The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

Eleven decisions from four tribunals and the Australian Patent Office in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 13 October 2026, five with headnotes, one reported as doctrine: when a deposited-strain method claim fails for reaching bare soil; why VCAT will not simply sign an agreed consent order on a permit; how an attorney's caveat over the donor's home cost an enduring power of attorney; and why a prior use must be strictly proved, and a messaging scheme stays a scheme.

Tribunals Desk: fungus, soil and a carbon claim (lead).

• Jones Tulloch Pty Ltd v Loam Bio Pty Ltd [2026] APO 25 - claims to the use of deposited strains are confined to genetically identical strains, so novelty and inventive step failed; "effective amount" is construed a priori, as what the skilled worker would expect; a method claim need not work every time to be plausible or useful; but "and/or" swept in inoculating soil without plants, beyond the technical contribution, so the opposition succeeded to that extent for lack of support, sufficiency and utility. Two months to amend; no costs. JADE

A word from JADE.

Tribunals Desk: a second home and a consent order refused.

• Gourlay v Greater Geelong CC [2026] VCAT 754 - a consent order under s 93 VCAT Act is refused unless the material shows an acceptable planning outcome; unresolved, interconnected matters (bushfire, tree removal, an unidentified waterway permission, earthworks) cannot be deferred to secondary consent; interrelated permissions are assessed holistically; remittal under s 51(2)(d) preferred to s 51A. Decision set aside and the permit application remitted to the council. JADE

Tribunals Desk: an attorney, a caveat and a guardianship order (legal doctrine only).

• LOIS [2026] WASAT 123 - an attorney's fiduciary obligation under s 107 Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) to act in the donor's interests, to the exclusion of their own, may make an enduring power of attorney inappropriate as a less restrictive alternative; lodging a caveat to protect the attorneys' own interest in the donor's home was inconsistent with that obligation and evidenced a conflict of interest; enduring family conflict and intertwined finances made the proposed guardians and administrators unsuitable. EPA revoked; the Public Advocate appointed limited guardian and the Public Trustee plenary administrator. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a generator, a prior use and a messaging scheme.

• UON v Allied Pumps Pty Ltd [2026] APO 28 - a "control signal" conveys a direction or command, not mere information; a prior use anticipates only by an enabling disclosure of every essential integer; prior public use must be strictly proved, and factory testing in the applicant's own test area was not public. Opposition unsuccessful, with costs. JADE
• Konstantinos Amouris [2026] APO 26 - the computer-implemented invention principles extend to networked computers and mobile devices; standard components programmed with a new method do not make a new or improved system; better targeting of promotional content is a business effect, and an incidental data saving is insufficient. Claims not a manner of manufacture; three months to gain acceptance. JADE

Registry and the thread (no outcome stated).

• Director of Proceedings on Behalf of the Health Ombudsman v JCP [2026] QCAT 352 - synopsis: professional misconduct for criminal offences under s 5 National Law (Qld), sanctions and disqualification periods, and the Fleischmann principle (framework only). JADE
• Radtke v Baw Baw SC [2026] VCAT 843 - synopsis: the Kantor principles for extending a planning permit's expiry under s 85(1)(f) Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). JADE
• Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman v Adams [2026] QCAT 413 - list only (professional misconduct). JADE
• Saini v Safe Transport Victoria [2026] VCAT 832 - list only (administrative appeal). JADE
• Najibi v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATOD 134 - list only (administrative review). JADE
• Zonnevylle v Secretary, Department of Education [2026] NSWCATAP 319 - list only (interlocutory applications). JADE

The thread: the whole picture. A claim must work across everything it covers; a consent order needs every permission on the table; an attorney acts for the donor, and only the donor.

Case notes

Jones Tulloch Pty Ltd v Loam Bio Pty Ltd [2026] APO 25 - Felix White, delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 10 September 2026. Signal: Doctrine; Practice & Procedure. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 59. Held, upholding the opposition in part: deposited-strain claims confined to genetically identical strains; "effective amount" a priori; plausibility and utility need not mean success every time; claims covering inoculation of soil without plants not plausible and beyond the contribution. Why aired: the edition's only Doctrine entry, on drafting and attacking biological method claims.

Gourlay v Greater Geelong CC [2026] VCAT 754 - Mary-Anne Taranto, Member, 13 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure. Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) s 79; VCAT Act ss 51(2)(d), 51A, 93; Greater Geelong Planning Scheme cll 35.07-4, 53.02. Why aired: identify every permission trigger before seeking consent orders.

LOIS [2026] WASAT 123 - Ms R Bunney, Member, 13 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure. Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) ss 4, 43(1), 44(1), 44(5), 51(2)(g), 68(1)(c)-(d), 107. Pseudonyms as published. Why aired: an attorney with a stake in the donor's assets must put the donor first.

UON v Allied Pumps Pty Ltd [2026] APO 28 - Andrew Burgess, delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 29 September 2026. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(1)(a), 7(2), 18(1)(c), 24, 40(2)(a), 40(3), 59. Why aired: prior use needs an enabling disclosure, and public use strict proof.

Konstantinos Amouris [2026] APO 26 - Dr N R Madsen, Deputy Commissioner of Patents, 11 September 2026. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 18(1)(a), 45; Patent Regulations 1991 (Cth) reg 13.4(1)(g). Why aired: the computer-implemented invention principles reach networked and mobile systems.

A guardianship matter and a health practitioner's misconduct arising from criminal offences are reported as legal doctrine only; no one is identified. The Gourlay application returns to the council, and the Loam Bio and Amouris applicants have time to amend or gain acceptance; nothing here predicts any outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Eighteen decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of 13 October 2026, three of them headnoted. Informal shareholder assent cannot waive a statutory contravention, a sole shareholder's assent needs an outward sign, and honest directors who paid themselves fees without members' approval were refused relief while a covenant not to sue one director left contribution intact; the State's duty to its police is to take reasonable steps to train, educate and monitor, and a late challenge to findings on expert evidence will fail; and at a forensic patient's preliminary hearing the question is whether the material, if proved, would justify an extension, with expert opinion not binding and less restrictive means judged as they really are. One more on the docket, and fourteen list-only decisions on the registry. The Court of Appeal decision also features in the Court of Appeal brief of the same day; here it gets the New South Wales angle.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Motasea Pty Limited v Gooley [2026] NSWSC 1162 - (Kunc J, 13 October 2026) relief granted in part in a derivative claim for breach of directors' duties. Causing a company to pay money it is not obliged to pay breaches ss 181 and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); directors cannot fix their own remuneration without the general meeting, and an honest belief does not satisfy s 181 unless rational; Duomatic assent binds the company only to what the general meeting could lawfully do, so it cannot waive a statutory contravention, and a sole shareholder's assent needs an external manifestation of a conscious decision; Greenhalgh's "company as a whole" does not displace separate personality. An admission of a contravention as a conclusion of law imports no state of mind. Under ss 1317S and 1318 honesty is necessary but not sufficient: relief refused on the fees (personal benefit, no reasonable value proved, no legal advice), granted on the invoices. Co-defaulting directors may claim contribution as to half, unaffected by a covenant not to sue the other director in a deed to which the claimant was not a party. Further orders and costs to come. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Caller v State of NSW [2026] NSWCA 212 - (Leeming, Stern and Ball JJA, 13 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) appeal dismissed in a police officer's negligence claim for PTSD. The State's duty was to take reasonable steps to train, educate and monitor officers; one officer's failure to recognise symptoms does not by itself prove breach; records that would only have confirmed what the clinicians knew did not cause the injury; a late oral challenge to findings on expert evidence without compliance with r 51.36(2) UCPR fails, breach being assessed prospectively; a failure-to-give-reasons ground is ordinarily inutile on a rehearing; the assumptions behind a notional apportionment are better stated expressly. JADE

Public Law Desk (reported as legal doctrine only; preliminary hearing).

• Attorney General for New South Wales v Perry (bht Limbury) (Preliminary) [2026] NSWSC 1256 - (Hamill J, 13 October 2026) summons for an extension of forensic patient status dismissed under s 126(6) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). At the preliminary stage (ss 126(5), 130(b)) the question is whether the Court would be justified in making an extension order assuming the supporting material proved, not whether a future judge would; "low" is no substitute for the statutory words; the high risk offender authorities guide construction; an expert opinion is one part of the evidence and the onus stays on the plaintiff; less restrictive means must be realistic, not hypothetical. A Court of Appeal decision set aside by the High Court on a conceded point no longer strictly binds but remains persuasive on other points. Nothing here predicts any future application. JADE

Also on the docket.

• Sahin v Sahin [2026] NSWSC 1257 - (Richmond J, 13 October 2026; Signal Illustrative) per the synopsis, proprietary estoppel and constructive trust claims rejected for want of a proven representation, reliance and detriment; a 99-year lease at nominal rent set aside for unconscionable conduct and under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW); non est factum rejected; a near-identical spousal affidavit rejected unless corroborated. JADE

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

• In the matter of M and PG Projects Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1248 - list only (creditors' rights). JADE
• In the matter of RCM ST Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1246 - list only (statutory demand). JADE
• Cho v Sethi [2026] NSWSC 1258 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Costantino v Hillier (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1260 - list only (costs). JADE
• Dolan v The Corporation of the Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart [2026] NSWSC 1259 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

• Iron Wealth Pty Ltd trading as CHEGO v Fairfield City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1679 - list only (development appeal). JADE
• Kumar v Hornsby Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1681 - list only (development application). JADE
• Darling and Waterview Pty Ltd ATF Darling and Waterview Unit Trust v Inner West Council [2026] NSWLEC 1693 - list only (joinder). JADE
• TDMS Studio Pty Ltd trading as TDMS Studio v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1684 - list only (development application). JADE
• Hamdor Pty Ltd ATF Hamdor Family Trust v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1676 - list only (development application). JADE
• 1A Punch Street Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1683 - list only (development application). JADE
• JAVEEE Homes Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1686 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Schofields Childcare Holding Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1677 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Salerno Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 1685 - list only (development application). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Six headnoted appellate decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of 13 October 2026, from four courts, with the Queensland, ACT and Tasmania editions of the same day riding in this brief. Tasmania's Full Court on the land-rich ratio before completion and on remitting interest after years of revenue office silence; Queensland's Court of Appeal on home warranty cover in high rises and on photo board identification directions; the New South Wales Court of Appeal on breach, causation and appeal practice in a police officer's psychiatric injury claim; Victoria's Court of Appeal on security for costs against a shell company; and a Queensland Supreme Court decision on pleading the counterfactual. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening story.

Tax and Revenue Desk (opening story).

• Ningbo Kaixin Investment Co Ltd and Van Dairy (Hong Kong) Group Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] TASFC 15 - an agreement by a parent to procure its wholly owned subsidiaries to transfer land, for a price payable to it, is an agreement for the sale of land under s 61(4) of the Duties Act 2001 (Tas), concerned with existence not enforceability; before completion the land and non-land assets are valued on a consistent basis at the date of the agreement as the property being sold, without deducting the unpaid price, so the company was not land-rich (59.007%); "beneficial ownership" in s 49 keeps its equitable meaning; an intermediate appellate court should determine all grounds. Appeal allowed; grounds 1, 3 and 4 dismissed; orders below set aside (Shanahan CJ, Estcourt and Brett JJ; also the Tasmania edition). JADE
• Commissioner of State Revenue v Van Dairy (Hong Kong) Group Ltd and Ningbo Kaixin Investment Co Ltd [2026] TASFC 16 - remission of interest under s 38(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Tas) is not governed by an exceptional circumstances requirement; "rare" does not mean "never"; the Commissioner's almost five years of inaction was determinative; no House v The King error from findings on agreed facts; an irrelevant consideration must be material and determinative. Extension of time refused (Shanahan CJ, Estcourt and Brett JJ; also the Tasmania edition). JADE

Public Law Desk.

• D'Arcy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCA 200 - "work on or for a ... multiple dwelling" of more than three storeys in s 26(a) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) includes renovation work within a unit, so it is excluded from the home warranty scheme; the regulation is within power under s 67WB(1)(f) and its three-storey threshold is a policy line. Leave to appeal refused with costs (Mullins P, Doyle JA and Freeburn J; also the Queensland edition). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk (the last item reported as legal doctrine only).

• Caller v State of NSW [2026] NSWCA 212 - no breach, found or alleged, caused a police officer's PTSD, because proper records would only have confirmed what the examining clinicians knew; reasonable steps on training; a late challenge to findings on expert evidence fails without compliance with r 51.36(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW); a failure-to-give-reasons ground is ordinarily inutile on a rehearing; state the assumptions under a notional apportionment. Appeal dismissed with costs (Leeming, Stern and Ball JJA; also in today's New South Wales brief). JADE
• Triple One Gardenvale Pty Ltd v Belot Property Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 245 - security for costs of a leave application under r 64.38(4) where there is an unacceptable risk that a shell company applicant could not meet an adverse costs order and it filed no evidence in answer; prospects not strong, no sufficient public interest, no stultification. Security ordered; the leave application remains to be decided (Richards and Osborn JJA; also in today's Victoria brief). JADE
• Elvina Catherine Palmer v State of Queensland [2026] QSC 30 - (Queensland edition; reported as legal doctrine only) negligence by omission must be pleaded with a clear, consistent counterfactual; a duty to prevent deliberate third-party harm needs a special relationship of care, supervision or control; statutory guardianship lay with an official, not the State; judgment under r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rather than leave to replead a failed third iteration. Judgment for the defendant with costs (Johnstone J). JADE

Criminal Law Desk (reported as legal doctrine only).

• R v BFJ [2026] QCA 199 - a specific warning about a photo board's composition is required only where it is objectively suggestive; no rule that a jury must always be warned of the general dangers of photo board identification; a judge must isolate weaknesses in identification evidence without opining on counsel's arguments; recording a conviction against a young offender under s 184 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) was well open. Conviction appeal dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused (Mullins P, Boddice JA and Henry J; also the Queensland edition). JADE

Registry (ACT edition; listed without headnotes, no outcome stated).

• DPP v Whitall (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 395 - sentence appeal (White J). JADE
• DPP v Scott [2026] ACTSC 396 - sentence appeal (White J). JADE

Caller also appears in today's New South Wales brief, and Triple One Gardenvale in today's Victoria brief, of 13 October 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

A quiet day with a loud lead. Ten decisions from two tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Monday 12 October 2026, two with headnotes, one reported as doctrine, plus the one synopsis of the Fair Work Tribunals edition of the same day: what a disciplinary sanction is for, what genuine insight takes, and why cancellation needs no finding of permanent unfitness; whether carpet tiles on rubber mats meet a carpet on thick underlay by-law; and why management's responsibility for fraud does not shrink an auditor's.

Tribunals Desk: a surgeon's sanctions, and what insight takes (lead).

• Medical Board of Australia v Proper (No 4) [2026] VCAT 833 - the power under s 196(2) National Law is protective, though orders may have a punitive effect justified by the public interest; ordinarily one consequence per count; genuine insight needs more than formal acceptance, and reactive steps under regulatory scrutiny carry little weight; truth or genuine opinion does not justify airing grievances in public; general deterrence survives an isolated, stressful incident and long proceedings; cancellation does not require permanent unfitness, given the Div 12A reinstatement scheme. Reprimands, a suspension, cancellation and a 12-month bar on applying for reinstatement. JADE

Tribunals Desk: carpet tiles and a strata by-law.

• The Owners of Island Strata Plan 43285 and Negria [2026] WASAT 122 - strata by-laws are construed objectively by text, context and purpose; a carpet on thick underlay by-law requires a system that significantly reduces footfall noise, so tiles made for a firm substrate laid on cushioned mats were another floor covering installed without approval; the current owner is bound under s 45(2); a s 47(2) notice is judged by substance; a party's own representatives cannot give expert evidence; leave to amend under r 15 without prejudice; a $4,677 replacement not disproportionate. Application granted; replacement ordered. JADE

Tribunals Desk: an auditor and the fraud risk work (from the Fair Work Tribunals edition; synopsis only, no headnote).

• Michael Bernard Shulman [2026] FWCD 122 - a delegate decision cancelling an auditor's registration under s 255G(1)(a) Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) after 16 allegations against the Australian Auditing Standards and APES 110: an audit's inherent limits and management's primary responsibility for fraud do not excuse skipping ASA 240 fraud risk procedures; the test is what ought reasonably to have been known at the time; experience alone does not earn an expert more weight, and non-compliance with GPN-EXPT reduces it; cancellation, not suspension, for failures over four consecutive audit periods. JADE

Registry and the thread (no outcome stated).

• Medical Board of Australia v Kok [2026] VCAT 838 - synopsis: sanctions for a health practitioner's social media misconduct; insight and remorse; deterrence. JADE
• Davis v Social Services Regulator [2026] VCAT 829 - synopsis: the three-part test for Working with Children clearance reviews (framework only). JADE
• LWGW Rathmullen Pty Ltd v Manningham CC [2026] VCAT 840 - synopsis: a design and development overlay, side setbacks, overshadowing of balconies, and procedural fairness when new concerns are raised just before the hearing. JADE
• Brown v Blackburn [2026] VCAT 814 - synopsis: the limits of VCAT's consumer jurisdiction under s 43 VCAT Act and Part 4.2 ACLFTA; no forum advice. JADE
• EQN v Court Services Victoria (Corrected) [2026] VCAT 783 - list only (summary judgment). JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Proper (No 3) [2026] VCAT 768 - list only (judicial review). JADE
• INAS Australia (Italian Welfare) Inc v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] VCAT 779 - list only (stamp duty exemption). JADE
• Gray v Hepburn SC [2026] VCAT 824 - list only (planning enforcement orders). JADE
• James Vincent Dickson [2026] FWCD 131 - Fair Work delegate, list only (auditor registration suspension). JADE

The thread: substance over form. Formally accepting a finding is not insight; tiles on mats are not carpet on underlay; management's duty does not shrink the auditor's.

Case notes

Medical Board of Australia v Proper (No 4) [2026] VCAT 833 - Dr P Molloy and Dr P McNeill, Health Practitioner Members (holdings attributed in the headnote to Judge M Tran VP, Dr P Molloy and Dr P McNeill), 8 October 2026. Signal: Doctrine; Practice & Procedure. Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) ss 3A, 196(2), 196B(2), Div 12A. Held: punishment is not an objective of s 196(2), but a punitive effect is justified by the public interest; separate determinations where an isolated comment and later posts lack commonality; genuine insight requires accepting, understanding, appreciating causes and consequences and willingness to prevent recurrence, and the replaced post, breached undertaking and restraint only under scrutiny showed none; general deterrence not displaced by publicity, delay or an isolated incident; cancellation without probable permanent unfitness. For the comment, a reprimand and suspension; for the posts, a reprimand, cancellation and a 12-month bar. Why aired: it sets the purpose of disciplinary consequences and the evidence of insight that counts, for every health practitioner disciplinary matter.

The Owners of Island Strata Plan 43285 and Negria [2026] WASAT 122 - Mr E Cade, Member, 12 October 2026. Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) ss 45(2), 47(1)(b)(iii), 47(2), 47(5)(b); SAT Act s 9; SAT Rules rr 15, 39A. Held: purposive, objective construction of by-law 27; tiles on mats not a carpet on underlay system; contravention; notice sufficient in substance; representatives not experts; amendment allowed; replacement by 8 December 2026 ordered within legal reasonableness. Why aired: a reusable rule for construing strata by-laws by function, not label.

Michael Bernard Shulman [2026] FWCD 122 - Patrick Coyle, delegate, 17 August 2026. Illustrative synopsis only; no headnote. Why aired: management's responsibility for fraud is no answer to an auditor's own fraud risk procedures, judged without hindsight.

Folded in: the Fair Work Tribunals edition of 12 October 2026 (ten delegate decisions, no headnotes). Its eight rule alteration and union governance certifications are not covered. A Working with Children clearance review is reported by framework only. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Sixteen decisions from two courts in the New South Wales edition of 12 October 2026, twelve of them headnoted. The State offence of perverting the course of justice protects Federal Court proceedings and consensual arbitrations, with the State's interest marked by its geographical nexus, not an implied "in and of New South Wales" limit, and a conviction appeal before sentence needs a discrete question of wider significance; a fiduciary joint venture needs neither proportionate profit sharing, joint control nor common ownership, the duty to apply venture assets survives termination, and a mandatory restorative injunction can compel discharge of a mortgage granted in breach; a preliminary discovery application is not a dispute or claim within an exclusive jurisdiction clause, which only grounds a stay and is waived by defending on the merits; and on a jury discharge application the question is what a fair trial requires, directions are not presumed always to cure, and the proviso is ordinarily unavailable where contested credibility may have been affected. Three more on the docket, and four list-only decisions on the registry. The Court of Criminal Appeal decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same day; here they get the New South Wales angle.

Criminal Law Desk (opening story).

• Markovich v R [2026] NSWCCA 161 - (Mitchelmore JA, Dhanji and Emmett JJ, 12 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) leave granted, appeal against a conviction under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) dismissed. The "course of justice" in Pt 7 means proceedings in which a curial body, with authority from law or the parties' enforceable agreement, decides rights according to law and must act judicially; because one composite body of State and Commonwealth law applies throughout the Commonwealth, s 319 is not confined to proceedings involving State law or non-federal jurisdiction; "judicial tribunal" in s 311 includes consensual arbitral panels; s 12(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) does not confine the offence to a course of justice "in and of" New South Wales, the State's interest being marked by the Pt 1A nexus; R v Lowe distinguished. A verdict once entered is a conviction, and leave to appeal before sentence was granted for a discrete question of wider significance, without encouragement for other cases. The applicant is yet to be sentenced. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Wang v Yu [2026] NSWSC 1254 - (Parker J, 12 October 2026) relief granted on a fiduciary joint venture to redevelop land. Joint ventures and partnerships are not mutually exclusive; trust and confidence in the actual course of dealing may found fiduciary obligations without proportionate profit sharing, joint control or common ownership; a "guarantee" of an "annual profit" was a secondary obligation, the return to be funded primarily from the property, and the contributions were repayable from the sale proceeds in priority (constructive trust, independent trustee for sale); the fiduciary obligation to apply venture assets survived termination, and a mortgage granted to defeat the plaintiffs' claim was a dishonest breach; a mandatory restorative injunction required all steps to procure the mortgage's discharge where monetary relief was plainly inadequate. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• The Capital Markets Company Limited v Sommerin [2026] NSWSC 1250 - (Scruby J, 12 October 2026) preliminary discovery ordered under r 5.3 UCPR. An application for preliminary discovery is not a "dispute or claim" to be "settled" within an exclusive jurisdiction clause; non-parties to the clause may obtain a stay only if New South Wales is a clearly inappropriate forum (Voth); alternatively, reliance on the clause was waived by defending on the merits, prejudice not being required (s 56 CPA, r 6.43 UCPR); the clause only grounds a stay, so the applicant may still be entitled to claim relief, and a future stay must be clear beyond demonstration to defeat the application; reasonable inquiries need not be exhaustive. Preliminary discovery only; nothing has been found against any respondent. JADE

Criminal Law Desk (reported as legal doctrine only; retrial ordered).

• GR v R [2026] NSWCCA 159 - (Free JA, Rigg and Sirtes JJ, 12 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) leave granted, appeal allowed, convictions quashed and a retrial ordered. A judge deciding a discharge application asks what is required for a fair trial, not whether continuing risks a substantial miscarriage of justice (Crofts read after Weiss and Brawn); the stage of trial and deliberateness matter only so far as they bear on fairness; the assumption that juries follow directions is not immutable; the Crown bears the onus on the proviso, which is ordinarily unavailable where the irregularity may have affected contested credibility. A retrial has been ordered and the accused is presumed innocent. JADE

Also on the docket.

• Hovius v Speno Rail Maintenance Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1152 - (Harrison AJ, 12 October 2026) Medical Appeal Panel decision set aside and remitted to a differently constituted panel; a worker's submissions are integral to the grounds of appeal under s 328(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW); failure to review a ground is a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, and an assessment outside the guidelines may be one. JADE
• Eljamal v R [2026] NSWCCA 155 - (Leeming JA, Fagan and Cavanagh JJ, 12 October 2026) the "harm done to the victim" in s 3A(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is harm caused by the offence, not hardship from the offender's imprisonment. JADE
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortnum Private Wealth Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1252 - (Black J, 12 October 2026) declarations and an agreed penalty for an AFSL holder's cybersecurity failures in breach of s 912A(1)(a), (d) and (h) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). JADE

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

• Jin v GYG (NSW) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1255 - list only (contract). JADE
• Muts v Le & Anor [2026] NSWSC 1134 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Youssef & Ors v Dr Sekharipuram Ramamvrthi Govind Krishna [2026] NSWSC 1253 - list only (settlement approval). JADE
• Council of the Law Society of NSW v John Anthony Eaton (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1199 - list only (unauthorised practice). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Four decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Monday 12 October 2026: one from the Federal Court of Australia and three from the appellate jurisdiction of Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. A quiet day, and one decision at depth: the statutory pooling gateway for related companies in liquidation requires a company in the group to own the property at the time of judgment, so assets already realised cannot satisfy it and intercompany debts must be proved; but the general direction power in the Insolvency Practice Schedule can still authorise a liquidator to administer the group as if pooled. The three family law appeal rulings, on child abduction, property and parenting, air in today's Court of Appeal brief.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Mansoor (Liquidator), in the matter of Harley Cranes Payroll Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] FCA 1505 (Jackman J, 12 October 2026) - application granted in part: a pooling determination under s 579E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) failed because s 579E(1)(b)(iv) requires a company in the group to own the particular property at the time of judgment, which a fund of realisation proceeds does not satisfy, and the claimed intercompany debts (choses in action) were not proved on the balance of probabilities; pooling would have been just and equitable and no unsecured creditor would be materially disadvantaged, the absence of objection after notice to all known creditors materially supporting that conclusion; the liquidator was directed under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that he would be justified in combining the companies' property into a single fund, distributing it as though they were a single company, and making no payment on intercompany liabilities; no creditors' resolution was necessary in the circumstances, and using s 90-15 was not impermissible judicial repair of s 579E; whether s 90-15 authorises a pooling order in the strict sense left undecided. JADE

Family law appeals (aired in today's Court of Appeal brief).

• Pensak & Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1A 182 (Campton, Schonell and Parker JJ, 2 October 2026) - child abduction: an application for a stay pending special leave and for further orders dismissed; a special leave application is before the High Court. JADE
• Trevose & Sarma [2026] FedCFamC1A 184 (Schonell J, 9 October 2026) - an appeal from final property orders dismissed. JADE
• Cowden & Walsman (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 183 (Campton J, 2 October 2026) - an appeal from parenting orders dismissed. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twelve appellate decisions from three courts in the Court of Appeal edition of 12 October 2026, with the Queensland and Western Australia editions of the same day folded in. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal holds that the State offence of perverting the course of justice protects Federal Court proceedings. Also: the first limb of self-defence, the test for discharging a jury after prejudicial evidence (retrial ordered), unreasonable and inconsistent verdicts in sexual offence appeals, the "harm done to the victim" sentencing purpose, and a sentence that mistook its own effect. The Federal Circuit and Family Court's appeal division on the 2024 amendments and part-heard property hearings, judicial questioning in children's cases, and stays pending special leave. Western Australia's Court of Appeal on opposing a short extension.

Public Law Desk (opening story).

• Markovich v R [2026] NSWCCA 161 - the "course of justice" protected by s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is not confined to proceedings "in and of" New South Wales; Pt 1A fixes the geographical nexus and s 12(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) does not confine Pt 7; because a single composite body of State and Commonwealth law applies, the offence reaches Federal Court proceedings applying no State law; "judicial tribunal" includes consensual arbitral panels; no distinct State interest required; R v Lowe distinguished. Leave granted (an appeal before sentence, not to be taken as encouragement); appeal dismissed; sentence yet to be passed (Mitchelmore JA, Dhanji and Emmett JJ). JADE

Criminal Law Desk (two items reported as legal doctrine only).

• Vujica v R [2026] NSWCCA 156 - on independent review the Crown excluded any reasonable possibility that the applicant believed stabbing necessary in self-defence (s 418(2)(a)), though the deceased approached with a brick; anger, the aggressor, opportunity to withdraw, excessiveness and post-offence conduct not equally consistent with a defensive belief as circumstantial markers (Payne JA); judge-alone reasons adequate under s 133(2) read with the case run. Murder conviction appeal dismissed (Payne JA, McNaughton and Muston JJ). JADE
• GR v R [2026] NSWCCA 159 - a judge deciding a jury discharge application asks what a fair trial requires, not whether continuing risks a substantial miscarriage of justice; stage of trial and deliberateness matter only as they bear on fairness; directions are not presumed always to cure; the proviso is ordinarily unavailable where the irregularity may have affected contested credibility, oath against oath. Convictions quashed; retrial ordered; the accused is presumed innocent (Free JA, Rigg and Sirtes JJ). JADE
• Yao v R [2026] NSWCCA 163 - verdicts are not inconsistent where a rational distinction in the evidence explains them; credibility challenges are assessed individually and cumulatively with full regard to the jury's advantages; instrumental lies for a visa may be quarantined; caution against assumptions about how victims behave (Kirk JA and Emmett J). Appeal dismissed (Kirk JA, Emmett and Rigg JJ). JADE
• RB v R [2026] NSWCCA 162 - non-consensual intercourse can occur within an otherwise consensual relationship; messages and delayed complaint do not of themselves raise a doubt; the two-step unreasonable verdict approach. Appeal dismissed (Stern JA, Fagan and Chen JJ). JADE
• Eljamal v R [2026] NSWCCA 155 - the "harm done to the victim" in s 3A(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is the direct harm of the offence, not hardship caused by the offender's imprisonment; leniency for hardship to dependants only where highly exceptional. Appeal dismissed (Leeming JA, Fagan and Cavanagh JJ). JADE
• Muldoon v R [2026] NSWCCA 158 - an unintended extension of an existing non-parole period by miscalculation is error in applying totality even where the principles were understood. Appeal allowed; resentenced (Stern JA, Fagan and Dhanji JJ). JADE

Family Law Desk.

• Trevose & Sarma [2026] FedCFamC1A 184 - under Sch 1 item 68 of the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) the amended s 90SM does not apply where the final hearing commenced before 10 June 2025, including a part-heard hearing; applying it was an error of law but occasioned no miscarriage of justice. Appeal dismissed (Schonell J). JADE
• Cowden & Walsman (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 183 - (reported as legal doctrine only) whether judicial questioning in child-related proceedings occasions a miscarriage of justice is assessed on the whole transcript, having regard to the court's duty to manage proceedings actively; a "failure to consider evidence" complaint needs a contention of manifest unreasonableness. Appeal dismissed with costs (Campton J). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Pensak & Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1A 182 - (reported as legal doctrine only) a stay pending special leave rests only on inherent jurisdiction and requires exceptional circumstances; no utility once a Hague return order is implemented; the Court in its appellate jurisdiction cannot exercise original jurisdiction with respect to children. Application dismissed; special leave was pending when the Court ruled (Campton, Schonell and Parker JJ). JADE
• Complete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd v Lhre Group Pty Ltd [2026] WASCA 143 - (also the Western Australia edition) a first, two-week extension for a respondent's answer, sought in time after a change of solicitors, granted in the interests of justice; concern about future default no reason to refuse; the appellant should have consented, so each party bears its own costs (Mitchell JA). JADE

Registry (no outcome stated).

• Decision restricted [2026] NSWCCA 160 - restricted reasons, orders not published; per the published summary, manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act should have been left as an alternative though not sought at trial (Stern JA, Hamill and Dhanji JJ). JADE
• Bluhdorn Investments Pty Ltd v Crook [2026] QSC 246 - (Queensland edition, listed without a headnote) statutory derivative action (Freeburn J). JADE
• Miller v Monaghan [2026] WASC 441 - (Western Australia edition, list only) commercial arbitration (Lundberg J). JADE
• Re Chin; Ex Parte Chin [2026] WASC 442 - (Western Australia edition, list only) pleadings (Solomon J). JADE
• Attorney General v WAW by his guardian ad litem THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE [No 2] [2026] WASC 440 - (Western Australia edition, list only) mental impairment (Whitby J). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Nineteen decisions from five tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Friday 9 to Sunday 11 October 2026, nine with headnotes, two reported as practice and procedure, plus the Full Bench decision of the first Fair Work Tribunals edition: what a neighbour must prove to get orders over a tree; extra exam time for a student with disabilities as indirect discrimination; keeping an expired licence alive pending review; what a university's internal recruitment clause requires before it looks outside; why a builder owes no duty in negligence for pure economic loss to a contractually protected first owner; personal liability for an unlicensed quote; a first home grant repaid but the penalty set aside; and the consequences of void occupancy agreements.

Tribunals Desk: a neighbour's tree, and the proof a tree order needs (opening block).

• Webster v Hogan [2026] QCAT 458 - an arborist's report of a future possibility, without timing or likelihood, does not prove a risk of serious injury or damage; a possible contribution to mould is not causation; ordinary leaf fall is not, without more, substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference; a severe obstruction of sunlight is a considerable one, judged against the property as a whole; shading of solar panels needs output evidence; the s 65 reasonable effort gate was passed. Application dismissed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: exam time as doctrine, and an expired licence (HZF reported as legal doctrine only).

• HZF on behalf of HZE v NSW Education Standards Authority [2026] NSWCATAD 309 - a disability provisions program is not immune from indirect discrimination claims under s 49B(1)(b) Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW); examination time limits are a requirement or condition; a person who can comply only at serious disadvantage cannot comply; the comparator is a student of similar intelligence without the disabilities; short standardised tests are too blunt for long examinations; reasonableness is judged in all the circumstances; s 108(2) orders need no compensation claim. Application granted in part; a lesser allowance than sought ordered. JADE
• Despot v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATAD 307 - s 60(2) ADR Act empowers an interim order continuing an expired licence pending review, beyond restoring the legal status quo; the applicant must show necessity to secure the effectiveness of the determination; business failure without financial records is not irreparable harm. Interim orders refused. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a Full Bench on internal recruitment (from the Fair Work Tribunals edition).

• University of Melbourne v National Tertiary Education Industry Union [2026] FWCFB 257 - permission under s 604(1) Fair Work Act is still required where the dispute clause provides for arbitration; construction appeals turn on correctness; cl 1.15.9 has three distinct parts; considered requires a formalised, robust and transparent internal assessment against the selection criteria before external advertising, but no final decision; commensurate is not a perfect match; a distinct, higher duty to use all reasonable endeavours to select internal candidates who meet the service requirement; the best candidate proviso cannot override either. Appeal upheld on ground 3; the answer to Question B replaced. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a builder's duty, and an unlicensed quote.

• Coulson & Anor v Jon Nott Building Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 460 - a builder owes no duty to avoid pure economic loss to an original owner protected by an effective contract and statutory warranties, who is not vulnerable; vulnerability remains relevant after Mallonland; Bryan v Maloney creates no special category; Chau's and the decisions applying it not followed; a duty not to damage property exists; limitation for any property damage claim reserved. Preliminary point answered; the proceeding continues. JADE
• James v Rezo [2026] QCAT 461 - recovery under s 42(3) QBCC Act lies against the unlicensed individual who undertook the work and received the money, where no corporate principal was named; the s 42(1) prohibition attaches on undertaking, even with intended subcontracting; a deposit forfeited to a supplier is outside s 42(4). Application granted; counter-application dismissed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a first home grant and a void occupancy deal.

• Schulz v Commissioner for State Revenue [2026] QCAT 457 - a home occupied by tenants before settlement, under a contract taken subject to tenancies, was previously occupied and not a new home; no discretion; a penalty requires proof, to the Briginshaw standard, of subjective knowledge that a document was false or misleading. Repayment confirmed; penalty set aside. JADE
• Williams v Livecomfy Real Estate Pty Ltd Acn 656 799 012 (No 2) (Appeal) [2026] ACAT 59 - offering occupancy agreements without power to contract was a misleading representation under ACL s 18; restitution under a void agreement is discretionary and was refused; s 83(1)(d) compensation is not engaged for a void agreement; no nominal damages for ACL s 18. Declarations made; appeal otherwise dismissed. JADE

Docket (headnoted, Host lines).

• Walsh v NSW Treasury [2026] NSWCATAD 308 - review confined to the access application as framed; the conclusive presumption for privileged material; reasonable searches; systemic in s 111 GIPA Act means a problem of the whole organisation. Decision affirmed; no referral. JADE
• Re: Marcus [2026] WASAT 118 - reported as legal doctrine only: compatibility between administrator and guardian is an important aspect of suitability; least restrictive orders. JADE

Registry (no outcome stated).

• Kawol v Wahoo Pool & Landscape Construction Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 459 - synopsis: the prevention principle where an extension of time clause is not invoked, and liquidated damages notices. JADE
• Praljak v Scheme Manager, Victim Assist Queensland, Department of Youth Justice and Victim Support [2026] QCAT 455 - synopsis: reopening and reasonable excuse for non-attendance at a remote hearing. JADE
• Kaui and Anor v Richardson and Wrench Caboolture [2026] QCATA 144 - synopsis: leave to appeal in a minor civil dispute; Privacy Act claims outside QCAT; retaliatory conduct confined to the tenancy. JADE
• Visishta Projects Pty Ltd v Vytla [2026] QCATA 145 - synopsis: compliance with the QBCC dispute resolution process under s 77(2). JADE
• Rd and Building Services Board [2026] WASAT 120 - synopsis: the fit and proper person test for building registration, and registration conditions. JADE
• Maman v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 2) [2026] NSWCATOD 133 - synopsis: supervision and practice conditions on reinstatement of a health practitioner. JADE
• BZC v Assistant Commissioner Carless [2026] QCAT 456 - listed without detail (police discipline). JADE
• Fraser v Hughes c/o Graczky Thompson [2026] QCATA 146 - list only (leave to appeal). JADE
• Armstrong v Surf Coast SC [2026] VCAT 839 - list only (permit conditions). JADE
• Blewett v Secretary to the Department of Health [2026] VCAT 830 - list only (administrative review). JADE
• Pradeep Tanwar v The University of Newcastle [2026] FWCFB 261 - Fair Work Full Bench, list only (unfair dismissal appeal). JADE
• Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union) v UGL Resources (Contracting) Pty Ltd [2026] FWCFB 262 - Fair Work Full Bench, list only (enterprise agreements). JADE

The Fair Work Tribunals edition's 45 first instance Fair Work Commission decisions and enterprise agreement approvals are not covered. 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 9 to Sunday 11 October 2026 carries 4 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court and the High Court. A quiet weekend with a loud lead, all four at desk length: why a discretionary mutual fund for councils is not insurance, yet its board must still decide late claims; the Supreme Court on standing under the restraint regime; a lead charge carrying the totality of a sentence; and a legal aid grant that could not shield a partnership from costs.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Queenstown Lakes District Council v Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Limited [2026] NZHC 2896 - a contract of insurance for s 9 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 requires a legal entitlement to money or money's worth on an uncertain event involving a transfer of risk; a right to have a claim properly considered under an absolute and unfettered discretion is not enough, so s 9 did not apply to the Riskpool scheme; the earlier Lofts holding was ratio and followed; no term implied where express terms provide for late notification; the continuity extension excused only late notice of circumstances by continuing members; Fair Trading Act and estoppel claims failed for want of reliance and causation; but late notice did not release the Board from its own duty to consider all claims. The Board was ordered to consider and determine the claims; costs reserved (McHerron J, 21 September 2026). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Baker v Baker [2026] NZSC 143 - a proceeding is plainly abusive under s 164B of the Senior Courts Act 2016 only where the abuse is clear beyond doubt from reading it; legal untenability alone is insufficient, but a plain lack of standing qualifies; no further submissions were needed; a restraint arising from a later strike-out did not bar determination of an earlier referral; a second strike-out within two years engaged a further restraint under s 164C(4). Application for leave to appeal struck out (Campbell J, 9 October 2026). JADE
• Jhanzi Afghan Hound Kennels v New Zealand Kennel Club Inc [2026] NZHC 2987 - the qualified costs immunity in s 45 of the Legal Services Act 2011 protects only a legally aided person who is a party; a body of persons is ineligible for legal aid under s 11(1), so a grant to one partner had no bearing on costs against the partnership; s 45 does not apply to steps before the grant unless its terms expressly extend to costs already incurred; O'Donoghue v Comia distinguished. Costs to the respondent on a 2B basis, second counsel certified (Radich J, 1 October 2026). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Atkins v The King [2026] NZHC 2893 - where only concurrent sentences are imposed, s 85(4)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2002 requires the most serious offence to receive the penalty appropriate for the totality of the offending, so an end sentence on the lead charge above that charge's own starting point disclosed no error; a 12-month starting point for receiving a high-value stolen vehicle shortly after the theft was somewhat stern but within range; on appeal the focus is the end sentence. Appeal against sentence dismissed (MacGillivray J, 21 September 2026). JADE

Queenstown Lakes returns to the fund's Board, with quantum untried and costs reserved; 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

Fourteen decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of 9 to 11 October 2026, the state weekend, four of them headnoted. A contract is not unprofitable, so as to be disclaimable by a liquidator without leave, merely because the company would be better off without it, and the disclaimer power exists to relieve liquidators of onerous obligations, not to lift the return to unsecured creditors; interim relief pending special leave needs exceptional circumstances; a separate question of law can be removed to the Court of Appeal on the overriding purpose alone, and conflicting single-judge decisions are special circumstances; heads of agreement that leave the land itself to future agreement bind no one, a caveatable label creates no interest, and advance deposits come back; and at a preliminary hearing on a forensic patient extension, a risk opinion built on contingency upon contingency cannot establish an unacceptable risk of serious harm. Ten list-only decisions on the registry. In the matter of Tahmoor Coal also features in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend; here it gets the New South Wales angle.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• In the matter of Tahmoor Coal Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] NSWCA 211 - (Payne, Stern and Free JJA, 9 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) appeal from the refusal of a declaration that a royalty deed was an unprofitable contract, and of leave to disclaim it, dismissed; motion for interim authorisation to disclaim pending special leave dismissed, both with costs. The purpose of Div 7A of Pt 5.6 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is predominantly to relieve a liquidator of onerous obligations incident to property, not simply to increase returns to unsecured creditors; an unprofitable contract under s 568(1A) is not one that is merely financially disadvantageous, but one imposing continuing financial or otherwise onerous obligations without reciprocal benefit, or impeding the efficient conduct of the liquidation, a question of fact on commercial realities; the leave discretion weighs the orderly and beneficial administration of the liquidation against the detriment to persons affected, and the s 568B threshold does not govern it; a new basis under s 568(1)(d) first raised in oral argument was not determined; interim relief pending special leave requires exceptional circumstances, a substantial prospect of special leave and a favourable balance of convenience. JADE
• Stonebark Pty Limited ACN 638 659 499 v Disage Pty Limited ACN 067 791 388 [2026] NSWSC 1242 - (McGrath J, 9 October 2026) claim to enforce a one-page heads of agreement for the sale of development land dismissed, save for restitution of the deposits with interest. Where the land to be sold remains to be agreed and no mechanism resolves disagreement, the parties are not immediately bound (an archetypal agreement to agree, outside the fourth Masters v Cameron category); a statement that the document is a caveatable interest creates no interest in land, and a deposit paid in advance of a contract no equitable interest; option deposits are recoverable as money had and received on a total failure of consideration; proprietary estoppel by encouragement needs a clear and unambiguous promise, and an opportunity to agree documents later is not one; no joint endeavour constructive trust and no fiduciary duty between a potential vendor and purchaser. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Griffiths v Nesbitt [2026] NSWSC 1247 - (Lonergan J, 9 October 2026) motion granted: three questions on whether ss 15 or 15B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) preclude or limit damages for lost domestic services under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW) to be decided separately under r 28.2 UCPR and removed to the Court of Appeal under r 1.21. Separate questions should be circumscribed questions of law answerable yes or no on the pleadings, with no evidentiary overlap (the Tepko warnings); removal of a question of law needs only satisfaction of ss 56 to 60 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and conflicting single-judge decisions are in any event special circumstances. The negligence claim has not been tried; nothing has been found against the defendant. JADE

Criminal Law Desk (reported as legal doctrine only).

• Attorney General for New South Wales v MM (a pseudonym) (bht Ramjan) (Preliminary) [2026] NSWSC 1245 - (Boulten J, 9 October 2026) summons for the extension of a forensic patient's status dismissed at the preliminary hearing under s 126(6) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The preliminary question is whether the matters alleged would, if proved, justify an extension by reference to the s 122 threshold, a task analogous to committal; evidence of conduct during the latest extension period may be weighed against the plaintiff's expert at that stage; the risk must be of serious harm, not merely harm, to a high degree of probability, and an opinion resting on contingent risks built on other contingent risks, bordering on speculation, could not establish it. JADE

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

• R v Raad, Tuli and Latham Aznan (No 10) (Sentence) [2026] NSWSC 1249 - list only (sentence). JADE

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

• 87 WRN Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1675 - list only (development application). JADE
• Derby Epping Holding Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2026] NSWLEC 1672 - list only (development application). JADE
• Cristavao v Inner West Council [2026] NSWLEC 1673 - list only (development application). JADE
• Prestige Town Planning Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2026] NSWLEC 1671 - list only (development application). JADE
• SQG 85 Windsor Road Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1674 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Camenzuli Investments Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1682 - list only (development consent). JADE
• HZ Construction Solutions Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1670 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Langway Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 1680 - list only (development control orders). JADE
• Xinte Investments Pty Ltd v Jin [2026] NSWLEC 1678 - list only (encroachment). JADE

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