The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

September was the month public law kept asking what actually happens: which consequences a decision-maker must weigh (the direct ones), when an illogical step in the reasons matters (only when it could have changed the result), and whether a board is judged by its minutes or by what happened at the meeting. Ten decisions from the Monthly Petal's Public Law edition (31 August to 29 September 2026): three headline judgments at depth from the Public Law Desk, then the docket, with the Tribunals Desk taking the four tribunal decisions. Security-assessment, visa-cancellation and children's-interests matters are reported as legal doctrine only. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening lead.

Leads.

• Sydney Children's Hospitals Network v FZP [2026] NSWCA 203 (Ward P, Mitchelmore and Adamson JJA, 22 September 2026) - In the health privacy research exemption (HPP cll 10(1)(f), 11(1)(f)), 'in the public interest' qualifies the research, not the use or disclosure: a trailing qualifier attaches to the activity it follows, the rival reading makes the three conditions tautologous, an objects clause cannot restrike the text's balance, and the cognate Commonwealth and Victorian exceptions confirm it. Remittal set aside on the Tribunal's unchallenged alternative finding; the successful network pays the costs of the patient, a skilled contradictor in public interest litigation (s 98(1)). Unanimous. Ledger · JADE
• MJZP v Director-General of Security [2026] FCAFC 127 (Abraham, Kennett and Shariff JJ, 18 September 2026) - The month's principal development. On a Security Division appeal, s 46(1) transmission puts the Tribunal record before the Court without tender, so conditions on tender and Evidence Act exclusion have nothing to attach to; a non-disclosure certificate is legally unreasonable only if the Minister's satisfaction could not logically or rationally be reached; the public interest is not confined to security but may come down to it; the duty to consider consequences reaches direct, immediate and statutorily prescribed ones only (NBMZ explained as a genuine-consideration case); s 39B(11) is a source of power to take material in closed session without a certificate, with fairness tested by practical injustice; and the Court may examine the confidential reasons itself. Appeal and certificates proceeding dismissed. Unanimous. Ledger · JADE
• VRRQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 117 (Anderson, O'Sullivan and Lenehan JJ, 8 September 2026) - Illogical fact-finding is jurisdictional error only if material, a realistic possibility of a different outcome (LPDT); an intermingled finding is not immaterial merely because other matters support the conclusion, but LPDT does not make every single lapse material; a Tribunal's reasons are judged by the path it actually took. Appeal dismissed by majority (O'Sullivan J, Anderson J agreeing); Lenehan J, dissenting on ground 1, held 'critical fact' is no higher threshold than materiality and the rolled-up evaluation made the error material. Ledger · JADE

The September docket.

• Manebona v Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 130 (Collier, Neskovcin and Moore JJ, 24 September 2026) - Section 501BA(2) prescribes no mandatory considerations, but the practical realities of cancellation, including mandatory detention pending removal, must be taken into account, without any need for the label 'legal consequence'; present risk may be inferred from historical conduct; dated material is unreasonable only where treated as current; NZYQ not engaged; whether permanent exclusion is mandatory reserved. Appeal dismissed. Ledger · JADE
• Ranavue v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1274 (Shariff J, 1 September 2026) - A Tribunal's 'not enlivened' statement on legal consequences, read fairly, meant neutral weight and no error; but 'immediate family members' in Direction 110 para 8.3(1) ordinarily includes parents, and para 8.4(3) requires individual consideration of a child whose interests differ. Quashed and remitted. Ledger · JADE
• Montenegro v Legal Profession Admission Board (No 4) [2026] NSWCA 199 (Adamson and Ball JJA, Price AJA, 17 September 2026) - 'Full and accurate minutes' means every decision recorded accurately, not everything that happened; validity turns on what occurred at the meeting, not the minutes; a conflicted member who declares and abstains need not leave absent a realistic possibility of stifling debate. Summons dismissed with costs. Ledger · JADE
• Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 297 (Hennessy ADCJ, Deputy President, and G Sarginson, Deputy President, 18 September 2026) - On GIPA internal appeals NCAT exercises administrative power but is not confined to merits review; a question of law is the subject matter of an appeal as of right under s 80, not a mere gateway; an appeal naming none and seeking no leave is misconceived; costs on special circumstances. Ledger · JADE
• Perry v Department of Agriculture and Fisheries [2026] QCAT 433 (Judicial Member Rinaudo AM, 21 September 2026) - On a preliminary question: s 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) cannot imply limits absent from a regulation-making power; s 21 of the Statutory Instruments Act does not permit words to be read into a fixed quota formula; a Fisheries Act reviewer stays bound by the formula; no evidence the s 28(2)(d) economic relationship extends to commercial fishing. Answered no. Ledger · JADE
• Arise Solar Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATOD 126 (K Ransome, Principal Member, 21 September 2026) - Section 60(2) of the ADR Act supports interim orders affecting a licence renewal refusal even after the licence has expired, where it continued in force until the refusal; the licence continues pending review on a condition barring contracts over $20,000. Ledger · JADE
• Anderson v Granda Venture Pty Ltd trading as Butopia [2026] NSWCATAP 286 (A Balla ADCJ, Principal Member, and K Merrick, Senior Member, 9 September 2026) - Refusing joinder of a director and supervisor is a practice and procedure decision facing a high interlocutory hurdle; utility is central where complete relief is available against the contracting company, liable for its employees' conduct under s 84 CCA. Appeal dismissed with costs. Ledger · JADE

What to watch.

Manebona reserved whether permanent exclusion is a mandatory consideration under the personal cancellation power. VRRQ's split, a single lapse against reasoning too rolled up to separate, is the argument to expect in illogicality challenges. The Court of Appeal expected its FZP construction to influence the cognate Victorian legislation. Ranavue returns to the Tribunal, Perry's quota review continues and Arise Solar's licence runs on conditions until its review is heard; no view is expressed on any outcome. The Constitutional Law and Wills & Probate editions were quiet months and fold into October.

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

Send us Fan Mail

September in family law, told as one argument: the appellate courts applied the test the law writes, no more and no less. No added condition on a statutory right of appearance, no freestanding unacceptable-risk test, no presumption of time and no second forum through parens patriae; but every material contest and every joined claim decided, the trustee heard before a superannuation split, and best interests expressly satisfied before a settlement binds a person with a disability. Family matters where children are described are reported as legal doctrine only. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening lead.

The thread.

Cases referenced at the table.

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 JADE · Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 JADE

What to watch.

Two matters go back for rehearing, Verissimus (property and maintenance) and W v S [No 3] (the consent-order application), and nothing here expresses a view on their outcome. After Palacio, the referral to the professional regulators stands, and certificate questions belong to the State Supreme Court. After Bergsma, watch how trial judges structure supervision without an end point. Watch whether two judicial warnings about AI-drafted appeal documents in one month harden into practice guidance, and how the word ordinarily in WS is tested.

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

Send us Fan Mail

The criminal law month as one argument: who weighs what. A five-judge NSW Court of Criminal Appeal revoked the Whyte guideline for dangerous driving and separated the offence from the offender, and the month that followed filled in both columns - what reduces moral culpability and what a judge must then say, the price of a plea, the edges of a Crown appeal, and, as the counterweight, who weighs the evidence itself. Matters involving sexual offences (including against children) and child abuse material are reported as legal doctrine only; parties the courts identify by letters are identified that way; DPP v Roderic is a ruling before a trial not yet held, and the accused are presumed innocent; R v Molnar is remitted for sentence. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening lead.

The thread.

Cases referenced at the table.

What to watch.

The new non-numerical dangerous-driving guideline in the District Court, and whether age and record creep back into the seriousness column; whether the constitutional question left undecided in Molnar returns in a case that needs it; whether sentencing judges begin stating, in terms, what reduced culpability does to deterrence (TD) and how hardship evidence is prepared after Forbes; and how Victorian trial judges apply the at-its-highest rule to historical forensic evidence after Roderic. Nothing here anticipates the Roderic trial or the Molnar sentence.

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

Send us Fan Mail

One practice area, one month, one sitting: corporations law in September 2026, from the seven decisions the Monthly Petal selected. One question runs through the month: when a deed of company arrangement ends, what survives it? The Queensland Court of Appeal holds that a DOCA is a statutory instrument whose termination-contingent refund dies with it, and that a registered all-assets security survives a DOCA's release of the debt and keeps reaching after-acquired property; between them, the Federal Court times the voidness of unfair terms to how each term was used. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening lead.

Leads.

• Seafarms Group Ltd v McKinnon [2026] QCA 169 (Boddice, Brown and Bradley JJA, 4 September 2026) - a DOCA derives its operative force from ss 444D and 444G and is construed as a statutory instrument, not a contract, whether or not the party is a signatory; a refund right that arises only on termination is not an accrued right preserved by s 445H; no primary or Quistclose trust over a proponent contribution mixed into a single deed fund; administrators and liquidators joined as proper parties get their costs. The drafting lesson: a contribution meant to be refundable on termination should be an express, segregated trust. Ledger · JADE
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1278 (Jackman J, 31 August 2026) - seven standard form small amount credit contract terms unfair under s 12BG(1); proposing an unfair term (s 12BF(2A)) and applying or relying on it (s 12BF(2C)) are separate civil penalty contraventions; terms relied on to collect money lawfully owed void only prospectively, terms never relied on void ab initio; an agreed $3.5 million penalty by instalments approved as an appropriate penalty within the permissible range, with course of conduct as a tool of analysis and totality as the final check; a Credit Code s 87(2) declaration though the breach may have been inadvertent. Ledger · JADE
• Kirk v Moreton Resources Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 186 (Boddice JA, Thomson AJA, Crowley J, 25 September 2026) - an expectancy that matures into a right to payment or a payment is after-acquired property; a registered all-present-and-after-acquired-property security attaches automatically under PPSA ss 18-20 and prevails over a later equitable assignment for value; Re Anroma confined to contests between a company and its secured creditor; s 444D(1) binds a secured creditor to a DOCA's release of the debt, but s 444D(2) preserves the security, which keeps reaching after-acquired property up to the released debt; Re Bluenergy doubted and not adopted; the receiver may conduct the tribunal proceedings for the refunds. Ledger · JADE

The September docket.

• Barber v Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] FCA 1378 (Stewart J, 17 August 2026) - no rule that a non-resident plaintiff must give security; Australian-registered shares valued well above their encumbrances and any likely costs are an adequate fund whatever their form or liquidity; a company's undifferentiated joint defence with the majority directors, with no relief sought against it, is a strong countervailing circumstance; dismissed on an undertaking not to further encumber the shares without notice. Ledger · JADE
• Juratowitch (Administrator), in the matter of A&S Wholesale Fruit and Vegetables Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 1317 (Wheatley J, 3 August 2026) - s 447A(1) is wide enough to extend the 45-business-day adjournment limit for the second creditors' meeting in s 75-140(3) of the Insolvency Practice Rules; a substantial extension needs evidence of complexity, a reasoned time estimate, likely better returns to creditors and no material prejudice; extended to 14 October 2026 with modified notice and reporting. Ledger
• Vitnell v Vellenga, in the matter of Australian Carers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1292 (O'Sullivan J, 1 September 2026) - the s 237(2)(d) serious question threshold is the interlocutory injunction standard; a missing draft pleading or quantified loss is not fatal where the affidavits carry the material; a personal undertaking to indemnify the company cures the want of a costs estimate; leave granted against one director on that indemnity, refused against fourteen others for want of material beyond association. The claims are untested. Ledger · JADE
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1380 (Anderson J, 15 September 2026) - ex parte interim orders under s 1323: three jurisdictional facts enliven but do not compel the discretion; no prima facie case is needed, reasonable grounds to suspect will do; promissory and convertible notes characterised as debentures and so financial products; freezing orders in aid as a less intrusive alternative to receivership; offshore reach in personam. ASIC's suspected contraventions are suspicions only. Ledger · JADE

What to watch.

Kirk beyond Queensland: how courts elsewhere treat Re Bluenergy now that an appellate court has doubted it, and whether the question reaches the High Court. The next generation of DOCAs after Seafarms: express trusts and segregated accounts for refundable proponent contributions. Venture 5 as the working method for agreed-penalty hearings under the dual unfair-terms regime. In ASIC v Star, the inter partes hearing on the appointment of receivers is not reported in this edition.

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

Send us Fan Mail

The month in commercial law, in one sitting: ten decisions from the Monthly Petal's Commercial Law edition (31 August to 29 September 2026), and one argument running through them. Your paper protects you only if it is fair, plain and complete: the Full Federal Court voids an arbitration clause in click-through consumer terms and refuses to halt a class action without notice to the group; the Federal Court approves a $3.5 million penalty under the dual regime for proposing and relying on unfair terms; and the NSW Supreme Court holds that a principal that judges a defective extension claim on its merits waives the time bar, no-waiver clause or not. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening lead.

Leads.

• Plus500AU Pty Ltd v AghaeiRad [2026] FCAFC 125 (Lee, Banks-Smith and Stewart JJ, 16 September 2026) - Unfairness under ASIC Act s 12BG is judged by the particular contract and consumer; transparency is objective, with no assumption that a box-ticking consumer read 50 pages of terms; significant imbalance turns on practical operation (arbitration cost against modest claims, loss of the class action), not formal symmetry; the supplier bears the reasonable-necessity onus; pro-arbitration policy informs but does not immunise. A void arbitration term cannot found a stay under s 8(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), and a whole class action cannot be stayed on the representative's personal obligation without notice to group members and a chance of substitution. Appeals dismissed. Ledger · JADE
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1278 (Jackman J, 31 August 2026) - Seven small amount credit contract terms unfair, the default and authority terms conferring unconstrained control over unscheduled withdrawals without notice; terms relied on to collect money lawfully owed void only prospectively, terms never relied on void ab initio; proposing (s 12BF(2A)) and relying on (s 12BF(2C)) an unfair term are separate civil penalty contraventions, analysed as a course of conduct with totality as the final check; agreed $3.5 million penalty, injunction, replacement terms and adverse publicity order; a Credit Code s 87(2) declaration despite an inadvertent system error. Ledger · JADE
• Clarke Energy (Australia) Pty Ltd v Alinta Energy Transmission (Roy Hill) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1124 (Rees J, 21 September 2026) - A principal that directs a superintendent to decide an EOT claim on its merits waives non-compliance with conditions precedent, and a no-waiver clause does not prevent waiver by election; float belongs to the contractor where the entitlement clause disregards its ability to finish on time; delay costs include margin, overheads and profit absent clear words; an absolute-discretion reserve power does not exclude the prevention principle; non-final determinations are decided afresh on all the evidence; no superintendent duty of care to a contractually protected contractor. 142 days of extensions and judgment for about $7.19 million, some figures still to be settled. Ledger · JADE

The September docket.

• Gobbo v State of Victoria [2026] VSCA 221 (Emerton P, Beach and Kenny JJA, 11 September 2026) - General words of release are restrained by text, context, purpose, the recitals and the disputes in contemplation, with subjective intention inadmissible; a release of all causes of action accrued from dealings with police still barred the claims. Leave refused to the first applicant; the other appeals dismissed. (The negligence holdings are in the Torts and Negligence edition.) Ledger · JADE
• UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Wollongong Coal Limited (No 5) [2026] FCA 1336 (Bennett J, 10 September 2026) - The CISG applies under Art 1(1)(b) despite Singapore's reservation; Art 14(1) exhaustively sets minimum content and displaces domestic certainty rules; Art 55 cannot price a deal meant to be priced per transaction; under Art 8 the coal sale agreements were a back-to-back framework, not contracts of sale. Dismissed. Ledger · JADE
• Built Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1147 (Rees J, 24 September 2026) - Under GC21 (Edition 2) cl 71.8.2 the $500,000 litigation threshold applies to each Issue determined, not the aggregate; CPB Contractors followed; EOT claims with delay costs are money claims; below-threshold claims permanently stayed under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), costs payable forthwith. Ledger · JADE
• Macsteel International Australia Pty Limited v Oliver [2026] FCA 1300 (Neskovcin J, 26 August 2026) - Interlocutory, the claims untested: r 14.01(1) forensic inspection of a former CFO's devices by an independent expert on targeted parameters; a prima facie case of misuse of confidential information inferred from unexplained mass downloads and contact with a competitor; injunction and disclosure orders. Ledger · JADE
• Kline Industries International Pty Ltd v Cross & Anor [2026] QCATA 139 (Senior Member Lember, 15 September 2026) - Repudiation or frustration is at least a mixed question needing leave; a party is bound by its case below; a building contract with variation machinery for the supervening problem is not frustrated by dearer performance; readiness and willingness need not be proved unless put in issue. Leave refused on ground 1; appeal otherwise dismissed. Ledger · JADE
• OPES Lifestyle Homes Pty Ltd v KMA Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 275 (G Blake AM SC and A Bell SC, 3 September 2026) - An oral variation to raise slab levels 'similar to the height of the road/gutter' was certain enough; uncertainty is a mixed question, not a pure question of law for an appeal as of right; new points not run below excluded. Leave refused; appeal dismissed. Ledger · JADE
• Anderson v Granda Venture Pty Ltd trading as Butopia [2026] NSWCATAP 286 (A Balla ADCJ and K Merrick, 9 September 2026) - Joinder of a builder's supervisor and director turns on utility; where the company is liable for its employees under CCA s 84 and complete relief is available against it, refusal was open; interlocutory practice appeals face a high hurdle. Appeal dismissed with costs. Ledger · JADE

What to watch.

Plus500 left the unconscionability ground undecided, and only Lee J (obiter) addressed whether the arbitration was commercial and the claims arbitrable, so there is no majority view on arbitrability of consumer class action claims. In Built, aggregation was assumed but never decided in the earlier appellate case, so the per-Issue construction of GC21 (Edition 2) holds the field at first instance. Clarke Energy's remaining delay-cost and interest figures are still to be settled.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Four decisions on the South Australian list for Thursday 1 October 2026, two of them Court of Appeal sentence appeals carried at depth on the Criminal Law Desk. A bare announcement that eight connected property and dishonesty sentences would all be served cumulatively is an error of principle: proportionality must always be considered, and considered explicitly where offences overlap or connect, and the appellant is resentenced. In a dangerous driving sentence appeal the Court upholds a general finding of speeding on lay evidence and the use of uncharged phone use closely connected in time, holds the De Simoni principle weaker where the uncharged conduct could only be a lesser offence, and reads the State's public confidence bar to home detention as reached only by a sentence clearly disproportionately low. Both also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Two registry lines from the Supreme Court. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

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

• Lambourne v Commissioner of Police [2026] SASCA 116 - permission to appeal against sentence granted and the appeal allowed (S Doyle JA, Bleby JA and Vaughan AJA, joint reasons). Ensuring that the overall sentence is proportionate to the overall criminality and the offender's circumstances is a critical part of sentencing for multiple offences; the sentencing court has significant latitude in the mechanism (concurrency, totality, reduced individual sentences or a single sentence under s 26 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA)), and a reduction need not always be made but must always be considered, careful and explicit consideration generally being required where there is an obvious overlap or connection between offences [32], [38]. A relevant connection is not confined to closeness in acts, timing or location and extends to similarity in the nature and circumstances of the offences, including common motivation or criminogenic factors; separate incursions into criminality, general deterrence, multiple victims and the risk of reoffending may limit, but do not eliminate, the scope for reduction [33]-[37], [40]. The Magistrate's bare announcement that the sentences for eight similar property and dishonesty offences, six of them within about ten hours, would all be cumulative, with no explanation for allowing no concurrency and no reference to totality, failed to have regard to proportionality; brevity in sentencing remarks is generally to be encouraged, but was insufficient here [39]-[44]. Resentenced, totality preferred to partial concurrency, to four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years, two months and 12 days, in place of a head sentence of four years, eight months and 28 days; manifest excess not decided [45]-[53]. JADE
• Bosley v The King [2026] SASCA 115 - permission to appeal against sentence for aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving granted, appeal dismissed (Stein CJ, S Doyle and David JJA, joint reasons). A sentencing judge may find that an offender was exceeding the speed limit on lay eyewitness evidence, although expert reconstruction cannot determine the speed, provided no more precise finding is made [55]-[60]. Uncharged conduct closely connected in time with the offence (here phone use ending about 20 minutes before the collision) may be considered where it is probative of knowledge and moral culpability, provided the offender is not sentenced for it or on the basis that it formed part of the offence, and here it properly reduced the scope for leniency [61]-[68]. The De Simoni principle does not require the context of the charged offending to be ignored, and does not generally operate, or not with the same force, where the surrounding conduct could only constitute a less serious offence [69]-[72]. A five-year starting point was not manifestly excessive, and suspension was rightly refused [73]-[82]. Home detention is significantly less onerous than imprisonment; a sentence would or may affect public confidence in the administration of justice under s 71(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) only where it is not only disproportionately low but clearly so; and any error on that bar was immaterial, the judge having made plain that the s 71(1) discretion would in any event have been declined [86]-[94]. R v De Simoni applied. The injured person is not identified. JADE

Registry.

• Attorney General v Daniel Carter [2026] SASC 131 - a high risk offender matter (McIntyre J), listed in the edition without a headnote or synopsis; no outcome is stated in the edition. JADE
• RYAN v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2026] SASC 138 - a costs ruling (McIntyre J), listed in the edition without a headnote or synopsis; no outcome is stated in the edition. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Brand new: the first Northern Territory edition. One territory, every court, one brief. Two decisions from the Territory's appellate courts open the account, both from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The Court of Appeal holds that a refused permanent stay cannot be appealed midway through a prosecution on indictment, and adds that the Crown need not seek judicial review of a Youth Justice Court ruling before indicting directly. Then the Court of Criminal Appeal tests a late sentence appeal on its merits and refuses the extension, reported as legal doctrine only. Both decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date and are carried here with the Territory angle. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Public Law Desk (opening story).

• JW v The King (No 2) [2026] NTCA 9 - appellate jurisdiction and abuse of process, on an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of a permanent stay of a prosecution of a youth on ex officio indictment for dangerous driving causing death and serious harm (Grant CJ, Brownhill and Huntingford JJ): Part III of the Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT) confers no appellate jurisdiction over orders, final or otherwise, made in proceedings on indictment, Division 2 of Part X of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT) covering that field; read in context, with the interrelated Code provisions, the 1985 amendment and its second reading speech, s 50A extends to any criminal appeal and modifies s 51 to exclude judgments in criminal proceedings on indictment, a deliberate bifurcation of civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction, consistently with persuasive Western Australian, South Australian and Queensland authority; the appeal was therefore incompetent, but the refusal is not immune from review, lacking final effect and being open to challenge on an appeal against a finding of guilt under s 410; refusing a permanent stay is an exercise of inherent power within the proceeding on indictment, not a separate head of jurisdiction, the single Judge's contrary view being rejected; obiter, nothing requires a Crown Law Officer to challenge a Youth Justice Court decision to determine charges summarily before filing an ex officio indictment under s 300, s 52(3) of the Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT) authorising the indictment (Maya v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [2019] VSCA 117 distinguished, that scheme allowing no direct indictment), and exposure to a sentence above the youth court's two-year limit is not unfairness, since the Supreme Court is assumed to impose a proportionate sentence and has all that court's powers, and a jurisdictional limit circumscribes the inferior court's power without conferring a benefit on the accused; leave granted by a single Judge revoked and the application for leave dismissed. The prosecution is unfinished; no view is expressed on its outcome. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Malibirr v The King [2026] NTCCA 12 - application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence for domestic violence offences, including sexual intercourse without consent, sentenced in part on the basis of youth, reported as legal doctrine only (Huntingford and Burns JJ, Hiley AJ): a sentence is manifestly excessive only if it is so far outside the range of a reasonable discretionary judgment as to bespeak error, and an appellate court applies restraint and affords the sentencing judge latitude; an offender's youth did not substantially reduce the weight of offending where he was almost 18, in a domestic relationship with an adult and his conduct was very adult-like; there is no fixed sentencing range for sexual intercourse without consent, and comparable cases with lower sentences involving opportunistic offending and recklessness as to consent were distinguishable; domestic violence against Aboriginal women in remote communities required significant weight on denunciation, deterrence and community protection, here properly balanced by the low non-parole period fixed for rehabilitation under s 82 of the Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT); where violent assaults are distinct and separate, accumulation should reflect the different acts of criminality, its degree being discretionary, and totality was satisfied; the total effective sentence of 11 years was just and appropriate, the challenge to the non-parole period failed with it, and as the appeal would have been dismissed the extension of time was refused (Criminal Code (NT) s 411(4); Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) s 55). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Fifteen decisions from two courts in the New South Wales edition of Thursday 1 October 2026, and the one headnoted is an international arbitration stay over a robotic pizza machine. The Supreme Court holds that broad connecting words in a dispute resolution clause reach related tort and Australian Consumer Law claims and claims for breach of an inter partes undertaking, that defending an urgent interlocutory application while insisting on the clause as to the merits is not waiver, and that the 'matter' stayed under s 7(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) includes the contracting parties' dispute about claims against non-parties, with a temporary stay under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for the directors. Carried at depth on the Commercial Law Desk, with fourteen list-only decisions on the registry. No decision in this edition also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. House spot: a word from JADE after the second block.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Robot X Limited v Placer Robotics Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] NSWSC 1208 - (Scruby J) an Australian manufacturer of a robotic pizza machine and its Cypriot exclusive distributor, under an agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of Sweden and providing for arbitration in Sweden of disputes 'arising out of or in relation to or in connection with this Agreement or its breach': because s 7(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) has mandatory effect it is considered before the discretionary power in s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW); broad connecting words are given ample effect and 'or its breach' shows the clause is not confined to claims for breach, so tort and Australian Consumer Law claims about dealings with potential customers for the machine, and claims for breach of an undertaking given to forestall relief for alleged breaches, were all 'in relation to or in connection with' the agreement; an undertaking given inter partes rather than to the Court is contractual, so claims for its breach are arbitrable, and the ACL claims were arbitrable too; waiver requires the deliberate, intentional and unequivocal abandonment of the right to arbitrate, or conduct consistent only with defending on the merits, and defending an urgent interlocutory application and giving the undertaking while insisting on the clause as to the merits was not waiver; the 'matter' stayed under s 7(2) is confined to disputes between the parties to the arbitration agreement but includes their dispute whether it regulates claims against non-parties; whether a director claims 'through or under' the company under s 7(4) depends on whether the director's defence puts in issue a right or entitlement available to the company, a question adjourned rather than dismissed where the claims were unpleaded and the defences undefined; a party's right to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause is generally upheld absent strong reasons, which may exist where not all parties to the dispute are bound, and a non-party may seek a stay under s 67 'as a matter of convenience' where the forum is clearly inappropriate having regard to the controversy as a whole, a temporary stay pending a foreign arbitration being available. Proceedings against the manufacturer stayed under s 7(2); proceedings against the directors stayed under s 67, upon the defendants' undertaking, pending the conclusion of any arbitration or litigation in Stockholm between the plaintiff and the manufacturer; the directors' claim for a permanent stay adjourned. JADE

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

• Chivers v Health Care Complaints Commission [2026] NSWSC 1191 - list only (administrative law, judicial review). JADE
• Chandra v Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc [2026] NSWSC 1209 - list only (pleadings). JADE
• Albarran v Pinner [2026] NSWSC 1201 - list only (default judgment). JADE
• Tai Li Xing Development Limited v Golden Capital Commercial Logistics Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1197 - list only (contract formation). JADE
• Sarah Louise Doherty v John Kotroni [2026] NSWSC 1207 - list only (costs orders). JADE
• Kerry v Williams [2026] NSWSC 1203 - list only (security for costs). JADE
• Asmar bht Chaghoury v Paplaw Pty Ltd t/as Papantoniou Blake Lawyers [2026] NSWSC 1202 - list only (settlement approval). JADE
• Smith bhnf Punch v Kamalaharan [2026] NSWSC 1204 - list only (settlement approval). JADE
• THN Capital Funding Pty Ltd v Leffler (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1210 - list only (costs orders). JADE
• Decision restricted [2026] NSWSC 1195 - list only (restricted decision). JADE
• Belam v AAI Ltd t/a GIO [2026] NSWSC 1213 - list only (strike out). JADE

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

• 1 Ridge Street Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1660 - list only (development application). JADE
• Anvest Holdings Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1654 - list only (development application). JADE
• T and TC Investment Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1652 - list only (development consent). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Four appellate decisions from three courts, two of them in the Northern Territory, in the Court of Appeal edition of 1 October 2026, all on the Criminal Law Desk. South Australia's Court of Appeal holds that proportionality must always be considered when sentencing for multiple offences, that a relevant connection between offences extends to common motivation and criminogenic factors, and that a bare announcement of full cumulation is an error of principle; and, in a dangerous driving appeal, that uncharged phone use ending about twenty minutes before a crash could be weighed at sentence, with the De Simoni principle and the public-confidence bar to home detention. The Northern Territory Court of Appeal holds that there is no appeal under the Supreme Court Act from a refused permanent stay in proceedings on indictment, and the Court of Criminal Appeal refuses an extension of time because a sentence appeal would have failed. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Criminal Law Desk (lead).

• Lambourne v Commissioner of Police [2026] SASCA 116 - ensuring that the overall sentence is proportionate to the overall criminality and the offender's circumstances is a critical part of sentencing for multiple offences; the court has latitude in the mechanism (concurrency, totality, reduced individual sentences or a single sentence under s 26 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA)), and a reduction need not always be made but must always be considered, with careful and explicit consideration generally required where there is an obvious overlap or connection; a relevant overlap or connection is not confined to closeness in acts, timing or location and extends to similarity in nature and circumstances, including common motivation or criminogenic factors; separate incursions into criminality, general deterrence, multiple victims and the risk of reoffending limit but do not eliminate the scope for reduction; a Magistrate's bare announcement that all sentences would be cumulative, with no explanation and no reference to totality, failed to have regard to proportionality. Permission granted, appeal allowed; resentenced to four years with a non-parole period of three years, two months and 12 days, totality preferred to partial concurrency (S Doyle JA, Bleby JA and Vaughan AJA). JADE
• Bosley v The King [2026] SASCA 115 - a sentencing judge may make a general finding of speeding on lay eyewitness evidence though expert reconstruction cannot fix the speed; uncharged conduct closely connected in time with the offence (phone use ending about 20 minutes before the collision) may be considered where probative of knowledge and moral culpability, provided the offender is not sentenced for it or as if it formed part of the offence; the De Simoni principle does not require the context of the charged offending to be ignored and does not generally operate, or not with the same force, where the surrounding conduct could only be a lesser offence; home detention is significantly less onerous than prison, and a sentence would or may affect public confidence under s 71(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) only where it is not only disproportionately low but clearly so, any error being immaterial where the general discretion would in any event have been declined. Permission granted, appeal dismissed (unanimous). JADE
• JW v The King (No 2) [2026] NTCA 9 - Part III of the Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT) confers no appellate jurisdiction over orders made in proceedings on indictment, s 50A, read in context with the Criminal Code and the legislative history, excluding any criminal appeal by a deliberate bifurcation of civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction; the power to stay for abuse of process is not a separate head of jurisdiction, so an appeal against the refusal of a permanent stay was incompetent, the refusal remaining reviewable on an appeal against a finding of guilt under s 410 of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT); obiter, the Crown need not seek judicial review of a Youth Justice Court decision to determine charges summarily before filing an ex officio indictment, and exposure to a sentence above the youth court's jurisdictional limit is not unfairness. Grant of leave by a single Judge revoked; leave to appeal refused (unanimous). The prosecution continues; reported as legal doctrine only. JADE
• Malibirr v The King [2026] NTCCA 12 - an extension of time to appeal against sentence, sought more than seven months out of time, was refused because the appeal would have been dismissed; a sentence is manifestly excessive only if so far outside the range of reasonable discretionary judgment as to bespeak error; youth did not substantially reduce the weight of the offending of an offender almost 18 in an adult domestic relationship; domestic violence against Aboriginal women in remote communities requires significant weight on denunciation, deterrence and community protection, balanced here by a low non-parole period under s 82 of the Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT); distinct assaults on separate occasions warrant accumulation, and totality was satisfied. Application for an extension of time dismissed (Huntingford and Burns JJ, Hiley AJ). Reported as legal doctrine only. JADE

JW v The King (No 2) and Malibirr v The King also appear in the first Northern Territory brief, and Lambourne v Commissioner of Police and Bosley v The King in the South Australia brief, of 1 October 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Eighteen decisions from five tribunals (three NCAT divisions, VCAT, SACAT, ACAT and QCAT) in the Tribunals edition of 30 September 2026, eight with headnotes, three reported as doctrine: an untested council framework against a seven and eight storey proposal; a permit never acted upon; amendment by condition after a transitional cut-off; a hearing in a builder's absence; how far a tribunal can depart from open hearing; capacity, preference and two enduring instruments; a de facto partner on a death entry; and a doctor's registration cancelled for general deterrence. Three Illustrative synopses are carried as frameworks; the registry lists three list-only decisions, a working with children matter and three disciplinary referrals as labels. Wednesday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Tribunals Desk: the planning instrument that counts (opening block).

• Moda Cawkwell Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2026] VCAT 427 - Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) ss 60(1A)(g), 77: a council-adopted framework whose built form controls have not been tested through a planning scheme amendment carries very little weight; visibility alone is not the test of acceptable height; a rezoning gazetted after the hearing was taken into account on further submissions; transition failures were addressed by conditions rather than a storey off; daylight modelling on high reflectance values accepted because a permit condition requires the specified paint colour. Council decision set aside; permit granted. JADE
• Yarra City Council v Axil Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] VCAT 789 - Planning and Environment Act ss 87, 114, 119; VCAT Act ss 109, 115C: a contravention of a permit condition cannot be specified unless the permit has been acted upon; a new permit does not extinguish works approved under an earlier one, so the council must identify the relevant approval; failure to engage all owners was relevant; fee reimbursement is presumed only for a successful party. Application rejected; costs and fees refused. JADE

Tribunals Desk: amendment by condition, and a hearing in absence.

• Ip Property Botany Street Pty Ltd v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY (Administrative Review) [2026] ACAT 57 - ACAT Act 2008 (ACT) s 68; Planning Act 2023 (ACT) s 613(3): on review the Tribunal has the decision-maker's functions and limits, no more (Frugtniet); a condition that alters a development application is an amendment and cannot circumvent the transitional time limit; amend bears its ordinary meaning; communications with referral entities outside the prescribed channels are not advice; neither a legal error found on appeal nor statements in the same proceeding establish apprehended bias. Decision confirmed. JADE
• Shallis v Salveron [2026] NSWCATAP 310 - CAT Act 2013 (NSW) s 38(5)(c), s 80(2), Sch 4 cl 12(1): proceeding in a party's absence at a first listing, with no timetable, no evidence served and no inquiry about service, phone contact or representation, denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard, a question of law; the lost chance of a better outcome was a substantial miscarriage of justice. Appeal allowed; remitted. JADE

Tribunals Desk: how far a tribunal can close its doors.

• Ralph v Department for Health and Wellbeing [2026] SACAT 83 - SACAT Act 2013 (SA) s 60(2): SACAT has no inherent power and does not act judicially on internal review, so the Evidence Act suppression power is unavailable; publish means communicating to the public, disclose extends to a party; Tribunal Members' and lawyers' names were not withheld; treating practitioners' names were withheld on a specific risk where the challenge did not depend on their identity; private hearing granted. Granted in part. JADE

Tribunals Desk: capacity and appointments, and a death entry (legal doctrine only).

• NOG [2026] VCAT 793 - Powers of Attorney Act 2014 (Vic) s 4; Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) ss 43, 44: the Tribunal, not the attesting witnesses or certificate providers, decides capacity; a consistent preference for an attorney is not capacity under the cumulative test; failure to recall relationship history with the appointee is relevant; a medical treatment decision maker appointment is set aside only on positive satisfaction that doing so promotes wellbeing. Enduring power of attorney declaration affirmed; medical treatment decision maker appointment declared valid. JADE
• Speirs v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2026] SACAT 84 - Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AA; SACAT Act s 34: on rehearing the correct or preferable decision; a single-person benefits claim and a single social media presentation did not negate a de facto relationship; witnesses without direct knowledge carry little weight. Registrar's refusal to correct the death entry affirmed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: a doctor before the tribunal.

• Medical Board of Australia v Taverner [2026] SACAT 81 - National Law (South Australia) ss 5, 196: characterisation is for the Tribunal despite agreed facts; failures of patient care were professional misconduct; whether a renewal answer misleads depends on the question asked, and the impairment question is subjective; general deterrence and public confidence required cancellation despite low risk and rehabilitation; post-hearing amendments governed the orders. Registration cancelled; no reinstatement application for one year. JADE

Tribunals Desk: frameworks (Illustrative synopses; no outcome stated).

• Jacmon v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 304 - synopsis: errors of law in tenancy appeals (a claim not dealt with, the wrong statutory question, findings without probative evidence); partial remittal. JADE
• De Niese v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] VCAT 790 - synopsis: loss of income damages for a gig economy worker; offsetting other earnings; estimation where precise evidence is unavailable. JADE
• Stevenson v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] VCAT 792 - synopsis: the principal place of residence land tax exemption on subdivided property; the Ferrington factors. JADE

Registry (list-only decisions and labels, no headnote, no outcome stated).

• GRQ v Children's Guardian [2026] NSWCATAD 303 - a working with children matter, listed as a label; by letters only. JADE
• Patel v Samuel [2026] NSWCATAP 311 - list only (appeal rights). JADE
• Bryce v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2026] NSWCATOD 130 - list only (administrative appeal). JADE
• Zidar v Information and Privacy Commission [2026] NSWCATAD 301 - list only (statutory interpretation). JADE
• Medical Board of Australia v Hobart [2026] VCAT 794 - a medical disciplinary referral, listed as a label. JADE
• Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Han [2026] SACAT 82 - a nursing disciplinary referral, listed as a label. JADE
• Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman v Parrish [2026] QCAT 354 - a pharmacy disciplinary referral, listed as a label. JADE

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