The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

Fourteen decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Monday 19 October 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, one with a full headnote. A quiet day, and one decision at depth: under the Ministerial direction that governs revocation of visa cancellations, behaviour is family violence only if it is violent, threatening or other behaviour and it actually coerces or controls a family member or causes them fear, so a listed example such as damaging property is never enough on its own; and the Government's view that family violence is very serious requires regard, not a finding of seriousness. The opening story concerns family violence and is reported as legal doctrine only. No Full Court decision on Monday.

Public Law Desk (opening story).

• Smith v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1520 (Wigney J, 15 October 2026) - judicial review of an Administrative Review Tribunal decision affirming a refusal to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) granted: "family violence" in cl 4(1) of Ministerial Direction No 110 has two elements, (i) violent, threatening or other behaviour and (ii) an actual effect of coercing or controlling a family member or causing fear, judged by effect not purpose, so conduct within a listed example (intentionally damaging property) is not family violence unless both are met; the Tribunal made no finding on effect and misconstrued the definition; the majority construction of s 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in Pickford v Pickford did not bind, MVPF v Minister [2025] FCA 1263 was followed and the minority view preferred; inquisitorial review must apply every element even where the applicant contested only the relationship; cl 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) requires regard to the Government's and community's view but does not compel a finding of seriousness, and characterising offending as serious merely "as per" the Direction is non-compliance contrary to s 499(2A) (Lasalo distinguished); cl 8.2(3) required consideration of frequency, cumulative effect and rehabilitation, and a non-violent AVO breach cannot supply frequency; the errors were material (LPDT) and jurisdictional. Decision set aside, remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted; the Minister to pay the costs. The remitted review is yet to be decided. JADE

From the registry (synopsis or list only; no outcome stated in the edition).

• Onyema v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Australian Taxation Office) (extension of time, application for stay) [2026] FCA 1530 (Hill J, 15 October 2026) - lodged versus filed for the s 11 time limit of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth); e-lodgment under rr 2.21 to 2.25 FCR; the s 15 stay framework. JADE
• St Clair v Irwin Mitchell LLP, in the matter of St Clair [2026] FCA 1526 (Goodman J, 15 October 2026) - going behind a judgment debt on an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice; pending appeals (Ahern); a registered foreign judgment is the relevant judgment. JADE
• Kasaragh Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for the Kasaragh Investment Trust v Enablo Pty Limited (No 2) [2026] FCA 1528 (Goodman J, 15 October 2026) - a prayer for relief not moved on treated as abandoned; costs payable forthwith under r 40.13 FCR; indemnity costs. JADE
• Dunstan, in the matter of an application by Dunstan [2026] FCA 1527 (Goodman J, 15 October 2026) - leave under the vexatious proceedings provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 37AM to 37AT. JADE
• Kokkinos (Liquidator), in the matter of JOD Purchasing and Supply Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2026] FCA 1533 (Anderson J, 14 October 2026) - shelf extensions of time under s 588FF(3)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). JADE
• UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Wollongong Coal Limited (No 6) [2026] FCA 1546 (Bennett J, 19 October 2026) - offers of compromise under r 25.14(2) FCR and Calderbank offers; the Hazeldene factors; indemnity costs. JADE
• AQP23 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1521 (Wigney J, 15 October 2026) - visa cancellation. JADE
• First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (No 4) [2026] FCA 1525 (Goodman J, 15 October 2026) - security for costs. JADE
• Lye v Comcare [2026] FCA 1517 (Snaden J, 15 October 2026) - civil appeal, appeal grounds. JADE
• Mohamedali v Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1531 (Banks-Smith J, 15 October 2026) - judicial review. JADE
• DHV17 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1523 (Stellios J, 9 October 2026) - Ministerial intervention. JADE
• Cull (Liquidator), in the matter of Torbeckin Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] FCA 1461 (Button J, 5 October 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd (No 7) [2026] FCA 1545 (Collier ACJ, 19 October 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Six headnoted appellate decisions from three courts in the edition of Monday 19 October 2026, with the South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia, Victoria and ACT editions of the same day folded in. A new point on appeal and agreed issues that displace the pleadings; waiver of a right to terminate by affirmation; when the guilty plea discount clock starts; a sentencing finding beyond the agreed facts; fitness to stand trial and an unruly accused; and discreditable conduct and complaint evidence. One matter involving sexual offences against children is reported as legal doctrine only.

Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

• Lawrdo Super Pty Ltd & Anor v Chehade & Sons Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] SASCA 121 - a party is bound by its conduct of the case at trial save in the most exceptional circumstances; a new point is fatal if it could possibly have been met by evidence or might have prompted alternative causes of action; a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues, with silence at the openings, can reframe the pleaded case without leave to amend under r 71.2(1) Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA); a joint venture contract may be inferred from a prior course of dealing, and joint venturers may be fiduciaries as to venture property; rejecting the opponent's evidence does not prove an agreement; quantum points must be taken at trial. Appeal allowed in part, the residential building works award set aside (Livesey P, B Doyle JA, Vaughan AJA; also the South Australia edition). JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Ausgroup Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Melco Engineering Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 206 - a buyer that knows of a breach before completion and then completes, takes possession, conducts the business and pays instalments affirms the contract and waives the right to terminate for that breach; termination may be justified on a ground not stated in the notice, but not one waived; contractual default interest awarded; a refused adjournment is disturbed only for error of principle or misapprehension of fact causing substantial injustice, and unexplained delay in instructing experts weighs heavily; no remittal to prove facts not proved at trial. Cross-appeal allowed; appeals otherwise largely dismissed; the claim for releases of security interests remitted and still to be decided (Bond, Boddice and Bradley JJA; also the Queensland edition). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Williams v The King [2026] SASCA 118 - under s 40(3) Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) the first appearance asks whether the defendant in substance appeared on the same offence ultimately pleaded to, a question of fact and degree; a replacement Information enlarging the amount and period of a theft does not reset it, and latent duplicity is no reason to delay a plea; up to 25, not 35, per cent was available; a wrong joint submission on the ceiling does not bind the Court. Appeal allowed; resentenced (Livesey P, David JA; also the South Australia edition). JADE
• Dwyer v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 144 - a sentencing finding that goes beyond the uncontested factual basis is not open; an error is material if it could realistically have affected the reasoning to the sentence (Farrugia v The King applied); on material error the Court resentences afresh under s 31(3)-(5) Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA); home detention bail neutral where the offender did not instigate the offending. Appeal allowed; resentenced for manslaughter (Archer, Sweeney and Seaward JJA; also the Western Australia edition). JADE
• AMIN v The King [2026] SASCA 119 - reasonable grounds to suppose unfitness under s 269J Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) exist where there are grounds to be inclined to think a s 269H incapacity exists; abusive and disruptive behaviour is not of itself indicative of unfitness; judicial questioning beyond the desirable but not the appropriate; exclusion of a truly unruly defendant as a narrow last resort; incompetence of counsel. Appeal dismissed (S Doyle, Bleby and B Doyle JJA; also the South Australia edition). JADE
• Hudson (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] SASCA 120 - s 34R Evidence Act 1929 (SA) directions need no set form of words; taking discreditable conduct evidence at its highest is the admissibility test under s 34P; the s 34M(4) complaint direction is enlivened by complaint evidence elicited in defence cross-examination, and the accused is bound by that choice; dissimilarity between accounts may support a finding of no collusion; inadequate reasons not a fundamental error (obiter). Appeal dismissed (Doyle, Bleby and Stanley JJA; also the South Australia edition; legal doctrine only). JADE

Registry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated).

• Tran Health Pty Ltd v Bradfield Pharmacy Group Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 252 - Queensland; partnership dissolution (Freeburn J). JADE
• Re Steelcape Nominees Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2026] WASC 447 - Western Australia; voluntary administration (Lundberg J). JADE
• Re Triangle Energy Onshore Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed); Ex Parte Bryan Kevin Hughes as Administrator [No 2] [2026] WASC 453 - Western Australia; voluntary administration (Hill J). JADE
• Jeremy Joseph Nipps as Joint and Several Administrator of Pilot Energy Ltd (Administrators Appointed) and others [No 2] [2026] WASC 452 - Western Australia; voluntary administration (Hill J). JADE
• FRIDA-KAHLO v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] WASC 449 - Western Australia; criminal appeal (Wong J). JADE
• KING v WA Police [2026] WASC 443 - Western Australia; conviction appeal (Forrester J). JADE
• Amara v Amara [2026] WASC 446 - Western Australia; costs (Lemonis J). JADE
• Barresi v Cross Yarra Partnerships [2026] VSC 666 - Victoria; judicial review (Clements J). JADE
• DPP v LN (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 378 - ACT; sentencing principles (Berman AJ). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Edition eleven — what the rule is for, 1 to 14 October, appellate decisions only, deduped against edition ten and the daily brief. A unanimous High Court, in four judgments, confines a prisoner ban on assisted reproductive technology by its limited purpose, and a second High Court bench reads a visa refusal's reasons as a whole. Then a MAC clause counted net of savings, a royalty deed liquidators could not disclaim, no duty in tort to build to the contract, and four criminal appeals on the reach of a State offence, general deterrence, jury discharge and unrequested directions, reported with restraint. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening feature.

Features

Public Law Desk — Smith v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2026] HCA 37 (assisted reproductive technology in s 22(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) is confined to technology that itself achieves or directly assists conception or reproduction; egg freezing only preserves fertility; four formulations and three interpretive routes; the Human Rights Act ground not decided by the Court; no majority on "participate"; appeal allowed, remitted to the chief executive) · Morton v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 38 (compliance with the duty to consider is inferred from the whole of the reasons; no heading-by-heading structure; Direction 110 unacceptable risk not confined to very serious conduct; low risk of reoffending consistent with unacceptable harm; dismissed) · JTE Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Mount Gibraltar Preschool v Brown [2026] NSWCA 210 (injury and impairment distinguished; the ambit of a medical dispute comes from the whole record, not the referral's words; dismissed).

Commercial Law Desk — Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Mayne Pharma Group Limited [2026] NSWCA 215 (a MAC's effect on maintainable EBITDA counts all financial consequences, including discretionary opex savings; an unqualified scheme affidavit and booklet, with knowledge, elect to affirm though termination needs a prior notice; the pleaded case binds on appeal; dismissed) · In the matter of Tahmoor Coal Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] NSWCA 211 (Div 7A relieves onerous burdens and is not simply to enlarge returns to unsecured creditors; an unprofitable contract under s 568(1A) needs continuing unreciprocated obligations or obstruction of the liquidation; leave a separate discretion; dismissed).

Criminal Law Desk — Markovich v R [2026] NSWCCA 161 (the s 319 course of justice is not confined to New South Wales; Pt 1A fixes the nexus; Federal Court proceedings within it; dismissed; sentence pending) · Geoghegan v R [2026] NSWCCA 164 (a mental condition may moderate general deterrence without material contribution; an unclear, unwithdrawn submission must be addressed; transcript exceptions; allowed, resentenced) · GR v R [2026] NSWCCA 159 (discharge of a jury turns on what a fair trial requires, not a substantial-miscarriage risk; directions not presumed curative; proviso on oath against oath; retrial ordered; doctrine only) · STA v Tasmania [2026] TASCCA 8 (unrequested directions and miscarriage; several tendencies each linked; no absolute anti-substitution rule in a joint trial; dismissed; doctrine only).

Desk segment

Practice and Procedure Desk (Torts) — DTB Construction Limited v Dobbe [2026] NZCA 492 (a builder's and director's duty in tort is Building Code compliance, or possibly reasonable building standards, never the contract standard; NZS 3910 design clauses follow the contract; positive proof of breach; fabrication must be put; allowed).

Named or referenced on air — House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 · Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 · Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300 · Brawn v The King [2025] HCA 20 · R v Lowe (2003) 57 NSWLR 102 · Pattison v Tasmania (2017) 30 Tas R 1 · R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507 (dissent) · edition ten's Waldron v R [2026] NSWCCA 154 and R v Saghir [2026] QCA 194.

Held

Family Law: no new decision. Appellate rule, first instance: RSZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1467 · Britten v eBroker.com.au Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1512 · Queenstown Lakes District Council v Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Limited [2026] NZHC 2896 · Kain v Hutton [2026] NZHC 2719. The thirty two decisions from edition ten that reappear in these editions stand as edition ten left them; see edition ten's notes.

A retrial has been ordered in GR v R, and the accused is presumed innocent; the applicant in Markovich awaits sentence; Smith returns to the chief executive. Nothing here expresses a view on any outcome. Full judgments are on the Judicial Ledger. Nothing in this program is legal advice. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

One state, every court: the Victoria edition of Friday 16 October 2026, one decision of the Court of Appeal and five of the Supreme Court. A quiet Friday with a loud opening story: where a party's admitted and unexplained failure to discover documents forces a new trial, it pays the first trial costs on an indemnity basis, without any inquiry into who would have won, and fighting on after the admission attracts indemnity costs of the appeal; a decision that also features in Friday's Court of Appeal brief, here with the Victorian angle. Then the removal of a solicitors' caveat over the family home, securing fees by a charge given in apparent breach of a family court injunction, on the former wife's undertaking as to damages. Four more decisions on the registry. Content note: the Court of Appeal ruling arises from a historical abuse claim and is reported as legal doctrine only.

Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

• Clifford (a pseudonym) v The Corporation of the Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart [2026] VSCA 247 - (Lyons and Nichols JJA, 16 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) indemnity costs of the appeal from one week after leave to add a miscarriage-by-non-discovery ground was granted, and indemnity costs of the first trial, after the respondent's late and unexplained concession that a new trial be ordered. Where a proceeding ends without a merits hearing, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct is frequently decisive, and indemnity costs arise from conduct, not a need for full compensation; that reasonable minds might differ on discovery, and a change of lawyers, were no adequate explanation for the about-face; forcing opposed Harman applications was weighed; proper, if late, abandonment of unwinnable points is not to be discouraged. The ordinary rule that first trial costs abide the result of the new trial yields where one party's conduct caused the new trial, without deciding who would have won; pre-trial offers of compromise were no shield (an admitted, unexplained discovery failure is not an ordinary hazard of litigation), though they may remain relevant to costs generally; a failure to discover documents whose timely disclosure may very possibly have avoided a trial may be a special circumstance (s 24(1) Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic)). The concession extended to incomplete discovery only, not a breach of the overarching disclosure obligation in s 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic); documents discovered in related proceedings should be considered for discovery. The matter is remitted for a new trial; the allegations are untested. Reported as legal doctrine only. JADE

Family Law Desk.

• Green (a pseudonym) v Elvin Lawyers Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 675 - (Fary AsJ, 16 October 2026) caveat removed under s 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic), on the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages. The caveator bears the onus of a prima facie case and of the balance of convenience; a charge for legal fees given in apparent breach of a Federal Circuit and Family Court injunction, with notice of it, is not necessarily void, but the prima facie case was doubtful; a right to seek property adjustment orders under s 79 or s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is inchoate and not proprietary, while the orders made likely conferred an immediate, equitable interest, leaving a possible priority dispute. The balance favoured removal: a relatively small sum, the refinance and the risk of enforcement against the family home, the possible breach, and possible setting aside under s 106B(1); the undertaking gives a right of action, not an obligation enforceable by contempt. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Supreme Court of Victoria.

• Schweitzer v Vallance (Estate of Maria Schweitzer) [2026] VSC 672 - list only (pleadings). JADE
• City Edge South Melbourne Holdings Pty Ltd v Dehou Capital Pty Ltd atf the Leong Investment Unit Trust [2026] VSC 671 - list only (lease termination). JADE
• Kirby v Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet [2026] VSC 673 - list only (judicial review). JADE
• Smarter Enterprises Pty Ltd v Pepper Construction Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 674 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Four tribunals and twelve decisions in the Tribunals edition of Friday 16 October 2026, five with headnotes, one flagged as doctrine and two more for practice and procedure; the Fair Work Tribunals edition of the same day (twenty six enterprise agreement approvals and variations, listed without reasons) is folded in by one line. Why a work order needs a design you can enforce; why necessary means essential, not helpful; why a guardian's need is measured by function, not decisions made; and why a posted claim is made on collection, not on the card.

Tribunals Desk: a work order without a design (lead).

• The Owners - Strata Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd; Zone Q Milsons Point Development Pty Ltd; Ceerose Pty Ltd v Southern Cross Climate Control Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 323 - s 48O(1) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) is not read down by limits its terms do not require, but "appropriate" confines it to orders that reasonably serve the determination of a building claim, so a work order that would not be clear, certain and unambiguous may be refused, objection or not; "design" in the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) bears its ordinary meaning; evaluative refusals reviewable only for Cooper error; no duty to expose provisional views on an apparent issue; a contingent late appeal refused. Appeals dismissed, extension refused, costs. JADE

Tribunals Desk: necessary means essential, a silencer permit.

• Gale v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 320 - "necessary in the conduct of the applicant's business" in s 11(2) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) means essential, indispensable, imperative or directly required, fixed by statutory context; relevant and irrelevant consideration grounds are questions of law under s 80(2) NCAT Act, appeal as of right; preferring one expert is not a failure to consider; amend under s 53 for a ground raised in reply. Appeal dismissed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a guardian with no decisions to make (reported as legal doctrine only).

• SMN (Review of Guardianship Order) [2026] TASCAT 133 - on a s 68 review under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas), need is a present necessity measured by the guardian's advocacy and support functions, so the absence of substituted decisions does not of itself show the order is unnecessary; functional deficits, not diagnosis; an order that cannot compel still has practical value. Order continued for 12 months. JADE

Tribunals Desk: when a posted claim is made.

• Mountainvale Pty Ltd v NO [2026] TASCAT 135 - a failed delivery attempt with the item held for collection is not delivery under s 30 Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas); the claim was made on collection; s 35(1)(a) and (b) Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) are not cumulative; the dispute was within 28 days, so no deemed acceptance under s 67G; a reasonably arguable case; compensation not to be paid. JADE

Docket, registry and the thread (no outcome stated for the registry).

• HME v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 313 - reported as legal doctrine only: injury under s 19(1) Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) need not be caused solely by the act of violence but must arise as a direct result of it; a s 45 set off is part of the determination and may be applied on review. JADE
• Tang v Obanor [2026] NSWCATAP 321 - synopsis: Collins v Urban leave to appeal criteria; hypothetical comparators in a discrimination appeal. JADE
• Tabar v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 322 - synopsis: extensions of time and stays in a social housing tenancy appeal. JADE
• Doolan v Burnie City Council [2026] TASCAT 134 - synopsis: the Pioneer Concrete piecemeal development principle in an infrastructure planning appeal. JADE
• Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Butler [2026] TASCAT 136 - synopsis: professional misconduct and sanction for false qualification claims. JADE
• Keown v Moonee Valley CC [2026] VCAT 862 - synopsis: strike-out of review grounds under the cl 43.06-10 Built Form Overlay exemption. JADE
• Handsakar v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 312 - list only (access to information). JADE
• Klomp and Curtis [2026] WASAT 126 - list only (building dispute). JADE

The thread: evidence that does the work. A work order needs a scope you can enforce; necessary means essential; a guardian's need is measured by function; the clock starts when the post is in hand.

Case notes

The Owners - Strata Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 323 - A Balla, ADCJ, Principal Member, and M Tyson, Senior Member, 16 October 2026. Signal: Doctrine; Practice & Procedure. HB Act ss 48MA, 48O(1)(c)(i), 48O(2); DBP Act ss 3(1), 5; NCAT Act ss 60, 80(2)(b); NCAT Rules rr 25(4)(c), 38A(2). Held (joint, no dissent): a respondent's failure to object does not make an order appropriate; "fatal" read in context; whether the DBP Act applies to rectification work left open; complex construction issues were special circumstances under s 60. Why aired: it tells owners corporations to bring the regulated design, or evidence it will not change the scope, to the hearing.

Gale v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 320 - Ea MacIntyre and C Mulvey, Senior Members, 16 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure. Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) s 11(2); NCAT Act ss 53, 80(2). Held: pest control roughly 20% of the business, which operated effectively without a silencer; no procedural unfairness where the material was in the respondent's expert's affidavit and cross-examined on. Why aired: reusable rules for framing Appeal Panel grounds.

SMN (Review of Guardianship Order) [2026] TASCAT 133 - C Street, Ordinary Member, 22 September 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure. Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas) ss 8, 9, 15(1), 20(1)(b), (c), 20(2), 26(1)(i), (j), 68(2). Held: present wishes weighed despite the guardian's reservation; fluid arrangements made 12 months the least restrictive option. Why aired: it changes the evidence on every review where supported decision-making works.

Mountainvale Pty Ltd v NO [2026] TASCAT 135 - L D Jack, Senior Member, 13 October 2026. WRC Act (Tas) ss 34(1)(c), 35(1), 67F(1), (3), 67G; Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas) s 30. Held: the postponement argument rejected because an employer holding a collection notice does not know the item is a claim. The employer's dispute is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction; nothing here predicts its outcome. Why aired: a transferable rule on when posted documents are received.

HME v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 313 - J McAteer, Senior Member, 16 October 2026. Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) ss 19(1), 39(1)(b), 45(1); Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) s 63. Reported as legal doctrine only; the other holdings and the orders are not covered.

Folded in: the Fair Work Tribunals edition of Friday 16 October 2026 (twenty six FWCA enterprise agreement approvals and variations, listed without reasons; not covered). A guardianship review and a victims support review are reported as legal doctrine only, and a dependency claim follows a worker's death; no one is identified. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

The Petal's New Zealand edition for Friday 16 October 2026 carries 5 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. A quiet Friday, all five at desk length: recovering wage arrears from a person involved in the employer's breach without first liquidating the employer; guarantors held to an unconditional guarantee when the funding sale failed; security for costs against bare assertions of means; why a Registrar's refusal cannot be appealed straight to the Court of Appeal; and the Supreme Court on jury directions and cumulative error.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Caswell v Robinson [2026] NZHC 2718 - a judgment is final for a bankruptcy notice under s 17(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006 if it finally disposes of the parties' rights on the matters in issue; an Employment Court judgment refusing a stay, read with the Authority determination, sufficed (any defect curable under s 418, obiter); s 142Y(2)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 concerns recoverability, not liability, and requires only that the employer be unable to pay; liquidation, a proof of debt or formal enforcement against the employer is not a precondition. Application to set aside the bankruptcy notice dismissed (Associate Judge Cogswell, 7 September 2026). JADE
• Montgomery v Mamea-Wilson [2026] NZHC 3003 - summary judgment under r 12.2(1) of the High Court Rules 2016 against guarantors under a settlement deed: a defendant must lay a proper foundation in affidavit evidence; a full and final settlement deed precludes reliance on prior disputes; where a guarantee is unconditional and the deed is not conditional on an anticipated sale, the sale's failure does not excuse performance; a first-time guarantor who had the opportunity to take legal advice is bound. Judgment with contractual interest (Associate Judge Cogswell, 1 October 2026). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Mulholland v Mulholland [2026] NZHC 3035 - security for costs under r 5.45 of the High Court Rules 2016: the defendant must adduce credible evidence; bald assertions of ability to pay do not prevent an adverse inference; an unpaid third-party judgment was decisive despite a pending appeal; the Court balances access to justice against a barren costs order; an unpleaded and weak causation link did not help; the scale calculation is a starting point and security is generally fixed below it; security against a counterclaiming defendant needs a formal application. Security ordered in three stages, with a stay if unpaid (Associate Judge Malaroa, 2 October 2026). JADE
• Hedling v Wellington High Court [2026] NZCA 476 - a High Court Registrar's refusal to accept documents is not a judgment or determination appealable under s 56(1)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 2016; the route is review by a High Court Judge under s 151 and r 2.11 of the High Court Rules 2016; ancillary applications cannot be entertained with no proceeding before the Court. Applications declined (Mallon J, 1 October 2026). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Duffy v The King [2026] NZSC 151 - reported as legal doctrine only. No risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice from a complainant's references to the applicant's prior imprisonment and an unrelated online group, where there was no evidence of juror research and the timing of directions was for the trial Judge; misconception directions assessed in light of MB v R and TW v R caused no miscarriage; a combined Papadopoulos and majority verdict direction was not illegitimate pressure; cumulative error does not arise where no individual error is established (s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016). Leave to appeal dismissed (Ellen France, Kós and Cooke JJ, 16 October 2026). JADE

Duffy arises from historical sexual offending against a child and is reported as legal doctrine only, with no complainant identified. The shareholder proceeding behind the Mulholland security ruling continues; nothing in this episode predicts its outcome.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twelve decisions from four courts in the New South Wales edition of Friday 16 October 2026, six of them headnoted. A company title member answers for an occupant's conduct under "permit or suffer" articles only on three routes, and parts with possession only when another occupies the unit in her place with her permission; a notice to comply may require the occupant out but not punish past breaches; a proper-purpose challenge to a board resolution is a but-for majority test; an unfavourable witness is simply one who is not favourable, and a statement recited under the memory provisions is not hearsay; a bare prior association between a tribunal member and an expert whose expertise is accepted is no ground for apprehended bias; a buyer relying on directors' duties to excuse a distribution obligation must show the directors had no other course, and damages are confined to the breaches pleaded; and a co-offender's later successful appeal can found an out-of-time parity ground. One docket line and six list-only decisions on the registry. All five appellate decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same day; here they get the New South Wales angle.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Olsen v Easthaven Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1278 - (Sirtes J, 16 October 2026) summons challenging a home unit company's resolution ending a member's membership dismissed; cross-claim granted in part. A member permits or suffers conduct where she acts herself, gives permission (including everything done under an unqualified permission), or knew or had reason to suspect it, had power to prevent it and failed to take reasonable steps; leave to occupy, knowledge, sympathy or approval is not permission. A shareholder holds a contractual licence, not an estate, so a member parts with possession only where she no longer occupies and another occupies in her place with her permission. An Art 10(a) notice may prescribe steps to secure future compliance, including requiring the occupant to vacate, but not retributive conditions; the directors' precondition is an honestly held opinion. A foreign purpose must be causative on a but-for basis, for a board resolution by showing a majority would not otherwise have voted; members at an EGM are not fiduciaries but are confined to the power's scope; a good-faith resolution within a power contemplating prejudice is not, without more, oppressive (ss 232–233 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)). JADE
• FX Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd as trustee of the CPEC 8 Trust A (formerly the CHAMP IV Trust A) [2026] NSWCA 218 - (Adamson and McHugh JJA, Black J, 16 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) appeal allowed in part; final orders and costs to be settled. On the common basis that a distribution involving a contravention of s 180 would not be "permitted by law", the purchaser had to show the directors could not have done anything other than adopt the minimum expert capital recommendation, as is and more or less immediately; directors must critically assess expert advice, the capital decision was a business judgment, and the sweep obligation and the risk of expanding litigation were part of the company's circumstances. Damages are confined to the breaches pleaded and found, the plaintiff bears a constant legal onus, and a figure must not be plucked out of the air: the vendors, who pleaded breach only at the Initial Dividend Payment Dates, could not recover for the Intervening Period on an assumed counterfactual. Regulatory capital and the s 254T requirement may be met by the same capital; leave to proceed under r 11.8AA UCPR granted. JADE

Criminal Law Desk (Harling reported as legal doctrine only).

• Harling v R [2026] NSWCCA 166 - (Kirk JA, Yehia and McGuire JJ, 16 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) leave granted on three grounds, refused on one, appeal against convictions dismissed. "Unfavourable" in s 38(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) means "not favourable": a witness, including a Crown complainant, who fails to come up to proof qualifies, and hostility is not required (Klewer v Walton per incuriam to that extent; Hadgkiss and R v Rogerson (No 24) not followed). "At such a time" in s 32(2)(b)(ii) refers to when the events were fresh, not when the document was adopted. Sections 32, 38 and 43 are machinery provisions; matter read aloud under s 32(3) is oral evidence, not hearsay. A challenge to reliability is a challenge to credibility; a prior inconsistent statement admitted under s 103 may be used for its truth under s 60. Prosecutors should ask whether a statement is true, not merely whether it was made; defence counsel should object under s 102. JADE
• Person 2 (a pseudonym) v R [2026] NSWCCA 168 - (Price AJA, Sirtes and Roberts JJ, 16 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) time extended, leave granted, appeal allowed, re-sentenced. Under Kwu v R a co-offender's earlier appeal in the same proceedings binds, absent compelling reason, only where the later appeal is materially indistinguishable; here the totality analysis covered unrelated offending, so the earlier decision attracted deference so far as relevant. Manifest excess cannot be shown by mathematically deriving the notional contribution of indicative sentences and comparing ratios. Parity is assessed objectively across all components of both sentences; the applicant's additional counts could not justify the marked disparity with the co-offender's re-sentence. Obiter: a violent offence committed for financial reward may prima facie fall within the worst category. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Foong v Health Care Complaints Commission [2026] NSWCA 217 - (Ward ACJ, Adamson and McHugh JJA, 16 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed, with costs. A refusal to recuse is interlocutory, so leave is required under s 101(2)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), but may be granted on a question of principle without a reasonably clear injustice. Under Ebner the applicant must articulate a logical connection between a prior association and a feared departure from the merits; a member's prior service on a tribunal with an expert witness, whose expertise was accepted and credibility unchallenged, gave none; lack of recollection does not of itself ground an apprehension of subconscious bias (QYFM distinguished). Costs follow the event; the prior association was equally discoverable through NSW Caselaw. The disciplinary proceedings continue in the Tribunal. JADE

Docket.

• Early v R [2026] NSWCCA 167 - (Free JA, N Adams CJ at CL and Chen J, 16 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) time extended, leave granted, appeal against a murder conviction dismissed. Where the error is not fundamental, an irregularity in admitting evidence causes a miscarriage only if it could realistically have affected the verdict; a rational forensic decision by counsel, objectively assessed, is not a miscarriage. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Supreme Court of New South Wales.

• Mangala v Phabmixay [2026] NSWSC 1275 - list only (constructive trust). JADE
• Charalambous v Charalambous [2026] NSWSC 1276 - list only (proprietary estoppel). JADE
• Nguyen v Nguyen [2026] NSWSC 1267 - list only (breach of contract). JADE

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

• Point Piper One Pty Ltd v Valuer General of New South Wales [2026] NSWLEC 1700 - list only (valuation appeal). JADE
• Cheng v He (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 129 - list only (contempt). JADE
• Samavi v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1699 - list only (modification application). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twelve decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Friday 16 October 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, seven with full headnotes. The opening story: an Aboriginal heritage declaration made after a newly revealed, particularised Dreaming story changed the claimed significance of the area was beyond power, because a change in substance makes a new application that needs a fresh report and public notification. Then the Direction 110 tolerance principle, a fabrication finding that changed nothing, a concession drafted with generative AI, an interpreter appeal, costs under a notice to admit, and a share transfer under a deed of company arrangement. No Full Court decision on Friday.

Public Law Desk (opening story first).

• LFB Resources NL v Minister for the Environment and Water (No 3) [2026] FCA 1504 (Stellios J, 14 October 2026) - judicial review of a s 10 declaration under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) allowed: the application as crystallised by the s 10(3) notice limits the reporter's function and the Minister's power; information that changes in substance the claimed particular significance of the area makes a new application, which cannot be determined without a fresh s 10(4) report and public notification (a question of substance and degree; Tickner v Chapman applied and extended); protecting sacred information does not displace recommencement; the Declaration was beyond power and the original application remains extant. Obiter: duration is a mandatory consideration and must be specified. Form of orders and costs to follow; remittal to the Minister indicated. JADE
• Puah v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1511 (Stewart J, 16 October 2026) - Tribunal decision not to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation quashed and remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal: the Direction 110 tolerance principle (para 5.2(6)) is not freestanding but, where relevant, must inform the mandatory considerations through which it is enlivened, and the Tribunal never determined whether he had lived most of his life in Australia; alternatively, a clearly articulated care representation accepted by the delegate and the Minister remained before the Tribunal. Materiality conceded. JADE
• COT19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1514 (Lee J, 16 October 2026) - protection visa appeal dismissed: an unsupported finding that supporting letters were fabricated is jurisdictional error only if there is a realistic possibility the decision could have been different; here it was a consequence of independent adverse credit findings, not a reason for them. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• MGO26 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1529 (Jackson J, 12 October 2026) - urgent interlocutory application to restrain removal dismissed: the Court may act on a concession of law in filed written submissions even where the litigant is self-represented, has limited English and used generative AI; a validly withdrawn protection visa application does not engage s 198(5A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); withdrawal under s 49 is an objective fact; pending State charges do not prevent removal absent a criminal justice stay certificate, warrant or s 153(2) order. The charges are untested and the applicant is presumed innocent; costs to be determined. JADE
• Enkhbat v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1534 (Mcdonald J, 16 October 2026) - student visa appeal dismissed: a bilingual transcript of the Tribunal hearing was admitted under s 27 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) on materiality, but the appellant must prove both House v The King error in refusing an adjournment and its materiality, judged on what the primary judge knew; interpretation was adequate across the whole hearing. File a translated transcript, not just audio, before the hearing. JADE
• Four Air Leitchville Pty Ltd v Hurlad Pty Ltd (No 5) [2026] FCA 1522 (Snaden J, 16 October 2026) - costs: under r 22.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rolled-up assertions of mixed fact and law (unairworthiness) are not facts capable of admission, but a party that disputes a pure fact later proved bears the costs of proof even though the causes of action failed (discounted to avoid double recovery after a settlement); an offer requiring payment of the whole security for costs had little genuine compromise; the unsuccessful applicant pays the costs of a reasonable protective cross-claim, by Sanderson order. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Knight (Deed Administrator), in the matter of Microbio Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2026] FCA 1540 (Downes J, 14 October 2026) - leave under s 444GA(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to transfer shares to the DOCA proponents and a secured creditor: no unfair prejudice where the shares are worth nil in a likely liquidation and no alternative is proposed; a threatened members' class action premised on the transfer itself, with the release confined to claims against the company, did not change that; employee priority orders under ss 447A(1) and 444DA(5). The class action allegations are untested. JADE

From the registry (synopsis or list only; no outcome stated in the edition).

• Sandbar Developments (NT) Pty Ltd v Hall [2026] FCA 1536 (O'Sullivan J, 16 October 2026) - r 1.34 applications for non-lawyer corporate representation: a six-factor test and the financial evidence required. JADE
• Pastoral Property Admin Pty Ltd (formerly Packhorse Investments Australia Ltd) v Burgoyne Capital Ltd England [2026] FCA 1539 (Jackman J, 16 October 2026) - leave to appeal; strong waiver of arbitration rights under s 7(5) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). JADE
• Wang v Creation Homes QLD Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1538 (Anderson J, 16 October 2026) - interlocutory application. JADE
• GWN25 by his Litigation Representative the Public Advocate v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1535 (Snaden J, 16 October 2026) - migration. JADE
• McDonald v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5) [2026] FCA 1541 (Mortimer CJ, 16 October 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Thirteen headnoted appellate decisions from seven courts in the edition of Friday 16 October 2026, with the Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and ACT editions of the same day folded in. Directors and consultants' capital advice; apprehended bias and an expert witness; adverse prosecution witnesses; unfavourable witnesses and credibility; indecent images and misdirection on an element; deportation, suspension and parity in sentencing; first trial costs after a discovery failure; and a non-monetary Calderbank offer. Matters involving sexual offences, some against children, and a civil abuse claim are reported as legal doctrine only.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• FX Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd as trustee of the CPEC 8 Trust A (formerly the CHAMP IV Trust A) [2026] NSWCA 218 - a distribution involving a s 180 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) contravention is not "permitted by law" under a share sale dividend sweep, but directors were not obliged to implement external consultants' risk capital recommendations as is and more or less immediately; they must critically assess expert advice, the capital decision was a business judgment, and the sweep obligation and pending litigation formed part of the company's circumstances; regulatory capital need not be added to the s 254T(1)(c) capital, the same capital may satisfy both; the plaintiff bears the onus of proving loss, and an earlier retention figure could not be assumed to continue. Appeal allowed in part (Adamson and McHugh JJA, Black J). JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Foong v Health Care Complaints Commission [2026] NSWCA 217 - a tribunal member's prior joint service with an expert witness does not found a reasonable apprehension of bias under Ebner without a logical connection to a departure from the merits, particularly where the expert's credibility is unchallenged and expertise accepted; views about an expert differ from views about a lay witness whose credit is crucial; costs followed the event. Leave granted; appeal dismissed (Ward ACJ, Adamson and McHugh JJA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE

Criminal Law Desk (legal doctrine only).

• Di Virgilio v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 145 - all three: the jury's advantage extends to defence-favourable witnesses; Mitchell and Seaward JJA: in Western Australia a prosecutor generally cannot cross-examine its own adverse witness unless declared hostile, but such evidence is not "unchallenged" where contradicted and no rule requires a jury to accept unchallenged evidence; Pell distinguished; different reasoning, no dissent. Appeal against conviction dismissed (Thomson P, Mitchell and Seaward JJA; also the Western Australia edition). JADE
• Harling v R [2026] NSWCCA 166 - "unfavourable" in s 38(1)(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) means not favourable, hostility not required (Klewer v Walton per incuriam to that extent); "at such a time" in s 32(2)(b)(ii) looks to freshness when the document was made; matter read aloud under s 32(3) is not hearsay; reliability is credibility, and an admitted prior inconsistent statement may be used for its truth. Appeal dismissed (Kirk JA, Yehia and McGuire JJ; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
• Poole v The King [2026] NTCCA 10 - whether an image is an "indecent visual image" under former s 132(2)(f) Criminal Code (NT) is judged by the image alone; tendency evidence of sexual interest must be confined to intention; a misdirection on an element is an error of law whether or not counsel objected, and a fundamental error to which the proviso cannot apply. Extension granted; convictions set aside; new trial ordered; the accused is presumed innocent (Grant CJ, Southwood J, Riley AJ; also the Northern Territory edition). JADE
• Lawrie v The King [2026] SASCA 122 - a sentence on a materially erroneous factual basis must be set aside; the mere risk of deportation cannot be weighed absent evidence or a concession; suspension is decided under the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), not an exceptional circumstances test. Appeal allowed; resentenced to immediate imprisonment (Livesey P, S Doyle JA; also the South Australia edition). JADE
• Person 2 (a pseudonym) v R [2026] NSWCCA 168 - manifest excess cannot be shown by working backwards from indicative sentences and comparing ratios; parity with a co-offender's later successful appeal is assessed objectively across all components. Appeal allowed; resentenced (Price AJA, Sirtes and Roberts JJ; also the New South Wales edition). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Clifford (a pseudonym) v The Corporation of the Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart [2026] VSCA 247 - where a new trial is ordered because of a party's admitted and unexplained failure to discover, it pays the first trial costs on an indemnity basis without any finding on who would have won; pre-trial offers no shield; indemnity costs of the appeal from one week after leave to add the ground. Costs orders made; the claim returns for a new trial (Lyons and Nichols JJA; also the Victoria edition; legal doctrine only). JADE
• McVicker v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [No 2] [2026] QCA 204 - non-acceptance of a clear Calderbank offer giving part of the injunctive relief sought, with seven days to accept after submissions were exchanged, was unreasonable. Indemnity costs from 4 June 2026 (Brown, Bradley and Doyle JJA; also the Queensland edition). JADE

Docket.

• R v KBR [2026] QCA 203 - a "balanced" direction on using doubt about a complainant across counts is in substance the direction s 132B(1) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) prohibits. Appeal dismissed (Brown and Bradley JJA, Freeburn J; also the Queensland edition). JADE
• Early v R [2026] NSWCCA 167 - counsel's conduct is assessed objectively; a rational forensic choice is no miscarriage. Time extended; appeal against a murder conviction dismissed (Free JA, N Adams CJ at CL, Chen J; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
• Ahmed v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 146 - offending in breach of a family violence restraining order is aggravated by that defiance even where the victim is not the protected person. Appeal dismissed (Mitchell, Vaughan and Seaward JJA; also the Western Australia edition). JADE

Registry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated).

• Wentworth Equities No 2 Pty Ltd v Redstone Rockingham Marina Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 248 - Queensland; contract construction (Freeburn J). JADE
• Stanton v Myrteza [2026] QSC 249 - Queensland; probate (Smith J). JADE
• Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v BZC [2026] QSC 218 - Queensland; dangerous prisoners (Copley J). JADE
• Re Cygnus Metals Ltd; Ex Parte Cygnus Metals Ltd [No 2] [2026] WASC 450 - Western Australia; scheme of arrangement (Hill J). JADE
• Friends of Australian Rock Art Inc v Whitby Mla [No 3] [2026] WASC 451 - Western Australia; judicial review (Palmer J). JADE
• Okello v Commissioner of Police [2026] SASC 145 - South Australia; sentence appeal (Bochner J). JADE
• DPP v Sobozinski [2026] ACTSC 379 - ACT; sentencing (McCallum CJ). JADE
• DPP v Allen (a pseudonym) (No 7) [2026] ACTSC 391 - ACT; sentence appeal (McCallum CJ). JADE
• DPP v EE (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 388 - ACT; mental impairment (Berman AJ). JADE
• R v Haddara [2026] ACTSC 374 - ACT; sentencing (Berman AJ). JADE
• Klobucar v ACT [2026] ACTSC 401 - ACT; interlocutory orders (Muller J). JADE

Not aired: Maybury v Brodie [No 2] [2026] QCA 205, costs following the event on a reserved costs question (Doyle JA, Thomson AJA, Copley J) JADE.

The New South Wales decisions also appear in Friday's New South Wales edition, and Clifford in the Victoria edition, of Friday 16 October 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Thirteen decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of 15 October 2026, three of them headnoted, with the Court of Appeal, Tribunals and ACT editions of the same day folded in. Today's Court of Appeal edition carried a single decision, Gillies, and it is in this brief. Where two independent lines of reasoning each sustain a summary dismissal, an applicant for leave must show error in both, and the public importance of alleged misconduct is not engaged when its truth is assumed; the special grounds hurdle for fresh evidence, on the Court's better view, does not reach an appeal from an interlocutory summary dismissal, though evidence with no real prospect of changing the result stays out; after internal review only the reviewer's decision exists and only it can be judicially reviewed; and a claw-back claim asking for a bankrupt's property to go to the trustee is a special federal matter that goes to the Federal Court. Twelve list-only decisions on the registry, across the New South Wales, Tribunals and ACT editions.

Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

• Gillies v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 216 - (Mitchelmore and McHugh JJA, Griffiths AJA, 15 October 2026; New South Wales edition, and the single decision of the Australia Court of Appeal edition of the same day) leave to appeal refused; notice of motion to adduce evidence dismissed. Where each of two distinct lines of reasoning independently sustains orders summarily dismissing proceedings, error must be shown in both; the public importance of alleged misconduct is not engaged where its truth is assumed on summary dismissal. The special grounds requirement in s 75A(8) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) applies to appeals from a hearing on the merits, and the better view is that it does not extend to interlocutory hearings resulting in summary dismissal; fresh evidence under s 75A(9) is subject to a general discretion having regard to finality, and the absence of any real prospect that it might change the result is sufficient reason to refuse it. Leave to re-plead would have been refused on re-exercise of the discretion (Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56 to 60). The applicant's allegations of misconduct are untested; the Court assumed their truth only for the purpose of summary dismissal and made no finding that they are true. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Papa v Commissioner of Police [2026] NSWSC 1263 - (Chen J, 15 October 2026) further amended summons for judicial review of the revocation of a firearms licence dismissed. Under s 53(8) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), once an internal reviewer affirms, varies or substitutes a decision, only that decision exists and only it is amenable to review under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), grounds directed to the original decision falling away (subject to cases where no review was conducted or the original reasoning was adopted); a lack of convictions and a compliance history are permissible, not mandatory, considerations under the public interest power in s 24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) and cl 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW); the public interest is not confined to public safety; review submissions may confirm adverse findings. Firearms licensing decisions have not been subject to NCAT merits review since 24 December 2025. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Royles v Shalhoub [2026] NSWSC 1269 - (Williams J, 15 October 2026) proceeding transferred to the Federal Court of Australia under s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth); leave to amend refused. A claim is a special federal matter where it arises under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and engages jurisdiction in bankruptcy under s 27, including a claim whose substantive effect is to declare for or against a trustee's title to property; declarations under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) alone did not, but an order transferring properties to the trustee did (divisibility under s 116, after-acquired property under s 58). Non-joinder of the trustee, a necessary party, did not alter that character; a late amendment that would remove the real question was refused (Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 58, 64); special reasons under s 6(3) were not shown. The claim continues in the Federal Court. JADE

Also on the docket (no outcome stated).

• In the matter of Tahmoor Coal Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] NSWSC 1271 - (Black J, 15 October 2026; Illustrative) a directions judgment under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) on the Universal Distributing lien and a liquidation funding facility; the edition calls it a useful template for funding ranked ahead of secured creditors, largely confirming settled principle. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Supreme Court of New South Wales.

• Attorney General of New South Wales v BF (a pseudonym) by his tutor Ashley Limbury [2026] NSWSC 1270 - list only (mental health). JADE
• Langway Pty Ltd v Bulk Resources Management Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1274 - list only (default judgment). JADE
• Younes v Younes (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1261 - list only (costs). JADE
• Undag v Homes New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1272 - list only (judicial review). JADE
• Antakley v Aapt Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1273 - list only (pleadings). JADE

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (commissioner decisions).

• Optus Mobile Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1696 - list only (development application). JADE
• Barr Property and Planning Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1621 - list only (judicial review). JADE
• Annagrove Grace Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1695 - list only (development application). JADE
• SPT 1 Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1698 - list only (development consent). JADE

From the Tribunals edition of 15 October 2026: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

• DJK Property Group Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 310 - list only (tax assessment). JADE
• Health Care Complaints Commission v Eae (No 2) [2026] NSWCATOD 135 - list only (interlocutory application, professional discipline). JADE

From the ACT edition of 15 October 2026: ACT Supreme Court.

• DPP v Byrne; DPP v L Quilter; DPP v S Quilter [2026] ACTSC 399 - (Stewart AJ, 11 September 2026) list only (sentence appeals). JADE

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