissed. JADE

Registry (listed without ledger headnotes).

• Decision restricted [2026] NSWCCA 135 (Adamson JA, Chen and McNaughton JJ) - separate trial refusal; leave refused. JADE
• Shreeve v Jourdan (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1080 (Sirtes J) - consequential orders. JADE
• In the matter of WGA Group Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1074 (Black J) - scheme of arrangement. JADE
• Luxton v Ishihara (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1083 (Bennett J) - family provision. JADE
• Meoli v Romero [2026] NSWSC 1065 (Williams J) - costs. JADE
• Wang v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1075 (Elkaim AJ) - costs. JADE
• Mcpherson v Mak [2026] NSWLEC 1596 (Galwey AC) - trees. JADE
• Arnaldi v Winters [2026] NSWLEC 1582 (Galwey AC) - interlocutory orders. JADE
• Williams v Liu [2026] NSWLEC 1584 (Galwey AC) - trees. JADE
• Dolan v Hawker [2026] NSWLEC 1581 (Galwey AC) - trees. JADE
• Parseh Holdings Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1590 (Targett C) - development approval. JADE
• JS Architects Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1589 (Horton C) - development consent. JADE
• J&R Developers Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1591 (Targett C) - development consent. JADE
• SK2V 2 Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2026] NSWLEC 1587 (Swan AC) - development consent. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions, five of them from the High Court: a 3:2 on how to construe a bifurcated statutory definition, two migration cases in the original jurisdiction, a forensic patient's appeal decided on a concession, and a refusal to "clarify" the Court's own orders. Then the Federal Court on a $173 million cancelled tax benefit and a missed cleansing notice cured. Wednesday: house spot (David V) after the lead.

Features.

• Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation v Orica Australia Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 30 (Gageler CJ, Gordon and Jagot JJ; Steward and Gleeson JJ dissenting) - where a definition is bifurcated into an employer limb and a location limb, the phrase "employed in the black coal mining industry" common to both refers to the nature of the employee's work, not the employer's character, which is relevant to the employer limb alone; cl 4.3(g) of the 2010 Award (shotfiring by an employer not otherwise engaged) applies only to the employer limb; a construction confining the location limb by employer status would defeat the portability purpose; Orica's shotfirers eligible from 2013, cross-appeal issues not arising. Dissents: cl 4.3(g) applies to both limbs; Steward J (juridic entity) and Gleeson J (substantial character, remit) differing on "otherwise engaged". Appeal allowed; Full Court reversed. JADE
• EGH19 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2026] HCA 33 (Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ) - a s 501CA(4) decision-maker must read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations, but the degree of engagement scales with their length, clarity and relevance and there is no duty to trawl departmental material the representations do not fairly require; cancellation may serve community protection under Direction 110 even where removal is not presently practicable, since it keeps the person available for removal; no obligation to spell out the probable conditions of a discretionary BVR; s 486A extension refused for want of merit. Dismissed with costs. Pseudonymised. JADE
• GXT25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 32 (Gageler CJ, Steward and Jagot JJ; decided without a hearing) - s 486A(2) extension refused where the grounds lack merit; procedural fairness requires notice of a critical issue not apparent from the process and of an adverse conclusion not obviously open on the known material, but the inference of fabrication from a belatedly disclosed claim was obviously open on the plaintiff's own material; the duty to allow comment on adverse material from other sources does not arise where the inference is obviously open; s 57 "relevant information" is information specifically about the applicant, not country information about a class; illogicality requires the absence of an evident and intelligible justification. Dismissed with costs. Pseudonymised; the delegate's finding reported as the delegate's. JADE
• Dale Haines by his litigation guardian Barbara Ramjan v Attorney General of NSW [2026] HCA 34 (Edelman, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ) - an extension order under s 122(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) requires satisfaction to a high degree of probability of both limbs; success on a ground attacking only limb (b) cannot support an order where limb (a) was independently decided against the applicant, and the Court of Appeal erred in treating a substantially disputed, unconceded limb as "common ground"; the Attorney-General's written concession disposed of the appeal and consent orders were made. Appeal allowed with costs. Reported strictly as the headnote states. JADE
• Hilton International Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2026] FCA 1325 (Younan J) - under s 177CB(3) there may be more than one reasonable alternative postulate, reasonableness being measured against the substance of the scheme and its consequences, not probability, and the taxpayer's onus is not discharged by showing the Commissioner's postulates unreasonable; substance is economic and commercial, not legal form; a postulate that is itself a Pt IVA scheme cannot be a reasonable alternative, and HIA's AP3 (debt swapped for share capital before sale) was the same coin's other side; s 177D dominant purpose is objective, with the form/substance disparity decisive; an expert opinion qualified only "in my experience" without connective reasoning fails s 79 and r 23.13. Appeal dismissed with costs. JADE
• Anteris Technologies Global Corp, in the matter of Anteris Technology Global Corp [2026] FCA 1333 (Wheatley J, duty list) - s 1322 is remedial and broad but not exercised for the asking; a CFO's inadvertent failure to lodge a s 708A(5)(e) cleansing notice within five business days was honest oversight promptly remedied; the period extended under s 1322(4)(d), the late notice declared to take effect from the issue date, on-sales declared not invalid (s 1322(6)(a)), holders relieved from civil liability (s 1322(6)(b)), and 28 days' liberty to apply extended to ASIC. JADE

Registry.

• R Lawyers v Mr Daily [No 2] [2026] HCA 31 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ) - the Court will not grant a declaration to "clarify" its own orders, which speak for themselves; the relief sought was an advisory opinion; reopening is confined to the rarest of circumstances. Dismissed with costs. Party names as printed. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Sixteen decisions. The five High Court decisions are taken at full depth in today's Federal Courts brief and noted here in a line each; this brief carries the eleven intermediate appellate decisions from the NSW Court of Appeal, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal and the Victorian Court of Appeal. The day belongs to the record below: what was pleaded, conceded, objected to and disclosed before the appeal began. Wednesday: house spot (David V) after the opener.

High Court, in brief (full treatment in today's Federal Courts brief).

• Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation v Orica Australia Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 30 - 3:2; an employer-character constraint attaches only to the limb of a bifurcated definition that expressly requires it. JADE
• EGH19 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2026] HCA 33 - the s 501CA(4) engagement duty scales with the representations; cancellation still protects the community where removal is not presently practicable. JADE
• GXT25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 32 - an adverse inference obviously open on the applicant's own material needs no notice; country information is not s 57 information. JADE
• Dale Haines by his litigation guardian Barbara Ramjan v Attorney General of NSW [2026] HCA 34 - success on one limb of a two-limb test cannot carry an order where the other limb was decided against the applicant and never conceded. JADE
• R Lawyers v Mr Daily [No 2] [2026] HCA 31 - no declaration to "clarify" the Court's own orders. JADE

Features.

• John Goubran & Associates Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan 57150 [2026] NSWCA 188 (McHugh and Free JJA, Price AJA) - a claim for a specified sum of interest without particulars is a claim for statutory interest; a primary judge's failure to determine a pressed claim is error, but error is not injustice; leave requires principle, public importance or reasonably clear injustice, and about $30,000 at stake weighed powerfully against it; an overlooked claim is among the clearest occasions for UCPR r 36.16, and an unexplained failure to apply within the 14 days weighed heavily against leave; repair invoices predating the breach and describing upgrades could not prove loss. Leave refused with costs. JADE
• Talevski v Perpetual Corporate Trust Limited [2026] NSWCA 187 (Mitchelmore JA) - an injunction to preserve the subject matter pending leave to appeal requires a serious question and a favourable balance of convenience, closely analogous to a stay; House v The King error must be arguable where the decision below was discretionary; a s 7 Contracts Review Act defence needs an arguable case that the guarantee was unjust when given and that relief would be just, and the evidence of vulnerability related to the earlier Charub guarantees; land is special but sale was imminent, the debt exceeded value by about $1 million and grew daily, and an undertaking as to damages is of little value where the properties are the only assets. Motion dismissed with costs. JADE
• Chiarelli v Angad Trans Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 217 (Beach, Kaye JJA, Hannon AJA) - where the objective meaning of a commercial contract can be ascertained from text, context and purpose without further evidence, a construction dispute may be decided summarily; "prior to settlement" in the access condition fixed the timing of the vendor's obligation and made settlement conditional on nothing; no term implied contrary to an express settlement date; by s 17A(6) Supreme Court Act no appeal lies from unconditional leave to defend, to which dismissal of a summary judgment application is equivalent. Leave granted, appeal allowed on the claim; counterclaim appeal incompetent. Vendor "M" as printed. JADE
• Jacono v R [2026] NSWCCA 120 (Kirk JA, Lonergan and Weinstein JJ) - after Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28, where sentence-appeal error is asserted from a judge's failure to consider facts not in evidence, the ground is whether the sentencing was affected by a practical injustice causing a vitiating procedural irregularity, not House v The King error; admission of further evidence is intertwined with the ground and exceptional, turning on a compelling explanation for its absence and whether it could realistically have affected the reasoning; purely post-sentence events are inadmissible under s 6(3); late, piecemeal disclosure of childhood sexual abuse can supply the compelling explanation. Time extended, evidence admitted, appeal allowed, resentenced. Reported as sentencing procedure only. JADE
• ST v R [2026] NSWCCA 136 (Adamson JA, Chen and McNaughton JJ) - the sentencing discount provisions and the pre-recorded evidence hearing provisions are cognate and construed harmoniously (s 33 Interpretation Act); evidence at a s 294G pre-recorded hearing is evidence in the trial; the "first day of the trial" for s 25D(2)(b)(i) is the first day fixed for the pre-recorded evidence hearing, so a plea entered that day earns 5%, not 10%; the fixed regime is a deliberate legislative choice. Leave granted, appeal dismissed. Pseudonymised. JADE
• AW v R [2026] NSWCCA 134 (Price AJA, Cavanagh and Rigg JJ) - mental impairment may bear on objective seriousness as well as moral culpability, but such cases are few and confined, and reducing both for the same condition is double counting; post-offence conduct aggravates objective seriousness only where directly related to the offence or a circumstance of aggravation; where moral culpability is squarely raised the judge must determine the extent of the reduction before turning to the purposes of sentencing, and pre-Muldrock/Bugmy authorities do not assist. Leave granted, appeal allowed on grounds 1 and 3, resentenced. Pseudonymised; the child is not named here. JADE
• Skinner v R [2026] NSWCCA 131 (Hamill, Rigg and Coleman JJ) - manifest excess where the sentence failed to reflect the cumulative effect of unchallenged findings (lower-mid objective seriousness, the subjective case, Bugmy, De La Rosa and Henry attenuation, more onerous custody); a finding that those factors attenuate the sentence must actually reduce it; sentencing statistics (top 4%) may fortify the conclusion; special circumstances for serious illness. Appeal allowed, resentenced. Impairment and illness stated only as the court's findings. JADE
• Pagliari v R [2026] NSWCCA 133 (Price AJA, Cavanagh and Rigg JJ) - unreasonable verdict in a circumstantial case assessed on the united force of the whole evidence; identity may be inferred from CCTV and associated exhibits; a hypothesis consistent with innocence raised for the first time on appeal is assessed on the whole of the evidence, not treated as reasonable because it is possible. Leave granted, appeal dismissed. Child witnesses pseudonymised. JADE

Registry.

• Lee v Victoria Police [2026] VSCA 218 (Boyce JA) - no ex post facto admissibility challenge on judicial review where no objection was taken at trial; nothing in the DFDA precludes State use of military-collected evidence; a search warrant is an administrative act. Leave refused. Self-represented. JADE
• Webber (a pseudonym) v The King [2026] VSCA 219 (Taylor and Orr JJA) - a close friendship is not a relationship of trust whose breach is a specific aggravating factor, though it may explain how a victim was rendered vulnerable; manifest excess stringent. Leave refused. JADE
• Decision restricted [2026] NSWCCA 135 (Adamson JA, Chen and McNaughton JJ) - refusal of a separate trial is an evaluative discretionary judgment; reasons need not exhaustively recite authority provided the governing (Middis) considerations were addressed. Application refused. Metadata-only headnote. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Three decisions, one headnote, a short brief. The Court of Appeal on the most common confusion in sentencing offenders with a mental impairment (reduced culpability does not of itself moderate general deterrence) and on the "exceptional and rare" exception to the mandatory minimum for supervision order contraventions; then two Illustrative worked examples from the trial division on the limits of declaratory relief in judicial review and the sentencing synthesis for murder and attempted murder. Tuesday: no house spot.

Features.

• McKenzie v The King [2026] VSCA 216 (Taylor and Kaye JJA) - Verdins limb 3: a realistic causal connection between impairment and offending is necessary but not sufficient; the critical question is whether the offender remains an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence, judged by the nature and severity of the symptoms and their effect on mental capacity; a limb 1 finding does not of itself require moderation under limb 3; Verdins is not arithmetic; general deterrence carried particular weight in a family violence context and to maintain the supervision order regime; manifest excess requires a sentence wholly outside the range; the state angle is the "substantial and compelling reasons" exception in s 10A(2)(e) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) to the 12-month mandatory term for a s 169(1) Serious Offenders Act contravention, found on the psychological evidence. Extension of time granted, leave refused. Reported as sentencing doctrine only. JADE
• Minogue v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2026] VSC 575 (Barrett AsJ) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: paragraph-by-paragraph assessment of proposed amendments to an originating motion; declarations must relate to the right in issue, not matters of primary fact, abstract advice or normative rules (r 36.01(1)); s 39 Charter limits Charter-only relief; the "rolling judicial review" caution (AON, Kuksal); a negligence plea must articulate duty, breach, causation and damage; joinder of an unnamed defendant under rr 32.03(2) and 32.04; discovery premature before defendants' affidavits. JADE
• DPP v Zahabe & Tito [2026] VSC 572 (O'Connell J) - Illustrative only, sentences not printed: the sentencing synthesis for murder and attempted murder in a contract killing context under ss 5, 6F and 18 Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); youth against the availability of life imprisonment and the parsimony principle; extra-curial punishment from harsh and isolated custody and the Corrections Victoria evidence required; bystander endangerment as aggravation without a separate charge; parity adjusted for prior offending, prohibition status and enrichment; comparative authorities collated. Reported as method only. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions from Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. A guardianship appeal that turns on the least restrictive principle, with the Appeal Tribunal substituting a limited administration order itself; a swimming pool and a retaining wall the contract never mentioned; costs from a represented person's estate; and two Illustrative worked examples on internal-appeal costs and professional misconduct. Two registry lines. Tuesday: no house spot.

Features.

• GGF [2026] QCATA 129 (Senior Member Browne, Member Kanowski) - s 5(d) Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) requires an adult's rights to be restricted to the least possible extent, and failure to take that statutory factor into account is an error of law; under s 12(1)(c) an administrator is appointed only if the adult's needs would otherwise not be met, so a plenary appointment is unnecessary where informal support is working; where only one complex matter (an inheritance) needs formal administration a limited appointment is required; under s 146(b) QCAT Act the Appeal Tribunal substituted its own decision: Public Trustee for the inheritance only, financial management plan dispensed with, appointment to end at a set threshold. Appeal allowed. Pseudonymised; capacity stated only as the Tribunal's finding. JADE
• Spectrum Pools & Spas Pty Ltd v Young [2026] NSWCATAP 284 (Blake AM SC, Bell SC) - a contract for whole-of-pool construction with s 18B warranties, subject only to specified exclusions, obliges the builder to do all work necessary for fitness for purpose over the pool's expected lifetime, and a defective existing retaining wall is no different in principle from none; distinguished from contracts confined to identified rectification works; reasons need not address every piece of evidence; no constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction where the undecided issue was immaterial; leave under Sch 4 cl 12 needs a substantial miscarriage of justice, not mere disagreement with findings; s 48MA makes builder rectification a mandatory consideration but creates no presumption or onus, so a money order was open where the relationship had broken down. Appeal dismissed with costs. JADE
• AB [2026] WASAT 106 (Ms F Child, Member) - costs from a represented person's estate under s 16(4) require that the party acted in the represented person's best interests, but the gateway alone does not guarantee an order; representation was warranted, not by novelty, but by sensitive evidence and family dynamics needing structured assistance for the Tribunal's inquisitorial function; quantum is broad and robust, relative to the proceedings and the party's role, with costs attributable to separate applications concerning another person apportioned out; $4,000 authorised. Pseudonymised. JADE
• Chymiak v Fogg (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 281 (Westgarth DP, Robertson PM) - Illustrative only, outcome not printed: r 38A costs in internal appeals without special circumstances where the amount in dispute exceeds $30,000; costs on the papers under s 50(2) with consent or non-objection; claims must be supported by receipts; fixed costs methodology. JADE
• Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman v Mowat [2026] QCAT 285 (Judge Firth DP, assisted by Dr D Ellwood, Ms M Ridley, Prof J Searle) - Illustrative only, sanction not printed: the three-part professional misconduct test in s 5 of the National Law applied to an impairment case; sanction considerations of public protection, insight, deterrence and fitness; use of comparative cases; agreed facts and joint submissions. JADE

Registry (listed without ledger headnotes).

• HFP and HHA v Department of Education [2026] NSWCATAD 268 (Redfern PSM, Senior Member) - administrative review. Pseudonymised. JADE
• Spajic v Carline Automotive Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 283 (Coleman SC ADCJ, Robertson PM) - consumer guarantees. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

One decision, and a short brief: a conviction after a fifth trial, a co-accused acquitted at the same trial, and three rules for the criminal bar on prosecutorial comment, counsel's forensic discretion, and how a circumstantial case and two different verdicts are weighed. Also carried in today's Courts of Appeal brief; here at slightly greater procedural depth. Tuesday: no house spot.

Feature.

• Forrester v The King [2026] SASCA 106 (Livesey P, David and Stanley JJA) - a prosecutor's reference to the fact that the accused was not obliged to give evidence, made to explain how his earlier evidence came to be tendered in the prosecution case, is not a comment prohibited by s 18(1)(b) Evidence Act 1929 (SA); on a fair reading there was no contravention, the directions were sufficient, and any breach would have been benign; which witnesses to call and whether the accused testifies rests within counsel's forensic discretion, the accused being bound absent a lack of rational forensic justification and a miscarriage, and the appellant's account of his instructions was rejected; on M v The Queen the circumstantial evidence (DNA on tape and shoes, phone-tower data, stolen property) is assessed by its combined force, no item being an indispensable link; a prosecutor's submission advancing a possible explanation for forensic evidence consistent with the record needs no corrective direction; differing verdicts for jointly tried co-accused are set aside only where irreconcilable, and here the cases were materially different. Permission to appeal granted on all grounds; appeal dismissed. Reported as appellate procedure only; motive and co-accused not aired. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

One decision, and a short brief: a bridging loan for a bulldozer, a father's home as security, and a Supreme Court answer to two questions every lending dispute asks. What must a borrower plead to make out unconscionable conduct, and when is a default interest rate a penalty. Tuesday: no house spot.

Feature.

• Parker Wells Pty Ltd v Lenn Financial Services Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 207 (Hindman J) - unconscionable conduct in equity requires special disadvantage, actual knowledge or wilful blindness of it by the stronger party, and unconscientious exploitation; constructive knowledge does not suffice and knowledge must be specifically pleaded under r 150(1)(k); the guarantor's pleading never alleged the lenders (or the intermediary) knew of his disadvantage, and a plaintiff held to its pleading cannot run an unpleaded case after a fifth iteration; s 12CB ASIC Act retains the connotation of knowledge, conscience and exploitation, so the statutory claim rose and fell with the equitable one; on construction the default rate was 5.65% per month and the Court would not adopt the parties' shared but incorrect reading absent rectification; where the lender can recover all default-related losses through an indemnity, a default-rate uplift (about $165,900 a year) is a penalty, and the standard rate of 2.15% per month was substituted rather than the clause voided; possession and costs reserved. JADE

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