The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail

One state, every court: the Tasmania edition of 30 September 2026. Two decisions, both from the appellate benches of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The Full Court on mesne profits for a tenant holding over at the port of Bell Bay: market rent is an objective measure the landlord must prove with evidence, a lease paired with a conditional rent incentive deed does not prove that the face rent is the market rent, and a plaintiff's abandoned claim is no windfall to weigh against the defendant in costs. Then the Court of Criminal Appeal allows a Crown appeal over forty minutes of dangerous driving: a disqualification below the statutory minimum, a wholly concurrent sentence for evading police, and no suspension where deterrence predominates. Both decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date and are carried here with the Tasmanian angle. Wednesday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Resources Australasia Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] TASFC 12 - mesne profits and costs, on appeal from an assessment by Blow CJ (Shanahan CJ and Estcourt J): where the parties agree that mesne profits equal market rent, market rent is an objective measure to be established by evidence, not the rent that could have been charged to the trespassing tenant under the lease, and the claimant bears the onus of proving that the lease rent represents what could be obtained in the market; the landlord's only evidence was the lease coupled with an incentive deed that reduced the rent conditionally on the tenant's performance, so it failed to prove that the face rent was the market rent, and the tenant's non-compliance with the lease was not to the point; the award was reduced by the unreceived incentive balance, from $82,627.60 to $41,534.45; obiter (Shanahan CJ), compensatory and restitutionary assessments are alternative measures that may yield significantly different results, so the basis of the claim must be identified, pleaded and proved, although it may be doubted that a formal election is required in Australia; on costs, a plaintiff's abandonment of a claim that cannot later be re-agitated (here trespass damages for sawdust stored on adjoining land, a second action being likely barred by res judicata or Anshun estoppel) is not a windfall to be weighed against the defendant in apportioning costs, and taking it into account was an irrelevant consideration or wrong principle within s 44(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas), vitiating a 90 per cent costs order made without the judge's own estimate of the time the abandoned issue took; re-exercising the discretion, an issue-by-issue approach should be adopted where it produces a fairer result, and the landlord recovers its costs except those of or incidental to the sawdust issue not reasonably incurred on other claims, to be taxed in default of agreement (Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas) r 57); appeal allowed on grounds 1 and 3, ground 4 (a two-thirds costs order) dismissed. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Director of Public Prosecutions v Cleaver [2026] TASCCA 7 - Crown appeal against sentence for dangerous driving (Criminal Code (Tas) s 172A), aggravated evading police and related summary offences, on pleas of guilty (Shanahan CJ, Pearce and Brett JJ): a 15-month disqualification below the two-year minimum that s 11A(4A) of the Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act 2000 (Tas) requires on a conviction under s 11A(2A) was specific error, requiring re-sentence on that count unless, in the Court's independent discretion, no different sentence should be passed; the combined sentence (2½ years backdated, the balance suspended, and a concurrent six-month term for evading police) was erroneously lenient, a 40-minute course of dangerous driving through suburban roads by an unlicensed driver on bail under a condition not to drive being of high objective seriousness on the Banks factors, aggravated by the bail breaches, the unlicensed driving, the passenger, the flight on foot and the false plates; the statutory requirement of a separate sentence for evading police reflects a legislative intention that its punishment be adequate and transparent, and ordering it wholly concurrently was excessively lenient; where general deterrence, denunciation and punishment predominate, suspension of even part of a sentence is inappropriate, and suspension, unlike parole, guarantees release without supervision; the offender's driving history warranted a significantly longer disqualification in any event; the residual discretion to dismiss a prosecution appeal was not exercised, intervention being required to maintain public confidence and proper sentencing standards for a prevalent crime whose avoidance of harm is a matter of chance; appeal allowed and re-sentenced to a total of 3½ years from 23 April 2025 under s 92A of the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), with parole eligibility after 2 years 4 months and four years' disqualification from release. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Two decisions on the South Australian list for Wednesday 30 September 2026, and the one carried at depth is the Court of Appeal on a darknet drug business: a sentence appeal in which the prosecution conceded that it had overstated the quantity and value of the powder at sentence. The Court holds the error material, because it could realistically have affected the sentencing reasoning, re-exercises the discretion and finds no different sentence warranted; confines the State's equal-harm rule for controlled drugs to physiological harm, leaving differentiation by social prevalence open but requiring proof before a novel drug is equated with methylamphetamine or heroin under the Young guidelines; and holds that the absence of prevalence evidence does not necessarily reduce general deterrence, and that manifest excess is not shown by adding back plea discounts. Carried on the Criminal Law Desk in two blocks with a Host question beat. The decision also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Wednesday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

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

• Adcock v The King [2026] SASCA 113 - permission to appeal against sentence (Stein CJ, David and Stanley JJA, joint reasons). A factual error is material where it could realistically have affected the sentencing judge's reasoning to the sentence imposed; the conceded error as to the quantity and value of flubromazolam powder (275 g worth about $220,921 put at sentence, against 82.3 g of powder worth about $65,000) met that standard because the judge expressly relied on the value in assessing the objective gravity of the count, so the discretion had to be re-exercised [54], [60], [64]; on an independent re-exercise no different or lesser sentence was warranted, the mixture remaining well above the large commercial quantity threshold, the offending sophisticated, profitable and not street-level and not isolated, and the judge having already moderated for low purity and allowed substantial concurrency under s 26 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) [65]-[69]. Section 44(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) is confined to the physiological harm of drugs and does not preclude differentiation on the basis of social prevalence, but equating a drug with methylamphetamine or heroin under the Young guidelines (R v Young (2016) 126 SASR 41) requires proof of its use, prevalence and societal effects; read in context, the judge's reference to s 44(2) was confined to physiological harm and the section was not misapplied [72]-[78]. The absence of evidence of prevalence or societal harm, or of institutional experience with a drug, does not necessarily reduce the weight of general deterrence, which retained weight given the sophistication of the operation, the difficulty of detection, the anonymity of Bitcoin and the risk of proliferation of the darknet model [79]-[80]. Absent specific error the appellant must show the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust; it is artificial to add back guilty plea discounts to derive an effective starting point for comparison, R v Collopy; R v Cooley and Booker v The King were not useful comparators, and viewed as a whole the sentence was appropriate and proportionate [81]-[88]. Kentwell v The Queen, Farrugia v The King, Markarian v The Queen and Hili v The Queen applied. Permission to appeal granted on Grounds 1 and 3, refused on Ground 2; appeal dismissed, the sentence of 10 years with a non-parole period of seven years and nine months affirmed. JADE

Registry.

• NSC v Police [2026] SASC 139 - a sentence appeal (Handshin 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

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that this description contains the name of a person who has died, in a case title as the Court published it. Two Supreme Court decisions in the Queensland edition of Wednesday 30 September 2026, and one of them asks what right an executor holds to the body of the person who died. The Supreme Court holds that ownership of Aboriginal human remains under s 15 of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) reaches only remains in existence before the Act commenced, that an executor's common law right to custody and possession of the body is a conditional right for the purpose of burial, exercisable only when the executor is ready, willing and able to arrange it, and that s 58(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) excluded the conduct obligations because neither official could reasonably have acted differently. Carried at depth on the Public Law Desk, reported as legal doctrine only, with one list-only decision on the registry. No decision in this edition also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Wednesday house spot: a word from JADE after the second block.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Ruth Schaefer, Executor of the Estate of Gordon Charlie v The State Coroner of Queensland [2026] QSC 231 - reported as legal doctrine only (Williams J): the remains of an Aboriginal elder who died in 2020, held in a hospital mortuary for more than five and a half years after a coronial autopsy; s 15 of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) confers ownership only of Aboriginal human remains in existence immediately before the Act commenced on 6 November 2003, so the executor was not a person who owns the remains within s 16(2), and the common law recognises no property in a dead body; nothing in that Act prevents burial under s 3 of the Burials Assistance Act 1965 (Qld), remains buried under the authority of Queensland law being excluded from the Sch 2 definition; an executor's common law right to custody and possession of the body is a conditional right for the purpose of burial, correlative with the duty to bury and exercisable where the executor is ready, willing and able to arrange burial, with no unconstrained right to possession for any purpose, and it was subject to the coroner's control until release 'for burial' under s 26(2)(f) of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) and to the chief executive's duty under s 3 of the Burials Assistance Act; no suitable burial arrangements were proved, so the executor was not ready, willing and able, and the grounds based on common law possession, functus officio, preservation, constitutional protection and duty of care failed (Doodeward v Spence and R v Kelly distinguished); taking possession of a body for a coronial investigation does not, without more, make the coroner a fiduciary for the executor; s 58(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply, because under s 58(2) neither the coroner nor the chief executive could reasonably have acted otherwise under two narrow and focused provisions, and alternatively any limit on the executor's cultural rights under s 28 was reasonable and justifiable within s 13, given the extensive opportunity to make arrangements and the willingness to consider the burial location, including return to Country; s 3 of the Burials Assistance Act is not confined to unclaimed bodies and applies wherever there is inordinately long delay, for whatever reason, so a further nine-month preservation order was refused at the final hearing; the Court observed that the self-represented applicant's material appeared to have been prepared with generative artificial intelligence, citing irrelevant and non-existent authorities. Originating application dismissed; costs to be determined on the papers. JADE

Registry (list-only decision, no headnote, no outcome stated).

• Blue Dog Group Pty Ltd v Credit Suisse Equities (Australia) Pty Limited & Ors [2026] QSC 230 - list only (security for costs). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seventeen decisions from four courts in the New South Wales edition of 30 September 2026, nine of them headnoted. Rectification of a settlement deed needs clear and convincing proof of an outwardly expressed common intention, and a 'gestalt' from past dealings is no substitute; an escrow keyed to an ATO determination goes to the buyer, and the dividend withholding rate is the treaty rate; a testamentary gift conditional on fortnightly payments fails without strict performance; a trustee claiming an indemnity from a mixed account bears the onus deposit by deposit; and s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) reaches charges and contracts of sale, needs no dishonesty, and may be invoked by more than creditors owed a debt. From the Court of Criminal Appeal, expert evidence and judge-alone verdicts, and why a remand inmate is not a convicted inmate. Two Court of Appeal rulings and eight list-only decisions on the registry. The four appellate decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Wednesday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

• Alamin v Islam [2026] NSWSC 1188 - plaintiffs' claims dismissed and cross-claim upheld (Meek J). Rectification requires clear and convincing proof, at execution, of an actual common intention, mutually held and objectively shown in words or conduct, a standard preserved by s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); a mutually perceived 'gestalt' from past dealings is no substitute for disclosure of intention. A clause proposed and rejected in negotiations was not omitted by mistake, could not be implied, and gave no relief for unilateral mistake absent knowledge, deliberate concealment or wilful ignorance (Taylor v Johnson); no duty of cooperation or good faith overrides express time-essential payment terms; and silence about the deleted clause between legally represented parties raised no reasonable expectation of disclosure under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. JADE
• Nuvei (Australia) Holdings II Pty Ltd v Arrap Investments Pty Ltd; Arrap Investments Pty Ltd v Nuvei (Australia) Holdings II Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1190 - relief granted and cross-claim dismissed (Hmelnitsky J). Escrow release on an ATO 'determination': 'determined' bears its ordinary meaning, a decision resolving whether tax is or will be payable, not confined to a penalty notice, and the ATO's acceptance of a voluntary disclosure was one. A duty to cooperate, capable of implication by law in all classes of contract, was implied, but its content is attenuated where a risk may fall on either party depending on when it crystallises; no breach and no proved loss. Under reg 40(1)(b) of the Taxation Administration Regulations 2017 (Cth), dividend withholding turns on the payee's address and the rate is the rate provided for in the double tax agreement, not the payee's actual treaty entitlement, so 15% was correct. JADE
• Glass v Tsivis [2026] NSWSC 1166 - questions answered for the surviving life tenant (Slattery J). Late performance of a testamentary condition is allowed only where the condition can be performed without its time element (Re Packard and Re Goodwin distinguished); where payment was to be fortnightly, continuing, in full and for life, and the gift was 'subject to and conditional upon' full compliance, a lump sum of arrears could not satisfy it, and the inter vivos compensation analogy did not displace the testamentary scheme. With no gift over, the remainder falls into residue. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Samawi v Faraone (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1186 - principles of the account determined (Leeming JA). A trustee who services trust and personal debt from a mixed account must first account for payments attributable to her own property before claiming an indemnity, a personal account rather than proprietary tracing; the trustee bears the onus of proving that each deposit paid a trust expense. Service of affidavits identifying correlated withdrawals and deposits was notice in substance under s 98(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and 'not admissible' means not admissible over objection. Deliberately failing to engage with a reasonable offer to sell was a breach of trust, but the beneficiary's loss claim failed because an agent's price guide is not evidence of value. JADE
• El-Rihani v Sbeiti [2026] NSWSC 1189 - application granted in part (Faulkner J). Under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) a charge and a contract of sale are each an alienation; an intent to delay or hinder creditors suffices, need not be the sole intent or dishonest, and may be directed to future creditors; a sole director's intent is the company's; depletion is assessed at settlement; an intent merely to prefer one creditor is not enough. A 'person thereby prejudiced' is not confined to creditors owed a debt and includes one holding an order, in the nature of a mandatory injunction, requiring the disponor to contribute to a fund for a third party's creditors. Three of four dealings voidable. JADE

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

• Farrell v R [2026] NSWCCA 152 - leave granted, appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed (Leeming JA, Fagan and Emmett JJ). No procedural unfairness arises from admitting expert opinion where the defence had full opportunity to challenge it and did not take up an offer to apply to strike it out; unchallenged training in road surface damage and practical experience established specialised knowledge under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). A judge-alone verdict is reviewed under M v The Queen exactly as a jury verdict. A brief crossing into oncoming traffic is not inherently less grave than prolonged wrong-side driving, and the revocation of the guideline status of R v Whyte by Cripps v R did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. JADE
• King v R [2026] NSWCCA 153 - extension of time and leave granted, appeal allowed and resentenced (Leeming JA, Fagan and Emmett JJ; Fagan J dissenting as to the resentence). An offender on remand is not a 'convicted inmate', so s 56 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is not engaged, though its policy against wholly concurrent sentences may be weighed; a non-parole period above 75% of the total should be acknowledged and explained; an unsatisfactory explanation for delay does not preclude an extension under s 10(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) where error is uncontested and no prejudice is shown; and findings must be challenged in the grounds of appeal, not only in oral argument. JADE

Registry (Court of Appeal rulings with headnotes, also in the Court of Appeal brief).

• Awad v Awad (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 207 - leave to appeal refused and stay motion dismissed (Payne JA, Griffiths AJA). Interim administrators removed after repeated warnings had adequate notice of the critical issues; a judge does not err by failing to consider alternatives not put to him. JADE
• Zey v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 208 - motion to reopen orders refusing leave dismissed (Ward ACJ, Mitchelmore JA). Rule 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) is not engaged by a complaint of error, and even where an argument was not addressed the power may be declined where finality in a small claim is overwhelming. JADE

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

• Tolley bht Caldwell v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1192 - list only (settlement approval). JADE
• Froome v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1193 - list only (pleadings). JADE
• Langway Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1649 - list only (construction of consent). JADE
• Prosker Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1648 - list only (development application). JADE
• Witney v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1653 - list only (development appeal). JADE
• Jofilo Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1651 - list only (development application). JADE
• GrowMolong Inc v Cabonne Council [2026] NSWLEC 1650 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Toki v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1655 - list only (development consent). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Thirteen decisions from the Federal Court of Australia in the Australian Federal Courts edition of 30 September 2026, nine with headnotes, all from single judges. The lead: on ASIC's urgent application, the Court restrains a company awaiting a reserved civil penalty judgment from distributing its securities in another company to its members, holding that a distribution lowering contributed equity is a reduction of share capital though shareholdings are unchanged, that the company bears the statutory onus of disproving material prejudice to creditors, and that it is contrary to public policy for a civil penalty defendant, after trial but before judgment, to distribute its only assets to members. Also: daily continuing contraventions of a foreign investment building condition and a single penalty for the series; the test for discontinuing an unfunded class action and notice to group members; costs thrown away when the scale of AI-assisted document summaries was not disclosed; vexatious proceedings orders; standing to challenge a native title body corporate's registration; circular reasoning about the legal consequences of a visa decision; dismissal for default after voluntary removal; and a liquidator's compromise of an expert-determined price. Wednesday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ryzon Materials Limited (Interim Injunction) [2026] FCA 1428 - interim injunction under s 1324(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 granted, restraining a proposed equal capital reduction by in specie distribution pending a reserved liability judgment in ASIC's civil penalty proceeding (the allegations untested): a distribution that lowers contributed equity is a reduction of share capital within s 256B(1) though shareholdings are unchanged; s 1324(1B) requires the Court to assume contravention of s 256B(1)(a) or (b) unless the company proves otherwise, and the company did not discharge the onus on creditor prejudice where no provision was made for any penalty or costs; where creditors have claims, s 256C(4) requires disclosure of all information material to the vote, and omitting the proceeding would appear to have been contrary to it; an injunction was desirable, there being no commercial justification for distributing before judgment, no apparent prejudice from delay, and it being contrary to public policy for a civil penalty defendant, after trial but before judgment, to distribute its only assets to members; costs reserved. JADE
• Hudson (Liquidator), in the matter of RNOK Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] FCA 1406 - a price fixed by a final and binding expert determination under a contractual transfer mechanism in a joint venture deed is a debt owed to the company, engaging the liquidator's compromise power in s 477(2A) of the Corporations Act 2001; the Court will generally approve a compromise the liquidator considers commercially appropriate absent a lack of good faith, an error of law or principle, or a real and substantial ground for doubting its reasonableness; a settlement at 78 per cent of the determined price approved nunc pro tunc, approval not being an endorsement of the deed. JADE

Tax and Revenue Desk.

• Commissioner of Taxation v Li (No 2) [2026] FCA 1424 - default judgment under r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 on the face of the concise statement, its facts deemed admitted; under s 93 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 a condition of a foreign investment no objection notification to complete a dwelling within four years continued after the period expired, each day of non-compliance being a separate contravention of s 96(1) of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (more than 2,300); the maximum is governed by s 96(4), with the capital gain on undisposed land calculated when the penalty is fixed; a single penalty under s 85 for a series of contraventions must be just and appropriate for the conduct as a whole; a penalty of $508,000, the current maximum for one contravention, imposed for a lengthy, knowing breach. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Gunning v State of Queensland (Discontinuance) [2026] FCA 1418 - discontinuance of two unfunded representative proceedings alleging racial discrimination connected with the removal of First Nations children (the allegations untested) approved, subject to a notice: the test under s 33V(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 is whether a discontinuance would be unfair or unreasonable or adverse to the interests of group members, preferred to the fair and reasonable formulation; s 33X(4) does not require notice of a discontinuance but s 33X(5) may be used to order notice of its approval; rather than decide whether a discontinuance determines a proceeding within s 33ZE(2), an order under s 33ZF fixed when limitation periods begin to run again. JADE
• Jahani v Qiu, in the matter of Ralan Property Services Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (costs) [2026] FCA 1419 - plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs thrown away by the vacation of a final hearing: the question is why the hearing could not proceed and whose conduct caused that; under s 37M a party whose evidentiary exercise materially increases in scale (here s 50 summaries growing from about 500 to more than 7,500 documents) must disclose it promptly so the timetable can be set on an informed basis; the Court's Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note provides no separate basis for an adverse costs order, and AI use for collation and synthesis may further the overarching purpose with adequate verification, human supervision and traceability to source material. JADE
• LFDB v SM (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2026] FCA 1420 - vexatious proceedings order under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 declined: frequently bears its ordinary meaning of often or in close succession, a lower threshold than habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds; the order is protective, not punitive, and was not appropriate where the vexatious proceedings arose from a self-represented litigant's genuine misunderstanding of the law. JADE

Public Law Desk.

• Bonney v Watarra Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (No 4) [2026] FCA 1414 - an eligible common law native title holder who did not become a member of a prescribed body corporate on its registration is a person aggrieved with standing under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, but the application failed: in granting registration under s 26-1 of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 the Registrar need not be satisfied the list of consenting members is accurate or complete; reliance on a misleading document is not, without more, an error of law; relief would have been refused for want of utility. JADE
• NKHH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1422 - extension of time under s 477A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 granted and a Tribunal decision not to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation quashed and remitted: attributing no weight to a consideration may lie within decisional freedom, but where the only reason for giving the legal consequences of the decision no weight is that they are intended by the statutory scheme, the reasoning is circular and irrational, the error heightened by the deferral of non-refoulement claims. JADE
• Reid v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1417 - judicial review application dismissed for default under r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 after the applicant, removed at his own request, failed to attend or prosecute it, the Court not being required to investigate the merits; Migration Practice Note MIG-2 is not legislation but unexplained non-compliance is not to be brushed aside, the Minister having acted reasonably in the circumstances. JADE

Registry (synopsis and list only; no outcomes stated on air).

• Mableson, in the matter of TasFoods Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2026] FCA 1416 - synopsis: share transfers under ss 444GA and 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 in a DOCA implementation. JADE
• Zhao v GHD Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1412 - synopsis: dismissal for default under s 37P and r 5.23. JADE
• ALT18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1421 - list only. JADE
• Brereton (Liquidator) v Gatto, in the matter of Get Concreted Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Lump Sum Costs) [2026] FCA 1426 - list only. JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Seven decisions from five appellate courts in the Court of Appeal edition of 30 September 2026. Tasmania's Full Court holds that where mesne profits are agreed to equal market rent, market rent is an objective measure the landlord must prove by evidence, so a lease paired with a conditional incentive deed does not deliver the face rent against a trespassing tenant, and that a plaintiff's abandonment of a claim it cannot re-agitate is an irrelevant consideration in apportioning costs. Four criminal appeals follow: South Australia's Court of Appeal on a conceded factual error, the equal-harm rule for novel drugs and general deterrence; Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal allowing a Crown appeal over a disqualification below the statutory minimum, a wholly concurrent evading-police term and a part-suspended sentence; and the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal on remand prisoners and the convicted-inmate provision, non-parole ratios above three-quarters, and expert opinion and judge-alone verdicts after a fatal collision. Two New South Wales Court of Appeal decisions are in the registry. Wednesday house spot: a word from JADE after the opening block.

Commercial Law Desk (lead).

• Resources Australasia Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] TASFC 12 - where the parties agree that mesne profits equal market rent, market rent is an objective measure to be established by evidence, not the rent that could have been charged to the trespasser under the lease, and the claimant bears the onus of proving that the lease rent is what the market would pay; with only the lease and a conditional incentive deed in evidence, the landlord failed to prove face rent was market rent, and the award was reduced by the unreceived incentive balance from $82,627.60 to $41,534.45 (Estcourt J also holding, alternatively, that market rent was the discounted rent); obiter (Shanahan CJ), the compensatory or restitutionary basis of a mesne profits claim must be identified, pleaded and proved, and a formal election may not be required in Australia; on costs, a plaintiff's abandonment of a claim that cannot later be re-agitated is not a windfall to be weighed against the defendant, so taking the defendant's likely res judicata or Anshun benefit into account was an irrelevant consideration under s 44(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas) that vitiated a 90% order; on re-exercise, an issue-by-issue approach is adopted where fairer, the landlord recovering its costs save those of the abandoned sawdust trespass issue not reasonably incurred on other claims. Grounds 1 and 3 allowed, ground 4 dismissed (Shanahan CJ and Estcourt J). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Adcock v The King [2026] SASCA 113 - a factual error at sentence is material where it could realistically have affected the judge's reasoning, and the conceded overvaluation of the powder in a large commercial quantity count required the discretion to be re-exercised, but no different sentence was warranted for sophisticated, non-isolated darknet trafficking; s 44(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) is confined to physiological harm and does not preclude differentiation by social prevalence, though equating a novel drug with methylamphetamine or heroin under the Young guidelines requires proof of its use, prevalence and societal effects; the absence of prevalence evidence does not necessarily reduce the weight of general deterrence; and it is artificial to add back plea discounts to derive an effective starting point for comparison. Permission granted on grounds 1 and 3, refused on ground 2, appeal dismissed (unanimous). JADE
• Director of Public Prosecutions v Cleaver [2026] TASCCA 7 - a disqualification below the two-year minimum in s 11A(4A) of the Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act 2000 (Tas) is specific error requiring resentence on that count; the statutory requirement of a separate sentence for evading police reflects an intention that its punishment be adequate and transparent, so a wholly concurrent term was excessively lenient; where general deterrence, denunciation and punishment predominate, suspending even part of a sentence is inappropriate, suspension (unlike parole) releasing without supervision; and the residual discretion was not exercised for a prevalent crime whose avoidance of harm is a matter of chance. Crown appeal allowed; resentenced to 3½ years with parole eligibility after 2 years 4 months and four years' disqualification from release (unanimous). JADE
• King v R [2026] NSWCCA 153 - an offender held on remand is not a convicted inmate within s 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), so s 56 is not engaged by an offence committed on remand, though its policy against wholly concurrent sentences may still be weighed; where a non-parole period exceeds 75% of the total sentence and special circumstances are found, the judge is generally expected to acknowledge it and give reasons; an unsatisfactory explanation for delay does not preclude an extension of time under s 10(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) where error is not in dispute and the Crown shows no prejudice; on resentence the Court proceeds on unchallenged findings that were reasonably open, and challenging them only in oral argument is procedurally wrong. Extension granted, appeal allowed and the applicant resentenced (overall non-parole ratio about 65%), Fagan J dissenting as to the sentence. JADE
• Farrell v R [2026] NSWCCA 152 - no procedural unfairness arises from admitting expert opinion where the defence had full opportunity to challenge it and declined an offer to apply to strike it out; absent a trial challenge, a crime scene officer's training on road surface damage and experience at crash scenes established specialised knowledge under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and the Lang requirements were met; a judge-alone verdict is reviewed under M v The Queen exactly as a jury verdict, by independent assessment of the whole evidence; a brief transgression into oncoming traffic is not inherently less grave than prolonged wrong-side driving; and the revocation of R v Whyte's guideline status did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. Leave granted, appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed. Reported as legal doctrine only. JADE

Registry.

• Zey v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 208 - r 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) does not permit re-agitation of issues determined against an applicant, and even where an unaddressed argument engages the rule, variation may be declined where the interest in finality in a small claim is overwhelming; a gross sum costs order under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) made on a broad brush. Notice of motion dismissed with costs; gross sum costs of $35,000 and $4,000 (Ward ACJ and Mitchelmore JA). JADE
• Awad v Awad (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 207 - leave to appeal from interlocutory orders removing interim administrators of two estates refused: no issue of principle or reasonably clear injustice, the administrators having had adequate notice of the critical issues through earlier hearings, a note in the orders and repeated warnings, and no House v The King error in not considering alternatives never put. Summons and stay motion dismissed, no order as to costs (Payne JA and Griffiths AJA). JADE

Farrell v R, King v R, Awad v Awad (No 2) and Zey v State of New South Wales also appear in the New South Wales brief, Adcock v The King in the South Australia brief, and Resources Australasia Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) and Director of Public Prosecutions v Cleaver in the Tasmania brief, of 30 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Thirteen decisions from three tribunals (three NCAT divisions, QCAT and SACAT) in the Tribunals edition of 29 September 2026, two with headnotes: whether security and car cleaning subcontracts at Sydney Airport were employment agency contracts for payroll tax, and the risk tests in South Australia's working with children and disability worker screening regimes. Eight Illustrative synopses are carried as frameworks and three list-only decisions are on the registry.

Tribunals Desk: payroll tax and the employment agency test (opening story).

• Chief Group Services Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 299 - Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW) s 37; Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW) ss 7, 38; Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) s 100(3): the taxpayer bears the onus of proving its client contracts are not employment agency contracts; the s 37 inquiry identifies the work done and the nature and ordinary conduct of the client's business, a close relationship indicating an employment agency contract; the primary source is the contract between agent and client, not its operation in practice; integration indicia (uniforms, equipment, training, manuals) are no substitute for the statutory test, and the agent's independence is inherent in the arrangement; the master licence regime requires the licensee to control its workers, not the client to yield control over the nature of the work; earlier security decisions do not bind merely because they also concern subcontracted guards; the airline security and rental car cleaning contracts were employment agency contracts. Decision under review confirmed. JADE

Tribunals Desk: screening for work with children and people with disability (reported as legal doctrine only).

• Golding v Department of Human Services – Central Assessment Unit [2026] SACAT 78 - Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 (SA) ss 26, 32; Disability Inclusion Act 2018 (SA) ss 18J, 18M; South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) s 34: unacceptable risk to children requires an evaluative assessment at a level higher than any appreciable risk, weighing likelihood and seriousness against an objective community standard focused on children's best interests; the standard is statutory satisfaction, not the balance of probabilities, and past conduct need not be proved, its credibility going to weight; the disability 'real and appreciable' risk test is absolute, entirely protective and has no regard to the impact on the applicant; insight, not the history itself, was decisive, and the deficit was not confined to one setting; once the findings are made the notices must issue, as protective measures and not findings of harm. Prohibition and exclusion notices affirmed. JADE

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

• Telfer v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 300 - synopsis: the s 13 public interest balancing test under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) and reasonable searches under s 53, applied to police records. JADE
• Reznik v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 308 - synopsis: when a failure to consider key evidence is a question of law under s 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW); adequacy of reasons; quiet enjoyment under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). JADE
• Health Care Complaints Commission v Balasubramaniam (No 2) [2026] NSWCATOD 128 - a health practitioner disciplinary matter, listed as a label. JADE
• Brian & Kim Wust Family Pty Ltd v Stanbury & Anor [2026] QCAT 443 - synopsis: tree disputes under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld): serious damage, substantial interference and destruction orders. JADE
• Kavanagh v Hansen [2026] QCAT 434 - synopsis: s 42 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld): recovering payments made to an unlicensed builder, and the burden on an unlicensed builder seeking reasonable remuneration; rectification damages and reasonableness. JADE
• Jones v Commissioner for Equal Opportunity [2026] SACAT 76 - synopsis: the four-factor test for extension of time, and a 'series of acts', under s 93 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA). JADE
• Proios v Valuer-General [2026] SACAT 80 - synopsis: competing expert valuation evidence under s 25C of the Valuation of Land Act 1971 (SA); contamination discounts. JADE
• Barac v Registrar of Firearms [2026] SACAT 79 - synopsis: the 'substantially similar' test for interstate firearms offences under s 20(7) of the Firearms Act 2015 (SA), by gravamen and purpose rather than exact elements. JADE

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

• HHR v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 298 - list only (extension of time); by letters only. JADE
• Dabit v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATAP 309 - list only (administrative appeals). JADE
• Young Auto Park Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2026] SACAT 77 - list only (administrative appeals). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Five decisions on the Queensland list for Tuesday 29 September 2026, four headnoted. The Court of Appeal holds that the public authority defence in s 36 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) reaches common law negligence claims, then finds that no authority could properly have thought it reasonable to leave a barricade overnight on a shared path without warning signs, a marked alternative route or lighting, and enters judgment against the Brisbane City Council. Then a further supervision order application that failed on uncontradicted psychiatric evidence, reported as doctrine only, a sentence restructured to reflect very early pleas, and leave to file a judicial review application refused because it never identified the decision challenged. The four Court of Appeal decisions also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date and are re-aired here with the Queensland angle.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Dennison v Brisbane City Council [2026] QCA 193 - appeal allowed and judgment entered for the appellant for $675,926.77 plus interest, with costs here and below, Boddice JA, Doyle JA and Cooper J: s 36 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) is not confined to breach of statutory duty but applies to common law negligence claims based on the exercise or non-exercise of a public authority's function, its text speaking of function, not the defined term duty, and its heading unable to confine it; Hamcor Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2014] QSC 224 not followed [26]-[33], [41], [56]; the presumption against derogation from common law rights yields to an Act whose stated purpose is to curtail claimants' rights [49]-[53]; whether a claim is based on the exercise of a function is a matter of substance [26], [54]-[55]; a power to carry out works includes the ancillary power to make them safe, so barricading the site was part of the road-control function, not merely incidental to it [69]-[76]; where the primary facts are unchallenged and only the conclusion is disputed, no House v The King error need be shown [93]-[94]; the s 36(2) standard is assessed prospectively, without hindsight, and a plaintiff need not prove what other authorities in fact do [124]-[127]; leaving the barricade overnight on a shared path without reflective advance warning signs, a safe alternative route or lighting, which a manual and the Council's own procedures required and its team leader accepted, breached the standard, no cost, availability or theft constraint being shown [102], [110], [117]-[122], [126]-[128]. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Tiers v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2026] QCA 191 - appeal from orders at the preliminary hearing of an application for a further supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) allowed, the orders below set aside and the application dismissed, Boddice JA (Mullins P and Davis J agreeing): whether the s 8(1) satisfaction is reviewed for correctness or House v The King error need not be decided, error being shown either way [27]-[28]; the satisfaction could be reached only on a proper basis for not accepting the only psychiatric evidence, that a supervision order would have no effect on a low risk, and a caveat about a greater than usual margin of error was not such a basis [29]-[31]; a finding of current diagnoses was not open where the expert spoke only of criteria previously met, a distinction that was material on the history [32]-[33]. Davis J added that the examination power arises only once the s 8 test is met, and an application cannot be brought in the hope that court-ordered examiners will find a risk the existing evidence does not show [39]-[46], [50]-[51]. Reported as doctrine only; nothing of the original offending is described. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE
• R v Ara [2026] QCA 190 - leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal allowed and the applicant resentenced, Mullins P, Thomson AJA and Davis J: a manifest excess ground framed on the result needs no particular of error [52]-[54]; nine and one-half years with six to serve did not reflect the significant credit for very early pleas, and nothing justified postponing parole beyond the mid-point [69]-[70]; under R v Nagy the head sentence reflecting total criminality attaches to the most serious offence, an armed robbery, and a burglary and stealing count is not a sch 1 offence attracting an automatic serious violent offence declaration [51], [55], [71]; the s 9(1)(ca) purpose of recognising harm to the victim, in force from 1 November 2025, enhances the visibility of a consideration already mandatory under s 9(2)(e) and added nothing here [64]-[68]; an addiction causing the offending is not itself mitigating, the willingness to address it bearing on rehabilitation [43]; eight and one-half years on the most serious count, parole eligibility after about 40 per cent [38], [71]-[72]. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Practice and Procedure Desk.

• Fritz v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2026] QCA 192 - appeal from refusal of leave to file an application for a statutory order of review allowed only to vary the basis of refusal, Boddice JA, Doyle JA and Davis J: the appeal did not extend to grounds about the underlying criminal proceedings [11]-[12]; evidence that the vexatious litigant declaration had been discharged many years earlier was admitted and the respondents properly conceded error [13]; the concession did not require the appeal to be allowed, because an application that does not identify the specific decision challenged, the decision-maker and the grounds for each decision seriously prejudices respondents, is properly characterised as an abuse of process or vexatious, and leave to file it is refused under r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), respondents being entitled to know the case they must meet [14]-[17]; the costs order below stood, and no order as to the costs of the appeal [19]-[23]. Also in the Court of Appeal brief. JADE

Registry (listed in the edition without a headnote; no outcome stated).

• Ou v Wang (No 4) [2026] QSC 233 - list only (costs orders), Ryan J. JADE

Dennison v Brisbane City Council, Tiers v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, R v Ara and Fritz v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) are also carried in the Court of Appeal brief of 29 September 2026.

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

Send us Fan Mail

Twenty decisions from two courts in the New South Wales edition of 29 September 2026. A right of carriageway 'to and from' the dominant land does not extend to turning vehicles where the way never reaches that land, and the easement is extinguished in part for want of substantial injury. In three native vegetation clearing trials, the landholder attribution provisions need no proof of the manner of clearing, with guidance on the imminent risk defence, aerial imagery and ecological evidence, and Browne v Dunn for expert witnesses. And a conditional stay in favour of arbitration in Singapore, where the Court decides for itself whether an arbitration agreement exists. Seventeen decisions listed without a headnote, one of them with an Illustrative synopsis.

Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

• Walker v Adams [2026] NSWSC 1183 - judgment for the defendant and the cross-claim granted (Sirtes J). A registered easement is construed from the instrument and the register, not the circumstances at the date of grant. Where the servient land does not lead to the dominant land and the dominant owner has direct access to a public road, entering the way solely to turn vehicles and return to the road is not a use to 'go, pass and repass ... to and from' the dominant tenement under Sch 8 Pt 1 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW); 'for all purposes' does not enlarge passing and repassing, and a right to turn is ancillary only where there is passage. Independently, accommodation is tested at the date of grant against the dominant tenement as a whole, and a convenience in driving on a public road is a personal advantage to the owner, not a benefit to the land. Under s 89(1)(c) the easement was extinguished so far as it benefits the plaintiff's lot: substantial injury is injury of real and present substance, the onus is on the applicant, and the loss of a turning convenience was not substantial; the discretion is exercised with caution, the servient owner bearing the burden, and use by permission is not acquiescence in a right. An unpleaded ground for extinguishment could be decided where the other side answered it and was not prejudiced. Costs to be determined on the papers. JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Balmoral Farms Pty Ltd; Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v JP & LR Harris Pty Ltd; Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Woolondoon Pty Ltd; Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Harris; Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Harris [2026] NSWLEC 125 - three Class 5 native vegetation clearing trials (16 charges) decided in a single judgment (Pritchard J); final orders deferred at the prosecutor's request, the Court indicating the verdicts it would otherwise have entered, guilty on eleven charges and not guilty on five. The landholder attribution provisions (Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NSW) s 44; Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) s 13.29) do not require the prosecutor to prove the particular physical acts or manner of clearing; the prosecutor proves the elements, not the particulars. To rebut the presumption the landholder must establish on the balance of probabilities both that another person carried out the clearing and that it did not cause or permit it; professed ignorance, or an uncorroborated assertion that a third party cleared, will not do. 'Imminent risk' requires a temporal nexus with serious injury or damage occurring relatively soon; clearing for a fence installed years later, or beyond the minimum extent necessary or the statutory width, is not authorised. Expert aerial imagery interpretation is generally reliable where the expert's knowledge, assumptions and method are exposed, but reasonable doubt arises where most observations are not obvious and anomalies are unexplained, or where clearing dates are refined from images not reproduced; an ecologist may extrapolate to unvisited areas in a uniform landscape; a s 60F(5) certificate under the Local Land Services Act 2013 (NSW) is prima facie evidence; and criticisms not put to an expert, with no recall sought, do not earn reduced weight (Browne v Dunn). JADE

Commercial Law Desk.

• Taggle Systems Pty Ltd v Elster Metering Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1176 - stay application granted in part (Rees J). On an application under s 7(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) the existence and scope of an arbitration agreement are generally left to the arbitrator, but the Court determines them where the arrangements are unclear, a stay would significantly affect related proceedings and the documents are in evidence and of short compass; the applicant carries the onus. A corporation contracting 'acting by and through' a business unit is the sole contracting party; arbitration clauses are construed like other commercial contracts, harmonising apparently conflicting clauses. A non-signatory claims 'through or under' a party (s 7(4)) only if it takes its stand on a cause of action or defence vested in that party; the corporate relationship is irrelevant. The proceedings against the second defendant on the potentially arbitrable supplies after 8 February 2021 (about a tenth of the meters) stayed on condition that the arbitration not proceed until the court proceedings are finally determined; the motion otherwise dismissed. JADE

Registry (no headnote, no outcome stated).

• Peterkin v Tadros [2026] NSWSC 1185 - framework (Illustrative synopsis): a liability-only judgment in a delayed-diagnosis claim against a general practitioner (Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B, 5D, 5O, 5R); its transferable value is fact-finding, weighing contemporaneous clinical notes against a doctor's later reconstruction from usual practice. JADE
• The Adoption of Edmund Luigi Andrea Wilmore and Albert Edward Fernand Wilmore [2026] NSWSC 1180 - list only (adoption). JADE
• Sibley Investments Pty Ltd v Oldfields Advance Scaffold Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1181 - list only (costs). JADE
• Wang v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1177 - list only (summary judgment). JADE
• Janson v Department of Communities & Justice (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1179 - list only (interlocutory application). JADE
• Calokerinos v Madison Marcus Law Firm Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1187 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE
• Christian Education Ministries Pty Ltd v Singleton Council [2026] NSWLEC 1646 - list only (development application). JADE
• Salerno Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1647 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Andrade v Bayside Council [2026] NSWLEC 1637 - list only (development appeal). JADE
• MP Development 10 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1636 - list only (development application). JADE
• Folder v Mosman Council [2026] NSWLEC 1645 - list only (development application). JADE
• DPG Project 56 Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2026] NSWLEC 1643 - list only (development consent). JADE
• KDBORZ Holdings Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1639 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Appwam Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2026] NSWLEC 1642 - list only (modification application). JADE
• Osgood Development Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2026] NSWLEC 1644 - list only (development consent). JADE
• Wines v Homes NSW [2026] NSWLEC 1640 - list only (trees dispute). JADE
• Parsons v Barbaro [2026] NSWLEC 1641 - list only (trees and fences). JADE

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

Send us Fan Mail

Five appellate decisions from two courts in the Court of Appeal edition of 29 September 2026. The Queensland Court of Appeal holds that the public authority defence in s 36 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) reaches common law negligence claims, then finds a council liable for leaving an unlit barricade overnight on a shared path; corrects a global sentence hung on the wrong count and reads the new victim harm sentencing purpose; and dismisses a further supervision order application that rested on rejecting uncontradicted expert evidence. Western Australia's Court of Appeal revives a sentence appeal lost to a self-executing order, by the smallest of margins. And Queensland on a review application that names no decision.

Public Law Desk (lead).

• Dennison v Brisbane City Council [2026] QCA 193 - s 36 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) is not confined to proceedings for breach of statutory duty: it applies to a common law negligence claim based on the alleged wrongful exercise of a public authority's function, which includes a power, and the section heading cannot confine the operative text (Hamcor Pty Ltd v State of Queensland not followed); the presumption against derogation from common law rights yields to an Act whose stated purpose is to curtail claimants' rights; whether a proceeding is 'based on' an exercise of function turns on its substance, and barricading works under the road-control power was part of the function, the ancillary power to make works safe, not something merely incidental; where the primary facts are unchallenged the appellate court decides whether the conclusion was correct, without House v The King error; the s 36(2) standard is assessed prospectively, without hindsight, allowing a range of reasonable options, and a plaintiff need not prove what other authorities in fact do; no authority could properly consider it reasonable to leave the barricade overnight on a shared path at night without reflective advance warning signs, a delineated safe route or lighting, which the relevant manual and the council's own procedures required. Appeal allowed; judgment for $675,926.77 plus interest, with costs below and of the appeal (unanimous). JADE

Criminal Law Desk.

• R v Ara [2026] QCA 190 - a manifest excess ground framed on the result needs no particular of error; nine and one-half years with parole eligibility after six did not reflect the significant credit for very early pleas; under R v Nagy the head sentence reflecting total criminality attaches to the most serious offence (an armed robbery in company with personal violence, not a burglary), and a burglary outside sch 1 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) cannot attract a mandatory serious violent offence declaration; s 9(1)(ca), recognising harm done to victims, enhances the visibility of a consideration already mandatory under s 9(2)(e) and in this case added nothing to deterrence, denunciation and community protection; an accepted drug addiction causing the offending is not itself mitigating, it is the willingness to address it that bears on rehabilitation. Leave granted, appeal allowed; eight years and six months on the head count, parole eligibility after about three and one-half years, other terms adjusted (joint reasons). JADE
• LUSK v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 139 - reported as legal doctrine only; a party seeking to revive a sentence appeal dismissed under a self-executing order must apply to extend the time for compliance with that order, the setting aside of the certificate of conclusion following as a consequential order; time may be extended where the interests of justice require it, weighing finality, obedience to peremptory orders and the timely disposition of criminal appeals; about 11 months of inadequately explained delay, four and a half months of it the lawyers' and unexcused, weighed heavily against, but the gravity of a 28-year sentence, an immediate cure and a hearing with the part-heard conviction appeal carried the extension 'by the smallest of margins'; an extension is refused for want of merit only in a clear case, and a first-limb totality ground could not be so assessed on a summary hearing. Application allowed; time extended and the certificate set aside (Thomson P and Vaughan JA). The conviction appeal remains part-heard, and no view is expressed on either appeal. JADE
• Tiers v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2026] QCA 191 - reported as legal doctrine only; on a further supervision order application under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the s 8(1) satisfaction, as applied by s 19D, could be reached only with a proper basis to reject the uncontradicted psychiatric evidence that a supervision order would have no effect on the risk of reoffending, and a caveat that the margin of measurement error was greater than usual was not such a basis; the error was central and established on either standard of review; a finding about current diagnoses was not open where the expert evidence described only past diagnostic history; Davis J added that the power to order psychiatric examinations arises only once the s 8 test is met, and the Attorney-General cannot apply in the hope that court-ordered examiners will find a risk the existing evidence does not show. Appeal allowed; orders below set aside; application for a further supervision order dismissed (unanimous). JADE

Registry (one-line item).

• Fritz v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2026] QCA 192 - an appeal against refusal of leave to file an application for a statutory order of review does not extend to grounds about the underlying criminal proceedings; fresh evidence showed that the vexatious litigant declaration relied on below had been discharged many years earlier, and the respondents conceded refusal on that basis was erroneous; but an application that fails to identify the decision challenged, the decision-maker and the grounds leaves respondents seriously prejudiced, is an abuse of process, and leave to file it is refused under r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Appeal allowed only to vary the basis of refusal; no order as to the costs of the appeal. JADE

Dennison v Brisbane City Council, Tiers v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, Fritz v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) and R v Ara also appear in the Queensland brief of 29 September 2026.

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