The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

The Petal's New Zealand edition for Thursday 15 October 2026 carries 15 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Four at desk length: a unanimous Supreme Court holds that a contracting out agreement can govern the survivor's intestacy entitlements; life imprisonment for methamphetamine offending after a guilty plea; when an error in the summary of facts at sentencing matters; and interim name suppression pending a conviction appeal. Plus a registry from the Supreme Court on restraint orders, deemed abandonment, early conviction appeals and recall.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Rimmer v Wilton [2026] NZSC 122 - s 21D(1)(c) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 lets parties do more than contract out of the Act: read with s 1M(c) and Part 8, an agreement under ss 21 to 21B may define entitlements on death and regulate the survivor's entitlements on intestacy under Part 3 of the Administration Act 1969; construed objectively, a lifetime occupancy clause and a full and final settlement of all claims under any statute confined the survivor to the agreement, principally a life interest; such a promise extends to intestacy entitlements; testamentary freedom is preserved; costs against the administrator personally, not from the estate. Appeal allowed, reversing Rimmer v Wilton [2025] NZCA 374 (Winkelmann CJ, Williams, Kós, Miller and Cooke JJ, 4 September 2026). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Fakaosilea v The King [2026] NZCA 437 - s 8(c) of the Sentencing Act 2002 is engaged by the class of offending within the most serious of cases, not only the single worst instance; life is not equated with a 30-year finite sentence, but can become the proper starting point; a guilty plea must be considered under s 9(2)(b) but need not yield a deduction where the starting point is life; the causative contribution of background may be displaced by high agency; position in a gang is relevant to role; a long finite sentence that failed to deter was decisive; the 10-year non-parole period under s 84(3) of the Parole Act 2002 applies by operation of law. Appeal against life imprisonment dismissed (Thomas, Palmer and Lang JJ, 15 September 2026). JADE
• Alabaster v The King [2026] NZCA 388 - reported as legal doctrine only. Under s 250(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 an acknowledged error in the factual basis for sentencing, such as an omitted page of the agreed summary of facts, warrants intervention only if material; the Court reassessed the starting point on the correct facts; a refusal of a personal circumstances discount stands where the judge addressed it and further evidence does not materially undermine it (Zhang v R; Berkland v R). Appeal dismissed (Katz, Andrew and Osborne JJ, 19 August 2026). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Ihp (Ca553/2025) v The King [2026] NZCA 397 - interim suppression pending a conviction appeal under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011: a two-stage enquiry; publication may be likely to create a real risk of prejudice to a fair retrial under s 200(2)(d) despite takedown orders and judicial directions; the discretion turns on whether a retrial is a real possibility on the proposed grounds and on the short duration of the order. Interim suppression granted until further order (Katz, Peters and Radich JJ). JADE

Registry.

• Donellan [2026] NZSC 123 - a civil restraint order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 cannot be evaded by filing in a third party's name; the Court looks to the substance to identify the real applicant; recusal requires a real ground for doubting a judge's objectivity; relitigating the merits is no very special reason for recall. Application dismissed (Ellen France and Cooke JJ, 7 September 2026). JADE
• Prescott [2026] NZSC 119 - a deemed abandonment under r 43(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 is not a decision under s 68 of the Senior Courts Act 2016; the remedy is reinstatement in the Court of Appeal (Williams J, 28 August 2026). JADE
• Grant [2026] NZSC 117 - a self-represented applicant's notice is construed by what it in substance seeks; sentencing is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal against a jury conviction for breach of a protection order; leave for a direct appeal still needs exceptional circumstances. Review upheld; leave undecided (Kós J, 27 August 2026). JADE
• Rafiq [2026] NZSC 127 - recall requires a very special reason, and relitigating the merits is not one; a previous fee waiver does not bind the Registrar; s 82(3)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 gives a single permanent Judge jurisdiction to review a Registrar's decision (Ellen France, Williams and Campbell JJ, 11 September 2026). JADE
• Rafiq [2026] NZSC 128 - recall declined; no five-Judge panel required for review of a Registrar's decision (Ellen France, Williams and Campbell JJ, 11 September 2026). JADE
• Rafiq [2026] NZSC 129 - recall declined; the challenge targeted a consequence of an unchallenged refusal to accept filing (Ellen France, Williams and Campbell JJ, 11 September 2026). JADE
• Gifkins v Attorney-General [2026] NZCA 440 - security for costs not dispensed with on Reekie v Attorney-General principles (Mallon and Collins JJ, 14 September 2026). In the notes only. JADE
• Baker v Baker [2026] NZCA 410 - documents tendered in a company's name by a person not entitled to act for it rejected (Ellis J, 27 August 2026). In the notes only. JADE
• Vickers [2026] NZSC 125 - review of a Registrar's refusal to accept a leave application allowed in part (Ellen France J, 9 September 2026). In the notes only. JADE
• McKenzie v ASB Bank Limited [2026] NZCA 442 - recall declined on the Saxmere threshold (Thomas and Collins JJ, 14 September 2026). In the notes only. JADE
• Wainohu v The King [2026] NZCA 406 - extension of time to appeal declined for repeated non-compliance with directions (French P, Thomas and Palmer JJ, 27 August 2026). In the notes only. JADE

The Alabaster appeal arises from violent and sexual offending against a former partner and is reported as legal doctrine only. The conviction appeal behind the Ihp suppression ruling was pending when that ruling was made, and a suppression order protects the appellant's identity; the Grant leave application was undecided. Nothing in this episode predicts the outcome of either proceeding.

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 Wednesday 14 October 2026 carries 10 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court and the High Court. Four at desk length: sentencing on an agreed summary of facts, not suspicion; how the Commissioner of Inland Revenue secured New Zealand land for a Korean tax debt; the limit of a mortgagee's duty on sale; and when a promised home is a licence, not a caveatable life estate. Plus a registry from the Supreme Court and a run of High Court costs rulings.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• Makatoa v The King [2026] NZHC 3120 - where a guilty plea is entered on an agreed summary of facts, sentencing and any appeal proceed on that summary; a three-year starting point was beyond range for a low-level, addicted street dealer at the bottom of Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507 band two (two years and six months adopted); a firearm uplift under s 45(1) of the Arms Act 1983 must be calibrated to the four-year maximum, and a sentence may not be aggravated by suspected gang connections neither asserted nor proved; s 22B ammunition offences carry a fine only, so imprisonment is unlawful; the defendant bears the onus of proving genuine remorse; on totality under s 85 of the Sentencing Act 2002, a global starting point of five years and an end sentence of 26 months. Appeal allowed (Andrew J, 9 October 2026). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Kim [2026] NZHC 3048 - recovering a Korean tax debt under the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: service outside New Zealand needs no leave under r 6.27(2)(e) of the High Court Rules 2016 where the relief relates to New Zealand land; a without notice application is justified under r 7.23(2)(a)(i) by a real risk of disposal; a pre-judgment charging order under r 17.41 requires concrete evidence, to a high standard, of removal, concealment or disposal of property, or absence, with intent to defeat creditors, and that intent may be inferred from conduct; whether an arguable case is also required was left open; the order was non-possessory with leave reserved under r 17.44; substituted service on an associate at the land and by email. Orders granted without notice; the substantive claim remains to be decided (MacGillivray J, 5 October 2026). JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Sinclair v Metro Finance Limited [2026] NZHC 3102 - the mortgagee's duty under s 176(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 2007 to take reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable as at the time of sale does not extend to the decision to sell or its timing; discrepancies between valuations do not of themselves raise a serious question for trial. Interim injunction declined (Jagose J, 8 October 2026). JADE
• Teiho v Puriri St Developments Ltd [2026] NZHC 3085 - a caveator relying on an Avondale Printers & Stationers Ltd v Haggie [1979] 2 NZLR 124 constructive trust must show a reasonably arguable case that a life estate was promised, assessed objectively, and that its retraction amounts to equitable fraud; a promise of a home or somewhere to live creates only a personal licence to occupy, which is not caveatable under s 138 of the Land Transfer Act 2017; genuine subjective belief is not enough; obiter, the caveat would have been removed as futile where a mortgagee sale was inevitable (s 141). Application to sustain the caveat declined (Associate Judge Wroe, 7 October 2026). JADE

Registry.

• Foley v ASB Bank Ltd [2026] NZSC 147 - leave to appeal under s 74(2)(b) and (c) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 refused where the arguments rested on the proposition that the applicant was not a legal person and the appeals struck out under s 164B were plainly an abuse of process. Applications dismissed (Ellen France, Williams and Cooke JJ, 14 October 2026). JADE
• Atua-Azad v New Zealand Law Society [2026] NZHC 3092 - the Law Society is presumptively entitled to costs on an unsuccessful admission application, so the cost of its regulatory function does not fall entirely on its members, but scale costs may be reduced under r 14.7 (reasonable conduct, no alternative, hardship, risk of a crushing impediment). Costs of $5,000 (Paulsen J, 8 October 2026). JADE
• G v Attorney-General [2026] NZHC 3006 - the increased daily recovery rate does not apply to steps taken before it took effect; under r 14.15 defendants defending separately who could have joined receive one set of costs absent good reason; under r 4.42 costs are payable by the litigation guardian personally (McHerron J, 30 September 2026). JADE
• Stalker v Stephen [2026] NZHC 3114 - the r 15.23 presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff pays costs may be displaced where the proceeding remedied the practical deficiency it targeted. Costs to lie where they fall (8 October 2026). JADE
• Brelil SRL v Wyllie [2026] NZHC 3103 - counsel who confirms an ability to participate effectively by AVL must ensure the AVL is effective; a 25 per cent uplift under r 14.6(3)(b) on the affected steps; unreasonable conduct must be evidenced in the initial costs memorandum (Associate Judge Gambrill, 8 October 2026). JADE
• Yeung v Cong [2026] NZHC 2891 - summary judgment on a term loan; the loan not collateral to or interdependent with a construction contract between associated companies (Associate Judge Cogswell, 21 September 2026). In the notes only. JADE

The Kim charging order was made without notice and the tax claim behind it is still to be decided; Sinclair was an interim ruling. Nothing in this episode predicts the outcome of either proceeding.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Six tribunals and twelve decisions in the Tribunals edition of Wednesday 14 October 2026, two with headnotes, both flagged for practice and procedure, plus the one headnote of the Fair Work Tribunals edition of the same day, reported as doctrine: why a party's grievances against a member do not buy a new one; why a lawyer's filings after a misconduct finding become evidence on penalty; and the first decision on the Fair Work Commission's power to dismiss late sexual harassment disputes.

Tribunals Desk: a new member on request? The tribunal says no (lead).

• Nillumbik SC v Hunter [2026] VCAT 849 - s 64(3) VCAT Act decides how the Tribunal is constituted, not by whom, and may be exercised for each hearing up to the final one, so a change of member is no nullity; the s 108 reconstitution discretion is exercised judicially and reserved for the clearest cases; an impartiality objection must meet the Ebner apprehended bias test; a party's own published criticism, and earlier adverse rulings, do not of themselves ground a reasonable apprehension; the test is objective and the onus is on the applicant. Application dismissed; re-listed before the same member. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a lawyer, the tribunal and the roll.

• Legal Practice Board and Barker [2026] WASAT 124 - fitness is assessed at the penalty hearing; post-liability conduct is evidence of lack of insight, not fresh misconduct; for an uncertificated lawyer the choice lies between striking off and a period under s 302(1)(i)-(j) Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA), striking off ordinarily where unfitness is permanent or indefinite; costs under s 303(1) absent exceptional circumstances; brief references to FCWA affidavits not an account of the proceedings under Pt XIVB Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Recommendation for removal from the roll under s 302(1)(f); costs of $27,000. JADE

Tribunals Desk: late sexual harassment disputes, the first ruling (from the Fair Work Tribunals edition; reported as legal doctrine only; the allegations are untested).

• Keely Roff v Peninsula Australia Pty Ltd; Jerome Mitchell; Adrian Momand; Joseph Ramanlal [2026] FWC 3895 - the first decision under s 527G Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth): dismissal of an application made more than 24 months after the last alleged contravention will in most cases be final, there being no leave mechanism like s 46PO AHRC Act and no s 527S(2)(a) certificate once dismissed; the considerations, guided by ss 577 and 578; the explanation must cover the whole delay; medical evidence must connect the condition to the delay; the power is not engaged where the last alleged contravention may fall within 24 months. Dismissed against two individual respondents; otherwise declined, so the dispute continues. JADE

Registry and the thread (no outcome stated).

• Medical Board of Australia v Hambly [2026] VCAT 818 - synopsis: professional misconduct, mitigation and agreed statements in health practitioner sanctions. JADE
• Karseras v Banyule CC [2026] VCAT 853 - synopsis: ending s 173 agreements under s 178B(2) P&E Act, and expired permits. JADE
• Grace v Hobsons Bay CC [2026] VCAT 851 - synopsis: the cl 32.08-13 exemption from third party review when amended plans meet the ResCode standards. JADE
• O'Brien v Frankston CC [2026] VCAT 842 - synopsis: cl 52.37 canopy trees and arborist report requirements. JADE
• Ivankovic v CONSTRUCTION OCCUPATIONS REGISTRAR (Occupational Discipline) [2026] ACAT 60 - synopsis: rectification orders and proper and skilful work; owners corporation maintenance plans. JADE
• Mangini v Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner [2026] SACAT 87 - synopsis: the two-limbed s 56C test for prohibition orders. JADE
• YRZ v Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District [2026] NSWCATAP 317 - synopsis: procedural fairness, AVL failures and disability accommodation in a guardianship hearing (pseudonym). JADE
• YTB v YBJ [2026] NSWCATAP 318 - synopsis: the Bentran principles for stays under s 43 NCAT Act (pseudonyms). JADE
• Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman v Makoni [2026] QCAT 414 - list only (professional discipline). JADE
• Frisch v Surf Coast SC [2026] VCAT 847 - list only (case management). JADE
• Mr Bradley Johnson v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited [2026] FWC 3890 - Fair Work synopsis: directions to attend a tie-breaker independent medical examination after conflicting opinions. JADE
• Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union v Advanced Civil Group Pty Ltd, The Australian Workers' Union [2026] FWCFB 260 - Fair Work Full Bench, list only (enterprise agreement approval). JADE

The thread: how you run the case. Grievances about a member do not buy a new one; filings after a finding are evidence on penalty; delay has to be explained from start to finish.

Case notes

Nillumbik SC v Hunter [2026] VCAT 849 - Woodward J, President, 13 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure. VCAT Act 1998 (Vic) ss 64(3), 108; Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 35(a). Held: s 64(3) is not exhausted at the first hearing; s 108 reserved for the clearest cases; Ebner applies to impartiality objections and Grimwade v Meagher does not moderate it; published criticism and prior adverse rulings insufficient; objective test, onus on the applicant; an unproduced 2017 article rejected. Why aired: it shuts the door on reconstitution as forum shopping, for every VCAT list.

Legal Practice Board and Barker [2026] WASAT 124 - Judge H Jackson, Deputy President, Mr J O'Sullivan, Senior Member, Mr R Povey, Member, 14 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure. LPUL (WA) ss 302(1)(f), (i), (j), 303(1); Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 114Q(1), 114R(2), 114S(2)(f). Held: presently and indefinitely unfit given no insight or remorse; general deterrence outweighs specific deterrence; costs fixed; publication of the name for general deterrence, the family law participants anonymised. The removal is a recommendation to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Why aired: it tells practitioners what counts between liability and penalty.

Keely Roff v Peninsula Australia Pty Ltd; Jerome Mitchell; Adrian Momand; Joseph Ramanlal [2026] FWC 3895 - Commissioner McKinnon, 12 October 2026. Signal: Doctrine; Practice & Procedure. Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 527F, 527G, 527S(2)(a), 527T, 577, 578; AHRC Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PH(1)(b), 46PO (by analogy). Held: dismissal under s 527G usually final; James v Workpower Inc leave principles a guide, not all applicable; considerations listed; balance of protection and timely complaints; the precondition not met where an allegation is dated mid-2024; obiter, the objection may be deferred until after a conference. The dispute continues against the employer and one respondent; the allegations are untested. Why aired: the first word on a new time limit, for every Fair Work sexual harassment dispute.

Folded in: the Fair Work Tribunals edition of 14 October 2026 (forty nine decisions). Its twelve individual dismissal matters, fourteen protected action ballot orders, nineteen enterprise agreement approvals and one rule alteration certification are listed without reasons and are not covered. A sexual harassment dispute, and guardianship and health practitioner matters, are reported as legal doctrine only; no one is identified. A planning enforcement case, the harassment dispute and a recommendation for removal from the roll remain to be decided, and nothing here predicts their outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Seventeen decisions from four courts in the New South Wales edition of 14 October 2026, five of them headnoted. A material adverse change measured by earnings counts every financial consequence of the matter, including discretionary operating savings, and a bidder who knows the facts and supports scheme convening orders without reservation elects to affirm; a pleaded forecast representation cannot be recast on appeal when the trial was run on its narrow terms; a mental condition can moderate general deterrence without having materially contributed to the offending, and a deterrence submission need not be clearly articulated; parity is a free-standing, objective ground that can first arise on a co-offender's later sentence; and a refused leave application is not reopened by re-agitation or an unarguable bias complaint, comment on prospects at the leave stage not being prejudgment. Twelve 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).

• Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Mayne Pharma Group Limited [2026] NSWCA 215 - (McHugh and Free JJA, Griffiths AJA, 14 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) appeal dismissed. The effect of a matter on Maintainable EBITDA under a material adverse change clause in a scheme implementation deed is assessed by all its financial consequences, including reductions in operating expenditure, even where they result from discretionary business decisions; in the alternative, unequivocal affirmation is inconsistent with reserving a termination right already arisen on known facts, and the inconsistency is not avoided by an anterior notice and negotiation step within the elector's own power; unqualified scheme booklet representations, made in support of s 411 convening orders under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), were acts of election (Koutsopoulos v Pintusen (No 2) distinguished). Whether a broader reading of a pleaded representation may be run on appeal turns on the case actually advanced at trial, not the "new point" rules; recasting "expected ... would be" as a "best expectation ... in the order of" was materially prejudicial (s 18 ACL; s 1041H Corporations Act). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Geoghegan v R [2026] NSWCCA 164 - (N Adams CJ at CL, Dhanji and Muston JJ, 14 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) leave granted, appeal allowed, re-sentenced for an offence against s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The capacity of a mental condition to moderate general deterrence is not predicated on proof that it materially contributed to the offence (Muston J adding that an unconnected condition will not necessarily justify a reduction); a submission to that effect need not be clearly articulated, and failing to address it was House v The King error; recourse to the sentencing transcript is confined to limited exceptions, including a dispute whether a submission was made. Dhanji J alone held a judge must address the point without any submission; the others declined to decide, so it is not binding. Reported as legal doctrine only. JADE
• Russell v R [2026] NSWCCA 165 - (N Adams CJ at CL, Campbell and Coleman JJ, 14 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) extension of time and leave granted, re-sentenced on a parity ground. Parity is free-standing and objective, does not require the sentence to be otherwise manifestly excessive, and may arise only on a co-offender's later sentencing even where the applicant's own remarks disclose no error; a youth finding described as important was not reflected in margins of three months and two months; where the Crown accepts that an extension turns on the merits, it follows a meritorious ground. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Jaworski v Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 213 - (Ward P, Harrison AJA, 14 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) application under r 36.16 UCPR to set aside a refusal of leave dismissed, gross sum costs ordered. The power requires an error in the Court's reasoning caused by a misapprehension of fact or law not attributable solely to the applicant's neglect or default, and is not a means of re-agitation; prejudgment requires a mind incapable of alteration; assessing and commenting on prospects at the leave stage is not prejudgment; impecuniosity is no basis to depart from costs following the event (Oshlack distinguished). The underlying proceedings remain stayed. JADE
• Battenberg v Phillips [2026] NSWCA 214 - (Mitchelmore and Free JJA, 14 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) leave to appeal from a security for costs order in probate proceedings refused (s 101(2)(e) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW); r 42.21 UCPR); an allegation of prejudgment raised in reply, outside any proposed ground, was baseless. The probate proceedings continue. JADE

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

• Reissis v Xafellis [2026] NSWSC 1262 - list only (family provision). JADE
• In the matter of Noumi Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1265 - list only (scheme of arrangement). JADE
• Elazzi v Elazzi (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1268 - list only (costs). JADE
• Ding v Schneider [2026] NSWSC 1264 - list only (stay of proceedings). JADE

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

• Jordan v Sibat [2026] NSWLEC 1697 - list only (trees dispute). JADE
• Maszluch v Xu [2026] NSWLEC 1692 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Celesteem Turramurra Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1690 - list only (development application). JADE
• Chaisumdet v City of Canada Bay Council [2026] NSWLEC 1694 - list only (modification application). JADE
• Imagination Productions v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2026] NSWLEC 1689 - list only (trees dispute). JADE
• 92 North Steyne Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1691 - list only (development appeal). JADE
• Coogee Beach Developments Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1688 - list only (development consent). JADE
• JSS Asset Management Services Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2026] NSWLEC 1687 - list only (development application). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Six decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Wednesday 14 October 2026: four from the Federal Court of Australia and two from the High Court of Australia. The opening story: an interlocutory injunction to stop a removal pending appeal protects the right to remain in Australia, not the appeal itself, so it fails where the evidence shows removal will likely come before any remitted Tribunal review. Then a represented litigant whose lawyers never told it about the review deadline, and a company director refused leave to argue the company's case himself. The two High Court decisions air in today's Court of Appeal brief.

Public Law Desk (opening story; a child's interests, reported as legal doctrine only).

• Mwambwa v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2026] FCA 1510 (Jackson J, 8 October 2026) - application for an interlocutory injunction restraining removal pending appeal dismissed, the interim injunction continued to 13 October 2026: a serious question was arguable (whether the Tribunal had to consider the effect on a child of separation under para 8.4(4)(d) of Direction 110) but not strong; the power is enlivened by the need to protect the utility of the final relief, and the subject matter is the right to remain in Australia; removal under s 198(5) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was likely before any remitted Tribunal review, and forecasting from evidence of the present state of affairs is not impermissible conjecture, whereas giving weight to a s 195A request is; departmental removal policy, read as a question of fact, did not protect a mere applicant for an extension of time; the public interest in the due administration of the Act prevailed over real humanitarian concerns. The appeal remains pending. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Jadwan Pty Ltd v Rae & Partners (a firm) (Extension of Time) [2026] FCA 1513 (Dowling J, 14 October 2026) - extensions of time to review two Registrar's costs decisions under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) refused, with costs: a represented applicant's reliance on its lawyers' failure to advise, or wrong advice, about the 21-day limit in r 3.11(2) was not a sufficient explanation where the orders stated it; r 40.15(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) does not limit how the 'other sum' is fixed, and once a nominal sum is refused a Registrar may use lump sum principles as a guide. JADE
• Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Medicheckr Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1524 (Meagher J, 14 October 2026) - company wound up in insolvency: leave under r 4.01(2) for a non-lawyer director to represent the company refused on three grounds (no evidence of means, a claimed lack of time contradicted by the solicitors' notice of withdrawal, and a lack of objectivity); the s 459C(2)(a) presumption of insolvency was not rebutted by unsworn assertions; service outside the 14 days in s 465A(1)(b) was an irregularity within s 467A causing no substantial injustice; costs fixed as a lump sum. JADE

Also on the docket (synopsis only; no outcome stated in the edition).

• Kavanagh v Atlassian Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1509 (Stellios J, 13 October 2026) - an interlocutory ruling in a Fair Work Division employment dispute: the timing of s 37AF confidentiality orders against extending s 37AI interim orders, release from undertakings, the medical evidence needed for disability-related claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and a framework for injunctions restraining termination and performance management. The proceeding continues. JADE

High Court (aired in today's Court of Appeal brief).

• Smith v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2026] HCA 37 (Gordon A-CJ, Edelman, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ, 14 October 2026) - appeal allowed: '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, so a prisoner's egg extraction and freezing falls outside the prohibition; four separate judgments, the test formulated differently. JADE
• Morton v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 38 (Gageler CJ, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ, 14 October 2026) - application for constitutional writs against a visa refusal dismissed: whether material was considered is decided on the balance of probabilities from the whole of the reasons and the totality of the evidence, and Direction 110 does not require provision-by-provision reasons. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eight headnoted appellate decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of 14 October 2026, from four courts, with the Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania editions of the same day riding in this brief. The High Court on whether a prisons statute bars a prisoner from freezing her eggs, and on how a failure to consider ground is tested in a character visa refusal; the New South Wales Court of Appeal on measuring a material adverse change and election by affirmation in a scheme, and on setting aside a judgment and gross sum costs; the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal on mental conditions and general deterrence, and on parity; Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal on tendency directions in a joint trial; a Queensland will made in favour of a romance scammer; and South Australia on service of a summons.

Public Law Desk (opening story).

• 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, so egg extraction and freezing, which merely preserves fertility, is not caught; the prohibition's purpose is limited (the conjugal-visit ban's technological equivalent, equity between prisoners, no official value judgments), and punishment and deterrence were rejected; four judgments formulated the test differently; the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ground was not decided by the Court; the meaning of "participate" lacks clear majority authority. Appeal allowed; decision quashed and remitted to the chief executive for determination according to law (Gordon A-CJ, Edelman, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ; also the Federal Courts edition). JADE
• Morton v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 38 - whether a decision-maker considered information under ss 54(1), 55(1) and 499(2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is decided on the balance of probabilities from the whole of the reasons and the evidence; neither Direction 110 nor s 501G(1) requires provision-by-provision reasons; para 9.2(1) does not require consideration of equivalent treatment overseas; a low risk of reoffending is consistent with an unacceptable risk of harm, and an unacceptable risk finding is not confined to "very serious" conduct. Extension of time granted; application dismissed with costs (Gageler CJ, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ; also the Federal Courts edition). JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Mayne Pharma Group Limited [2026] NSWCA 215 - the effect of a matter on Maintainable EBITDA under a material adverse change clause takes account of all its financial consequences, including operating expenditure reductions from discretionary decisions; supporting s 411 convening orders with an unqualified affidavit and unreserved scheme booklet statements, on known facts, was an election to affirm, not avoided by an anterior notice and negotiation step within the bidder's own power; a pleaded forecast representation could not be recast on appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs (McHugh and Free JJA, Griffiths AJA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
• In the Will of Clifford Stanley Perrin [2026] QSC 247 - (Queensland edition; ex tempore) where a named executor and beneficiary, a romance scammer, is shown on the Briginshaw standard not to exist, the appointment and gift fail; under the rule in Jones v Westcomb a gift over conditioned on the beneficiary predeceasing took effect, on the ineluctable inference from the will and the testator's recorded suspicions; Pettit v Mowder not followed to the extent contrary. Will pronounced in solemn form under s 6 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld); probate and the residue to the applicant (Treston J). JADE

Criminal Law Desk (the last item reported as legal doctrine only).

• Geoghegan v R [2026] NSWCCA 164 - moderation of general deterrence for a mental condition is not predicated on material contribution to the offence; a sentencing judge must address a submission on it even if not clearly articulated (House v The King error); only Dhanji J held the point must be considered absent any submission (not binding); the limited exceptions permitting recourse to the sentencing transcript. Leave granted; appeal allowed; resentenced (N Adams CJ at CL, Dhanji and Muston JJ; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
• Russell v R [2026] NSWCCA 165 - parity is a free-standing, objective ground that may first crystallise on a co-offender's later sentencing; the applicant's youth, found important, was not reflected in a margin of three months. Extension of time and leave granted; resentenced (N Adams CJ at CL, Campbell and Coleman JJ; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
• STA v Tasmania [2026] TASCCA 8 - (reported as legal doctrine only) failing to give an unrequested direction is not ordinarily a wrong decision on a question of law under s 402(1) of the Criminal Code 1924 (Tas) but may be a miscarriage of justice; with several asserted tendencies, each item of tendency evidence need only prove its linked tendency, absent a blanket tendency; no absolute rule requiring an anti-substitution direction in a joint sexual offence trial. Extension granted; appeal dismissed (Estcourt, Pearce and Cuthbertson JJ; also the Tasmania edition). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Jaworski v Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 213 - an application under r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) needs an identified error caused by a misapprehension of fact or law; comment on prospects on a leave application is not prejudgment; impecuniosity is no basis to depart from costs following the event; gross sum costs fixed on a solicitor's affidavit. Application dismissed; costs fixed (Ward P and Harrison AJA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
• Anderson v Police [2026] SASC 148 - (South Australia edition; synopsis only, no headnote) a telephone call is not service of a summons under s 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA); an Attempted Service Report under r 36.3 of the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) cannot substitute for service; the ex parte powers depend on actual service; a trespass notice or not collecting documents is not by itself evasion. Extension of time granted; final orders not stated in the edition (Handshin J). JADE

Registry.

• Battenberg v Phillips [2026] NSWCA 214 - leave to appeal from a security for costs order against an overseas resident in probate revocation proceedings; no House v The King error shown. Summons for leave dismissed with costs (Mitchelmore and Free JJA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
• In the will of Barbara Joan Groves (deceased) [2026] QSC 250 - (Queensland edition; listed without a headnote, no outcome stated) probate procedure (Treston J). JADE
• In Re Pruiti; Gibb v Pruiti [2026] WASC 444 - (Western Australia edition; listed without a headnote, no outcome stated) probate accounts (Strk J, as printed). JADE

The High Court decisions also appear in today's Federal Courts edition, and the New South Wales decisions in today's New South Wales edition, of 14 October 2026.

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 Tuesday 13 October 2026 carries 6 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court and the High Court. Four at desk length: when the Court will bless a family trust settlement, and how a beneficiary removed by the settlor is put back; the leave test for a restrained litigant's second appeal; who must prove what when an airgun is carried to protect poultry from a dog; and the evidence needed for permanent name suppression on safety grounds. Plus a short registry from the Supreme Court.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• ABC Trust [2026] NZHC 2979 - a blessing application under s 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 falls in the second Public Trustee v Cooper [2001] WTLR 901 category: the trustees keep their discretion and the Court asks whether they formed the opinion, whether a reasonable body of properly instructed trustees could have reached it, and whether it is vitiated by a disabling conflict of interest; not a rubber stamp, but no insurmountable hurdles; the decision to settle a family trust dispute after mediation was reasonably open and, with every beneficiary consenting, untouched by conflict; the settlor's personal power of appointment did not survive his death, so reinstating a removed beneficiary required a variation under s 122, approved for the parties' reasons including as to the non-consenting classes; an agreed settlement with a complete record may be determined on the papers. Settlement blessed, variation approved (Isac J, 30 September 2026). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• McKenzie [2026] NZHC 2989 - where a litigant restrained under s 164C of the Senior Courts Act 2016 seeks leave to bring a second appeal, the ordinary s 60 test applies (a question capable of bona fide and serious argument, of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal); no plausible error in the finding that the s 16 Harassment Act 1997 preconditions (distress, need for protection) were unmet; the High Court's determination is final under s 164C(5)(c). Leave declined (Radich J, 30 September 2026). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Heta v Police [2026] NZHC 2920 - on a charge of carrying an airgun other than for a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose under s 45 of the Arms Act 1983, the defendant bears the burden on the balance of probabilities, the purpose assessed objectively at the time charged; reliance on s 60(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires proof that the dog was seen, was at large and was among the poultry; an earlier attack by a different dog is irrelevant; undue emphasis on a narrow passage of evidence caused no miscarriage of justice under s 232(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Appeal dismissed (Anderson J, 24 September 2026). JADE
• R v P [2026] NZHC 3068 - the endangerment-of-safety ground for suppression under s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 is not comparative and asks whether the consequence is likely in fact; a description of a defendant's fragile mental state is not enough, but the treating clinician's accepted opinion met the threshold; open justice was displaced because the balance clearly favoured suppression. Permanent suppression ordered (Grau J, 7 October 2026). Reported as legal doctrine only. JADE

Registry (Supreme Court).

• Gorgus v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZSC 145 - whether unreasonable force against a remand prisoner also breaches s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a question of general importance, but this case was not an appropriate vehicle (unreasonableness conceded, the events on CCTV, concurrent findings of fact). Leave to appeal dismissed (Ellen France, Williams and Cooke JJ, 13 October 2026). JADE
• McGuire v Commissioner of Police [2026] NZSC 146 - a direction for a Court of Appeal transcript under r 7 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004 is given only where necessary in the interests of justice; leave turns on the judgment below, not the argument. Application dismissed; the leave application remains to be decided (Cooke J, 13 October 2026). JADE

This episode includes a name suppression ruling concerning a defendant's mental illness and a risk of suicide, reported as legal doctrine only. The McGuire leave application is still to be decided; nothing in this episode predicts the outcome.

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 Monday 12 October 2026 carries 7 decisions newly reported from the Court of Appeal and the High Court. A quiet day, three at desk length: why a limitation defence cannot stop a bankruptcy notice on an old tribunal costs order; what a builder and its director owe in tort, and what they don't; and an extension of time granted once but not twice. Plus a short registry from the High Court.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• Ellis v New Zealand Law Society [2026] NZCA 488 - a "claim to enforce a judgment by action" under s 35(1) of the Limitation Act 2010 means a fresh proceeding to obtain a second judgment for the debt; enforcement processes and insolvency proceedings fall outside it, so filing Tribunal costs orders under s 258(3) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and requesting a bankruptcy notice attracted no limitation defence; Riddiford v New Zealand Law Society cannot be considered good law on the scope of s 35(1); a bankruptcy notice is not an enforcement process under Part 17 of the High Court Rules 2016, so no leave under r 17.9(2)(b) was needed although more than six years had passed. Appeal dismissed (Campbell, Powell and Tahana JJ, 7 October 2026). JADE
• Mega Aqua Limited v Sunnya Pty Limited [2026] NZCA 481 - an extension of time to file the case on appeal after deemed abandonment under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 turns on the interests of justice; granted on the substantive appeal (prompt application, active engagement, the death of former counsel, and an appeal not clearly hopeless on whether breach of s 164(1) of the Evidence Act 2006 gives a private enforcement remedy); the same indulgence was not extended a second time on the costs appeal, which stays abandoned; leave to amend the grounds refused; costs to the respondent (Ellis and Whata JJ, 5 October 2026). JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• DTB Construction Limited v Dobbe [2026] NZCA 492 - cl 5.1.3 of NZS 3910:2013 is engaged only where the contract makes the contractor responsible for design, and cl 5.1.4 requires any design the contractor undertakes to be done with reasonable skill and care; breach of a contract standard must be proved by positive evidence, and the absence of producer statements or engineering approval does not discharge the onus; the duty in tort of builders, including directors and employees, is to take care to achieve Building Code compliance or possibly reasonable building standards, with no duty in tort to build to a contract standard (the Court preferring the Building Code view and doubting the broader "reasonable builder" formulation); an allegation of fabrication must be put to the witness; refusing further evidence on loss after trial was plainly right (obiter). Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed (Campbell, Robinson and Eaton JJ, 9 October 2026). JADE

Registry (High Court).

• McKenzie v Manawatu Motors 1970 Ltd [2026] NZHC 3045 - a litigant restrained under s 164C of the Senior Courts Act 2016 after filing a proceeding needs leave to continue it; leave declined for a long-delayed appeal from the Disputes Tribunal with no prospects (Grau J, 5 October 2026). JADE
• Abrahamson v Hennessy Grading Systems Ltd [2026] NZHC 2759 - in jointly heard proceedings, steps taken before the later proceeding was filed are allocated to the earlier one; a plaintiff that obtains financial relief on the principal contested issue is the successful party though it recovers less than claimed (Anderson J, 11 September 2026). JADE
• R v Tevao [2026] NZHC 3024 - Class A supply and participation in an organised criminal group: a starting point below band four of Zhang v R was available for a party with a lesser role; home detention; no firearms prohibition order under s 39A of the Arms Act 1983, the risk of harm being low (Dunningham J, 1 October 2026). JADE

In the notes only: Complete Construction Canterbury Ltd v Garden City Civil Ltd [2026] NZHC 3059 - costs on mixed success after a dismissed liquidation application, reduced by 50 per cent (Associate Judge Taylor, 6 October 2026). JADE

Mega Aqua's substantive appeal now proceeds; nothing in this episode predicts the outcome.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Ten decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Tuesday 13 October 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: the strike pay prohibition in s 470(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) turns on a connection between the entitlement to a payment and the performance of, or availability for, work during protected industrial action, not on timing; an allowance for the hardships of remote work, reciprocal with rostered duties, could be withheld for a stoppage, but a transport allowance whose entitlement arose from travel already done could not. Then costs after an abandoned proceeding and the liability of a co-applicant who lends his name, leave to appeal under a vexatious proceedings order, and interim suppression in a class action.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Australian Workers' Union v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1492 (Lenehan J, 13 October 2026) - separate questions answered: s 470(1) requires a connection between the entitlement to the payment and work or availability for work during the industrial action, not a temporal or direct time earnings test, and a payment merely falling due during the action is not enough; reciprocity is a question of construction; a contract stating an entitlement is contained in a policy obliges payment as the policy sets it, though policies are said not to form part of the contract; the Total Remuneration Statements were not incorporated; the Field Loading Allowance was within s 470(1), so no contravention; the Transport Allowance, whose entitlement arose on completion of travel, was outside it, and its deductions contravened s 323(1) as a single contravention; s 470(1), where it applies, removes the s 323(1) obligation; listed for further hearing on consequential orders and costs. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Britten v eBroker.com.au Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1512 (McDonald J, 13 October 2026) - costs applications granted: an applicant who abandons a proceeding ordinarily pays the respondents' costs, r 26.12(7) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) applying by analogy without a filed notice of discontinuance; abandonment alone does not warrant indemnity costs; a proceeding may be objectively vexatious without a vexatious purpose; a co-applicant who authorised the proceeding in his name, was wilfully blind to its conduct and took no step to dissociate himself was assessed in his own right and ordered to pay indemnity costs to the date of his withdrawal; joint and several liability; lump sum orders because taxation would be protracted and recovery doubtful. JADE
• Lawrence, in the matter of Lawrence [2026] FCA 1507 (Younan J, 13 October 2026) - leave to institute an appeal from a vexatious proceedings order dismissed with costs: under s 37AT(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the applicant must show the proposed appeal is not vexatious, ordinarily by a reasonably arguable ground; the inclusive s 37AM(1) definition reaches defensive proceedings and appeals as of right; interlocutory steps are separate proceedings; counsel's opinion annexed to an affidavit is inadmissible hearsay and contrary to r 23.11; lump sum costs to be fixed on the papers. JADE
• Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (Suppression Orders) [2026] FCA 1518 (Lee J, 13 October 2026) - synopsis only: once interim suppression orders are made, s 37AI(2) requires urgent determination, and interim orders are not holding devices; class action settlement confidentiality under s 37AG(1)(a) needs demonstrated necessity; parties cannot by private agreement dictate the terms on which the Court receives applications. JADE
• Sammut v Lawrence, in the matter of Lawrence [2026] FCA 1506 (Younan J, 13 October 2026) - the companion creditor's petition ruling under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth); synopsis only. JADE

Also on the docket.

• Pokharel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1498 (Abraham J, 13 October 2026) - extension of time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the s 104 duty to notify changed contact details; synopsis only. JADE
• BPK17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1508 (McEvoy J, 9 October 2026) - migration judicial review. JADE
• BAH21 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1516 (Banks-Smith J, 13 October 2026) - migration judicial review. JADE
• Reeve, in the matter of an application by Reeve [2026] FCA 1474 (Longbottom J, 12 October 2026) - interlocutory application. JADE
• Rosherville Pty Ltd v ASX Limited [2026] FCA 1515 (Jackman J, 13 October 2026) - derivative proceedings. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

One state, every court: the Victoria edition of 13 October 2026, one decision of the Court of Appeal and five of the Supreme Court. A building action is brought against a joined party when VCAT makes the joinder order, not when the application is filed, and VCAT, a creature of statute, cannot backdate a joinder to beat the strict ten-year limit in the Building Act, whatever its own listing delays. Then further evidence on a VCAT appeal to show that a jurisdictional fact the Tribunal assumed did not exist, with remittal exceptionally available; and security for costs ordered against a shell company that filed nothing in answer, a decision that also features in today's Court of Appeal brief, here with the Victorian angle. Three more decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening story.

Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

• Cavey v Owners Corporation PS 719168C [2026] VSC 667 - (Irving AsJ, 13 October 2026) leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, and the joinder application dismissed. Construed in light of the purpose of a single, certain ten-year period, "brought" in s 134(1) of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) means commenced, so a building action against a joined party is brought when VCAT makes the order under s 60 of the VCAT Act, not when the application is filed; the claim against a director joined after expiry was statute-barred. VCAT's jurisdiction is wholly statutory: absent an express power it cannot ante-date its orders (s 118(1)), and joinder nunc pro tunc was also contrary to s 134, which applies despite any other Act or law; nothing in s 134 was intended to remedy VCAT's resourcing delays (O'Shea and H Building not followed; Barnes and Re Keystone distinguished). Where only one conclusion is open, the Court may make the order VCAT should have made (s 148(7)). The 28-day period in s 148(2)(a) is subject to the vacation period in r 3.04(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025. JADE
• Triple One Gardenvale Pty Ltd v Belot Property Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 245 - (Richards and Osborn JJA, 13 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) security for the costs of an application for leave to appeal from preliminary questions under s 29(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic), ordered under r 64.38(4). There was an unacceptable risk that a shell company with no evidence of material assets, which filed nothing in answer to a prima facie case of impecuniosity, could not meet an adverse costs order; no discretionary consideration weighed against security (a commercial dispute with competing multimillion dollar claims, a prompt application, a proportionate sum, no evidence of stultification); without a concluded view, prospects were not shown to be strong, and a construction question of some general importance did not raise a dispute of such public importance as to require the respondent to relitigate it without security. The leave application is yet to be decided. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Tobin v Sure Building Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 658 - (K Judd J, 9 October 2026) leave to appeal granted and the appeal allowed; VCAT's possession and reopening orders set aside. On an appeal under s 148 of the VCAT Act, further evidence showing that a jurisdictional fact did or did not exist may be received even where it was available below, and so is new rather than fresh; uncontradicted affidavits showed the occupant had not signed the residential rental agreement on which VCAT assumed jurisdiction, so VCAT erred. A finding of no jurisdiction ordinarily precludes remittal, but remittal was exceptionally available because VCAT was never asked to decide jurisdiction; the matter is to be remitted if the respondent elects to pursue a tenancy by estoppel. The residual discretion to refuse leave for lack of utility was not exercised. JADE

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

• Piletech Australia Pty Ltd v S J Higgins Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 668 - list only (commercial arbitration). JADE
• Perpetual Corporate Trust Ltd v Ching [2026] VSC 664 - list only (summary judgment). JADE
• Re Mummery [2026] VSC 663 - list only (bail application; the applicant is presumed innocent of any charge). JADE

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