The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

One state, every court: the Victoria edition of 7 October 2026, seven decisions of the Supreme Court and none from the Court of Appeal. A council's emergency works under an order never served were a trespass, though its entry was lawful, with one dollar in nominal damages and no damages under the Charter; a Commercial List trial on whether a boardroom conversation ever happened, and how courts test an unrecorded oral agreement; and judicial advice on a will that gave a widower a right to reside, not a life interest. Four more decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Public Law Desk (opening story).

• Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council [No 2] [2026] VSC 646 - claim in trespass allowed as to the works, nominal damages of $1, otherwise dismissed (Gray J): the power of entry in s 228J of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) does not require prior service of an emergency order, but the power in s 121 to carry out works is enlivened only after the order is served and the time for compliance has expired, on the ordinary meaning of fails and the principle of legality, so works done under an unserved order were a trespass actionable without proof of damage; compensatory damages for torts affecting land turn on the true loss, not a dichotomy of diminution in value or reinstatement cost; no aggravated or exemplary damages; s 39(3) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) precludes damages for breach of the Charter. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Maradox Pty Ltd v Normet Industries Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] VSC 637 - proceeding dismissed (Waller J): where a conversation is the foundation of the claim, s 140 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) requires actual persuasion on the whole of the evidence, including contemporaneous documents, conduct and commercial context, not merely which witness is believed; a conversation cannot be found where its only identified location did not exist in usable form; progressively more convenient recollection suggests reconstruction; a paper prepared years later for a tax investigation is not reliable evidence of what was agreed, particularly where a principal author conceded under s 128 protection that its operative statements were untrue, though no finding of fraud or knowing dishonesty was made; obiter, silence amounts to assent only in limited circumstances. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Re the Estate of Sharon Louise Walker [2026] VSC 653 - judicial advice given (Barrett AsJ, 18 September 2026): estate debts are paid in preference to gifts, including out of specifically devised property, so the executor may sell despite a pending family provision application, which operates only on the net estate; a direction to permit the husband to reside rent-free until he vacates or needs full-time care confers a personal right of residence, not a life interest; under the rule in Cherry v Boultbee his residuary share may be withheld until his untaxed costs liability is quantified; nieces and nephews excludes step-relations; a thirty-day survivorship condition, not survival to distribution. JADE

Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

• Hu v HWL Ebsworth Lawyers [2026] VSC 652 - list only (civil appeals, appeal grounds; Fary AsJ). JADE
• Wallan Pastoral Pty Ltd v Matzuri Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 649 - list only (interlocutory orders; Stynes J). JADE
• Nautilus Insurance Pte Ltd v Underwriters of Lloyd's Syndicate NVA 2007 [2026] VSC 655 - list only (extension of time; M Osborne J). JADE
• DPP v Curtis [2026] VSC 648 - list only (sentencing; Incerti J). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Nine decisions from four tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Wednesday 7 October 2026, five with headnotes, none reported as doctrine: a childcare centre in a bushfire prone area and an emergency plan left for a permit condition; fee reimbursement when a council fails to decide; a late reply as a deemed refusal and existing use rights over unworked mining land; review of motor accident impairment assessments; reasons for refusing an extension of time; and when a breach of guardianship access orders goes to the Supreme Court. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Tribunals Desk: an emergency plan left for later (opening block).

• Huntly Building Pty Ltd v Greater Bendigo CC [2026] VCAT 786 - for a childcare centre housing vulnerable people, the decision maker must itself be satisfied of the cl 53.02-6 bushfire guidelines (evacuation, emergency arrangements, closure, shelter in place); deferring them to an emergency management plan condition is unacceptable; flood guidelines likewise; no interim decision; reports tendered without their authors are not evidence statements; council failed to displace the s 115CA presumption of fee reimbursement. Decision affirmed, no permit; application fee reimbursed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a late reply, a coal mine and an impairment review.

• Maddingley Brown Coal Pty Ltd v Moorabool SC [2026] VCAT 762 - a late, equivocal response may be a failure to decide and a deemed refusal (s 97P(1)); land may be used for a purpose without physical use as an integrated whole; the use is characterised by its ordinary meaning (mining, not coal extraction or industry); existing use rights rest on actual use; the burden akin to conclusive proof was met. Deemed refusal set aside; certificate of compliance for use, defined by coordinates. JADE
• Belzowski v INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LTD ACN 000 016 722 trading as NRMA (Motor Accident Injuries) [2026] ACAT 58 - s 193 review of whole person impairment is confined to error of fact or law; spinal symptoms in the upper extremities are rated under AMA5 Chapter 15, not also Chapter 16; an IME may review a PME report on the papers (s 159); a final offer based on the IME figure determined WPI, perhaps barely, with adequate reasons. Decision affirmed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a tenancy appeal, and a contempt referral (the contempt referral as legal doctrine only).

• Noorimohamad v Evolve Housing Limited [2026] NSWCATAP 314 - failing to give reasons for refusing an extension of time is error warranting leave; tenancy money claims within three months and bond claims within six; the s 41 factors (delay, explanation, merits, prejudice); a procedural fairness denial must be material. Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed. JADE
• State Administrative Tribunal and Amara [2026] WASAT 116 - a s 100 referral needs evidence of conduct capable of contempt and an appropriate exercise of discretion, with no finding of contempt; quoting a filed document to police was capable of contempt, but disclosing the published outcome was not; referral must be proportionate and necessary. No referral to the Supreme Court. JADE

Registry (no outcome stated).

• Zhang v Knox CC [2026] VCAT 826 - synopsis: the Axicom summary dismissal principles in a planning review; noise, dust, construction impacts and property value not planning considerations; review rights where cl 55 standards are met. JADE
• SJD [2026] VCAT 825 - synopsis: the high threshold for summary dismissal in a guardianship matter. JADE
• BWK Properties Pty Ltd v Golden Plains SC [2026] VCAT 802 - list only (permit refusal). JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Deady [2026] VCAT 801 - list only (professional misconduct). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

One state, every court: the Tasmania edition of 7 October 2026. A quiet day, one decision, at depth. The Supreme Court on a motion to review a magistrate's sentence: when a substantial custodial sentence is imposed and significant matters are in issue, silence is an error of law; childhood deprivation can reduce moral culpability; and a serial family violence perpetrator declaration needs convictions for at least three family violence offences committed on at least three different days. Matters involving family violence are reported as legal doctrine only. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Criminal Law Desk (opening story).

• Mayne v Tasmania [2026] TASSC 66 - motion to review under the Justices Act 1959 (Tas) a magistrate's sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed on a young first adult offender with an intellectual disability, and a declaration under s 29A of the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas), the magistrate having given no reasons beyond pronouncing the orders (Cuthbertson J): the power to declare a serial family violence perpetrator under s 29A(2)(b)(ii) is conditioned on conviction of at least three family violence offences, at least three of them committed on different days, and a declaration on offending established on only two days was made in error of law; the extent of a magistrate's obligation to give reasons depends on the circumstances, but where a substantial custodial sentence is imposed and significant matters are put in issue they should be resolved and explained, and failure to do so was an error of law (it is desirable, though not in every case a legal requirement, that vulnerable defendants receive an explanation in language they can understand); remitter for further reasons under s 110(2A) refused because the sentence was in any event manifestly excessive; childhood deprivation proximate in time to the offending, without countervailing factors, reduced moral culpability under Bugmy principles; no suspended term, since time already served would expose the applicant to serving imprisonment twice on breach; the omitted supervision condition of the community correction order corrected under s 94 of the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas). Motion allowed; the sentence and the declaration quashed; resentenced to four months' imprisonment, backdated, and a 12-month community correction order. JADE

Legislation: Justices Act 1959 (Tas); Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas); Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas).

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

Send us Fan Mail

Thirteen decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of Wednesday 7 October 2026, two of them headnoted, both in the Court of Criminal Appeal. In a judge-alone trial, reasoning to guilt on a basis the Crown did not put, did not cross-examine on and expressly disavowed denies the accused procedural fairness, and where the finding follows the acceptance of an important part of the defence case its consequences are unknowable and the proviso cannot save the conviction; a retrial is ordered. The De Simoni principle is breached only by actual punishment for a more serious uncharged offence, judged by substance, not form, so a sentencing judge's echo of the offender's own mitigatory submission, used only to mitigate, was no breach. Both appeals also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Carried on the Criminal Law Desk, with eleven list-only decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening story.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• Waldron v R [2026] NSWCCA 154 - (Adamson and McHugh JJA, Hamill J) an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction after a judge-alone trial in the District Court: a trial judge denies the accused procedural fairness by reasoning to guilt on a factual basis that the Crown did not put, did not cross-examine upon, and expressly eschewed, and the finding that the defence documents were created at the time to justify payments that were in truth a reward was not open, the prosecutor having said such a finding would not be fair; under the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) the appellate court decides for itself whether a substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred, satisfaction of guilt beyond reasonable doubt being necessary but not sufficient, and because the trial judge had accepted an important aspect of the defence case before making the unavailable adverse finding, its consequences were unknown and unknowable and the proviso did not apply (Dawson v R distinguished). Leave granted; appeal allowed; convictions and sentence quashed; retrial ordered. The accused is presumed innocent. JADE
• Crosby v R [2026] NSWCCA 157 - (Adamson JA, N Adams CJ at CL, Lonergan J) an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence for drug supply offences and a s 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) offence of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime: the De Simoni principle is breached only if the offender is actually punished for conduct constituting a more serious uncharged offence, assessed by the substance of what was said, not its form; references to drug money derived from the applicant's own mitigatory submission and used only in mitigation were no breach, and it may be prudent, though not required, to state the confined use of such a submission; a specific error must be one that could realistically have affected the sentence; and an applicant is bound by the conduct of the sentence proceedings absent injustice. Appeal dismissed. JADE

Authorities referenced on air: The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 (the De Simoni principle) JADE; Dawson v R [2024] NSWCCA 98 (distinguished on the proviso) JADE.

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

• Sharp v Tacko [2026] NSWSC 1182 - list only (judicial review). JADE
• Sklavos v The University of Newcastle [2026] NSWSC 1236 - list only (settlement approval). JADE
• In the matter of Homebuilding Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1194 - list only (strike out). JADE
• In the matter of oOh!media Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1232 - list only (scheme of arrangement). JADE
• Iacovazzi v Reid and Anor [2026] NSWSC 1235 - list only (family provision). JADE
• Grand Aust Investment Group Pty Ltd v Hern [2026] NSWSC 1238 - list only (leave to appeal). JADE
• Odlum v Odlum; Estate Odlum [2026] NSWSC 1226 - list only (probate). JADE
• Aslan v Pucci (No 8) [2026] NSWSC 1237 - list only (summary dismissal). JADE
• D & v Co Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2026] NSWSC 1240 - list only (interlocutory applications). JADE

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

• Van Selm v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1667 - list only (development appeal). JADE
• Mount Street 1 Pty Ltd as Trustee for Mount Street 1 Unit Trust v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1666 - list only (development consent). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Nine decisions in the Federal Courts edition of 7 October 2026, two of them from the High Court. The lead: Australian privilege, not Japanese law, governs a claim over a Japanese law firm's report on discovery, and advice given where there is no privilege doctrine can still be privileged here. Also: an interim distribution from a collapsed managed investment fund, a scheme of arrangement with a demerger, and a negative native title determination. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Practice and Procedure Desk (lead).

• White Oak Commercial Finance Europe (Non-Levered) Ltd v Insurance Australia Ltd (Japanese Privilege) [2026] FCA 1475 - "privilege" in r 20.02 means privilege under Australian law, so no choice of law issue arises (the lex fori in the alternative); foreign advice is protected where confidential and highly likely protected from compulsory production abroad; investigative work necessary to the advice is not severed; copies privileged in their own right; no waiver by a confidential update to a regulator; dismissed with costs. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Keystone Asset Management Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) (No 6) [2026] FCA 1463 - judicial advice that an interim distribution of about $100 million was justified, expenses provisioned with a contingency buffer; distribution equal across unitholders; s 85 relief for late AMMA Statements. JADE
• Hammer Metals Limited, in the matter of Hammer Metals Limited [2026] FCA 1466 - one class despite a sale facility; prima facie disclosure with prominence amendments; deal protections and a bidder loan no bar; demerger oppression for the second hearing; meeting convened. JADE
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1472 - synopsis: s 1323 receivers, substituted service on overseas defendants, model orders. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Stanbroke Pty Ltd v State Minister for the State of Queensland [2026] FCA 1468 - a non-claimant application: preconditions met; the applicant proves on the balance of probabilities that native title does not exist, weighing the gravity and permanency of the determination; determination made. JADE

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

• MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Inc [2026] HCA 35 JADE
• The King v Bechaud [2026] HCA 36 JADE

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

• LFDB v SM (Costs) [2026] FCA 1473 JADE
• Haywood v Comcare [2026] FCA 1483 JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Four headnoted decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of 7 October 2026, two from the High Court and two from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal: scope 3 emissions and a coal mine consent; a jury separation oath taken on day one; a conviction on a case the prosecution never ran; and De Simoni and a plea in mitigation. The Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same date ride in this brief: a Queensland practice point on setting aside orders not yet filed, and nine more decisions in the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Inc [2026] HCA 35 - s 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) imposes no geographic limit on likely impacts, and considering a project's contribution to global climate change covered its local impacts (all five Justices); greenhouse gas emissions in cl 2.20(1)(c) of the Resources SEPP include scope 3 emissions and the consent authority must actually consider minimisation conditions (all five); for the majority, Paris Agreement accounting does not discharge that duty, the failure to consider was inferred and material, an objector need not propose conditions, and the consent was invalid. Appeal dismissed with costs (Gageler CJ and Jagot J dissenting); the matter remains remitted to the Land and Environment Court. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk (Queensland).

• Fang v Yao [2026] QSC 237 - the general discretion under r 667(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) to set aside orders not yet filed, within 7 days, is not conditioned by the fraud or fresh-evidence requirements of rr 667(2)(b) and 668(1)(b); an order is made when pronounced; guidance on hearsay emails under r 430(2) and on testing a suspect foreign medical certificate (Muir J; synopsis only). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• The King v Bechaud [2026] HCA 36 - s 50(2) of the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) makes the separation oath a precondition with no timing requirement; the oath extends to the evidence, may be taken before evidence begins and endures, though reminders before each separation remain appropriate. Appeal allowed, the Court of Appeal's new trial order set aside (unanimous). Reported as legal doctrine only. JADE
• Waldron v R [2026] NSWCCA 154 - in a judge-alone trial, reasoning to guilt on a factual basis the Crown did not put and expressly disavowed denies procedural fairness; satisfaction of guilt is necessary but not sufficient for the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), which cannot apply where the error's consequences are unknowable. Convictions quashed and a retrial ordered; the applicant is presumed innocent (Adamson and McHugh JJA, Hamill J). JADE
• Crosby v R [2026] NSWCCA 157 - the De Simoni principle is breached only if the offender is actually punished for uncharged conduct, judged by substance; facts drawn from the defence's own mitigation and used only to mitigate involve no error; brief agreed facts permit brief reasons on objective seriousness; a sentencing error must be one that could realistically have affected the sentence. Appeal dismissed (N Adams CJ at CL, Adamson JA and Lonergan J agreeing). JADE

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

• CG Holdings Overseas Limited v Finhill Pty Ltd (as trustee) [2026] QSC 238 - unit trust (Treston J). JADE
• Hbf House Pty Ltd as Trustee for Hbf House Unit Trust v Kings Square Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] WASC 432 - discovery (Hill J). JADE
• Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v MOYO [2026] WASC 434 - summary judgment (Master Russell). JADE
• Thompson v Gewerth [2026] WASC 436 - estate administration (Strk J). JADE
• Ovari v Ovari (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 383 - estate administration (White J). JADE
• DPP v Mullis [2026] ACTSC 390 - sentencing, drug and alcohol order (Stewart AJ). JADE
• Klar v Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 392 - extension of time (Muller J). JADE
• Patrick v Trustees of the Marist Brothers [2026] ACTSC 393 - protected confidence evidence (Muller J). JADE
• Patrick v Trustees of the Marist Brothers (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 394 - documentary evidence (Muller J). JADE

MACH Energy and Bechaud also appear in today's Federal Courts brief, and Waldron and Crosby in today's New South Wales brief, of 7 October 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Forty eight decisions in the Federal Courts edition of 6 October 2026, thirty one with headnotes. The lead: a franchisor breached express and Franchising Code good faith by revoking a franchisee's credit authority on its lender's concerns after its decision-maker saw a gap between the concerns and the evidence. Also: documents for the AFP, recusal, a clawback, employer identity, the EPBC Act, parole fairness, insurance and administrations. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Sech Finance Pty Limited v RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited (Initial Trial) [2026] FCA 1458 - good faith breached where the decision-maker saw a material gap between grave concerns and the evidence and decided with it unresolved; good faith governs even a power to revoke at any time; reasoning shielded by privilege and unproved is a want of proof; a lost chance of 12.5%; quantum deferred. JADE
• Alexiou v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2026] FCA 1373 - a deferred equity clawback breached the contract, the required view never formed; a former employee's departure does not itself explain not calling him; the adverse action and whistleblower claims dismissed. JADE
• Fair Work Ombudsman v Chambers [2026] FCA 1452 - employer identity is an objective contractual inquiry; payment not decisive; dismissed. JADE
• Rosenlund Constructions Pty Ltd v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Policy Number 08070017 [2026] FCA 1442 - issuing a warranted demolition sequence was professional advice; the claimant proves any writeback; dismissed. JADE
• Sydney Subdivision Pty Ltd (in liq) v Chow (No 4) [2026] FCA 1435 - a former trustee's indemnity claim is equitable, not time-barred. JADE
• Reid (Administrator), in the matter of Pint Club Incorporated (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 1451 - s 447A(1) binds post-deed creditors. JADE
• Arnautovic, in the matter of ACFS Port Logistics Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 1423 - direction and limited liability on an enterprise agreement. JADE
• Hams (Administrator), in the matter of Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 3) [2026] FCA 1432 - a third extension, never as of course. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Villawood Management Pty Ltd v Marlton Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1429 - Harman release to the AFP, document by document, for alleged conduct striking at the administration of justice; in part. JADE
• Bilal v Ampol Limited (Recusal Application) [2026] FCA 1448 - explaining procedure is not descent into the arena; partial recusal. JADE
• Maloney v CharterLaw Legal Pty Limited [2026] FCA 1450 - time extended after an act of bankruptcy; notice set aside; AI obiter. JADE
• Du Bray & Associates Limited v Du Bray and Associates Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2026] FCA 1446 - no estoppel from a consent dismissal; not abuse. JADE
• Triumph Metals & Minerals Australia Pty Ltd v BCC Trade Credit Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] FCA 1454 - agreed security varied only if necessary to do justice. JADE
• Liu v Huang [2026] FCA 1410 - reinstatement and summary judgment; force majeure. JADE
• PlayWest Pty Ltd v Apple Inc [2026] FCA 1464 - a mandatory injunction restoring an app after unexplained termination. JADE
• Seal v Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Berwick South Enterprises Pty Ltd (Deregistered) [2026] FCA 1441 - reinstatement; s 1317S(4) relief. JADE
• Bickford's Australia Pty Ltd v Noot Drinks Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1456 - expert opinion admitted in part. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Kemp Attrill v State of South Australia [2026] FCA 1431 - EPBC Act: likely means a real chance; heritage values from the gazetted text; the action as a whole; the species as a whole; dismissed. JADE
• Coen v Attorney-General (Cth) [2026] FCA 1440 - notice of adverse sentencing remarks before refusing a federal prisoner parole; set aside. JADE
• Wano v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1427 - failure to consider not shown; dismissed. JADE

Tax.

• Tax Practitioners Board v Hinckfuss (No 3) [2026] FCA 1436 - $150,000 in deterrent penalties. JADE
• Sunna v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCAFC 133 - in today's Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Family (parenting, property, costs and procedure appeals, at depth in today's Court of Appeal brief).

• Nirmal & Daphne [2026] FedCFamC1A 175 JADE
• Shumakov & Ankudinova [2026] FedCFamC1A 174 JADE
• Munnok & Uyusah [2026] FedCFamC1A 177 JADE
• Statham & Statham (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 176 JADE
• Lorner & Lorner [2026] FedCFamC1A 179 JADE
• Hoedemakers & Vacca [2026] FedCFamC1A 180 JADE
• Hirata & Saidova [2026] FedCFamC1A 178 JADE
• Ferreday [2026] FedCFamC1A 181 JADE

Registry (a pseudonymised disability review; migration; costs; synopses on freezing orders, amendments and oppression; and list only; no outcomes stated on air).

• HXHS, by his litigation representative LOT26 v National Disability Insurance Agency [2026] FCA 1455 JADE
• ETS19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1434 JADE
• Parmar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1433 JADE
• AVG26 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1457 JADE
• Hameed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1469 JADE
• Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1449 JADE
• Colgrave v TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 1462 JADE
• Hubexo Australia Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 1443 JADE
• True EV Distribution Pty Ltd v Shenzhen Xiaopeng Motors Supply Chain Management Co Ltd (No 5) [2026] FCA 1453 JADE
• BPG Pty Limited v Real Estate Institute of New South Wales (Costs Judgment) [2026] FCA 1439 JADE
• Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Kuppan (ex parte Freezing Order) [2026] FCA 1444 JADE
• Kerrigan Law Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCA 1438 JADE
• Ziebarth v Nayaned [2026] FCA 1459 JADE
• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v eHarmony, Inc (No 2) [2026] FCA 1445 JADE
• Wu v Grow Technology Services Ltd [2026] FCA 1430 JADE
• Collie v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2026] FCA 1425 JADE
• Services Australia v Bonney [2026] FCA 1437 JADE
• Reynolds, in the matter of an application by Reynolds [2026] FCA 1447 JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

23 decisions on the Western Australian list for Tuesday 6 October 2026, eight headnoted. A gift of my half share stays a half though the testator later owned the whole, and a family provision claimant recovers distributed estate assets. Then an accountant's conflict of interest term in its technical sense, the Liberato direction and self-defence, a guilty plea to an offence needing a prescribed quantity that does not exist, renewed bail, and a hospital custody order served in a prison. The five Court of Appeal decisions also appear in the Court of Appeal edition of the same date, re-aired here with the Western Australian angle. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Family Law Desk (lead).

• Mitchell v Haste [2026] WASC 395 - two daughters' family provision claims and a Trustees Act 1962 (WA) s 65 claim allowed in part, Lemonis J: my half share was unambiguous, so evidence of intention was inadmissible under s 28A(1) of the Wills Act 1970 (WA), and the other half passed on partial intestacy [430]-[443]; a non-eligible companion's moral claim weighs, and the available estate went half to her and a quarter to each daughter [513]-[548]; in lieu of in s 8(1) of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) means wholly or partly [445]-[446]; a claim is not itself an application for an s 65 order, which must be sought in time, though a general prayer sufficed against an executor-beneficiary sued in both capacities [477]-[497]; estate-funded legal fees for the beneficiary were a distribution [500]-[507]; repaying about $22,000 was not inequitable for a good-faith recipient [558]-[577]; an executor must provide for a possible claim during the claim period, but there is no absolute bar on distribution (In re Simson not followed) and no breach [592]-[604]. JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Woodhouse v NKH PTY LTD as trustee for THE NKH TRUST [No 2] [2026] WASC 416 - action against accountants dismissed, Strk J: conflict of interest in APES 110, incorporated in the retainer and undefined, bears its technical meaning, duty and duty or duty and interest [446]-[452]; related clients turning adversarial does not of itself create one, and advice to one company client was not a service for two or more clients [455]-[478]; accountant and client is not a fiduciary category, and this retainer created none [493]-[522]; a director cannot sue in her own name on her companies' retainers [409]-[412]. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Sayed v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 141 - extension and leave granted and an appeal against a murder conviction dismissed, Thomson P, Mitchell and Sweeney JJA: a full Liberato direction will rarely be appropriate for self-defence or defence of another under s 248 of the Criminal Code (WA), whose objective elements can be negated without rejecting the accused's evidence [121]-[127]; read as a whole, the directions created no realistic risk the jury thought his evidence had to be positively believed, and do not believe is not naturally heard as reaching might be true [129]-[142]; senior counsel's agreement counted [143]. Reported as the law of jury directions only. JADE
• Windsor v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 132 - conviction on a plea set aside and an acquittal entered on one count, Sweeney JA, Livesey AJA and Whitby J: the Court must itself be satisfied that on the admitted facts the offender could not in law have been guilty, despite the State's concession [24]-[37]; s 14(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) needs a prescribed quantity, and none is prescribed for 1,4-Butanediol [30]-[36]; the majority declined to vary the other sentences under s 30(6) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), Livesey AJA reaching the same total another way [39]-[74]. JADE
• ROSE v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2026] WASCA 140 - leave to appeal against refusal of renewed bail refused, Thomson P, Vaughan and Archer JJA: new circumstances under s 14(2a) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) (assumed) and exceptional reasons under sch 1 pt C cl 3A; unsupported medical assertions carry no weight, disclosure failures count only if caused by custody, and eight months on remand was not inordinate [10]-[35]. The test only; the trial is still to be heard. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• SJQ v North Metropolitan Health Service [2026] WASC 423 - declarations made, Palmer J: where a custody order under the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) and the Tribunal's determination specify a hospital, detention in a prison is contrary to law although detention is authorised [97], [157]-[160]; concessions go to utility and discretion, not jurisdiction, and a systemic failure gives a declaration of past infringement utility [92]-[150]; the declarations concern legal obligations, not resources [13]-[14], [153]. Legal doctrine only. JADE
• C v K [2026] WASCA 135 - leave to appeal from the State Administrative Tribunal refused, Thomson P and Seaward JA: the periodic, mandatory and leave-based review pathways under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) lead to the same review, so the Tribunal need not rule on every proposed basis [27]-[38]. Legal doctrine only. JADE

Also from the Court of Appeal.

• Chowdhury v Iss Security Pty Ltd [2026] WASCA 142 - leave to appeal in a workers compensation matter refused, Thomson P, Vaughan and Seaward JJA: an appeal must raise a question of law but leave is not automatic, and reagitating arguments rejected twice requires a reasonably clear case of legal error; the weight of expert evidence is a question of fact [31]-[40]. JADE

Registry (Supreme Court, no outcome stated).

• Techteryx Ltd. v Aria Aaax Australia Pty Ltd [2026] WASC 427 - Illustrative synopsis only: pre-action discovery under O 26A r 4 RSC (WA), element by element. JADE
• LEE v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASC 428 - list only (pre-action discovery). JADE
• Re Beacon Minerals Ltd; Ex Parte Beacon Minerals Ltd [2026] WASC 424 - list only (corporate governance). JADE
• Mcgregor v SMITH as joint and several administrator of BAYVIEW HEALTH - MATILDA BAY PHARMACY PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) [No 2] [2026] WASC 421 - list only (deed of company arrangement). JADE
• Re Cygnus Metals Ltd; Ex Parte Cygnus Metals Ltd [2026] WASC 430 - list only (scheme of arrangement). JADE
• Re Vault Minerals Limited; Ex Parte Vault Minerals [2026] WASC 431 - list only (scheme of arrangement). JADE
• Re Carnaby Resources Ltd; Ex Parte Carnaby Resources Ltd [2026] WASC 429 - list only (scheme of arrangement). JADE
• Re Loyal Metals Ltd; Ex Parte Loyal Metals Ltd [No 2] [2026] WASC 426 - list only (scheme of arrangement). JADE
• Re Cockatoo Island Mining Pty Ltd; Ex Parte Cockatoo Island Mining Pty Ltd [2026] WASC 418 - list only (external administration). JADE
• Re Pilot Energy Limited (Administrators Appointed); Ex Parte Jeremy Joseph Nipps in His Capacity as Joint and Several Administrator of Pilot Energy Limited [2026] WASC 419 - list only (voluntary administration). JADE
• Re Triangle Energy Onshore Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed); Ex Parte Bryan Kevin Hughes as Administrator of Triangle Energy Onshore Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) [2026] WASC 420 - list only (external administration). JADE
• Re Iris – Pw No.1 2017 Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers & Managers Appointed); Ex Parte Clifford Stuart Rocke as Joint and Several Administrator [2026] WASC 425 - list only (external administration). JADE
• Friends of Australian Rock Art Inc v Whitby Mla [No 2] [2026] WASC 422 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Mbp Properties Pty Ltd (Acn 073 623 640) v Barnes [2026] WASC 276 (S) - list only (costs). JADE
• V. & J. JAKOVICH PTY LTD (In Liquidation) v Jakovich [2026] WASC 433 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

One state, every court: the Victoria edition of 6 October 2026, six decisions of the Court of Appeal and nine of the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal infers a freight forwarding contract from emails and paid invoices and settles the review standards for proportionate liability under the Wrongs Act; holds that family hardship in Commonwealth sentencing has two aspects, and that a judge's silence on its effect on the offender was error; and explains how the ceiling principle keeps moderating a sentence imposed after a retrial. From the Supreme Court, a prison visitor ban cannot reach video visits, procedural fairness attaches to such bans, and the Charter's protection of families is an institutional guarantee; equitable contribution is available between two wrongdoers liable to indemnify WorkCover; a wills registry's messages from China are ruled inadmissible hearsay; and the costs of a prolonged class action carriage fight. All six Court of Appeal decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Eight more decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story; also in the Court of Appeal brief).

• Intelligent Scm LLC v Seaway Logistics Pty Ltd (Acn 094 204 609) [2026] VSCA 240 - leave granted on the contract and apportionment grounds, the contract ground dismissed and the apportionment ground allowed, leave refused on remoteness (Walker, Lyons and Kenny JJA): a contract may be inferred where the parties' conduct, objectively assessed as a whole, positively indicates that both considered themselves bound by sufficiently clear terms; items of conduct merely consistent with an agreement may be considered in combination, and describing such cases as rare states no legal principle; the price was established by invoices paid without objection, post-contractual conduct being admissible for that purpose; remoteness in contract requires only that loss of the general kind was within reasonable contemplation; apportionment under s 24AI of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) is reviewed on the House v The King standard, but whether a party is a concurrent wrongdoer under s 24AH(1) is reviewed for correctness; the carrier was a concurrent wrongdoer for the second shipment too, and the judgment sum is to be reduced. JADE

Criminal Law Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief).

• Douglas v The King [2026] VSCA 243 - extension of time and leave granted, appeal allowed and the applicant re-sentenced (Walker and Kidd JJA): in Commonwealth sentencing family hardship has two aspects, the effect on family members under s 16A(2)(p) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), with no exceptionality threshold, and the effect of that hardship on the offender and her experience of imprisonment; silence in the reasons does not necessarily vitiate the discretion, but no inference of consideration was available where the second aspect was pressed, arguably as the focus of the plea; State cases, with their two-limb exceptional hardship test, distinguished; obiter, counsel and judges should avoid exceptionality language in Commonwealth sentencing. JADE
• Michael Kawana v The King [2026] VSCA 237 - leave to appeal against sentence granted and the appeal allowed (Emerton P, Boyce and Richards JJA): a judge sentencing after a retrial need not find the first sentence manifestly inadequate before imposing a heavier one; the first sentence is ordinarily a ceiling, departure requires an identified good reason, and imposing a higher sentence without one is specific error; once exceeded, the ceiling principle continues to moderate the sentence, so a sentence otherwise within range may be manifestly excessive; re-sentenced to a total effective sentence of 9 years 4 months. Sexual offences, reported as legal doctrine only; the complainant is not identified. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Aeshaea v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2026] VSC 629 - judicial review of prison visitor bans succeeded only in part, as to video visits (Gorton J): a targeted ban under s 43(1A) of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) attracts the presumption of procedural fairness, the power being forward-looking and not an emergency power; the obligation did not extend to material subject to public interest immunity, matters already known or the obvious, and knowledge was inferred from the plaintiffs' unexplained failure to give evidence; the power to prohibit entering a prison as a visitor requires physical presence and does not extend to video visits, but that part of the ban was severable; under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), a visitor ban interferes with family under s 13(a) but was not arbitrary, and s 17(1) is an institutional guarantee rather than an individual right. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Victorian WorkCover Authority v Granted Access Pty Ltd (Equitable contribution) [2026] VSC 640 - equitable contribution granted (Gorton J): two parties each liable to indemnify the Authority under s 369 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) for the same payments bear a common burden, so contribution is available to the one the Authority chose to pursue; differing statutory ceilings differ only in quantity, not quality; the right may be declared before payment where payment is imminent; contribution fixed at 30/95ths, the ratio of the parties' factor X values, until the co-defendant reaches its ceiling, with no contribution to interest for a period when only the paying party was liable. JADE
• Dacovic v Li (Evidence ruling) [2026] VSC 633 - objections upheld (Ierodiaconou AsJ): messages from a Chinese wills service centre and notary office were hearsay; the business records exception in s 69 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) can extend to a foreign institution's communications, is not confined to first-hand hearsay and needs no identified maker, but the Court declined to infer the makers' personal knowledge; s 64 applies only to first-hand hearsay and requires evidence that calling the witness is not reasonably practicable, and a witness's stated non-cooperation is not taken at face value; alternatively, the communications would have been excluded under s 135 as unfairly prejudicial. JADE
• Edwards v Hyundai Motor Co Australia Pty Ltd; Sims v Kia Australia Pty Ltd (Ruling No 4) [2026] VSC 586 - costs of a carriage dispute between competing group proceedings (M Osborne J, 11 September 2026): the usual position is that the unsuccessful contender bears its own costs, but where it unnecessarily prolongs the dispute it pays the additional costs of the protraction, here standard costs from November 2023 to June 2025; no non-party costs order against a litigation funder whose role was a contingent funding commitment and a commonplace affidavit, a carriage dispute being anterior to the litigation; costs fixed in a gross sum rather than a projected fifteen-month taxation. JADE

Registry (Court of Appeal; then Supreme Court, list-only or synopsis-only, no outcome stated).

• Tayeh v Vorchheimer [2026] VSCA 244 - security for costs of $45,000 ordered against a bankrupt applicant for leave to appeal from VCAT; impecuniosity significant but not decisive on appeal, and stultification not shown given his crowdfunding history (Niall CJ and Kenny JA). JADE
• West v The King [2026] VSCA 242 - Commonwealth child abuse material offences; leave to appeal against sentence refused (Walker and Kidd JJA). JADE
• John B Yaacov Myers v Medical Board of Australia [2026] VSCA 241 - extension of time to seek leave to appeal from security for costs orders refused, the substantial delay not satisfactorily explained (Beach JA). JADE
• Re Furry Meatball Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] VSC 632 - synopsis only: the framework for freezing orders against a prospective judgment debtor and a third party, in a liquidator's challenge to a property transfer alleged to be a sham. JADE
• Re Lion Property Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 639 - list only (personal insolvency). JADE
• Rich v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2026] VSC 638 - list only (interlocutory applications). JADE
• Koca v Koca [2026] VSC 642 - list only (caveats). JADE
• Wallace v Crompton [2026] VSC 644 - list only (estate administration). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twenty-nine decisions from five tribunals and the Australian Patent Office in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 6 October 2026, sixteen with headnotes, six reported as doctrine: a waterproofing membrane from a common property floor up lot-property walls; what 'works' means in a tree protection condition; capacity without a diagnosis; a child's victims support payment; when a neighbour's clock starts; reopening and federal jurisdiction; and the vacant residential land tax holiday home exemption. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Tribunals Desk: whose membrane, and which works (opening block).

• The Owners - Strata Plan No. 37812 v Herbert [2026] NSWCATAP 313 - a non-structural internal wall is lot property unless it substantially coincides with a lot boundary on the plan; a continuous waterproofing membrane from a common property floor onto lot-property walls may be common property throughout where it cannot be rectified piecemeal, so the owners corporation must replace it (SSMA s 106); no unfairness where on notice of uncontested expert material. Leave to appeal refused. JADE
• Saana v Mitchell SC [2026] VCAT 799 - 'works' and 'construction' in permit conditions and a tree protection plan mean the permitted development, so protection was not triggered by tree removal needing no permit; s 114 is not for advisory relief, boundary disputes or re-agitation. Application refused. JADE

Tribunals Desk: guardianship, and a child's victims support payment (legal doctrine only).

• Re: Barbara [2026] WASAT 112 - a mental disability may be found without a formal diagnosis; screening scores carry little weight against financial records; inability to manage finances coinciding with observed cognitive decline displaces the presumption of capacity; enduring powers are not a less restrictive alternative where entrenched family conflict makes them unworkable. Public Advocate and Public Trustee appointed. JADE
• HQK v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 305 - a payee direction for a recognition payment is reviewable, and a refused internal review does not exclude jurisdiction; payment to the claimant is the default, decided case by case with brief reasons; a blanket practice of paying minors' awards to the NSW Trustee and Guardian has no legal effect. Direction set aside. JADE

Tribunals Desk: when the clock starts, and whose complaint it is.

• Gunawardana v Melbourne CC [2026] VCAT 796 - notice of the facts for a failure-to-notify amendment request arises on discovering that development has commenced; an unexplained delay of six months or more is not 'as soon as practicable' (s 89(3)). Request refused. JADE
• Cheung To v Monash CC [2026] VCAT 803 - standing to seek review survives a later rezoning that removes review rights, but the scheme in force at decision applies; summary dismissal refused as it would issue a permit on superseded controls. Remitted to the council. JADE
• Simonsen and Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited [2026] WASAT 113 - jurisdiction is confined to the referred complaint; a tribunal cannot imply a new prohibition, and Spent Convictions Act s 18 binds only employers; persisting with an untenable claim after warnings justified costs. Proceeding dismissed. JADE
• Bonadio v Auto & General Services Pty Ltd [2026] VCAT 804 - a s 120 reopening application is a matter distinct from the insurance dispute and outside federal jurisdiction; no s 77 strike-out after final orders. The Tribunal can determine it. JADE

Tribunals Desk: tax, costs, heritage and discipline.

• Hughes v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] VCAT 806 - the first VCAT decision on the holiday home exemption (Land Tax Act 2005 s 88A): the statutory considerations may narrow the ordinary meaning; about 2 km is not holiday travel; bills and an uncorroborated logbook do not discharge the onus. Assessments confirmed. JADE
• Miocevic v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 304 - a registered proprietor remains an owner while a mortgagee is in possession (the mortgagee a deemed owner only after three years); no unfairness discretion; a clearance certificate does not protect a then-owner. Remitted on a late concession claim. JADE
• Selora Pty Ltd v Northern Midlands Council [2026] TASCAT 131 - meeting the heritage threshold does not displace the full assessment; the significant adverse effect on a neighbouring farm alone justified refusing a function centre. Refusal affirmed. JADE
• Harrison & Anor v Masterman-Smith (Costs) [2026] VCAT 808 - unreasonably declining an open invitation to carry out one's own proposed works that would likely end the dispute unreasonably prolongs a proceeding (VCAT Act s 109). Costs for that period, and the expert's costs. JADE
• Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Connor (No 2) [2026] VCAT 737 - removal is recommended where a practitioner is unfit at the hearing and likely to remain so indefinitely; a global penalty for one retainer. Removal from the roll recommended; five years' disqualification; compensation. JADE
• Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Mosaval [2026] WASAT 114 - fitness is assessed at the date of penalty; unexplained regulatory delay that prolongs ordinary stress may mitigate; repeated dishonesty rarely warrants less than time away from practice. Ten months' suspension; costs fixed at $30,000. JADE
• Health Care Complaints Commission v French [2026] NSWCATOD 131 - professional misconduct by a psychologist (boundary breaches involving a former patient, a backdated report, false statements); citing a non-existent case without candour about generative AI reinforced, but did not found, suspension. Six months' suspension, then conditions. JADE

Registry: frameworks (Illustrative synopses; no outcome stated).

• Rolfe v Valuer-General Victoria [2026] VCAT 791 - synopsis: comparable and tenant-in-common sales in a land valuation objection. JADE
• Bangholme Property Group Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2026] VCAT 800 - synopsis: the National Trust principle and Green Wedge earthworks. JADE
• Urut v Transport Accident Commission [2026] VCAT 807 - synopsis: inferential causation and pre-existing conditions. JADE
• Demir v Transport Accident Commission [2026] VCAT 812 - synopsis: causation where pre-existing injuries exist. JADE
• Wingadee Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2026] VCAT 809 - synopsis: the agent of change principle near a music venue. JADE
• Ady v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 445 - synopsis: time limits for building complaints and warranty claims. JADE
• Hooper v Suman [2026] QCATA 142 - synopsis: leave to appeal and fresh evidence. JADE

Registry (no outcome stated unless headnoted).

• Maher v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (No 2) [2026] NSWCATOD 132 - a nursing registration costs ruling, listed as a label. JADE
• YWG v YVS [2026] NSWCATAP 312 - list only; by letters only. JADE
• DND v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 302 - list only; by letters only. JADE
• Zhu v Whitehorse CC [2026] VCAT 811 - list only (tree removal). JADE
• Fealy v Colac Otway SC [2026] VCAT 797 - list only (permit review). JADE
• Munut and City of Canning [2026] WASAT 115 - list only (building order). JADE
• The Patent Searcher Pty Ltd v G2Gbio, Inc. [2026] APO 24 - late evidence and an eve-of-hearing ground refused; an absurd literal construction rejected, clear drafting not rewritten; inutility needs evidence. Opposition unsuccessful on all grounds. JADE

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