Send us Fan Mail

The Tribunals edition of The Petal for 17 June 2026 — four decisions from NCAT, VCAT, QCAT and the WA State Administrative Tribunal, where most people actually meet the law. Fairness means adapting to the person, not treating everyone the same. Justify your refusal of a good settlement offer. Check the tribunal can actually hear you. And an impossible rule at the counter may still be cured before the tribunal.

In this episode:

• HDC v TAFE NSW [2026] NSWCATAP 190 — procedural fairness for self-represented litigants: https://jade.io/article/1233082

• Clemens v Lajbcygler (Costs) [2026] VCAT 437 — the settlement-offer costs trap: https://jade.io/article/1233099

• Ebeling v CEO, Department of Transport and Major Infrastructure [2026] WASAT 71 — a tribunal's limited jurisdiction: https://jade.io/article/1233160

• Leadon Group Pty Ltd v Frankston CC [2026] VCAT 439 — an impossible permit requirement: https://jade.io/article/1233088

— — —

CASE NOTES

HDC v Tafe NSW [2026] NSWCATAP 190 (K Robinson PM, C Mulvey PM), 17 June 2026 — https://jade.io/article/1233082

Signal: Practice & Procedure / natural justice (privacy). Ostensibly even-handed treatment of a self-represented litigant does not satisfy procedural fairness; the hearing must be actively adapted to the litigant's lack of training and particular vulnerabilities. On damages for a privacy breach the eggshell-skull rule applies — compensate the actual person's reaction — and an expert who says a breach increased the risk of harm without disclosing the reasoning, founded on proved facts, proves nothing (the Makita point). Why aired: a case every tribunal advocate and member should sit with — three travelling points in one. (Applicant anonymised by the Tribunal; anonymisation preserved.)

Clemens v Lajbcygler (Costs) [2026] VCAT 437 (A Kincaid, Member), 15 June 2026 — https://jade.io/article/1233099

Signal: Practice & Procedure — costs. Where a complying settlement offer is rejected and the final result is no more favourable to the offeree, a statutory presumption arises that the offeree pays the costs from the date of the offer unless the rejection was reasonable at the time. Even with vexatious conduct in the background, indemnity costs are reserved for the most exceptional cases — the order was standard costs. Why aired: a costs trap worth taping to the wall — when a complying offer lands, your reasons for refusing must be good, and ready to justify.

Ebeling and Chief Executive Officer, Department of Transport and Major Infrastructure [2026] WASAT 71 (Ms C Conley, Member), 17 June 2026 — https://jade.io/article/1233160

Signal: Practice & Procedure — administrative law / jurisdiction. A tribunal's review jurisdiction is only what the statute gives it — a closed list. The decision here was made under the obstruction process, which is not on the reviewable list, not the detention process, which is; and practical interference does not change the legal character of the decision. Why aired: a clean jurisdictional reminder — confirm the decision is one the tribunal is allowed to review before you file.

Leadon Group Pty Ltd v Frankston City Council [2026] VCAT 439 (Geoffrey Code, Senior Member), 11 June 2026 — https://jade.io/article/1233088

Signal: Doctrine ★★★★★ — planning and development / permit conditions. A mandatory application requirement (a public land manager's consent) applies even to privately owned land in the zone with no such manager, and the responsible authority has no discretion to waive it — so the permit had to be refused. But the Tribunal has a separate, broad power to disregard a non-compliance where the interests of justice require, and it does here: compliance was factually impossible, the council suffers no prejudice, and a fresh application would unfairly burden the applicant. Why aired: a five-star planning decision with a satisfying twist — a dead end at the counter is not a dead end at the tribunal.

Also reported (not aired): [2026] WASAT 70 (guardianship / capacity to manage an estate); Zaman Greenacre Pty Ltd v Antoun [2026] NSWCATEN 7 (a five-part test for contempt referrals); Legal Services Commissioner v Palermo [2026] QCAT 220 (the slip rule); Brazis v Custom Build Group Pty Ltd [2026] VCAT 441 (domestic building dispute); Howton v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 181; Unison Housing v Durney [2026] VCAT 443.

— — —

Produced by BarNet OpenLaw, the creators of JADE, from The Petal — TRIBUNALS Edition, 17 June 2026 (ledger.jade.io), and reviewed under OpenLaw's content and podcasting standard. The voices in this program are AI-generated. Nothing in this program is legal advice; consult the decisions before relying on them.