The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

Eighteen decisions in the Federal Courts edition for the weekend of 9 to 11 October 2026: three from the Full Court and fifteen from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: an insured that repays premiums, commissions and interest suffers no Loss under a professional liability policy, and ANZ's two class action settlements are outside its excess cover. Also: a $2 million penalty for poor claims handling and why ASIC's $30 million was oppressive, who proves that a visa notice never arrived, legal unreasonableness and dated material, an interlocutory injunction sought too late, receivers a Registrar had no power to appoint, transfer of a corporations dispute to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and leave to discontinue an unserved class action. The Full Court's three decisions air at depth in today's Court of Appeal brief.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited [2026] FCA 1490 (Beach J, 9 October 2026) - separate question answered against ANZ: the carve-out of "fees, commissions, or other charges paid or due to the Insured" gives effect to the indemnity principle, so repaying amounts the insured was not entitled to receive or retain is not Loss, however the claim is framed; premiums and bank interest are "other charges"; contra proferentem is a last resort and unavailable where the insured's broker drafted the wording; alternatively exclusion 11 applied, its connecting words requiring only a loose connection; defence costs excluded with the claim. JADE
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hollard Insurance Partners Limited [2026] FCA 1487 (Button J, 9 October 2026) - declaration of a single contravention of s 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) in handling a storm claim; the duty of utmost good faith is not fiduciary nor confined to honesty; the maximum is one yardstick; a $30 million penalty was oppressive given profitability; penalty of $2 million under s 75B. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Takarua v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2026] FCA 1460 (Lenehan J, 8 October 2026) - an applicant alleging non-receipt of a s 501G notice bears the legal onus of proving that negative; the proof-within-power principle goes to weight, not onus; applications dismissed; tentative obiter that the s 198(2B) removal duty does not arise while notice is ungiven and merits review remains available. JADE
• Morgan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1489 (Hespe J, 9 October 2026) - no natural justice and no duty to seek updated information under s 501BA(2); whether reliance on dated material is legally unreasonable depends on the reasoning and the inferences the material can support; a relationship "yet to be tested in the community" finding was open; application dismissed. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Marlau Nominees Pty Ltd trading as Paramount Liquor v Adobe Systems Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1494 (Anderson J, 6 October 2026) - interlocutory injunction to keep website services running after contract expiry refused: no nexus with final relief, mandatory in substance and tantamount to final relief, damages adequate, and self-induced prejudice and delay decisive; the misleading conduct claim remains to be tried. JADE
• Chambers v Hunter [2026] FCA 1502 (Derrington J, 30 September 2026) - a Registrar has no power to appoint receivers and consent cannot confer it; the orders set aside under r 39.05 where all parties agreed they were made without power; receivers appointed under s 57 nunc pro tunc. JADE
• ISGroup Pty Ltd v Mellon [2026] FCA 1482 (Vandongen J, 8 October 2026) - transfer under s 1337H(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) turns on the interests of justice, with no presumption or onus and the plaintiff's choice of forum neutral; one court managing a broader dispute at an early stage can favour transfer; proceeding transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. JADE
• Buttgieg v Macquarie Bank Limited [2026] FCA 1500 (Derrington J, 1 October 2026) - leave to discontinue an unserved representative proceeding under s 33V; no further notice; a declaration preserving group members' rights refused because the respondents had not been served or heard. JADE

Registry (six synopses and a list-only ruling; no outcomes stated on air).

• Bekier, in the matter of an application by Bekier [2026] FCA 1499 - synopsis: s 206G(1) leave to manage an SMSF trustee company. JADE
• Macrolend Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCA 1501 - synopsis: apprehended bias and prior judgments. JADE
• White Oak Commercial Finance Europe (Non-Levered) Ltd v Insurance Australia Ltd (Further Security for Costs) [2026] FCA 1496 - synopsis: quantifying further security for costs. JADE
• Gunawardena v Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 1495 - synopsis: verification of corporate discovery by an officer. JADE
• Asad v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1477 - synopsis: extension of time under s 477A. JADE
• Environment Centre (NT) Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water (No 2) [2026] FCA 1493 - synopsis: costs on discontinuance in public interest litigation. JADE
• Merhi v SURA Professional Risks Pty Ltd as Agent of Certain Underwriters at Lloyds [2026] FCA 1503 JADE

Full Court (at depth in today's Court of Appeal brief).

• Pacific National Pty Ltd v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union [2026] FCAFC 135 (Raper, McDonald and Vandongen JJ) - train drivers' shift limits and a depot agreement. JADE
• Williams v Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board [2026] FCAFC 136 (Collier, Needham and Hill JJ) - the engagement partner's responsibility for the audit. JADE
• Chukwuma v Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 134 (Moshinsky, Derrington and Dowling JJ) - costs after a mixed result. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven appellate decisions from four courts in the weekend edition of 9 to 11 October 2026, with the Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same weekend folded in. The Queensland Court of Appeal holds that "claims to have" wording in a security clause lets a principal call on a builder's bonds on a good faith claim, with no objective test of its validity. The New South Wales Court of Appeal on when a royalty deed is an "unprofitable contract" a liquidator may disclaim. The Full Federal Court on inconsistent terms in an enterprise agreement, an engagement partner's responsibility for the whole audit, and costs after a mixed result. Western Australia on unpleaded defences and natural justice in a tenancy claim. Brisbane on jury replay requests and redirections. The ACT Court of Appeal on interlocutory applications in a pending appeal.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• York Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Tomkins Commercial & Industrial Builders Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 198 - under an amended AS4000-1997 cl 5.2 permitting recourse for any claim the principal "may have or claims to have" under the contract, the words "claims to have" introduce subjectivity and remove the need to assess objectively whether the claim is valid; recourse is available on a good faith assertion of a claim for payment under the contract, the contractor bearing the cash flow risk pending final resolution; objective merit may still bear on good faith in some cases; an injunction restraining recourse enforces a negative stipulation, so a prima facie case of threatened breach is required; FMT Aircraft Gate Support Systems distinguished. Appeal allowed, the contractor's interlocutory application dismissed (Bond JA, Thomson AJA, Cooper J). JADE
• In the matter of Tahmoor Coal Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] NSWCA 211 - a contract is not "unprofitable" under s 568(1A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) merely because it is financially disadvantageous; it must impose continuing financial or otherwise onerous obligations without reciprocal benefit, or impede the efficient conduct of the liquidation, a question of fact judged on commercial realities; the predominant purpose of Pt 5.6 Div 7A is to relieve liquidators of onerous obligations, not simply to increase returns to unsecured creditors; leave to disclaim weighs orderly administration against detriment to those affected, and the s 568B threshold does not govern it; interim relief pending special leave requires exceptional circumstances, a substantial prospect of special leave and a favourable balance of convenience. Appeal and notice of motion dismissed with costs (Payne, Stern and Free JJA). JADE
• Pacific National Pty Ltd v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union [2026] FCAFC 135 - all three judges: terms of an industrial instrument are inconsistent where they cannot sensibly or fairly be read together, and where the instrument anticipates inconsistency and says which part prevails there is no strong imperative to construe it away; a local depot overtime arrangement prevailed over the agreement's shift limits; Raper and McDonald JJ: the 16-hour emergency limit was not a freestanding cap; Vandongen J: a s 50 Fair Work Act contravention requires an obligatory term, identified with precision; McDonald J read the limits as caps on actual hours; obiter on serious contraventions (s 557A) by Vandongen and McDonald JJ. Appeal allowed; the union's penalty application dismissed (Raper, McDonald and Vandongen JJ). JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Williams v Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board [2026] FCAFC 136 - s 1292(1)(d)(i) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) does not require an auditor to perform every task personally; ASA 220 makes the Engagement Partner ultimately responsible for the engagement and its overall quality, not confined to personal work or to direction, supervision and review; no vicarious liability; the jurisdiction is protective, not penal; s 216(10) of the ASIC Act requires an active intellectual process, not acceptance or particular weight; mischaracterising a submission is not jurisdictional error where its substance was addressed. Appeal dismissed (Collier, Needham and Hill JJ). JADE
• Jacobs v Her Honour Magistrate Ward [2026] WASC 435 (Western Australia edition) - an inferior court's misconstruction of a statute is jurisdictional only where it misconceives its function or powers; a plea of reliance on the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) "for their full terms" cannot raise notice or reasonable time, and deciding the claims on those unpleaded defences denied natural justice; "premises" in ss 42 and 44 includes fixtures and chattels the lessor provides at any time during the tenancy; the Act binds the Crown, so local laws applicable to the premises must be complied with; ACL s 61 claims fall outside an RTA application. Review order; the repair, curtains and air conditioning and local law claims quashed and remitted to the Magistrates Court, differently constituted (Whitby J). JADE

Criminal Law Desk (reported as legal doctrine only).

• R v Hussein [2026] QCA 197 - no inflexible rule requires the whole of a complainant's evidence to be replayed, or a warning before any replay; the risk of imbalance is assessed across the whole trial, and a redirection on undue weight given when the jury signalled a verdict mid-replay was sufficient; a judge may direct that evidence is circumstantial though the prosecution did not present it so (Criminal Code (Qld) s 620); a lies direction is needed only where the jury might infer guilt from a lie relevant only to credit. Appeal against conviction dismissed (Bond and Doyle JJA, Cooper J). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Chukwuma v Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 134 - where a successful appellant failed on separate interlocutory applications, an issues-based approach with a percentage discount measured by the failed applications' share of the reasons and hearing time; 85% of the appellant's costs, on a lump sum basis (Moshinsky, Derrington and Dowling JJ). JADE
• Morgan v Construction Occupations Registrar [2026] ACTCA 35 (also the ACT edition) - the very orders that are the subject of an appeal will not be granted by interlocutory application; damages require an originating claim, not an appeal; security per day is not an order known to the law; compulsory production in an appeal requires leave (Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 6601(2)(d)); mediation of a pending appeal not ordered while the appellant is unrepresented; the appeal is yet to be heard (Mossop J). JADE

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

• Patterson v Weatherald [2026] QSC 243 - probate (Martin J). JADE
• Wilson v PUNP1 Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 244 - creditors' rights (Martin J). JADE
• Stevenson v McGrath & Ors [2026] QSC 241 - judicial review (Crow J). JADE
• Fang v Yao [2026] QSC 242 - discovery (Muir J). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

The newsroom, after hours, hair down, and 2,500 downloads to celebrate. No cases tonight. The desks take you on a guided tour of the three machines that make this program, then somewhere quieter, then out onto the street, and the tour goes wrong in all the usual places. Then Rick opens an investigation into the question listeners keep asking: why does Bryce always tell you to carry a big stick? The answer involves a pond.

The sifter, the combobulator and the hot sink are affectionate fictions for a real editorial pipeline: choosing the cases, voicing them, and keeping the copy cool and sourced. No product by those names exists. Neither, strictly, does the pond.

The voices in this program are AI-generated, using the latest combobulation technology. Nothing in this program is legal advice.

The principles, not the noise. All editions and full analyses at ledger.jade.io — The Petal is provided to JADE Professional Plus subscribers. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

Edition ten — the considered fortnight, 24 September to 7 October, appellate decisions only, deduped against edition nine and the daily brief. A 3:2 High Court holds that a consent authority must actually consider conditions to minimise every scope of emissions, and that reasons silent on scope 3 can show it didn't. A Full Federal Court holds that an amount taxed twice is still taxed under a law with respect to taxation. Then a contract found in conduct, what a court owes a self-represented parent, and eight criminal appeals on separation oaths, cases not put, directions not pressed and what sentencing reasons must show, reported with restraint. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening feature.

Features

Public Law Desk — MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Inc [2026] HCA 35 (all five: s 4.15(1)(b) impacts have no geographic limit; cl 2.20(1)(c) covers scope 3 and requires minimisation conditions to be actually considered. Majority, Gordon, Edelman and Beech-Jones JJ: non-consideration inferred; no objector duty to propose conditions; error material despite validation orders; appeal dismissed 3:2, Gageler CJ and Jagot J dissenting; three Justices disapproved the majority reasoning in Ross v Lane (2022) 255 LGERA 136) · Sunna v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCAFC 133 (no single-taxation principle; a notice of assessment is not evidence of taxable facts; double taxation remains a law with respect to taxation; s 75(v) guarantees no right to contest; s 170(10AA) does not correct errors; dismissed, unanimous).

Criminal Law Desk — The King v Bechaud [2026] HCA 36 (the Juries Act s 50(2) separation oath is a timing-free precondition that covers the evidence and endures; reminders remain good practice; appeal allowed, unanimous; reported as doctrine only) · Waldron v R [2026] NSWCCA 154 (judge-alone guilt on a basis the Crown disowned denies procedural fairness; the proviso is unavailable where the error's effect is unknowable; retrial ordered) · R v Saghir [2026] QCA 194 (no rule of law requires a Markuleski direction; s 132B is not confined to sexual offence cases; dismissed) · Crosby v R [2026] NSWCCA 157 (De Simoni turns on actual punishment, judged in substance; materiality threshold; dismissed) · Michael Kawana v The King [2026] VSCA 237 (no manifest-inadequacy threshold before a heavier sentence after retrial; the ceiling keeps moderating; allowed; doctrine only) · Douglas v The King [2026] VSCA 243 (two aspects of family hardship under s 16A(2)(p); silence does not show a pressed aspect was weighed; allowed) · Lambourne v Commissioner of Police [2026] SASCA 116 (proportionality for multiple offences must be considered and shown; allowed) · R v Beare [2026] SASCA 117 (the s 71(6)(b) home detention gateway looks only at the offending; permission refused on double jeopardy grounds; doctrine only).

Desk segments

Commercial Law Desk — Intelligent Scm LLC v Seaway Logistics Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 240 (a contract may be inferred from conduct positively showing both sides bound, items weighed in combination; remoteness at the level of the general kind of loss; apportionment reviewed on House v The King, concurrent wrongdoer status for correctness; judgment sum to be reduced).

Family Law Desk — Shumakov & Ankudinova [2026] FedCFamC1A 174 (a late r 5.07 affidavit against a self-represented party requires an opportunity to be heard and an inquiry whether the case can be met; allowed, remitted) · Munnok & Uyusah [2026] FedCFamC1A 177 (no duty to preview the weight of evidence; unobjected child protection material; dismissed).

The Registry

Migration — Singh v The King [2026] NZCA 412 (a deportation liability notice issued because of the convictions establishes the Bolea risk; discharge without conviction) · Lee v The King [2026] NZCA 399 (Van Hemert applies to the s 104 factors; minimum term reduced, life retained).

Named on air — House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 · The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 · R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 · Ross v Lane (2022) 255 LGERA 136 · edition nine's Cole, White & Holden v The King [2026] VSCA 238.

Held

Appellate rule: fourteen first-instance decisions (Banking and Finance, Wills and Probate and Corporations had no appellate entry of their own). On the rubric: Tregaskis-Jago v Jones [2026] TASFC 13 · Malibirr v The King [2026] NTCCA 12 · Gilchrist v The King [2026] NZCA 391.

Treated in edition nine

W v S [No 3] [2026] WASCA 136 · Verissimus & Polycarpe [2026] FedCFamC1A 166 · Mishra & Piatos [2026] FedCFamC1A 171 · Manebona v Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 130 · Bonney v Watarra Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (No 4) [2026] FCA 1414 · Kirk v Moreton Resources Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 186 · Adcock v The King [2026] SASCA 113 · R v NAJ [2026] QCA 182 · Mehieddine v R [2026] NSWCCA 151 · DPP v Cleaver [2026] TASCCA 7.

A retrial has been ordered in Waldron; nothing here expresses a view on any outcome. Full judgments are on the Judicial Ledger. Nothing in this program is legal advice. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail

The Petal's New Zealand edition for Thursday 8 October 2026 carries 18 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. A quiet day with a strong lead, four decisions at depth and seven in the registry: no costs for what happens inside a judicial settlement conference, what "subject to final survey" does not allow a vendor to do, a slope that was a nuisance before it slipped, and the remorse criterion for an extended supervision order, reported as legal doctrine only.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• Birchfield v Birchfield [2026] NZCA 477 - absent waiver or a s 57(3) exception, the privilege attaching to judicial settlement conference communications under r 7.79(6) of the High Court Rules 2016 and s 57 of the Evidence Act 2006 precludes a costs award based on a party's participation in the conference; the costs jurisdiction is generally confined to external conduct such as non-attendance or non-compliance with directions; findings on privileged communications breach natural justice; a party need not depart from its position or make a counter-offer; respondents who abide the decision ordinarily face no costs. Appeal allowed, costs orders set aside and refunded (Thomas, Andrew and Johnstone JJ). JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• CBP Properties Limited v Boyd [2026] NZHC 2909 - "the attached Scheme Plan" is identified objectively; "subject to final survey" and "substantially in accordance" clauses protect a vendor only where measurement or a surveying or regulatory reason prevents exact conformity, not a discretion to redraw a lot's boundary; an expert determination on the wrong boundary that omitted a mandatory criterion was not binding; implied covenant terms are confined to what is necessary. Specific performance ordered (Macgillivray J). JADE
• Larsen v Runes Investments Pty Ltd [2026] NZHC 2586 - an existing geotechnical defect may be a continuing private nuisance before any failure where the occupier knows or is presumed to know of it and the hazard is foreseeable; interrelated features may form one state of affairs; an occupier continues an inherited nuisance by failing to take reasonably prompt and effective steps; only the kind of harm need be foreseeable; the natural right of support extends only to land in its natural state. Appeal dismissed, injunction and damages upheld (Kawharu J). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• McIntosh v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZCA 475 - s 107IAA(1)(d) of the Parole Act 2002 is met where the offender's acceptance of responsibility, remorse or understanding of the impact on victims is not sufficient to materially reduce the risk of future offending, which is not a gloss on the text; the Court declined to depart from its earlier construction where the issue and parties were the same and Supreme Court leave had been refused; a judge's satisfaction on the high-risk criterion may be apparent on the face of the decision. Appeal dismissed (Thomas, Downs and Anderson JJ). Reported as legal doctrine only. JADE

Registry.

• Verappan v Turner Hopkins Lawyers Limited [2026] NZCA 479 - a bankruptcy hearing is not a forum to re-examine the judgment debt; a contractual right to indemnity costs must be plainly and unambiguously expressed, and the amount must be objectively reasonable. Appeal dismissed (Edwards, Dunningham and Becroft JJ). JADE
• Napier v Attorney-General [2026] NZHC 2488 - interim orders under s 15 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 must preserve, not improve, the applicant's position; the usual effects of deportation are not generally sufficient without evidence of particular harm. Declined (McHerron J). JADE
• Brazier v Brazier [2026] NZHC 2869 - a genuinely brought claim that may prove misconceived is not for that reason alone an abuse of process under s 164B of the Senior Courts Act 2016; a direction to replead is an appropriate alternative to strike-out (Walker J). JADE
• Kain v Hutton [2026] NZHC 2719 - directions grounded in consent may be amended only within an objective assessment of what was agreed; s 87(1) Judicature Act 1908 interest requires a judgment for debt or damages (Dunningham J). JADE
• Ranfurly Jixiang Development Limited v GWT NZ Limited [2026] NZHC 2950 - omitting an annexed plan does not make a land contract void for uncertainty where the parcels are objectively identifiable; the agreements were rectified (Wilkinson-Smith J). JADE
• James Hardie New Zealand Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2026] NZHC 2847 - a split trial under r 10.15 of the High Court Rules 2016 was refused as not clearly the right course, a second stage being likely (Blanchard J). JADE
• Griffiths v Mata Home Build Ltd [2026] NZHC 2727 - a payment of costs is not consideration for a supply; a party able to claim an input credit is indemnified only for the GST-exclusive sum (Arthur J). JADE

The other seven decisions in the edition's court table are not covered in this episode.

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 8 October 2026, one decision of the Court of Appeal and three of the Supreme Court. A guarantor illiterate in English, who signed only the signature pages, could not resist summary judgment on a mortgage over his home: agency, misrepresentation, non est factum and unconscionability all failed, and the all monies clause secured the guarantee. Then an extension of time to appeal in long-running estate litigation, refused as futile, with grounds too vague to identify an error and no apprehended bias in adverse procedural rulings; that decision also features in today's Court of Appeal brief, here with the Victorian angle. Two more decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Judo Bank Pty Ltd v Sun [2026] VSC 651 - summary judgment for the lender (Hetyey AsJ): a bare assertion that a third party acted as the lender's agent, without material facts as to authority, control or holding out, is fanciful, so the third party's representations were not attributable to the lender under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law or s 12DA of the ASIC Act; non est factum requires a belief that the document was fundamentally or radically different from what was signed, and a director and experienced borrower who signed single signature pages without requesting full copies was careless; special disadvantage from illiteracy in English was overcome by interpreted independent legal advice, and without knowledge in the lender the defence could not defeat indefeasibility under s 42 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic); an all monies clause is construed by its language, the instrument as a whole and the purpose of the security, and here secured the guarantee. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk (also in today's Court of Appeal brief).

• Morris v Morris [2026] VSCA 256 - extension of time and stay refused (Walker JA, on the papers): in exercising the discretion under r 64.05(1)(b), read with s 7 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), time will not be extended where a proposed appeal is so devoid of merit that an extension would be futile, even where the delays are relatively moderate; vague, rolled-up and unparticularised grounds that do not identify the decision or the error are hopeless; disagreement with a judicial officer's procedural decisions, or prior involvement in a disputed procedural course, does not found a reasonable apprehension of bias; prejudice to the estate, including erosion of its funds and repeated deferral of a family provision trial under pt IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), further supported refusal. JADE

Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

• R v Hagi Ali [2026] VSC 647 - list only (sentence appeal; Croucher J). JADE
• Re Heffernan [2026] VSC 641 - list only (bail application; Elliott J). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eleven decisions from four tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Thursday 8 October 2026, five with headnotes, none reported as doctrine: a solicitor's unauthorised changes to a company register, and why an honest belief is no answer to professional misconduct of the competence kind; a late consumer appeal over a rooftop solar system that still made power; whether stormwater volumes must match pre-development levels; costs against a repeat guardianship applicant; and an agreed disposition in a health practitioner impairment referral. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Tribunals Desk: a solicitor, a company register and an honest belief (opening block).

• Legal Services Commissioner v Tsai [2026] QCAT 322 - an honest but unreasonable belief does not answer professional misconduct under s 419(1)(a) Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), judged objectively; dishonesty is a separate question on which the Commissioner bears the Briginshaw onus, and active dishonesty was not established; using the firm's ASIC agent registration to alter a company's register for personal benefit, without ascertaining the legal position, was a substantial failure of competence and diligence and connected with legal practice; s 456 orders are protective, and removal was not warranted. Professional misconduct; public reprimand, pecuniary penalty, ethics course, restriction on a principal practising certificate, costs. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a late appeal, a solar system and the stormwater rules.

• Energy Saving Products Pty Ltd v Savchenko [2026] NSWCATAP 315 - s 41 extension of time granted (very short delay, an unrepresented party's steps in time by the wrong process, arguable grounds, little prejudice); a system that still generates electricity can suffer a major failure under ACL s 54; findings open on independent reports where the supplier called no expert; a conceded safety defect, deemed a major failure by s 260(1)(e), made the outcome inevitable. Time extended; leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed. JADE
• Bejjal Pty Ltd v Hume CC [2026] VCAT 805 - neither cl 56.07-4 nor Standard C25 mandates stormwater volume reduction to pre-development levels where an alternative meets the objectives without downstream harm; the EPA stormwater guidance is a state of knowledge document, not a compliance document; flows at or below pre-development rates sufficed for a robust waterway; permit conditions need a nexus to the works; referral authority conditions may be consolidated. Decision set aside; permit granted. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a costs order and an impairment referral (both as legal doctrine only).

• MT [2026] WASAT 117 - the s 87 no-costs default is displaced by unreasonable conduct that unfairly increases costs; a repeat guardianship application without new evidence, contrary to an objectively grounded belief, was unreasonable, whatever the applicant's subjective belief; costs are compensatory and capacity to pay is irrelevant to the amount; a donee of an enduring power must comply with Tribunal orders. Application for costs granted. JADE
• Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v NRK [2026] QCAT 277 - agreed facts, characterisation and sanction do not oblige determination on the papers; an impairment exists where an untreated condition would be likely to affect capacity to practise, though treatment controls it; an agreed sanction carries significant weight but does not bind. Professional misconduct and impairment found; registration cancelled, with a two year reinstatement preclusion. JADE

Registry (no outcome stated).

• Mister Cabinets Pty Ltd v Undrill [2026] VCAT 820 - synopsis: incomplete versus defective work in domestic building disputes, and the normal viewing position test. JADE
• Alison's Touch Pty Ltd v Baw Baw SC [2026] VCAT 810 - synopsis: when time runs for review after a permit is corrected under s 71, and extensions of time. JADE
• The Owners of 16 Peppering Way Westminster Strata Plan 78118 and Macri Group Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 119 - synopsis: converting building remedy orders into monetary orders, and betterment. JADE
• Jin v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 306 - synopsis: nominal duty under s 18(3) of the Duties Act, and penalty tax remission where an agent's error caused double duty. JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Bolitho [2026] VCAT 821 - listed without detail (professional misconduct). JADE
• Stella v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2026] QCAT 454 - list only (administrative appeal). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eight decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of Thursday 8 October 2026, two of them headnoted, both in the Court of Appeal. Injury and impairment are distinct, so a permanent impairment dispute can reach body parts that were never injured, and the ambit of a medical dispute is fixed by the parties' competing positions across the whole file, not by the terms of the referral or a diagnosis; the Appeal Panel's determination of the ambit, not the referral, is what judicial review reaches. On summary dismissal a court need not assume the truth of fraud pleaded without particulars, and capacity to conduct proceedings is task and time specific and is not a psychiatric diagnosis. Both appeals also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Carried on the Public Law and Practice and Procedure desks, with one synopsis decision on the docket and five list-only decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening story.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• JTE Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Mount Gibraltar Preschool v Brown [2026] NSWCA 210 - (Adamson and McHugh JJA, Harrison AJA) an appeal from the dismissal of judicial review of an Appeal Panel of the Personal Injury Commission: a workers compensation claim is founded on an injury, whereas a permanent impairment claim asserts that body parts, not limited to those injured, have been impaired as a result of the injury; where one party asserts impairment of the whole right lower extremity and the other confines it to the ankle, the medical dispute extends to the whole extremity; the medical assessor must determine the ambit at the outset, the terms of the referral not being determinative, with the correspondence, the claimant's statement, the application and reply, and the medical reports all relevant; the assessment was not conditional on a diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome; the assessor was entitled and obliged to assess every body part identified as affected, including the knee; and while the referral is not itself the subject of review, an Appeal Panel's determination of the ambit of the dispute is susceptible to judicial review. Appeal dismissed. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Zhu v Mordecai [2026] NSWCA 209 - (Adamson JA, Price AJA) an application for leave to appeal from interlocutory orders refusing a declaration of regained capacity and summarily dismissing proceedings alleging fraud: on a summary dismissal application a judge is not required to assume that each pleaded allegation is true irrespective of its form or content, and that assumption is not warranted where fraud is pleaded but not particularised as the rules require; the relevant capacity is the specific capacity to conduct the proceedings at the time it is determined, a finding of incapacity is not equivalent to a psychiatric diagnosis, psychiatric evidence is relevant but not determinative, and the party's conduct of the proceedings may be considered; and a party who seeks a finding of regained capacity without having sought leave to appeal from the original determination is taken to accept its correctness. Summons for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs. JADE

Docket (synopsis only, no headnote, no outcome stated).

• Zvicer v Hunter New England Local Health District [2026] NSWSC 1241 - (Muston J) a first-instance medical negligence judgment, Illustrative in the edition, working through inherent risk and peer professional opinion under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), causation, a Jones v Dunkel inference from clinicians not called, and the duty owed to family members claiming psychiatric injury. JADE

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

• Wojciechowska v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 736 - list only (judicial review). JADE
• iMech Solutions Pty Ltd v Liangis Investments Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1244 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE
• Mellick v Samarasekera and Ors [2026] NSWSC 1239 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

• Lampard v Miller [2026] NSWLEC 1669 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE
• McDonald's Australia Limited v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1668 - list only (development application). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twelve decisions in the Federal Courts edition of 8 October 2026, every one from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: a Registrar's examination summons is an order of the Court enforceable by contempt, and a former director who stayed overseas is found in contempt. Also: fringe benefits tax on a bundled income protection scheme, the purpose and contribution findings the Rome Statute demands in a complementary protection exclusion, a character refusal sent back on the risk question, and two lessons in pleading. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Criminal Law Desk (opening story).

• Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia v Mensink (Contempt) [2026] FCA 1470 - a s 596A summons issued by a Registrar is an order of the Court and s 1327 preserves the contempt power; service proved by compliance with substituted service orders; knowledge proved by admissions in the respondent's affidavits, authenticity not a free-standing admissibility criterion; reasonable excuse negatived beyond reasonable doubt; Charge 1 dismissed, Charge 2 proved, penalty to a later hearing. JADE

Tax Desk.

• Carbery v Fire Rescue Victoria [2026] FCA 1488 - separate question answered: under the otherwise deductible rule a mixed outlay is apportioned by its essential character on a fair and reasonable assessment; the taxable value is 28.4% of the contributions. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• RSZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1467 - art 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute requires a finding of purpose, not knowledge, and art 25(3)(d) a significant or substantial contribution; the Tribunal's failure to make those findings was jurisdictional error; decision quashed, mandamus. JADE
• Cristobal Fida v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1471 - Direction 110 para 8.1.2(2)(c) goes to risk of harm, not the substantive visa criteria; material jurisdictional error; quashed and remitted. JADE
• Nareddula v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1485 - synopsis: extension of time in migration appeals, English test timing, agent negligence. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Soar Development Group Pty Ltd v Fung [2026] FCA 1491 - leave to amend after close of pleadings granted on conditions; unexplained delay given substantial weight; prior possession of evidence and costs thrown away do not cure prejudice; the applicant pays the costs. JADE
• Grofski v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 1478 - a sixth pleading struck out for pleading evidence, not material facts; s 550 accessorial knowledge, joint and concurrent tortfeasors, and unsubstantiated investigation findings as detriment; leave to replead refused. JADE

Registry (a synopsis and four list-only rulings; no outcomes stated on air).

• Amal Security Services Pty Limited (Trustee) v The APF Custody Company Pty Ltd, in the matter of The APF Custody Company Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1486 - synopsis: s 588FM relief for late PPSR registration. JADE
• Daniel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1480 JADE
• Comcare v Administrative Review Tribunal [2026] FCA 1481 JADE
• Knight v Corrections Victoria (ex parte leave to institute proceeding) [2026] FCA 1484 JADE
• Safarimaznabi v Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2026] FCA 1479 JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Three headnoted decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of 8 October 2026, two from the New South Wales Court of Appeal and one from the Victorian Court of Appeal: injury and impairment in a workers compensation medical dispute; more time for an appeal that is going nowhere; and capacity, leave and fraud pleaded without particulars. The ACT and Western Australia editions of the same date ride in this brief: a Western Australian costs judgment on indemnity and special costs orders, and six more decisions in the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• JTE Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Mount Gibraltar Preschool v Brown [2026] NSWCA 210 - an injury under s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) differs from impairment, so a permanent impairment claim may extend to body parts not injured; where the parties' positions are the whole right lower extremity against the ankle, the medical dispute is the whole extremity; the referral's terms are not determinative and the assessor must fix the ambit from the correspondence, statements, the ARD and reply and the medical reports; assessment was not conditional on a CRPS diagnosis; the assessor was obliged to assess every body part identified as affected; the Appeal Panel's determination of the ambit, not the referral, is the target of judicial review. Appeal dismissed with costs (Adamson and McHugh JJA, Harrison AJA). JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Morris v Morris [2026] VSCA 256 - under r 64.05(1)(b) and s 7 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), time will not be extended where the proposed appeal is so devoid of merit that an extension would be futile, and lack of merit alone may suffice; vague, rolled-up and unparticularised grounds; disagreement with a judicial officer's procedural decisions, or prior involvement in a disputed procedural course, does not establish apprehended bias; prejudice to the estate supported refusal. Extension and stay refused (Walker JA). JADE
• Zhu v Mordecai [2026] NSWCA 209 - leave under s 101(2)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) requires an issue of principle, a question of public importance or a reasonably clear injustice beyond the merely arguable; on summary dismissal a judge need not assume the truth of fraud pleaded without the particulars rr 14.14(3) and 15.3 of the UCPR require; capacity under r 7.13 is task and time specific and a finding of incapacity is not a psychiatric diagnosis; a party who did not seek leave from the original incapacity finding is taken to accept it. Summons for leave dismissed with costs (Adamson JA and Price AJA). JADE

Registry (Western Australia and ACT; listed without headnotes, no outcome stated).

• Perth Day Hospital Pty Ltd v Fitness Cartel Western Australia Pty Ltd [No 3] [2026] WASC 314 (S) - costs after a failed nuisance claim: indemnity costs mark disapproval while special costs orders under s 141(3) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA) compensate, so the court asks first whether party/party or special costs orders would adequately compensate; the evidence needed for special costs orders, including the significance of having no draft bill of costs (Lundberg J; synopsis only). JADE
• Attorney General for Western Australia v AP by his next friend the Public Advocate [2026] WASC 438 - government decision-making (Whitby J). JADE
• Anstee Earthmoving Pty Ltd v City of Busselton [2026] WASC 439 - sentence appeal (Whitby J). JADE
• Kaemkla v Hambley [2026] WASC 437 - family provision (Acting Master Griffin). JADE
• DPP v Joliffe-Cole [2026] ACTSC 353 - sentence appeal (McCallum CJ). JADE
• Director of Public Prosecutions v Manning [2026] ACTSC 366 - sentence appeal (Slattery AJ). JADE
• DPP v O'Reilly [2026] ACTSC 372 - sentencing (McWilliam J). JADE

JTE Enterprises and Zhu also appear in today's New South Wales brief, and Morris in today's Victoria brief, of 8 October 2026.

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