The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

1. The Fortnight in Practice · 29 October – 11 November 2026

   November 13, 202643 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailEdition thirteen — the threshold, 29 October to 11 November, appellate decisions only, deduped against editions eleven and twelve and the daily brief. Court after court asked what it takes to …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   Edition thirteen — the threshold, 29 October to 11 November, appellate decisions only, deduped against editions eleven and twelve and the daily brief. Court after court asked what it takes to get through a gate: a State bar that could not close the Supreme Court's door, a constitutional challenge a court declined to reach, a director's answer that breached his duty without moving the price, hearsay that must earn its way in, a deprivation argument that needs evidence, and a dependency test lower than you might expect. Four decisions in which family violence is part of the facts are reported as legal doctrine only. A word from JADE after the opening block.

   Features

   Public Law Desk — Minister for Planning v IGA Retail Services Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 43 (Kirk applied: a State provision cannot bar a genuine Supreme Court claim for jurisdictional error, declarations included; the tribunal referral is not materially equivalent; procedural errors are not necessarily non-jurisdictional; five–two, dismissed) · Rapid Legal Solutions Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2026] QCA 227 (the prudential approach reaches provisions that survive severance; the severance presumption yields only to an all-or-nothing indication; dismissed, the Kable question undecided) · Hatewar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 45 (community safety in Direction 110 means harm caused by the non-citizen's conduct, not family hardship from separation; dismissed; doctrine only).

   Commercial Law Desk — Southern Cross Payments Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2026] FCAFC 140 (no share price movement needed for a s 180(1) contravention; risk disclosed is not risk materialised; a counterparty's disputed reasons are material; drafting help is not adequacy advice; one declaration replaced, otherwise dismissed) · Leung v On Sky Enterprise (HK) Limited [2026] NSWCA 233 (an attorney authorised to benefit herself; fraud on a power is not a fiduciary breach; s 37A relief is avoidance and repayment with interest secured by a charge; allowed in part) · Commissioner of Inland Revenue and Keaton Alexander Pronk as Provisional Trustee Michael Robert Garnham [2026] NZCA 534 (Wilson confined to its ratio; the Commissioner has a vote, not a veto, in a multi-creditor proposal; dismissed).

   Criminal Law Desk — Jury v The King [2026] NZSC 171 (the hearsay reliability threshold restated, Anderson v R disapproved; statements inadmissible but the proviso applied; dismissed, Winkelmann CJ dissenting) · Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Clarke (a pseudonym) [2026] QCA 219 (a but-for test for a substantial improper purpose; misconduct across connected charges; a conditional stay pending undertakings; the respondent is presumed innocent) · Re Patterson [2026] VSCA 264 (a suppression order may run through the special leave period to protect a contingent retrial; revocation refused; exceptional) · Director of Public Prosecutions v Brett Toull [2026] VSCA 227 (the specific Bugmy limb needs an evidentiary foundation; the end of a relationship is never provocation; Crown appeal allowed; doctrine only) · R v Xerri (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWCCA 183 (mere information is not property for defence of property; reading emails aloud is not interference; acquittal quashed, conviction appeal remitted; doctrine only).

   Desk segments

   Practice and Procedure Desk — LUKE v Department of Primary Industries and Regions [2026] SASCA 133 (good reason, not material error, enlivens a referral to an independent medical adviser; notice before an adverse finding; a specialist tribunal must disclose its own knowledge; dismissed, remitted) · Bahl Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sikandar [2026] VSCA 261 (VCAT may determine liability alone on default, quantum later; leave refused).

   Family Law Desk — Bray & Poole [2026] FedCFamC1A 194 (s 90K hardship needs some comparison, misrepresentation needs inducement; litigation conduct must be characterised before a family violence adjustment; property orders set aside and remitted; doctrine only).

   The Registry — Glennon v Robinson [2026] NSWCA 235 (partial dependency need only be more than minimal and may be temporary; provision need not be proportionate; dismissed). Held, first instance: Skibo Limited v Transpower New Zealand Limited [2026] NZHC 3275. Torts and negligence held as a subject.

   Referenced on air — Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 · East Melbourne Group Inc v Minister for Planning (2008) 23 VR 605 · Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 · Kinsela v Russell Kinsela Pty Ltd (in liq) (1986) 4 NSWLR 722 · Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Wilson [2017] NZCA 100 · Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing & Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1 · Anderson v R [2020] NZCA 106 · Strickland (a pseudonym) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2018) 266 CLR 325 · Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 · Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 · DPP v Herrmann (2021) 290 A Crim R 110.

   The Clarke prosecution cannot proceed without a further order of the District Court, and the respondent is presumed innocent; the appeal from the convictions in Xerri returns to the District Court; the property application in Bray & Poole and the LUKE referral return for rehearing; a suppression order stands in Re Patterson while special leave may be sought. Nothing here expresses a view on any outcome. Full judgments are on the Judicial Ledger. Nothing in this program is legal advice. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

   Chapters (12)

   1. 0:06Open
   2. 1:50Public law — the Supreme Court's door, and a challenge never reached
   3. 7:29A word from JADE
   4. 7:50Commercial — a director's answer, a family's assets, and a vote without a veto
   5. 14:55Practice — two tribunals and the steps they may take
   6. 19:26Criminal — hearsay, a stayed prosecution, and a suppression order
   7. 27:01Public law — community safety and a family kept apart
   8. 29:48Family — a financial agreement and family violence
   9. 33:43Criminal — evidence for Bugmy, and emails as property
   10. 38:52Registry, wills, held file and thread
   11. 41:46Content Standards
   12. 42:57Close

   Transcript

2. Australian Courts of Appeal (12 November 2026)

   November 12, 202617 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailFourteen appellate decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of Thursday 12 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, ACT and Northern Territory editions of the same …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   Fourteen appellate decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of Thursday 12 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, ACT and Northern Territory editions of the same day folded in. A new category of restitution for a mistaken payment that discharges another's liability; off-the-plan termination clauses; causation in loss of opportunity class actions; tendency and coincidence evidence; unchallenged evidence and stereotypes on unreasonable verdict grounds; trace DNA; youth sentencing decades later; drug trafficking on a single-day charge; registration standards; and bias, adjournments, subpoenas and costs. Sexual offences against children are reported as legal doctrine only.

   Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

   • Victorian WorkCover Authority v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2026] NSWCA 244 - a prima facie right to restitution where a plaintiff mistakenly pays a third party, unrequested and uncompelled, and the payment discharges the defendant's own liability (at least by statute, against a public authority); request not essential; a mistaken payment is voluntary only on a conscious decision to pay regardless; the schemes do not exclude the common law. Appeal dismissed, 2-1 (Mitchelmore and McHugh JJA; Harrison AJA dissenting; also Thursday's New South Wales edition). JADE
   • Fuller Road West Pty Ltd v LVL Transport Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 266 - SC 8.4 conferred separate timing and termination powers on the same broad considerations; no judicial notion of commerciality displaces the text; surplusage and headings. Appeal allowed; each proceeding dismissed (Orr P, Richards and Kenny JJA). JADE
   • Searle v Commonwealth of Australia (No 13) [2026] NSWSC 1426 - in a loss of opportunity claim causation is not subsumed into valuing the chance; each group member must prove completion of the training but for the breach. Motion dismissed (Cavanagh J; New South Wales edition). JADE

   Criminal Law Desk (Mikhaiel, Pierce and Hyde reported as legal doctrine only; no complainant identified).

   • Mikhaiel v R [2026] NSWCCA 186 - evidence cannot be admitted under s 97 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for a tendency it does not support; a state-of-mind tendency leaves a gap (2-1, not dispositive); tendency and coincidence distinct; materiality after MDP and Brawn. Convictions quashed; new trial ordered (Kirk JA, Boulten and Roberts JJ; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
   • Pierce (a pseudonym) v DPP [2026] ACTCA 43 - unchallenged evidence of impossibility does not compel acquittal where the witness's honesty is in issue (Pell distinguished); recantation; stereotypes. Appeal dismissed (Taylor and Vandongen JJ, Muller AJ; also the ACT edition). JADE
   • Talevski v The King [2026] VSCA 271 - trace DNA in mixed profiles, transfer not excluded. Convictions quashed; acquittals directed (Orr P, Kennedy JA). JADE
   • DPP v Hyde (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTCA 42 - s 133G Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT): the shortest appropriate term is not fixed by an adult comparison; known rehabilitation must be weighed at a delayed sentence. Crown appeal allowed; resentenced (McCallum CJ, Taylor and Vandongen JJ; also the ACT edition). JADE
   • DPP v Good [2026] VSCA 267 - a single-day trafficking charge does not earn isolated-offence leniency; role findings need evidence; s 6E cumulation. Crown appeal allowed; total effective sentence 11 years (Walker, Kidd and Whelan JJA). JADE

   Public Law Desk.

   • Chen v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2026] NSWCA 242 - registration standards construed practically; part-time study is a break; s 3A paramountcy excludes proportionality; a late oral summons request. Appeal dismissed (Payne, Adamson and McHugh JJA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
   • Gamage v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2026] NSWCA 243 - no appeal, so jurisdictional error; Anshun; a motion may be decided in a moving party's absence; apprehended bias needs a logical connection, and a sceptical remark is not one. Summons dismissed with costs (Bell CJ, Adamson and Ball JJA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE

   Practice and Procedure Desk.

   • Reynolds v Northern Territory of Australia [2026] NTCA 11 - informal recusal request refused; the logical connection; the duty to sit (Kelly J; also the Northern Territory edition). JADE
   • Reynolds v Northern Territory of Australia (No 2) [2026] NTCA 12 - the forensic burden on summary judgment; a reservoir on pre-existing waterways is a waterway. Extension and leave refused (Kelly J). JADE
   • Mohareb v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 246 - refusal to vacate a long-fixed trial; r 7.3 UCPR subpoenas need a legitimate forensic purpose. Leave refused (Ward P, Payne JA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
   • Mclevie v Seeley International Pty Ltd [2026] SASCA 141 - withdrawal of counsel does not of itself require an adjournment; brief reasons. Leave refused (Livesey P, S Doyle JA, Brown AJA). JADE
   • FX Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd as trustee of the CPEC 8 Trust A (formerly the CHAMP IV Trust A) (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 239 - partial success on appeal; dominant and separable issues; two-thirds of the appeal costs (Adamson and McHugh JJA, Black J; also the New South Wales edition). JADE

   Docket and registry (Singh from a synopsis; the rest listed without a headnote; no outcome stated).

   • Singh v Tian Hock Development Pty Ltd trading as "Total Home Design" [2026] NSWSC 1432 - security of payment adjudication and fraud; proving cash payments (synopsis only). JADE
   • Adoption of Jing Xue (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1443 - adoption. JADE
   • Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Sibai [2026] NSWSC 1435 - pleadings. JADE
   • In the matter of Dexus Capital Investment Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1437 - trust variation. JADE
   • State of New South Wales v Shields (Preliminary) [2026] NSWSC 1427 - high risk offender, preliminary. JADE
   • Permanent Custodians Limited v Morris [2026] NSWSC 1442 - default judgment. JADE
   • Williams v Connectify, Inc. (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1439 - costs. JADE
   • In the matter of Noumi Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1438 - scheme of arrangement. JADE
   • Chen v Skiadopoulos [2026] NSWLEC 1762 - tree dispute. JADE
   • Brique Two Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1760 - development consent. JADE
   • Granada v City of Canada Bay Council [2026] NSWLEC 1755 - development consent. JADE
   • Lazarus v Waverley Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1753 - development consent appeal. JADE
   • Attorney General (Qld) v Salmon [2026] QSC 269 - dangerous sexual offender order. JADE
   • Attorney General (Qld) v Roles [2026] QSC 268 - dangerous sexual offender order. JADE
   • The Owners of Bunker Bay Resort Strata Plan 40074 v Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd [2026] WASC 496 - strike out. JADE

   In Mikhaiel the convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered; a South Australian trial is under way, a New South Wales District Court trial is still to be heard, and the remaining Searle claims are still being assessed; nothing is predicted. Anyone facing a charge is presumed innocent.

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

   Chapters (11)

   1. 0:06Open
   2. 0:56Restitution for a mistaken payment
   3. 2:51A word from JADE
   4. 3:09Off the plan, and a lost chance
   5. 5:12Tendency, coincidence and trace DNA
   6. 7:46Youth sentencing decades later
   7. 10:00Registration standards, and a judge's remark
   8. 12:03Bias, trial dates and costs
   9. 14:13The registry, and the thread
   10. 15:14Content Standards
   11. 16:17Close

   Transcript

3. Australian Federal Courts (12 November 2026)

   November 12, 202611 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailSix decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Thursday 12 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, two with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: where the Minister …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   Six decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Thursday 12 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, two with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: where the Minister gives reasons for a personal national interest visa cancellation, the justification must lie within those reasons, and the Court will not supply a missing link between cancellation and community protection. Then the EPBC Act significant impact test for fuel break works in threatened species habitat, template orders for running related proceedings side by side, procedural fairness when an applicant is in hospital on the hearing day, and the registry.

   Public Law Desk (opening story).

   • CLMF v Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1696 (Bennett J, 11 November 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; Illustrative; JL p. 8. Under s 501A(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), where reasons are given the intelligible justification for the national interest satisfaction must lie within them; the Court will not supply it by inference. The reasons identified the power to grant a Bridging R (Class WR) visa with conditions but did not state that one would probably be granted, and the visa type was left undecided and referred to a delegate, so the causal link between cancellation and community protection was not logically set out (ground 1A); the defect infected the discretion (ground 1B). Grounds 1A and 1B, added by unopposed amendment, succeeded; the grounds on BVR conditions and on inconsistency with an earlier grant failed. Similarity in wording to SSVJ [2026] FCAFC 45 and KFTJ [2026] FCAFC 52 not determinative. Certiorari issued and the decision declared of no effect; costs to the applicant, subject to further order. JADE

   Public Law Desk (environmental enforcement).

   • Warburton Environment Inc v Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (No 3) [2026] FCA 1688 (Horan J, 12 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative; JL p. 11. Under s 18(2) and (3) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), a significant impact is important, notable or of consequence in context or intensity, assessed on the species as a whole; likely means a real, not remote, possibility; a population is an occurrence in a geographically distinct region, so no national decline need be shown. Removal of hollow-bearing trees in Leadbeater's Possum and Southern Greater Glider habitat was not shown to be likely to have a significant impact, given the surrounding habitat; the Significant Impact Guidelines lack statutory force. Injunctions under s 475 must be directed to particular conduct; the single-tree claim was hypothetical and premature, and unplanned future works must be addressed case by case. Unchallenged expert evidence need not be accepted. Application dismissed; costs to be determined. JADE

   Practice and Procedure Desk (two worked examples).

   • Timor Resources Holdings Pty Limited v Osborne (Management of Related Proceedings) [2026] FCA 1705 (Lee J, 11 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Template orders for related proceedings heard together without consolidation: Issues Documents (neutral, cross-referenced, no vague or compound issues), a single electronic court book, evidence across proceedings by notice and coordinated discovery; caution about separating contravention from reliance and causation when quantification is separated under r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); challenges to solicitors' authority to act for a corporation to be crystallised and determined promptly, distinguishing commencement, continuation and amendment. JADE
   • Akbari v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1695 (Younan J, 12 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. An early application of s 55(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) where an applicant was hospitalised with mental illness: the applicant must show the condition actually prevented them presenting their case; with no evidence they wished to attend or that counsel lacked authority, the ground failed; a tribunal need not hold a threshold inquiry into capacity and may proceed on counsel's confirmation of instructions given while lucid. JADE

   Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

   • AKS19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1718 (Goodman J, 12 November 2026) - visa refusal. JADE
   • Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1714 (Lee J, 12 November 2026) - judicial review. JADE

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

   Chapters

   Loading chapters …

   Transcript

4. New Zealand Edition (12 November 2026)

   November 12, 202611 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailThe Petal's New Zealand edition for 12 November 2026 carries six decisions newly reported, one from the Supreme Court and five from the High Court; all six are aired. The thread is …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   The Petal's New Zealand edition for 12 November 2026 carries six decisions newly reported, one from the Supreme Court and five from the High Court; all six are aired. The thread is substance over paperwork: a registered address is not a place of business, a financial stake is not a legal right, an unsworn affidavit is not evidence, and a claim for increased costs needs a scale table, not a total.

   Commercial Law Desk (first story).

   • Supermega Market Ltd v Sunnya Pty Ltd [2026] NZHC 3453 - in an international arbitration, the sch 2 art 5 right to seek leave to appeal on a question of law applies only if the parties agree (s 6(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996); a place of business under sch 1 art 1(3)(a) is a place from which a party conducts business in a practical sense, so registration as an overseas company at an accountant's address is not enough, and carrying on business is a broader idea; local lawyers, a trade mark, visits and deliveries do not make a counterparty's premises a place of business; where a later, broader arbitration agreement adds a party and claims, internationality is tested at its date; the executed agreement governs, and silence is not agreement to appeal rights. Proceeding dismissed for want of jurisdiction (Arthur J, 6 November 2026). JADE
   • Rhodes v Official Assignee [2026] NZHC 3351 - interim relief under s 15 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 is available only if reasonably necessary to preserve the applicant's position; a bankrupt's vested property had to be sold to meet the debt whatever the outcome of the review, and the discretion would have been exercised against relief in any event. Interim orders declined; the review is to be heard (Robinson J, 28 October 2026). JADE China Construction Bank (New Zealand) Ltd v Official Assignee [2026] NZHC 3446 - leave to continue against a guarantor adjudicated bankrupt under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006, with the Official Assignee substituted; an unsworn affidavit is not evidence; a conclusive-evidence clause applied once a manifest error was corrected, and appointing receivers did not discharge the guarantee. Summary judgment (Associate Judge Wroe, 6 November 2026). JADE

   Practice and Procedure Desk.

   • Perpetual Trust Ltd v Schischka [2026] NZHC 3391 - residuary beneficiaries funding an administrator's claim joined as interested parties: not an abuse of process, since their status had never been decided; a financial interest is not a directly affected legal right, but affirmative defences putting the administrator's conduct in issue, a revised expert opinion and disjointed discovery meant they could no longer simply rely on the administrator; participation limited to the minimum necessary (McClintock v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1280 applied). Joinder granted; the claim continues (Associate Judge Wild, 2 November 2026). JADE
   • Haigh v The Ship "Te Kaihopara" [2026] NZHC 3333 - arrest and maintenance costs are recovered in priority on an indemnity basis only where the arrest was primarily for the fund for all claimants, not where a secured debt exceeding the ship's value left no other creditor to benefit; indemnity costs under r 14.6(4) of the High Court Rules 2016 are for misconduct in the litigation itself; increased costs are an uplift from scale on the Holdfast steps, not a percentage of actual costs, and need a scale costs table. Indemnity costs declined; quantum reserved (Wilkinson-Smith J, 27 October 2026). JADE

   Criminal Law Desk.

   • Cai v The King [2026] NZSC 175 - leave to appeal granted in general terms in appeals concerning police use of data from a retailers' number plate recognition system; the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals; the Privacy Commissioner's application to intervene at the leave stage was not decided, and the Commissioner may seek leave to intervene in the substantive appeals (Ellen France, Kós and Campbell JJ, 12 November 2026). JADE

   The applicants in Cai v The King are identified by pseudonyms for fair trial reasons; their trials are not finished and the presumption of innocence applies. The estate claim in Perpetual Trust v Schischka, the judicial review in Rhodes and the fixing of costs in Haigh continue. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome.

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

   Chapters

   Loading chapters …

   Transcript

5. Australian Tribunals (12 November 2026)

   November 12, 202614 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailTwelve decisions from four state tribunals and the national trade marks and patent offices in the Tribunals edition of Thursday 12 November 2026, three with headnotes and three more worked …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   Twelve decisions from four state tribunals and the national trade marks and patent offices in the Tribunals edition of Thursday 12 November 2026, three with headnotes and three more worked examples from synopses. Why a staple like rice is tested against the whole Australian market, and why a name known only as a rice variety is no badge of origin; why a town name for rice, tea and spices needs proof of use from before the filing date; what an opponent must spell out to call a patent obvious; and worked examples on contempt of a tribunal order, a site rent increase and access to guardianship records after death.

   Tribunals Desk: trade marks (lead; headnoted).

   • Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India v Bardhaman Agro Products (I) Private Limited [2026] ATMO 226 - for a staple sold across the Australian market, the relevant consumers under s 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) are not confined to readers of Hindi or Bengali; under s 60 a reputation merely as a type of rice is not a reputation as a trade mark, geographical indication or certification mark; the Australian Consumer Law ground under s 42(b) fails with s 60; mere awareness is not bad faith under s 62A. Opposition dismissed; protection extended. JADE
   • NADI Holding GmbH. [2026] ATMO 224 - a s 33(4) hearing is a fresh consideration; under s 41(3) a geographical name is tested by whether honest traders may legitimately wish to use it, not only whether the goods are grown there; ordinary ornament adds nothing; only use before the filing date counts. Application rejected. JADE

   Tribunals Desk: patents (headnoted).

   • Dux Manufacturing Limited v Rheem Australia Pty Limited [2026] APO 38 - whole of contents novelty needs clear and unmistakable directions; publication alone does not make a document common general knowledge; an obviousness case must identify the missing features, the knowledge said to supply them and why the change is routine; utility is judged on the specification as a whole. Opposition unsuccessful on all grounds; proceed to grant, subject to appeal; Schedule 8 costs against the opponent. JADE

   Tribunals Desk: worked examples from synopses (frameworks; outcomes only where the synopsis states them).

   • Hepburn SC v Coward [2026] VCAT 879 - the five-element test for contempt of a tribunal order under s 137(1)(ea) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), each element beyond reasonable doubt; dated aerial imagery over oral estimates; unrepresented respondents and the options letter. Framework only. JADE
   • Wotzko v Palm Lake Resort Pty Ltd [2026] VCAT 950 - a Part 4A site rent increase under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic): notice validity under s 206SA, the CAV report and 30-day pathway under ss 206W and 206X, the s 206Y(3) factors, affordability irrelevant, and a remedial template. JADE
   • Bernadette [2026] WASAT 136 - access to confidential documents under s 112(4) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA): confidentiality survives death; a very cogent reason and particular need; the 28-day limit for written reasons. JADE

   Registry (list only; by subject; no outcome): Hassan v NSW Ombudsman [2026] NSWCATAD 349 (administrative review); Moltter v Aboriginal Housing Office [2026] NSWCATAD 351 (age discrimination); JBP (on behalf of JBQ) v Sydney Catholic Schools Ltd (The Trustee for Sydney Catholic Schools Trust, All Saints Catholic College, Liverpool) [2026] NSWCATAD 348 (race discrimination); Korashy v Jusu [2026] NSWCATAP 360 (costs); Homeington Building and Developments Pty Ltd v West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority [2026] VCAT 907 (extension of time); Health Ombudsman v QWM [2026] QCAT 419 (professional regulation).

   Case notes

   Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority v Bardhaman Agro Products (I) Private Limited [2026] ATMO 226 - Bianca Irgang, Hearing Officer, 5 November 2026. Headnote JL 12; Signal Illustrative. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 10, 42(b), 44, 60, 62A; Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) regs 17A.34, 17A.34N; Australian Consumer Law ss 18, 29. The holder filed no evidence and did not appear; the opponent bore the onus. Basmati was understood in Australia descriptively, like arborio or jasmine; foreign cookbooks, packaging and websites showed no Australian circulation. If a notice of appeal is served, extension waits on the appeal. Why aired: oppositions built on regional and foreign-language product names.

   NADI Holding GmbH. [2026] ATMO 224 - Nicholas Smith, Hearing Officer, 3 November 2026. Headnote JL 15. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 33(3), 33(4), 41(3); Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511. Nadi is Fiji's second largest town; Australian sales began only in 2019 to 2020 against a 20 November 2019 filing date, and most evidence postdated it. Why aired: geographical names and pre-filing use.

   Dux Manufacturing Limited v Rheem Australia Pty Limited [2026] APO 38 - Pradnya Satarkar, Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 12 November 2026. Headnote JL 9. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 7A, 18, 24(1)(a), 40, 59, 60(3A); Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) reg 2.2C(3). Obiter: the grace period requires the complete application within 12 months of publication, not filing after it. Why aired: what an opponent must articulate to run obviousness.

   Hepburn SC v Coward (Judge M Tran, Vice President), Wotzko (Member M Ryall) and Bernadette (Ms R Bunney, Member) are aired from the edition's Signal synopses (Illustrative).

   The guardianship decision, which concerns a person who has died, is reported for its legal principles only, and the registry by subject only; no one is identified. The contempt matter is reported by its framework only; where any part of it is still to be decided, the presumption of innocence applies. The trade mark and patent decisions are each subject to any appeal; nothing here predicts how any matter will end. Headnoted outcomes are as the headnotes state them. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

   Chapters

   Loading chapters …

   Transcript

6. Deep Dive: Farm Transparency (November 2026)

   November 12, 202621 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailA special episode of The Petal: Deep Dive, the judgments that change the law, given the time they deserve. One case, followed through three courts: hidden cameras in a goat abattoir, an animal …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   A special episode of The Petal: Deep Dive, the judgments that change the law, given the time they deserve. One case, followed through three courts: hidden cameras in a goat abattoir, an animal welfare charity's footage, and the question of who owns a film made by trespassing, and what equity can make the maker do with it. Four chairs: an anchor, a specialist intellectual property academic, a specialist intellectual property practitioner, and a documentary producer.

   The facts as found. On seven nights between January and April 2024, people acting for Farm Transparency International entered the fenced Eurobin abattoir of The Game Meats Company of Australia and installed hidden cameras. The charity sent a compilation film to the federal agriculture department and the then Minister, then to Channel Seven (which reported without broadcasting any footage), and posted it online until an ex parte order that evening. The charity admitted the trespasses. The trial judge made no finding that the footage disclosed cruelty or illegal conduct.

   Case note

   1. Trial: The Game Meats Company of Australia v Farm Transparency International Ltd [2024] FCA 1455; (2024) 186 IPR 261 (Snaden J, 19 December 2024). Trespass admitted and established; injurious falsehood and Australian Consumer Law s 18 claims dismissed (no imputation of condoning cruelty; lawful political aims, no malice). $30,000 general and $100,000 exemplary damages. Constructive trust over the copyright refused as a "bold step" without authority; injunction refused because the trespass was complete and future damage was not shown to be "extreme, or at all events very serious". JADE
   2. Full Court: The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd [2025] FCAFC 104; (2025) 312 FCR 272 (Burley, Jackman and Horan JJ, 13 August 2025). Appeal allowed: the charity held the copyright in the images on constructive trust for the abattoir, by analogy with thieves, fraudsters and knowing recipients, the creation of a new asset being no answer, and the Pallant v Morgan line showing no prior fiduciary relationship was needed. Consequential orders: assignment, permanent injunction except to the regulator, deletion, and an affidavit identifying all recipients. Cross-appeal on exemplary damages dismissed (no proportionality rule). JADE
   3. Full Court costs: The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd (Costs) [2025] FCAFC 134 (Burley and Jackman JJ; Horan J dissenting in part, 25 September 2025). Rejection of an early Calderbank offer (dismissal with each side bearing its own costs, for a permanent non-publication undertaking) unreasonable; indemnity costs after the offer expired. JADE
   4. High Court: Farm Transparency International Limited v The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 42 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ, 11 November 2026). Appeal allowed in part. As summarised in the Petal's generated Judicial Ledger headnote: (1) all members accepted that where a trespass is complete but its consequences continue, equity's auxiliary jurisdiction extends to a restorative mandatory injunction, without a subsisting right, if damages are inadequate; the threshold was stated differently, with no single majority formulation, and Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ (Beech-Jones J agreeing subject to qualifications) held that exemplary damages must also be inadequate; (2) damages were inadequate here; (3) six Justices held a constructive trust over trespass-derived copyright available only as a discretionary auxiliary remedy, not where lesser orders do full justice or third parties would be injured (Muschinski v Dodds; Giumelli v Giumelli); only Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ positively rejected an institutional trust; (4) the Full Court erred in declaring the trust without first deciding adequacy and the minimum relief; (5) all Justices held the trust inappropriate, because it would arm the abattoir against strangers such as the Commonwealth and Channel Seven, and Gageler CJ and Gleeson J held that failing to recognise the public interest in free speech when fashioning an equitable remedy is an error of equitable principle; (6) the Lenah dicta were confined, on differing reasoning; (7) in place of the trust, a deletion injunction (forthwith, including future copies, an affidavit after each deletion, and a restraint pending compliance), not binding the regulator or the broadcaster; (8) the recipients affidavit was set aside; (9) each party bears its own costs in the High Court, and costs at trial and in the Full Court were remitted to the Full Court. JADE

   Press freedom. The Human Rights Law Centre and the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom appeared as amici curiae, arguing that no constructive trust should issue where other orders do full justice, that non-monetary relief must be balanced against freedom of expression and of the media, and that copyright protects expression, not facts. The episode's documentary producer weighs the chill, the editorial safeguards and fairness to both the farmers and the activists.

   Cases referenced at the table

   • Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 JADE
   • Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1 JADE
   • Isenberg v East India House Estate Co Ltd (1863) 3 De G J & S 263 JADE
   • Smethurst v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (2020) 272 CLR 177 JADE
   • Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 JADE
   • Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 JADE
   • Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch 43 (no JADE link)

   The Petal: Deep Dive is part of The Petal from JADE OpenLaw. The daily brief covers each day's decisions in eight minutes; this table takes the big ones slowly. The High Court summary above is drawn from the Petal's machine-generated headnote; check the reasons before relying on any pinpoint. This episode of The Petal: Deep Dive was produced by BarNet OpenLaw, the creators of JADE. The voices are AI-generated. Theme music by Michael Green SC. Nothing in this program is legal advice. The Petal is an experiment and your feedback is essential.

   Chapters (10)

   1. 0:06Cold open
   2. 2:01The cameras
   3. 4:32The trial
   4. 6:27The Full Court and the trust
   5. 9:16The High Court
   6. 14:32Press freedom and the shadow of Lenah
   7. 18:11What to watch
   8. 19:22The other Petal tables
   9. 20:14Content Standards
   10. 20:42Close

   Transcript

7. Australian Courts of Appeal (11 November 2026)

   November 12, 202617 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailFour High Court decisions and seven more appellate decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of Wednesday 11 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   Four High Court decisions and seven more appellate decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of Wednesday 11 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. Kirk and a State planning bar; a restorative injunction and the limits of a constructive trust after covert filming; a deceased offender's convictions in a civil claim; community safety in visa refusals; Bugmy and the evidence a deprivation case needs; bail before a new trial; suppression pending special leave; and appellate restraint, pro bono referrals and extensions of time. Historical abuse claims, family violence and sexual offences against children are reported as legal doctrine only.

   Public Law Desk (opening story; all four High Court decisions also in today's Federal Courts brief).

   • Minister for Planning v IGA Retail Services Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 43 - a State provision cannot prevent a non-colourable Supreme Court claim for jurisdictional error, so s 39(8) Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) is construed conformably; the s 39 tribunal referral is not materially equivalent; no implication from s 39(7); East Melbourne qualified. Appeal dismissed, 5-2 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ; Steward and Gleeson JJ dissenting). JADE
   • Hatewar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 45 - community safety in para 5.2(2) of Direction 110 is safety from harm the non-citizen causes; it guides the weighting of primary considerations; no illogicality; the jurisdiction point (Gleeson J alone) unsettled. Application dismissed (Gageler CJ and Jagot J; Gleeson J agreeing in substance). JADE
   • AAI Ltd v Hernandez [2026] ACTSC 429 - a WPI report must state a WPI; a s 197 remittal direction fixing the quantum of a final offer fetters the insurer's s 160 discretion. Question answered (Muller J; ACT edition). JADE

   Commercial Law Desk.

   • Farm Transparency International Limited v The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 42 - equity may grant a restorative mandatory injunction after a completed trespass where damages are inadequate; a constructive trust over trespass-derived copyright is a discretionary remedy only, not where lesser orders do justice or third parties are injured, and was inappropriate here. Appeal allowed in part; deletion order substituted; costs below remitted to the Full Court (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ). JADE

   Practice and Procedure Desk (Croft and Stanley reported as legal doctrine only; no one identified).

   • Estate of Croft v MTH [2026] HCA 44 - under s 92(2) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) a deceased offender's convictions are admissible against his estate to prove only the elements; weight is for the civil court; an evidential burden only; s 178 not exclusive; no duty to ensure a litigant in person does not miss arguments; real review on the record. Appeal allowed in part; new trial against the estate (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Beech-Jones JJ). JADE
   • Stanley v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 241 - appellate restraint on findings of fact; partial acceptance of evidence; unnecessary credibility findings avoided. Appeal dismissed (Ward ACJ, Mitchelmore JA, Griffiths AJA; also Wednesday's New South Wales edition). JADE
   • Sher v Eliopoulos [2026] NSWCA 240 - extension of time granted; a r 7.36 pro bono referral needs more than lack of means. Referral refused (Mitchelmore JA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
   • Ermanno Giurina v The Sheriff for the State of Victoria [2026] VSCA 229 - medical explanations need substantial evidence; third-party purchaser prejudice; strong or exceptional merits after unexplained delay. Extensions refused (Richards JA). JADE

   Criminal Law Desk (doctrine only; no complainant identified).

   • Director of Public Prosecutions v Brett Toull [2026] VSCA 227 - the specific expression of Bugmy needs a causal nexus with an evidentiary foundation, not judicial experience; the end of a relationship is never provocation; threats go to gravity; life-threatening intentional injury should usually exceed 10 years. Crown appeal allowed; resentenced (Beach, Taylor and Orr JJA). JADE
   • Director of Public Prosecutions v Sam Gibney (a Pseudonym) [2026] VSCA 228 - below-standard sentences above the middle of the range need powerful mitigation; totality yields to s 6E cumulation. Crown appeal allowed; resentenced (Beach, Taylor and Orr JJA). JADE
   • Tran v R [2026] NSWCCA 187 - after a conviction is quashed and a new trial ordered, the ceiling principle may show cause. Bail granted (Price AJA, Dhanji and Boulten JJ; also the New South Wales edition). JADE
   • Re Patterson [2026] VSCA 264 - s 12(3A) Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) extends a suppression order through the appeal period; necessity under s 18(1)(a); exceptional. Revocation application dismissed (McLeish, Taylor and Kidd JJA). JADE

   Docket and registry (Shields from a synopsis; the rest listed without a headnote; no outcome stated).

   • Shields v Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 215 - workplace injury trial; the Aon amendment checklist; native-format disclosure (synopsis only). JADE
   • Ace v Boulas [2026] NSWSC 1436 - evidence. JADE
   • In the matter of JMJ Cosmetic Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1415 - winding up. JADE
   • Blake v Willoughby City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1750 - development consent appeal. JADE
   • Ghafari v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1756 - development consent appeal. JADE
   • Boomerang Property Investments Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1759 - development consent. JADE
   • Maple Media Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2026] NSWLEC 1752 - development consent. JADE
   • Raza v Fairfield City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1758 - development consent. JADE
   • Quinlan v Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] QSC 265 - privilege. JADE
   • Dissidomino v Trimboli [2026] WASC 492 - probate. JADE
   • Attorney General for Western Australia v Burke [2026] WASC 494 - evidence gathering. JADE
   • Dawkins v HALL [2026] WASC 495 - costs. JADE
   • Application of Pont [2026] ACTSC 432 - parentage declaration. JADE
   • Lyons v Prosser [2026] ACTSC 371 - sentence appeal. JADE
   • DPP v Voss (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 349 - criminal. JADE
   • Spannari v Heyday5 Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 431 - discovery. JADE
   • Chong v Huang [2026] ACTSC 428 - assessment of damages. JADE

   The claim against the estate in Croft goes to a new trial, costs in Farm Transparency return to the Full Court, the Tran conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered, special leave may still be sought in Patterson (the suppression order is respected), and the Sher appeal is still to be heard; nothing is predicted. Anyone facing a charge is presumed innocent.

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

   Chapters (11)

   1. 0:06Open
   2. 1:01The Supreme Court door stays open
   3. 2:54Cameras in the abattoir
   4. 5:03Convictions in a civil claim
   5. 7:10Community safety, and a number not to fix
   6. 9:12Deprivation needs evidence
   7. 11:31Bail and suppression, still in play
   8. 13:19Facts, time and pro bono help
   9. 14:53The registry, and the thread
   10. 15:44Content Standards
   11. 16:56Close

   Transcript

8. Australian Federal Courts (11 November 2026)

   November 12, 20268 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailNineteen decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Wednesday 11 November 2026: four from the High Court of Australia and fifteen from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: a …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   Nineteen decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Wednesday 11 November 2026: four from the High Court of Australia and fifteen from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: a Federal Court ruling consolidates the principles for suppression and pseudonym orders, and holds that the safety ground turns on necessity, not proof that harm is probable. Then two members' schemes of arrangement at their first court hearing, a checklist on default judgment and late leave to appeal, and the registry. The four High Court decisions feature in today's Courts of Appeal brief.

   Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

   • eSafety Commissioner v Telegram FZ-LLC (suppression orders) [2026] FCA 1700 (Beach J, 11 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Six overlapping principles for suppression and pseudonym orders under ss 37AE, 37AF and 37AG of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): orders are exceptional, the applicant bears a heavy onus, the order must be necessary, and there is no residual discretion once necessity is shown. Under s 37AG(1)(c) proof of probability of harm is not required; necessity is informed by the nature, imminence and degree of likelihood of harm. Affidavit risk assessments addressing doxing, trolling, online harassment and physical harm; a chilling effect argument under s 37AG(1)(a); particularity (s 37AH(5)) and duration (s 37AJ). The factual application is brief and the orders were effectively uncontested. JADE

   Commercial Desk (two schemes at the first court hearing).

   • Ausgold Limited, in the matter of Ausgold Limited [2026] FCA 1701 (Beach J, 21 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Members' scheme under s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): cash, scrip or mixed consideration elections with a pro rata scale-back, share sale facilities for ineligible foreign shareholders and small parcel holders, and equity incentive holders who are also shareholders do not create separate classes; cash election mechanics; the conditions for the s 3(a)(10) Securities Act of 1933 (US) exemption. JADE
   • Reliance Worldwide Corporation Limited, in the matter of Reliance Worldwide Corporation Limited [2026] FCA 1702 (Beach J, 30 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. An all-cash members' scheme with a special purpose vehicle bidder: when scheme shares transferring only after consideration is paid into trust, a deed poll and enforceable equity and debt commitment letters address funding risk; Re SDI Limited [2026] NSWSC 662 distinguished; conditional debt funding generally for the second hearing; go-shop and no-shop provisions, ticking fees and USD consideration with an AUD election not class-creating where prominently disclosed. JADE

   Practice and Procedure Desk (a worked example).

   • Wei v S&Q Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1685 (O'Callaghan J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Default judgment under r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); setting aside under r 39.04 (party present, Ashby v Slipper (No 2)) v r 39.05(a) (judgment in the party's absence, Davies v Pagett); a company absent only for want of a lawyer may be treated as present through its director; the four factors for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal (rr 35.13, 35.14); every part of the delay must be explained; the two-limb test for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision. No order stated in the synopsis. JADE

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

   • Farm Transparency International Limited v The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 42 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ, 11 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; restorative mandatory injunctions and constructive trusts; JL 26. JADE
   • Minister for Planning v IGA Retail Services Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 43 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ, 11 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; jurisdictional error and State Supreme Courts; JL 18. JADE
   • Estate of Croft v MTH [2026] HCA 44 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Beech-Jones JJ, 11 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; convictions as evidence in civil proceedings; JL 22. JADE
   • Hatewar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 45 (Gageler CJ, Gleeson and Jagot JJ, 11 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; the community safety principle in visa refusals; JL 16. JADE

   Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

   • Kapoor v Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (No 2) [2026] FCA 1684 (Stewart J, 11 November 2026) - judicial review. JADE
   • GMA18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1694 (Hill J, 10 November 2026) - judicial review. JADE
   • Chowdhury v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1687 (Perry J, 9 November 2026) - visa refusal. JADE
   • DFM17 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1703 (Wheelahan J, 11 November 2026) - protection visa. JADE
   • GDB25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1698 (Derrington J, 9 November 2026) - leave to appeal. JADE
   • Abideen v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1708 (Wheelahan J, 11 November 2026) - extension of time. JADE
   • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden (Liability and Penalty, Law) [2026] FCA 1690 (Kennett J, 11 November 2026) - directors' duties. JADE
   • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden (Liability and Penalty, Wilson) [2026] FCA 1691 (Kennett J, 11 November 2026) - directors' duties. JADE
   • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden (Liability and Penalty, Clayton) [2026] FCA 1692 (Kennett J, 11 November 2026) - directors' duties. JADE
   • Seafarms Group Ltd v McMahon [2026] FCA 1699 (Halley J, 11 November 2026) - service. JADE
   • Staunton v Zahab (No 3) [2026] FCA 1639 (Bromwich J, 30 October 2026) - control orders. JADE

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

   Chapters

   Loading chapters …

   Transcript

9. New Zealand Edition (11 November 2026)

   November 12, 202616 minPlay next

   Send us Fan MailThe Petal's New Zealand edition for 11 November 2026 carries sixteen decisions newly reported, three from the Supreme Court and thirteen from the High Court; thirteen are aired at depth and …

   Show notes

   Send us Fan Mail

   The Petal's New Zealand edition for 11 November 2026 carries sixteen decisions newly reported, three from the Supreme Court and thirteen from the High Court; thirteen are aired at depth and three are noted. The thread is how sure you have to be: reasonable assurance before hearsay goes in, proof beyond reasonable doubt without a witness's certainty, and evidence for commercial practice and every dollar of collection costs.

   Criminal Law Desk (first story).

   • Jury v The King [2026] NZSC 171 - the s 18(1)(a) Evidence Act 2006 threshold, reasonable assurance that a hearsay statement is reliable, requires the judge as gatekeeper to give the s 16(1) circumstances a hard look and be reasonably confident the statement as a whole is reliable; not near certainty, and distinct from s 7 relevance; the formulation that hearsay need only be reliable enough for the fact finder to consider (Anderson v R [2020] NZCA 106) was disapproved, and facially unreliable hearsay is not cured by the trial process or a s 122 warning; by majority, general consistency with other evidence is not overriding, but CCTV and a motive to lie may be weighed; the dead maker's letter and second statement were inadmissible and created a real risk the outcome was affected; by majority the trial was not unfair and the proviso applied on the forensic and CCTV evidence; Crown disclosure of a hearsay maker's veracity convictions. Appeal dismissed, Winkelmann CJ dissenting (Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Kós and Miller JJ, 11 November 2026). JADE
   • Moon v Ministry for Primary Industries [2026] NZHC 2710 - proof beyond reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty and a witness need not be sure of a fact for it to be proved, though a sole witness's doubt may leave an ingredient unproved; obstruction of a fisheries officer under s 240 of the Fisheries Act 1996 is strict liability, and tikanga bore on no element. Appeal dismissed (Downs J, 14 September 2026). JADE Warren v The King [2026] NZSC 174 - the Court doubted its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a refusal to withdraw an abandonment that was not a nullity, without deciding; leave was not in the interests of justice, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission is the better forum for claims of fabricated evidence. Extension, leave and bail declined (Ellen France and Williams JJ, 11 November 2026). JADE

   Commercial Law Desk.

   • Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Mason [2026] NZHC 3413 - once receivers are validly appointed as agents of the grantor, the secured creditor is free of liability for their acts unless it participates in improper acts causing loss, unduly interferes, or fails to revoke an appointment it knows is being abused; save in the plainest cases, breach of reasonable standards of commercial practice under s 25 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 must be proved by evidence of those standards. Summary judgment against the guarantor (Associate Judge Gambrill, 4 November 2026). JADE McFall Fuel Ltd v Pearce [2026] NZHC 3236 - summary judgment against a director-guarantor, but not for unitemised collection costs that appeared extraordinary; leave to file further evidence (Associate Judge Wild, 20 October 2026). JADE
   • Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand v Jarvis [2026] NZHC 3349 - an agreed civil penalty under s 48(2)(a) of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 must still be within the proper range; the maximum is the one in force at the breach; a two-step, sentencing-style method with deterrence primary; a reckless breach with a non-quantifiable benefit; fifteen per cent for cooperation and admission. Penalty approved (Robinson J, 28 October 2026). JADE
   • Estate of Larkins [2026] NZHC 3341 - a homemade will signed in the witness position, with the principal beneficiary as sole witness, declared valid under s 14(2) of the Wills Act 2007 on cogent evidence of testamentary intention; the gifts to the witness saved under s 13(2)(d) (Boldt J, 28 October 2026). JADE Estate of Craig [2026] NZHC 3437 - reasonable measures under s 136(2) of the Trusts Act 2019 require an active, not exhaustive, search; distribution authorised as if the unidentified paternal line did not exist (Grice J, 5 November 2026). JADE

   Practice and Procedure Desk.

   • Zhang v Su [2026] NZHC 3429 - summary judgment on a contracting out agreement under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 declined: the statement of claim confines the relief; reply affidavits are limited to new matters; the agreement is interpreted objectively and summary judgment fails unless the plaintiff's construction is the only one available; a without prejudice save as to costs letter may be used for interpretation; credibility needed cross-examination (Associate Judge Malaro, 4 November 2026). JADE
   • Voltaire Capital Holdings Ltd v Connell [2026] NZHC 3368 - the implied undertaking against collateral use applies to an affidavit of assets given under compulsion in freezing order proceedings ancillary to English proceedings; release needs special circumstances and no injustice; common parties were not enough, and the affidavit had no real probative value at the foreign trial. Release declined (Fitzgerald J, 29 October 2026). JADE
   • H (SC 115/2026) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZSC 173 - no jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus once the applicant is released on bail, and s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 bars questioning a bail decision. Leave declined (Williams, Kós and Cooke JJ, 11 November 2026). JADE Wainui v Ferreira [2026] NZHC 3436 - recall, leave and stay are normally decided by the judge who made the decision; case management remarks are not prejudgment and a Judicial Conduct Commissioner complaint does not of itself disqualify. Applications declined (Blanchard J, 5 November 2026). JADE Hoefsloot v Jones [2026] NZHC 3329 - a discontinuing applicant does not displace the r 15.23 presumption without an exceptional case or a capitulation; interlocutory and substantive affidavit items in sch 3 cannot both be claimed (Associate Judge Gambrill, 27 October 2026). JADE

   Also in the edition.

   • Building Plasterboard Group Ltd v Official Assignee [2026] NZHC 3401 - termination of a liquidation under s 250 of the Companies Act 1993 (Associate Judge Wild, 3 November 2026). JADE
   • WFT Finance Ltd v Ah Kuoi & Atmore (Walker Rd) Ltd [2026] NZHC 3400 - an unopposed summary judgment on a loan and guarantee (Associate Judge Wild, 3 November 2026). JADE
   • Duncan v Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [2026] NZHC 3012 - a results judgment, reasons to follow (Downs J, 1 October 2026). JADE

   The claim in Zhang v Su, the English trial behind Voltaire and an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission continue, and the presumption of innocence applies to the proceeding behind the bail decision in H (SC 115/2026). Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome.

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

   Chapters

   Loading chapters …

   Transcript

10. Australian Tribunals (11 November 2026)

    November 12, 202611 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailEight decisions from the civil and administrative tribunals of New South Wales and Victoria in the Tribunals edition of Wednesday 11 November 2026, two with headnotes and three more worked …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Eight decisions from the civil and administrative tribunals of New South Wales and Victoria in the Tribunals edition of Wednesday 11 November 2026, two with headnotes and three more worked examples from synopses. Why an agency must take active steps to check personal information before using it, even with no reason to doubt it, and why a correction request cannot be declined because a claim has settled; a building appeal on crediting the unpaid contract price against an uninsured builder; and worked examples on disability discrimination, leave to proceed and firearms prohibition orders.

    Tribunals Desk: accuracy before use and correction (lead; headnoted).

    • GJO v Insurance and Care NSW [2026] NSWCATAP 358 - the duty in s 16 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) and HPP 9 to ensure accuracy before use requires active steps; having no reason to doubt the information is no licence to take none; the purpose of use must be identified with specificity; the s 15(1)(a) and HPP 8(1)(a) correction duty is unqualified, and "appropriate" governs the form of amendment, not whether to amend. Appeal allowed in part; remitted. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: home building damages (headnoted).

    • O'Connor v Martin [2026] NSWCATAP 361 - statutory warranty damages for defective and incomplete work are assessed on contractual principles and adjusted for the unpaid contract balance, even where an uninsured builder cannot enforce a non-compliant contract; a party is bound by counsel's concession on agreed quantum; no price variation proved; rr 38 and 38A turn on the amount in dispute on appeal; no power under s 81 over a decision not appealed. Appeal allowed; award reduced by $23,000; 80% of appeal costs. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: worked examples from synopses (frameworks; no outcomes stated).

    • Tailakbayev v All AV Pty Ltd trading as Pro AV Solutions [2026] NSWCATAD 334 - disability under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) without a diagnosis; objective less favourable treatment; Purvis causation; the Dutt inference checklist; the s 54 statutory authority defence and WHS psychosocial duties. JADE
    • Bechelli v Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Giordano v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2026] NSWCATAD 347 - the s 96(1) leave test, evidence at its highest; terms, not manner, of service under s 49M; "services" in s 22F construed broadly to non-customers. Framework only. JADE
    • HNK v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 344 - the s 73 Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) "not fit, in the public interest" test; charges without convictions; s 74A search powers and proportionality; confidential material. Framework only. JADE

    Registry (list only; by subject; no outcome): Chlochaisri v The Owners Strata Plan No. 92648 (No. 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 359 (costs); Rizk v Secretary, Department of Customer Service; Highview Projects Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATOD 145 (administrative review); Medical Board of Australia v Peers [2026] VCAT 935 (interlocutory orders).

    Case notes

    GJO v Insurance and Care NSW [2026] NSWCATAP 358 - Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy President, and Dr J Lucy, Principal Member, 11 November 2026. Headnote JL 7. Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) ss 15(1)(a), 16, 25, 55; Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) Sch 1 cll 8, 9; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 38, 64(1)(d), 80. Asking whether there was reason to doubt the information was the wrong question; available steps included the agency reviewing its own instructions to the expert; a finding of no later use contrary to a concession and the documents was an injustice; s 25 does not exempt s 16. The reasonableness of steps, the form of the amendments and the date of injury point were remitted. Why aired: two statutory duties that reach every NSW agency and health information holder.

    O'Connor v Martin [2026] NSWCATAP 361 - G Sarginson, Deputy President, and D Goldman, Senior Member, 11 November 2026. Headnote JL 13. Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) ss 7, 10, 18B, 92, 94; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 60, 80(2), 81; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) rr 38, 38A; Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613. Contract price $115,000, paid $92,000: without the adjustment the homeowner would receive completed work for less than the price. Why aired: the measure of damages against a builder who repudiated.

    Tailakbayev (M Tibbey, Senior Member, and J Herberte, General Member), Bechelli; Giordano (D Ziegler, Senior Member) and HNK (L Bryant, Senior Member) are aired from the edition's Signal synopses (Illustrative); no outcome is aired.

    The privacy appeal is reported for its legal principles, and the worker in it is not identified. The discrimination matters, one involving a sexual harassment claim, and the firearms review are reported by their legal framework only; no one is named, and where any related proceeding is before a court the presumption of innocence applies. In GJO questions were remitted; nothing here predicts how they will end. Headnoted outcomes are as the headnotes state them. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

11. New Zealand Edition (10 November 2026)

    November 11, 202611 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailThe Petal's New Zealand edition for 10 November 2026 carries six decisions newly reported, all from the High Court, and all six are aired. The thread is old paper: an appeal abandoned but …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Petal's New Zealand edition for 10 November 2026 carries six decisions newly reported, all from the High Court, and all six are aired. The thread is old paper: an appeal abandoned but not finished, two family trusts and a charity brought up to date, a century-old divorce file opened, and a mortgage and a draft will that finally stopped holding two estates up.

    Practice and Procedure Desk (first story).

    • Stone v Bennett [2026] NZHC 3389 - on a Registrar's referral under s 164A of the Senior Courts Act 2016, a proceeding is struck out under s 164B only if plainly abusive, a finding reserved for clear cases such as improper motive, collateral purpose or manifest unfairness; a meritless proceeding or a remediable defect is not of itself an abuse; deemed abandonment of an appeal for non-payment of security for costs under s 126(3) of the District Court Act 2016 does not end the appellant's appeal rights, so a fresh appeal with leave out of time is not necessarily relitigation, though the appellant must show good reason for the failure to pay; the diverging authority on extending time to pay security after abandonment was noted, not decided. Strike-out declined; the proceeding to be accepted for filing on payment of the fee; the leave application is a separate question (Tracey Walker J, 30 October 2026). JADE
    • Darrall [2026] NZHC 3385 - a divorce file falls within the r 7(2) exception in the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, so access needs a r 11 application weighed on the r 12 matters with no presumption of disclosure and no hierarchy; after the hearing, open justice and privacy both carry greater weight (r 13(c)); the hundred years since the 1926 proceeding and the applicant's family connection outweighed privacy, and a publication condition was unnecessary. Access granted without conditions (Sussock J, 30 October 2026) JADE.
    • Butler [2026] NZHC 3430 - under r 19.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 the Court may permit a proceeding not listed in rr 19.2 to 19.4 to start by originating application in the interests of justice; a mortgagee company removed from the Companies Register cannot be found within s 109(1)(a) of the Property Law Act 2007, so the mortgage may be discharged under ss 110 and 111, and s 105(1) of the Land Transfer Act 2017 was an alternative route because any claim was barred by the Limitation Act 2010. Mortgage discharged (Boldt J, 5 November 2026) JADE. Estate of Van Vugt [2026] NZHC 3331 - under s 14(2) of the Wills Act 2007 the inquiry is the deceased's intentions rather than the formal steps taken; cogent evidence on the balance of probabilities is required and testacy is preferred to intestacy; an unexecuted draft expressed the testator's intentions where his failure to sign was explained by a stated practical reason, not second thoughts. Draft declared a valid will (Boldt J, 27 October 2026) JADE.

    Commercial Law Desk.

    • Easter Family Company Limited [2026] NZHC 3381 - approval of trust variations on behalf of unborn, unascertained and future beneficiaries under s 124 of the Trusts Act 2019 is discretionary, guided by the s 124(4) factors including the true settlors' ascertainable intentions; the Court weighs benefits and detriments across the arrangement as a whole and may not reduce or remove a vested interest; consent under s 122 was waived under s 125(1) for associated companies and trusts whose interests were co-extensive with the consenting beneficiaries'; the trustee may adopt consolidated deeds (Gavin v Gavin [2021] NZHC 550 applied). Orders made as sought; costs from the trust funds (Boldt J, 2 November 2026). JADE
    • Heart Lung Foundation [2026] NZHC 3136 - a scheme under s 32 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 requires an originally charitable purpose that has become impossible, impracticable or inexpedient, and substituted charitable purposes that accord as closely as reasonably possible with the original trust; the disestablishment of the hospital whose work the 1971 trust supported met the test, and purposes confined to the modern equivalents of its specialties accorded; the s 33 threshold that administration could be facilitated is not high, and a unanimous, purpose-protected amendment power was appropriate; absent an express clause a charitable trust cannot be terminated, but the existing deed already provided for failure. Scheme approved (Robinson J, 12 October 2026). JADE

    The leave application in Stone v Bennett continues. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome.

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

    Chapters (9)

    1. 0:06Open
    2. 0:43Abandoned, but not finished
    3. 2:30Two family trusts modernised
    4. 4:26A charity whose hospital moved on
    5. 6:30A divorce file a century old
    6. 7:48Two estates unstuck
    7. 9:48The thread
    8. 10:02Content Standards
    9. 10:37Close

    Transcript

12. Australian Courts of Appeal (10 November 2026)

    November 11, 202612 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailThree headnoted appellate decisions from two courts in the Court of Appeal edition of Tuesday 10 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Three headnoted appellate decisions from two courts in the Court of Appeal edition of Tuesday 10 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. Interlocutory appeal costs payable forthwith; an anonymous tip-off that was no protected confidence; indemnity costs against a litigant in person; a request for an original that was not a call; and an unreasonable verdict ground that failed. Sexual violence and family violence are reported as legal doctrine only.

    Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

    • Golden Rain Development Pty Ltd (ACN 166 672 537) v The Owners-Strata Plan No 97938 (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 238 - an appeal or leave application is a separate proceeding, so the 'conclusion of the proceedings' in r 42.7 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) means the end of the appeal and interlocutory appeal costs are payable forthwith absent a contrary order; Metropolitan Petar not followed; on re-exercise below, r 42.7 applies (discreteness, unreasonable conduct, remaining duration). Costs of the appeal and the motion below payable forthwith (Bell CJ, Leeming and Ball JJA; also Tuesday's New South Wales edition). JADE

    Commercial Law Desk.

    • MLC Limited v Preuss [2026] NSWSC 1424 - a s 126A Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) protected confidence needs a relationship between confider and confidant; an unsolicited tip is no relationship; NRMA v John Fairfax not followed; a profession is marked by selflessness and an insurer's claims handling is not one; no protection for related documents or identity information. Relief against production refused (Kunc J; New South Wales edition). JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk.

    • Morris v Morris [No 2] [2026] VSCA 265 - indemnity costs against a self-represented litigant where her conduct outweighed the usual reluctance; a gross sum under r 63.07(2)(c) and s 65C(2)(c) Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) to avoid taxation; GST only without an input tax credit. Costs fixed somewhat below the sums claimed (Walker JA). JADE
    • Fang v Yao (No 3) [2026] QSC 267 - the rule in Walker v Walker is engaged only by a formal call for a document the caller is not otherwise entitled to see; a disclosed document available for inspection is not such a document; obiter, no all-purpose admission against co-defendants who made no call. Copy admitted for a limited purpose; the trial continues (Hindman J; Queensland edition). JADE

    Criminal Law Desk (doctrine only; no complainant identified).

    • Murchison (a pseudonym) v The King [2026] VSCA 263 - an unreasonable verdict ground must show the jury must, not might, have had a doubt, with regard to the jury's advantages; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; an overview account need not match a full statement. Leave to appeal against conviction refused (Orr P, Walker and Kaye JJA). JADE

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

    • Stockley Excavations Pty Ltd (in liq) v Stockley [2026] NSWSC 1422 - summary judgment. JADE
    • JBC v Western Sydney Local Health District [2026] NSWSC 1405 - settlement approval. JADE
    • DC Legal Pty Limited v Joukhador (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1428 - costs. JADE
    • Chen v Ye [2026] NSWSC 1423 - equitable remedies. JADE
    • DPG Projects 59 Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2026] NSWLEC 1748 - development consent appeal. JADE
    • Mitrothanasis v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1749 - development consent appeal. JADE
    • JQDM Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1746 - development consent appeal. JADE
    • Weng v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1751 - development consent appeal. JADE
    • Western Suburbs (N'cle) Leagues Club Ltd v The City of Newcastle [2026] NSWLEC 1757 - development consent. JADE
    • Li v Ma [2026] NSWLEC 1754 - tree dispute. JADE
    • Re Atlantic Lithium Limited; Ex Parte Atlantic Lithium Limited [2026] WASC 490 - scheme of arrangement. JADE
    • Ab by Next Friend Cd v The Housing Authority [No 2] [2026] WASC 487 - costs. JADE
    • Mcgregor v Smith as joint and several administrator of Bayview Health - Matilda Bay Pharmacy Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) [No 3] [2026] WASC 491 - winding up. JADE
    • DPP v Al-Mofathel (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 433 - sentencing. JADE

    The Queensland trial continues and the building defects claim behind the costs appeal is still to be heard; nothing is predicted.

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

13. Australian Federal Courts (10 November 2026)

    November 11, 20269 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailNine decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Tuesday 10 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: a contingent creditor with an unliquidated damages claim …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Nine decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Tuesday 10 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: a contingent creditor with an unliquidated damages claim has standing to seek a liquidator's removal, and a liquidator chosen by the people behind a questionable transfer of the company's only assets is removed for apprehended bias. Then the lessons for creditors, two rulings on decisions made by registrars, security for costs worked line by line, an unopposed native title determination on the papers, and the registry.

    Commercial Desk (opening story; lessons for creditors on the Practice and Procedure Desk).

    • Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd v Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd, in the matter of Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 1676 (McElwaine J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; JL p. 9. A contingent creditor with an unliquidated damages claim provable under s 553 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is "a creditor of the company" within s 5-30 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), with standing under s 90-20 to seek orders under s 90-15, even though a genuinely disputed claim would not found a winding up application. The Ebner test of apprehended bias applies to a liquidator's removal in three steps, including a liquidator appointed by members' resolution. Apprehended lack of impartiality established on cumulative matters (appointment by those behind the impugned transfer, the draft statutory report circulated to prospective defendants, failure to engage with funding offers or to use the ss 530A to 530B powers); actual bias not determined. Section 545 no answer where funding would probably have been agreed. Liquidator removed and a funded, consenting replacement appointed. A personal costs order first raised in closing could not be determined without adequate notice; costs deferred for written submissions. JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk (two worked examples, Owens J).

    • Harvey v Henderson, in the matter of Henderson [2026] FCA 1697 (Owens J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. A process server's letter annexed to a solicitor's affidavit held inadmissible hearsay under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) without identification of its maker; review of a Registrar's order under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is a de novo rehearing; service is "not practicable" under r 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) if not achievable by reasonable effort, less stringently where the document has come to the respondent's attention; deemed service (r 10.23) distinguished from substituted service (r 10.24); dispensing with service under rr 1.34 and 1.35; each party bearing its own costs may be appropriate. No final order stated in the synopsis. JADE
    • Grabovsky v Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia [2026] FCA 1674 (Owens J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. A Registrar's decision under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) is administrative, not judicial, so not reviewable under s 35A(5); review lies only under s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth); the Rana v Google categories for s 39B(1A)(c); misfeasance in public office must identify the officers, powers and material facts; the Commonwealth as respondent does not itself confer jurisdiction. No final order stated in the synopsis. JADE

    Commercial Desk (a worked example).

    • SGM MLIA Gold Investment Pty Ltd (as Trustee for the SGM MLIA Unit Trust) v Leviathan Resources Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1681 (Halley J, 3 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Further security under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 19.01 assessed only for the additional costs of late pleading amendments; respondent-caused impecuniosity fails without proof of stultification; a receiver's deed of indemnity does not disentitle security; delay excused; category-by-category discounts on the solicitor's estimate, unsubstantiated items disallowed, an increased duplication discount; security of $473,991.20 assessed from $1,445,220.39 sought; non-payment strikes out only the newly added paragraphs. JADE

    Public Law Desk (a worked example).

    • Bowler Enterprises Pty Ltd v State Minister for the State of Queensland [2026] FCA 1678 (McEvoy J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. An unopposed non-claimant native title application under s 86G of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) determined on the papers: the s 86G(1) preconditions; the Mace v Queensland and Wagonga principles; the representative body's decision not to engage after s 66 notification; no register entries; a prior overlapping claim re-boundaried away; neighbouring negative determinations; tied to lease-to-freehold conversion under s 164 of the Land Act 1994 (Qld). JADE

    Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

    • Peers v Eastern Health [2026] FCA 1677 (McEvoy J, 10 November 2026) - constitutional validity. JADE
    • Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Sky High Helicopters Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1683 (Thawley J, 9 November 2026) - aviation safety. JADE
    • Groom, in the matter of Groom [2026] FCA 1686 (Feutrill J, 10 November 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • AIN19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1693 (Jackman J, 10 November 2026) - judicial review. JADE

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

14. Australian Tribunals (10 November 2026)

    November 11, 202610 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailSeven decisions from tribunals in the ACT, Victoria and Queensland in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 10 November 2026, one with a headnote and three more worked examples from synopses. A …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Seven decisions from tribunals in the ACT, Victoria and Queensland in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 10 November 2026, one with a headnote and three more worked examples from synopses. A medical practitioner who committed perjury and tried to pervert the course of justice, and what it takes to resist cancellation; a building claim under the consumer guarantee of fitness for a disclosed purpose; costs after a mixed result in a domestic building dispute; and sanction on agreed facts in health practitioner discipline.

    Tribunals Desk: recusal, cancellation and staged costs (lead; headnoted).

    • Medical Board of Australia v KADER (No 2) (Occupational Discipline) [2026] ACAT 66 - adverse credit findings at the liability stage did not ground a reasonable apprehension of bias at penalty (the Ebner test as formulated in Sunshine Loans; no logical connection where the presiding member's view prevailed under s 52(3)); perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice within all three limbs of s 5; clear, corroborated proof of change is required and is not assumed from the passage of time; s 195 costs follow the event by stage. Reprimanded; registration cancelled; no disqualification period; 90 per cent of Stage 1 costs to the practitioner, own costs of Stage 2. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: worked examples from synopses (frameworks; no outcomes stated).

    • Andrew v Ajc Portables Pty Limited Acn 602 941 604 (Civil Dispute) [2026] ACAT 65 - s 55 Australian Consumer Law: contract compliance alone does not satisfy the fitness guarantee; three issues and the onus; disclosed purpose by implication; objective NCC Class 1a and EER benchmarks; expert thermal modelling evidence; s 236 compensation. JADE
    • Millander Nominees Pty Ltd v Lynford Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] VCAT 925 - the s 109 VCAT Act fairness gateway and its factors in a mixed-result building dispute; forensic conduct as costs facts; apportionment after partial success; fee reimbursement under ss 115B and 115C. JADE
    • Medical Board of Australia v Epa [2026] VCAT 944 - framework only: agreed statements of findings and determinations; the Lee nine-point sanction checklist; the fit and proper limb of professional misconduct; the weight of mitigation and character references. JADE

    Registry (list only; by subject; no outcome): MG Estates Pty Ltd v Coliban Water Corporation [2026] VCAT 938 (discovery); Chief Executive, Office of Fair Trading, Department of Justice v Yahia [2026] QCAT 521 (statutory reimbursement); Gear v Department of Youth Justice and Victim Support [2026] QCATA 158 (appeal grounds).

    Case notes

    Medical Board of Australia v KADER (No 2) (Occupational Discipline) [2026] ACAT 66 - Acting Presidential Member G Curtin SC (presiding) and Senior Member E Morrison, 28 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure; headnote JL 10. Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (ACT) ss 3(2)(a), 3A(1), 4, 5, 193, 195, 196; ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT) s 52(3). The apprehended bias test applied is from Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63, as formulated in Sunshine Loans Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2026] HCA 8 (an authority applied, not a decision reported in this edition). The Stage 1 decision is Medical Board of Australia v Kader [2026] ACAT 19. The costs quantum is still to be agreed or determined. Why aired: a full penalty, cancellation and recusal compendium for discipline practitioners.

    Andrew (Senior Member J Francis, 26 October 2026), Millander (Member R Bennett, 5 November 2026) and Epa (J Billings, Senior Member and Presiding Member, with Dr R McRae and Dr L Warfe Oam, as printed, Medical Practitioner Members, 10 November 2026) are aired from the edition's Signal synopses (Illustrative); no outcome is aired.

    The discipline decision involving sexual harassment is reported for its legal framework only, and no practitioner is named. In Kader the amount of costs is still to be worked out; nothing here predicts it. Headnoted outcomes are as the headnote states them. A word from JADE is the house spot. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

15. Australian Courts of Appeal (9 November 2026)

    November 9, 202619 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailThirteen headnoted appellate decisions from four courts in the Court of Appeal edition of Monday 9 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Thirteen headnoted appellate decisions from four courts in the Court of Appeal edition of Monday 9 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. Double counting in sentencing police officers; Fair Work costs that the conduct did not cause; hardship and reliance in setting aside a financial agreement; reasons that hide the path; a native title holder's right to be heard; an off-the-plan sunset rescission refused; and admissions, totality and youth sentencing. Violence against a woman in a mental health crisis, family violence, sexual offences against children and a child's terrorism offence are reported as legal doctrine only, as are the children's matters.

    Criminal Law Desk (opening story; doctrine only).

    • Black v R; Trautsch v R [2026] NSWCCA 185 - a s 21A(2)(f) gratuitous cruelty finding for an assault risks double counting and is not engaged merely because violence exceeds the ordinary (result agreed; reasoning Dhanji J's, McNaughton J noting no zero baseline for police, Coleman J that it is not an absolute bar); available for the prohibited weapon offence; trust and authority under s 21A(2)(k) are distinct and a judge finding both must articulate what one adds. Leave granted, appeals allowed, both resentenced to full-time imprisonment (Dhanji, McNaughton and Coleman JJ; also Monday's New South Wales edition). JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk.

    • HealthX Group Pty Ltd v Palling [2026] FCAFC 141 - a s 570(2)(b) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) costs order needs a causal nexus between the unreasonable act or omission and the incurring of costs; withdrawing a contention is not of itself unreasonable; obiter, a late restraint claim may lack reasonable cause under s 570(2)(a); no error in a failure to make a finding not sought below. Appeal allowed in part (Snaden, Meagher and Bennett JJ; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADE

    Family Law Desk (legal doctrine only; no party identified; all nine also in today's Federal Courts brief).

    • Bray & Poole [2026] FedCFamC1A 194 - s 90K(1)(d) hardship needs some comparison of positions with and without the agreement, not a net asset accounting; s 90K(1)(b) misrepresentation needs inducement; Browne v Dunn and affidavit evidence; Kennon: lay evidence suffices, litigation conduct is not family violence without more; unexplained equal contributions plainly wrong. Order 1 appeal dismissed; property orders set aside and remitted for rehearing before a different judge (Williams, Jarrett and Behrens JJ). JADE
    • Massen & Massen [2026] FedCFamC1A 200 - reasons that do not expose the path to a critical finding are an error of law. Appeal allowed; s 79 applications remitted for rehearing by a different judge (Williams, Kari and Parker JJ). JADE
    • Zenta & Zenta [2026] FedCFamC1A 203 - findings disturbed only if demonstrably wrong or glaringly improbable; best interests are values, not facts. Appeal dismissed (Schonell J). JADE
    • Wick & Hopper [2026] FedCFamC1A 198 - interim parenting orders: no statutory baseline; unilateral relocation does not alter s 61C responsibility; consequences of untested allegations may be weighed without findings. Appeal dismissed; the allegations remain for the final hearing (Christie J). JADE
    • Panza & Adriaansen [2026] FedCFamC1A 192 - a partial property distribution is neither notional property nor a s 90SM(4) contribution; reasons silent on its s 90SM(5) treatment vitiated the adjustment; discretion re-exercised. Ground 5(c) upheld, otherwise dismissed (McClelland DCJ). JADE
    • Sallings (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 197 - dismissal of a leave application finally determines the controversy; relitigation is an abuse rightly rejected for filing. Application dismissed (Schonell J). JADE
    • Mikhailova & Parrino [2026] FedCFamC1A 202 - on an extension of time the substantial issue threshold comes first; s 79A(1)(a) looks to circumstances at or before the orders. Application dismissed (Schonell J). JADE
    • Rothman & Rothman [2026] FedCFamC1A 199 - transcript deadline extended on condition the appeal stands dismissed in default; no dispensation (Schonell J). JADE
    • Lunde & Lunde (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 201 - time extended and the hearing vacated; liberty to apply should be used (Schonell J). JADE

    Public Law Desk.

    • Ut-Alkar Aboriginal Corporation v Chief Executive Department of Environment [2026] QSC 263 - a s 527 Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) appeal is a rehearing that cannot be resolved by consent; a directly affected non-party native title holder was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard; a submission on the file is not a hearing. Consent orders set aside and the appeals remitted to the Land Court (Henry J; Queensland edition). JADE

    Commercial Law Desk.

    • Casula Estate Pty Ltd ACN 643 475 414 as trustee for Casula Estate Unit Trust v Singhal and; Casula Estate Pty Ltd ACN 643 475 414 as trustee for Casula Estate Unit Trust v Lenka [2026] NSWSC 1409 - s 66ZS Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) does not qualify the vendor's contractual preconditions; unreasonable conduct includes communications with purchasers; self-representation does not lower the standard of proof. Claims dismissed; deposits repaid with interest (Pike J; New South Wales edition). JADE

    Criminal Law Desk (doctrine only; no complainant identified).

    • Singh v The King [2026] VSCA 262 - admissions to contextual conduct are admissible; incident-specific admissions may be directed to that charge; no unrequested ambiguity direction under s 16(1) Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). Extension refused (Boyce, Donaghue and Kaye JJA). JADE
    • Ollis v The King [2026] VSCA 254 - absence of common aggravating features is not mitigating; comparables a yardstick; totality judged against all sentences and cumulation orders. Extension refused (Walker JA). JADE
    • R v RK [2026] NSWSC 1414 - diminished relevance of youth is not an overriding principle in terrorism sentencing; no principle mandates full-time imprisonment for every young offender. Community correction order (Campbell J; New South Wales edition). JADE

    Docket and registry (Lu v Tasman from a synopsis; the rest listed without a headnote; no outcome stated).

    • Lu v Tasman 61 Bh Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1419 - capitulation costs; offer of compromise checklist; indemnity costs (synopsis only). JADE
    • Kchevetskaia v Korlevic [2026] NSWSC 1243 - pleadings. JADE
    • Michales v CharterLaw Legal Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1416 - strike out. JADE
    • In the matter of Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1420 - scheme of arrangement. JADE
    • Toohey v Mapp [2026] NSWSC 1417 - probate. JADE
    • Wong v Mooney [2026] NSWLEC 1745 - tree dispute. JADE
    • Manly Property Group No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1747 - development consent appeal. JADE
    • Sutton Property Pty Ltd v AAKK Investments Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 266 - costs. JADE
    • Rotella v Meschberger [2026] WASC 486 - estate administration. JADE
    • Westpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [No 7] [2026] WASC 488 - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • DPP v Chan (No 4) [2026] ACTSC 426 - criminal trial procedure. JADE
    • DPP v Chan (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 424 - sentencing. JADE

    Two family property cases are remitted for rehearing, the interim parenting allegations are untested and remain for the final hearing, two family appeals are still to be heard, and the Queensland appeals return to the Land Court; nothing is predicted. Anyone facing a charge in the registry's criminal listings is presumed innocent.

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

    Chapters (11)

    1. 0:06Open
    2. 1:12Counting the same wrong twice
    3. 3:35Costs the conduct did not cause
    4. 5:23Hardship, reliance and reasons
    5. 8:13Seven single judge lessons
    6. 10:25Heard before the condition goes
    7. 12:12A sunset clause and silence
    8. 13:50Admissions, totality and a young offender
    9. 16:01The registry, and the thread
    10. 16:54Content Standards
    11. 18:07Close

    Transcript

16. Australian Federal Courts (9 November 2026)

    November 9, 20267 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailFifteen decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Monday 9 November 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, five from the Federal Court and nine from the Federal …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Fifteen decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Monday 9 November 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, five from the Federal Court and nine from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) appellate jurisdiction. The opening story: a unanimous Full Court holds that a Fair Work costs order for an unreasonable act or omission needs a causal link between that conduct and the costs, so an employer that abandoned a late restraint claim was not liable on that basis, and flags the "without reasonable cause" gateway instead. Then a worked example on late evidence at an Administrative Review Tribunal migration review, and the registry. The Full Court decision and the nine family appeals also feature in today's Courts of Appeal brief.

    Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

    • HealthX Group Pty Ltd v Palling [2026] FCAFC 141 (Snaden, Meagher and Bennett JJ, 9 November 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; JL p. 11. Unanimous. An order under s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires a causal nexus between the unreasonable act or omission and the incurring of costs; where costs were incurred because the restraint claim was pursued at all, not because of delay, the order was not open on either standard of review. Withdrawing a contention is not of itself unreasonable, and negligence or inefficiency is not unreasonableness. Obiter: a time-limited restraint claim brought too late to be decided in time might lack reasonable cause under s 570(2)(a). An appellant cannot establish error in a failure to make a finding not sought below (Coulton v Holcombe); the profit share was not discretionary; considerable doubt that profit share or resignation-notice terms are "safety net contractual entitlements" under s 12. Appeal allowed in part; the costs order replaced by costs thrown away on the reasonable notice claim; no order as to the costs of the appeal. JADE

    Public Law Desk (a worked example).

    • Toalei v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1672 (Dowling J, 9 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Procedural fairness under s 55(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) where an 81-page bundle is served immediately before the hearing of a s 501CA(4) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) revocation review: prior access to summonsed material, the key report identified, overnight consideration, questioning the next day, an invitation to make submissions, earlier opportunities to file evidence; transcript exchanges can defeat a fairness claim; materiality as a realistic possibility of a different outcome (LPDT); the limits in ss 500(6H), (6J) and (6L). No outcome stated in the synopsis. JADE

    Family appeals (at depth in today's Courts of Appeal brief).

    • Bray & Poole [2026] FedCFamC1A 194 (Williams, Jarrett and Behrens JJ, 4 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; property settlement, financial agreements; JL p. 16. JADE
    • Massen & Massen [2026] FedCFamC1A 200 (Williams, Kari and Parker JJ, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative; appeal grounds; JL p. 20. JADE
    • Wick & Hopper [2026] FedCFamC1A 198 (Christie J, 4 November 2026) - parenting orders; JL p. 25. JADE
    • Zenta & Zenta [2026] FedCFamC1A 203 (Schonell J, 6 November 2026) - parenting orders; JL p. 14. JADE
    • Mikhailova & Parrino [2026] FedCFamC1A 202 (Schonell J, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative; extension of time; JL p. 22. JADE
    • Sallings (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 197 (Schonell J, 4 November 2026) - appellate jurisdiction. JADE
    • Rothman & Rothman [2026] FedCFamC1A 199 (Schonell J, 4 November 2026) - extension of time. JADE
    • Lunde & Lunde (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 201 (Schonell J, 5 November 2026) - extension of time. JADE
    • Panza & Adriaansen [2026] FedCFamC1A 192 (McClelland DCJ, 2 November 2026) - property settlement. JADE

    Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

    • Al Shawi v Ghaffari-Hesari (No 2) [2026] FCA 1673 (O'Callaghan J, 5 November 2026) - corporate governance. JADE
    • Guider v Coutts Lawyers & Conveyancers Pty Ltd, in the matter of Coutts Lawyers & Conveyancers Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1679 (Markovic J, 2 November 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • Australian Postal Corporation v Quinn [2026] FCA 1682 (Dowling J, 9 November 2026) - workers compensation assessment. JADE
    • Glover v Al-Talebi (Suppression) [2026] FCA 1680 (Bromwich J, 9 November 2026) - suppression. JADE

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

17. New Zealand Edition (9 November 2026)

    November 9, 202612 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailThe Petal's New Zealand edition for 9 November 2026 carries nine decisions newly reported, all from the Court of Appeal, and all nine are aired. The thread is who gets a say, and how far it …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Petal's New Zealand edition for 9 November 2026 carries nine decisions newly reported, all from the Court of Appeal, and all nine are aired. The thread is who gets a say, and how far it goes: the Commissioner of Inland Revenue gets a vote, not a veto; a neighbour gets adequate information, not a perfect assessment; a covenant can sign the say away; and a prisoner's appeal goes ahead unless the abuse is plain.

    Commercial Law Desk (lead).

    • Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Pronk as Provisional Trustee [2026] NZCA 534 - the ratio of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Wilson [2017] NZCA 100 is confined to a Commissioner who is the sole, non-consenting creditor (s 328(4) of the Insolvency Act 2006), and its remark that the Commissioner's Tax Administration Act 1994 powers cannot be reconciled with the s 331 voting provisions was obiter; where the tax debt is one of many and a compliant proposal is made under subpt 2 of pt 5, the Insolvency Act governs and the Court may approve a proposal under s 333 binding the Commissioner even though he voted against it; the regimes run in parallel and his tax duties give him no veto; tax-system integrity arguments go to expedience under s 333(3)(c), not reasonableness under s 333(3)(b); bankruptcy is protective, not punitive. Appeal dismissed (Ellis, Harland and Radich JJ, 4 November 2026). JADE
    • Xray Trust Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2026] NZCA 528 - on a non-notification decision under ss 95A-95E of the Resource Management Act 1991, an affected person approval is the only way a neighbour's agreement can be taken into account; the applicant's misstatement was immaterial; information must be adequate to understand the activity, assess the magnitude of effects and identify affected persons (Discount Brands), and a consent authority reasonably satisfied of its reliability may adopt the applicant's assessment; a condition is uncertain only if its meaning stays unclear after objective, contextual interpretation, and a catch-all condition required updated management plans. Further evidence declined; appeal dismissed (Palmer, Campbell and Edwards JJ, 4 November 2026). JADE
    • Reed v Waikato District Council [2026] NZCA 544 - a registered no complaints encumbrance, construed objectively, can preclude judicial review of a resource consent if its language is sufficiently clear, without naming judicial review; a claim to quash the consent was a prohibited objection; a land use consent runs with the land (s 134), so the identity of the applicant did not trigger the release clause; a liquidated damages clause was enabling, not exclusive, and strike-out for the continuing breach was appropriate. Appeal dismissed (Thomas, Downs and Anderson JJ, 6 November 2026). JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk.

    • Tatana v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZCA 543 - on a Registrar's referral under s 164A of the Senior Courts Act 2016, a proceeding may be struck out under s 164B only if plainly abusive, the abuse clear beyond doubt; lack of merit, untenability and remediable non-compliance are not enough, and strike-out is not automatic; on appeal the question is whether the appeal itself is abusive; no different test applies to habeas corpus appeals, which Parliament left as of right; the misnamed respondent was substituted and the appeal confined to the two High Court decisions. Strike-out declined; the appeal proceeds (Katz J, 6 November 2026). JADE
    • Hona v Māori Land Court [2026] NZCA 539 - a rehearing appeal under r 47 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 runs on the High Court record; an appeal is not a vehicle for reviving a declined interlocutory application; a serious allegation that a court recording was falsified needs a proper evidential foundation before forensic examination is ordered. Production orders declined; a brief extension granted (Katz and Whata JJ, 5 November 2026) JADE. Tangikaroro and Whakaangiangi Kaitiaki Group Trust v Ingleby New Zealand LP [2026] NZCA 532 - under r 36 the appellant must show legal aid was applied for before the notice of appeal; dispensing with security requires merit enough for a reasonable and solvent litigant to pursue the appeal, and generic, unparticularised grounds are hopeless. Review declined (Johnstone J, 4 November 2026) JADE. Jindal v District Court at Auckland [2026] NZCA 527 - review of the sealing of a judgment with an amended costs schedule declined, the same issue having been decided against the applicant (Ellis J, 3 November 2026) JADE.

    Criminal Law Desk.

    • The King [2026] NZCA 537 (the edition prints no appellant name) - knowledge of a drug importation and its scale, as an aggravating fact under s 24(2)(c) of the Sentencing Act 2002, is proved if, on all plausible inferences, there is no reasonable possibility the offender lacked it; each adverse inference need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt; Crown delay in responding to a proposed summary of facts warranted the same 20 per cent plea reduction allowed to others similarly placed; addiction is reflected within the lesser role category (Berkland). Both appeals allowed and sentences reduced (Whata, Dunningham and Becroft JJ, 6 November 2026) JADE. Taotahi v The King [2026] NZCA 536 - reliance on a disputed aggravating fact without proof under s 24(2) does not make a sentence manifestly excessive where it does not change the aggravating feature (a weapon was established anyway); parity requires a gross and unjustifiable disparity. Appeal dismissed (Palmer, Harland and Tahana JJ, 5 November 2026) JADE.

    The habeas corpus appeal in Tatana and the appeal in Hona continue. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome.

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

18. Australian Tribunals (9 November 2026)

    November 9, 202613 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailSeventeen decisions from the Trade Marks Office and four state tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Monday 9 November 2026, five with headnotes and eight more worked examples from synopses. Why …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Seventeen decisions from the Trade Marks Office and four state tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Monday 9 November 2026, five with headnotes and eight more worked examples from synopses. Why an unmarked choice on a Western Australian enduring power of guardianship makes it invalid, and whether an all-functions guardian can consent to restrictive practices in aged care; a strata appeal where the Tribunal decided an issue it had told a party not to argue; three trade mark oppositions; and worked examples on spam-filtered email, settlement-offer costs, objector reviews, time limits, land tax and health practitioner discipline.

    Tribunals Desk: guardianship and restrictive practices (lead; headnoted).

    • M [2026] WASAT 130 - an "All functions authorised" enduring power of guardianship reaches restrictive practices consent under the Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth); no election between options 4A and 4B makes the instrument invalid; s 110N is not used to add a function or fix scope; an invalid EPG is no less restrictive alternative. EPG declared invalid; variation dismissed; joint limited guardians appointed. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: procedural fairness in a strata appeal (headnoted).

    • The Owners – Strata Plan No. 66375 v Baltusrol Pty Ltd and Stollery [2026] NSWCATAP 356 - a material denial of procedural fairness is a question of law, appellable as of right; confining submissions to one issue and deciding another without notice breaches ss 38(2) and 38(5)(c); no forensic waiver; materiality is undemanding. Appeal allowed; remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: trade mark oppositions (headnoted; all three registrations refused).

    • Luyten 3D Pty Ltd v Contour 3D Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 222 - s 41: a composite word keeps its descriptive meaning; no sales, advertising or customer evidence; stylised logo use carries minimal weight; examination acceptance is no answer. JADE
    • Opposition by Paraskevas Mourikis to registration of trade mark application number [2026] ATMO 219 - s 58 ownership by first use; undeclared documents given no weight. JADE
    • Lesun (Shenzhen) Technology Co Ltd v Cong Ning [2026] ATMO 218 - s 62A bad faith: knowledge plus acceptable commercial standards; reproduction and a pattern of 23 applications for other traders' brands. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: worked examples from synopses (frameworks; no outcomes stated).

    • Cameron v East Coast Trailers and Horse Floats Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 355 - s 13A Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW): an email in a spam folder is received if capable of retrieval; contracts by email; the limits of a repairer's lien. JADE
    • Mavid Construction Pty Ltd v Blair [2026] NSWCATAP 352 - r 38 costs after a rejected Calderbank offer; unreasonableness a factor, not a precondition. JADE
    • Hawkins v Yarra Ranges SC [2026] VCAT 936 - the notice of decision defines review jurisdiction; no first-instance ruling on an unapplied-for land use. JADE
    • Sweeney v Bass Coast SC [2026] VCAT 931 - a special charge review: time runs from the date of issue, not receipt; the Hunter Valley factors. JADE
    • Enugu Pty Ltd as trustee for the Cornock Family Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 345 - the s 10AA Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) dominant use test, step by step. JADE
    • Health Care Complaints Commission v Panetta [2026] NSWCATOD 143 and Health Care Complaints Commission v Fouad [2026] NSWCATOD 144 - framework only: onus, the Briginshaw standard, peer opinion, contemporaneous documents, s 176D. JADE (Panetta) JADE (Fouad)
    • Medical Board of Australia v Singh (Sanction) [2026] QCAT 491 - framework only: the Lockie sanction factors, cancellation versus suspension. JADE

    Registry (list only; by subject; no outcome): Warhurst v Fuentes [2026] NSWCATAP 349 (appeal grounds); Baz v Shearer [2026] NSWCATAP 353 (appeal grounds); YVT v YVU [2026] NSWCATAP 357 (appeal grounds; anonymised); Paramedicine Board of Australia v Halligan [2026] VCAT 939 (uncategorised).

    Case notes

    M [2026] WASAT 130 - Dr E Marillier, Senior Member, 6 November 2026. Signal: Doctrine; headnote JL 23. Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) ss 4, 43, 45(1), 110E, 110G, 110K, 110N; Guardianship and Administration Regulations 2005 (WA) Sch 1; Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth) s 28(2)(c); Aged Care Rules 2025 (Cth) r 6.20(1)(b). LK and EB [2013] WASAT 70 and Re C [2012] WASAT 50 distinguished; HL and HS [2012] WASAT 118 applied. Under a limited order or limited EPG restrictive practices must be specified. Why aired: a common drafting defect, and the new Commonwealth restrictive practices regime, in one decision.

    The Owners – Strata Plan No. 66375 v Baltusrol Pty Ltd and Stollery [2026] NSWCATAP 356 - M Tyson, Senior Member, N Kennedy, Senior Member, 9 November 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure; headnote JL 21. Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 38, 80(2)(b), Sch 4 cl 8(2); Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 132, 232; Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26. The characterisation question and the respondents' merger and estoppel objection were remitted; consent orders with a renewal right need a compliance period. Why aired: protecting reserved contentions when a tribunal narrows the hearing.

    The trade mark decisions: Luyten (Tracey Berger, delegate, 3 November 2026; headnote JL 29), Mourikis (Benjamin Goldsworthy, delegate, 26 October 2026; JL 26), Lesun (Tracey Berger, delegate, 26 October 2026; JL 27); Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 41, 55(1), 58, 62A, 221. Cameron (P Durack SC and H Woods, Senior Members), Mavid (E Bishop SC and Dr D Goldman, Senior Members), Hawkins (6 November 2026; member not legible in the edition), Sweeney (Sarah Porritt, Senior Member), Enugu (Ea MacIntyre, Senior Member, as printed), Panetta, Fouad and Singh are aired from the edition's Signal synopses (Illustrative); no outcome is aired.

    The guardianship matter is reported for its legal principles, and no one in it is identified. The health practitioner discipline matters are reported by their legal framework only, no practitioner is named, and where any related proceeding is before a court the presumption of innocence applies. In Baltusrol questions were remitted; nothing here predicts how they will end. Headnoted outcomes are as the headnotes state them. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

19. Australian Courts of Appeal (Friday 6 November 2026)

    November 8, 202618 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailTwelve headnoted appellate decisions from four courts in the Court of Appeal edition of Friday 6 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia editions of the same …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Twelve headnoted appellate decisions from four courts in the Court of Appeal edition of Friday 6 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia editions of the same roll-up folded in. A Kable challenge the court declined to decide; emails as information, not property, in self-defence; a State that submitted to jurisdiction; liability now and damages later at VCAT; and duress by caveat. An abuse claim, domestic violence offending and a sexual offence are reported as legal doctrine only.

    Public Law Desk (opening story).

    • Rapid Legal Solutions Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2026] QCA 227 - a court ordinarily will not decide a constitutional challenge to provisions that do not bear on the party; the s 9 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) severance presumption yields only to a positive all-or-nothing intention, not reduced effectiveness; severing ss 87ZM and 87ZQ(3)(b) Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) leaves Pt 5B's purpose intact. Appeal dismissed with costs; the Kable question not decided (Bond and Doyle JJA, Cooper J; also Friday's Queensland edition). JADE
    • Clarkson v Ray White Gladstone [2026] QCA 228 - "residents" in s 75(iv) of the Constitution means natural persons only (Howe binding); s 2C Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) cannot alter the Constitution. Appeal dismissed (Bond and Doyle JJA, Hindman J; also Friday's Queensland edition). JADE
    • Parole Board Queensland v James [2026] QCA 226 - exceptional circumstances under s 194(1)(a) Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) must justify more favourable treatment on the release date; a non-retrospective concession is not of itself exceptional (Doyle JA and Hindman J; Bond JA no view). Appeal allowed, the primary judge's orders set aside (Bond and Doyle JJA, Hindman J; also Friday's Queensland edition). JADE

    Criminal Law Desk (the self-defence matter is pending; no one identified).

    • R v Xerri (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWCCA 183 - on a s 5B Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) stated case, confined to the facts stated, emails shown only as text on a screen were information, not "property" under s 418(2)(c) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and reading them aloud was not "interference". Acquittal quashed and the conviction appeal remitted to the District Court to be determined according to law (N Adams CJ at CL, Cavanagh and Muston JJ; also Friday's New South Wales edition). Nothing is predicted. JADE
    • Brooker v R [2026] NSWCCA 181 - where sentencing remarks admit competing interpretations, error is not inferred if the preferable one shows none; a quantity just into the commercial range remains serious. Leave granted, appeal dismissed (Ward ACJ, Dhanji and Yehia JJ; also Friday's New South Wales edition). JADE
    • Gatt v R [2026] NSWCCA 182 - rejecting an unchallenged psychologist's opinion without forewarning was procedurally unfair and caused practical injustice under s 5(1)(c). Appeal allowed and resentenced (Roberts J, N Adams CJ at CL agreeing; Dhanji J would have imposed a lesser sentence; also Friday's New South Wales edition). Reported as legal doctrine only. JADE
    • Penhaligon v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2026] QCA 225 - under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) an offence "involving violence" need not have violence as an element; mere physical contact is not enough; violence found by two routes. Appeal dismissed with costs, at the preliminary hearing stage (Boddice and Doyle JJA, Morrison AJA; also Friday's Queensland edition). Reported as legal doctrine only; nothing is predicted. JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk (the Victorian claim is reported as legal doctrine only; its allegations are untested).

    • Queensland v Statham (a pseudonym) [2026] VSCA 260 - complete diversity does not attach to the third limb of s 75(iv); s 58 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) precludes another State's Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction in a contract or tort suit against a State unless it submits (Breavington followed); submission is objective and needs no knowledge of the right; a transfer application invokes jurisdiction. Leave granted, appeal dismissed (Orr P, Walker and Donaghue JJA). JADE
    • Bahl Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sikandar [2026] VSCA 261 - under s 78(1) VCAT Act the question is whether it was open to the Tribunal to form the belief; failure to file a defence creates a present disadvantage; s 78(2)(b)(i) permits determining liability with damages to be assessed. Leave to appeal refused (Walker, Richards and Donaghue JJA). JADE
    • He v N & G Superannuation Pty Ltd acting as trustee for N & G Superannuation Trust (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 236 - recusal procedure on a multi-member bench; bias must be raised distinctly and promptly; reopening after reserve only in exceptional circumstances (s 64 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)). Applications refused, motion dismissed with costs (Leeming, Kirk and Ball JJA; also Friday's New South Wales edition). JADE
    • Varmedja v Hodoba [2026] NSWSC 1404 - worked example from the synopsis: r 42.21 UCPR security for costs principles apply in probate; an unparticularised incapacity plea suggests a weak case; a heavy candour burden for stultification; stay until security is provided (Scruby J; Friday's New South Wales edition). JADE

    Commercial Law Desk.

    • He v N & G Superannuation Pty Ltd acting as trustee for N & G Superannuation Trust (No 3) [2026] NSWCA 237 - a caveat and a threat of specific performance in a genuine contractual dispute are not illegitimate pressure on either duress standard; no special disadvantage; no loss proved. Appeal dismissed with costs (Leeming, Kirk and Ball JJA; also Friday's New South Wales edition). JADE
    • L & L International Investment Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Arundel Springs East CTS 53560 [2026] QCA 229 - applying Project Blue Sky, a caretaker remuneration review advice not complying with s 132(1) BCCM Act 1997 (Qld) is not a nullity, so QCAT had jurisdiction. Leave to appeal refused with costs (Mullins P, Doyle JA, Freeburn J; also Friday's Queensland edition). JADE

    Also on the docket (list only, no outcome stated).

    • In the matter of Norvista P4 Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1402 - winding up. JADE
    • In the matter of Quasar Constructions (Commercial) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] NSWSC 1408 - joinder. JADE
    • The Capital Markets Company Limited v Sommerin (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1411 - costs. JADE
    • KenoGO Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] NSWSC 1412 - discovery. JADE
    • Wright v The Estate of Hanger [2026] NSWSC 1403 - strike out. JADE
    • Perpetual Corporate Trust Limited v The Residents Development Pty Ltd (mgrs and recs apptd) [2026] NSWSC 1410 - default judgment. JADE
    • Robot X Limited v Placer Robotics Pty Ltd & Anor (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 1413 - costs. JADE
    • State of New South Wales v Mustapha [2026] NSWSC 1406 - interim supervision order (listed only). JADE
    • Appwam Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1744 - development consent. JADE
    • Abuduhou v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1743 - development consent. JADE
    • Golding v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2026] WASC 489 - company registration. JADE

    Some matters are still to be decided: the Xerri conviction appeal returns to the District Court, the Statham claim continues in Victoria and its allegations are untested, Penhaligon was decided at a preliminary stage, and the interim supervision order matter is listed only. Anyone facing a charge is presumed innocent; nothing here predicts any outcome.

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

    Chapters (11)

    1. 0:06Open
    2. 0:52Claim farming powers and the Kable question
    3. 3:01Corporate residents, and exceptional parole
    4. 5:01Emails, self defence, and a drug sentence
    5. 7:32Submitting to jurisdiction, and a split tribunal order
    6. 10:01Duress by caveat, and a caretaker review
    7. 11:54Bias after reserve, and probate security
    8. 13:49An unchallenged expert, and a serious sexual offence
    9. 16:00The registry, and the thread
    10. 16:45Content Standards
    11. 17:53Close

    Transcript

20. Australian Federal Courts (Friday 6 November 2026)

    November 8, 202610 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailTwelve decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Friday 6 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, three with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: when a docket judge …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Twelve decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Friday 6 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, three with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: when a docket judge who has managed related proceedings, knows a contested expert report and has imposed a penalty on overlapping agreed facts should step aside for apprehended bias, and where the line stops. Then judicial advice for liquidators with a warning for next time, standing for a derivative suit, a worked example on costs after mixed success, the docket and the registry.

    Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

    • IG Power (Callide) Ltd v CS Energy Limited [2026] FCA 1629 (Derrington J, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; Illustrative; JL p. 14. A recusal application made before pleadings close may be determined on the respondent's indication of the issues to be contested. Applying Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337, apprehended bias may arise where three conditions coincide: the judge is closely familiar with an expert report on a central factual question; the judge has imposed a substantial civil penalty on agreed facts under s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) substantially overlapping with that report; and the report's veracity is to be contested before the same judge. Satisfied, albeit only just. A prior decision on agreed facts does not ordinarily disqualify, and agreed facts do not bind non-parties, but it is a question of degree; mere exposure to a report when ruling on admissibility would not suffice; docket allocation of related proceedings reinforced the apprehension. Tentative, expressly qualified observations do not found prejudgment individually or cumulatively, and case management enquiries under ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) are legitimate. Application granted; matter referred to the National Operations Registry for reallocation; no order as to costs. The proceeding continues; the claims are untested and disputed. JADE

    Commercial Law Desk.

    • Karageozis (Administrator) v Polymer Direct Pty Ltd, in the matter of Evolve Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 1660 (Derrington J, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; JL p. 12. Applications for judicial advice under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) should follow Re Westnet WA Infrastructure Holdings Ltd (2015) 106 ACSR 583: propose a specific course supported by competent counsel's advice, adduce the material and authorities in an orderly way, and articulate the precise areas of doubt; advice may be refused otherwise or where no relevant controversy exists. Advice was given with hesitation, and practitioners should not assume similar leniency. Prior registration of a financing statement may be efficacious for s 588FL(2)(b)(ii) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for later-created security interests (PPSA ss 151(1), 161), on the assumption of the supplier's belief; the interests were PMSIs with super priority under s 62(3)(b); absent opposition, a 40% first in first out apportionment of proceeds of processed goods (ss 31-32, 99-101) sufficed. Indemnity costs out of the fund refused; standard basis. JADE
    • Grayson Family Ltd Partnership LLLP v Lynch [2026] FCA 1667 (Jackman J, 6 November 2026) - JL p. 10. Standing under s 236(1)(a)(i) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as a person entitled to be registered as a member requires a present entitlement; an economic or beneficial interest held through a nominee and broker, or a future capacity, is insufficient, and Saunders v Vautier confers no present entitlement absent any call for transfer. A late affidavit on standing was rejected for unfair prejudice not cured, the applicants having refused the Court's curative assumption and sought no adjournment. Alternatively, no serious question to be tried under s 237(2)(d). Application for leave dismissed; costs to be decided. The insider trading and breach of duty allegations were not tested. JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk (a worked example).

    • Larkspur Tribeca Ltd v iSignthis Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 1668 (Neskovcin J, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Costs under s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) after mixed success: broad-brush percentage apportionment rather than issue-by-issue costing; a 10% reduction for a failed alternative rectification claim and a 45% reduction for failed claims against jointly represented respondents and their costs entitlement; jointly represented respondents treated as one for costs; failed fraud or dishonesty allegations do not automatically attract indemnity costs; expert evidence not accepted as distinct from rejected; set-off of costs orders and release of security for costs. JADE

    Also on the docket.

    • Richardson v Credit One Equipment Finance Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1662 (Collier J, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. The eight-factor test for extending time under r 1.39 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) applied to a summary judgment application filed one business day late; written submissions treated as an informal application; the represented party in default to bear its own costs of the late filing; contact the Court and the other side before a deadline expires. JADE
    • Frigger (Trustee) v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 4) [2026] FCA 1665 (Vandongen J, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Summary judgment under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01; the Stenhouse factors; relitigation abuse of process is broader than res judicata or issue estoppel; prior orders stand unless set aside for fraud by a properly pleaded application. JADE

    Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

    • Arnautovic, in the matter of ACFS Port Logistics Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2026] FCA 1669 (Jackman J, 6 November 2026) - voluntary administration. JADE
    • Osborne v Dalmore Holdings Pty Ltd, in the matter of New Emerald Energy Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2026] FCA 1670 (Jackman J, 6 November 2026) - voluntary administration. JADE
    • Connelly v Ludlow St Hamilton Pty Ltd (Trustee), in the matter of The Ludlow St Trust [2026] FCA 1666 (Derrington J, 30 October 2026) - liquidation. JADE
    • Ratapu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1654 (Derrington J, 23 October 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v SunshineLoans Pty Ltd (No 4) [2026] FCA 1628 (Derrington J, 6 November 2026) - consumer law civil penalties. JADE
    • Staunton v El Matari [2026] FCA 1622 (Shariff J, 29 October 2026) - interim control orders. An interim control order is an interim measure, not a finding of guilt. JADE

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

21. New Zealand Edition (Friday 6 November 2026)

    November 8, 202612 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailThe Petal's New Zealand edition for Friday 6 November 2026 carries seven decisions newly reported, one from the Supreme Court and six from the High Court, and all seven are aired. The …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Petal's New Zealand edition for Friday 6 November 2026 carries seven decisions newly reported, one from the Supreme Court and six from the High Court, and all seven are aired. The thread is what you have to show: a taxpayer must prove the Commissioner's decision wrong, an occupier needs an interest the owner gave, a bankrupt needs a claim worth vesting, and a restrained litigant needs a real reason to be heard.

    Criminal Law Desk (lead).

    • Burns-Wong-Tung v The King [2026] NZSC 169 - persons who are sworn or affirmed but then largely refuse to answer are witnesses under the Evidence Act 2006 (Jones v R followed; Ford v R distinguished), a proposition raising no matter of general or public importance; no likelihood of error in the application of Morgan v R or in the finding that probative value outweighed the unfair prejudice under s 8; the fair trial ground fell with them; leave on sentence refused for want of detailed submissions. Extension of time granted; leave to appeal dismissed (Ellen France, Kós and Cooke JJ, 6 November 2026). JADE

    Commercial Law Desk.

    • DD4 Infrastructure Limited (In Liq) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZHC 2922 - in a challenge to a disputable decision under s 138C of the Tax Administration Act 1994 the taxpayer bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the decision is wrong; the issues were whether s 19(3B) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 precludes a required s 19A(2) direction to an invoice basis, and whether each company had ceased to satisfy the s 19A(1) conditions at notification. The edition reproduces only part of the reasons and records no holding on those issues and no orders, so no outcome is stated. Practice points from the Signal: build an affirmative evidential case, map the Part 4A steps early, plead against every ground the Commissioner advances at any stage, and notify changes promptly under s 53(1)(cb) (Grice J, 24 September 2026). JADE
    • McCulloch v Kovalenko [2026] NZHC 3340 - summary judgment for possession under r 12.2(1) of the High Court Rules 2016: a registered proprietor recovers possession unless the occupier shows an arguable legal or equitable interest; a licence passes no interest in land and a licensee cannot confer a life interest binding the owner; an implied licence is revocable on reasonable notice; equitable estoppel binds only the party who created the expectation, and there was no clear representation or reliance; the prospect of homelessness did not outweigh the estate's duty to sell. Granted (Associate Judge Gambrill, 29 October 2026). JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk.

    • Baker v Lane Neave [2026] NZHC 3378 - vesting disclaimed litigation rights in a bankrupt under s 119 of the Insolvency Act 2006 must be fair: the Court weighs the strength of the claim, delay and the defendant's interests; rights that are not reasonably arguable should not be vested; later strike-out, summary judgment or security is no answer; unpaid costs and bankruptcy risked a barren costs award. Dismissed (Associate Judge Taylor, 30 October 2026). JADE
    • Baker v Public Service Commissioner [2026] NZHC 3301 and McKenzie v Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court [2026] NZHC 3403 - leave under s 164C of the Senior Courts Act 2016 for a litigant subject to a restraint: no prescribed test, strike-out principles do not apply, the interests of justice are informed by the timeliness purpose of the reforms and r 1.2, and the applicant must show some special justification. Leave to seek judicial review of alleged Human Rights Review Tribunal delay declined (Heine J, 22 October 2026) JADE; leave to continue a struck-out defamation claim against a Deputy Registrar declined (Grau J, 3 November 2026) JADE.

    Criminal Law Desk.

    • Commissioner of Police v Gilchrist [2026] NZHC 3332 - under s 95(3) of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 the Court must approve a settlement whose terms are consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice, which include prompt conclusion, the costs and risks of contested hearings and pragmatic compromise; almost all the restrained property was forfeited and no other substantial assets were known. Settlement approved; the proceeding continues against other parties (Tantrum J, 27 October 2026). JADE

    The proceeds proceeding continues against other parties, and costs remain to be fixed in McCulloch and Baker v Lane Neave. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome.

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

22. Australian Tribunals (Friday 6 November 2026)

    November 8, 202612 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailFourteen decisions from the Patent Office and four state tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Friday 6 November 2026, four with headnotes and four more worked examples from synopses. Whether …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Fourteen decisions from the Patent Office and four state tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Friday 6 November 2026, four with headnotes and four more worked examples from synopses. Whether spittle washed off at once is a bodily injury under Queensland's victims of crime scheme; how far back a tenant's mould claim can reach; two patent oppositions, one over a krill oil blend; and worked examples on land tax, a building inspector's photographs, a very big shed and teacher discipline.

    Tribunals Desk: spittle and bodily injury (lead; headnoted).

    • Downey v Victim Assist Queensland [2026] QCAT 519 - spitting on an officer on duty is a crime for the scheme though no one was charged; "bodily injury" needs a physical effect on the body, harm a necessary ingredient; "directly results" means close in time, and a consensual blood test did not directly result. Decision under review confirmed. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: mould and a continuing breach (headnoted).

    • Wang v McKay [2026] NSWCATAP 348 - a continuing breach accrues daily, so the three-month limit bites day by day; a whole-tenancy award without considering an extension was an error of law; failure to address material issues is a question of law; a landlord's loss does not depend on proof of repairs; bring the transcript. Appeal allowed in part; claims remitted. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: patent oppositions (headnoted).

    • Metrol Technology Limited v Expro North Sea Limited [2026] APO 35 - amendment opposition: onus on the opponent; no added matter where nothing new can be learned from the specification as filed; a narrowing amendment passes the infringement test; s 102(2)(b) reaches only deficiencies the amendment causes. Opposition unsuccessful; amendments allowed. JADE
    • Pharmazen Limited v Pharmalink International Limited [2026] APO 33 - green-lipped mussel and krill oil ratios: a range without technical significance confers no novelty; in vitro synergy not shown in vivo. Opposition upheld (novelty, most claims; inventive step, all claims); submissions on an opportunity to amend to come. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: worked examples from synopses (frameworks; no outcomes stated).

    • Mifsud v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 342 - the s 10AA Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) dominant use factors; onus on the taxpayer; no actual sales needed, but no evidence of expected sale values can be fatal. JADE
    • Dixonbuild Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 518 - directions to rectify: the Standards and Tolerances Guide is persuasive, not binding; photos taken closer than the 1.5 m viewing position got little weight; later rectification and sale bear on the discretion. JADE
    • Swan v West Tamar Council [2026] TASCAT 145 - is a large shed an outbuilding: purpose-based characterisation, ancillary use, de novo appeals, the expert as advocate, precedent permit conditions. JADE
    • Queensland College of Teachers v CAH [2026] QCAT 520 - teacher discipline framework only: the Briginshaw standard, renumbered grounds, partial admissions and contemporaneous documents, structured sanction factors. JADE

    Registry (list only; by subject; no outcome): Zonnevylle v Secretary, Department of Education [2026] NSWCATAP 351 (appeal grounds); Sharai Projects Pty Ltd v Premaratne [2026] NSWCATAP 347 (leave to appeal); Pillay v Deicorp Projects (Showground) Pty Ltd trading as Deicorp Projects (Showground) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 350 (appeal grounds); Priestley v Blackfisch Films Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAD 343 (race discrimination); Elsmore v Body Corporate for Pacific Mansions [2026] QCATA 159 (strata title); Manhari Metals Horsham Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2026] VCAT 934 (environmental protection).

    Case notes

    Downey v Victim Assist Queensland [2026] QCAT 519 - Member A White, 5 November 2026. Headnote JL 10. Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3, 5(1), 25(1), 25A, 27(1)(a), 37, 125, sch 2; Criminal Code (Qld) s 340(1)(b). Bodily injury requires that something physically happens to the body with physical effect, a change of state from which the person can recover; the legislative history does not displace that meaning. "Directly results" suggests temporal proximity; Dobbie v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2018] NSWSC 1989 distinguished (different words). The blood draw was a prudent, consensual measure interposed by decisions of the applicant and others. Why aired: a clean construction of eligibility terms in remedial victims assistance legislation.

    Wang v McKay [2026] NSWCATAP 348 - D Robertson, Principal Member, K Merrick, Senior Member, 6 November 2026. Headnote JL 12. Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ss 51(3)(b), 98, 190(1); Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW) cl 39(9); Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 41, 60, 81, Sch 4 cl 12. The mould award was set aside and remitted (with the extension question) to a differently constituted Tribunal; the break fee repayment fell with the breach finding; appeal costs require special circumstances relating to the appeal. Why aired: the continuing-breach limitation rule for long-running tenancy defects.

    Metrol Technology Limited v Expro North Sea Limited [2026] APO 35 - Dr David Carberry, Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 5 November 2026. Signal: Illustrative; headnote JL 16. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 40(2)(a), 40(3), 102(1), 102(2)(a), 102(2)(b), 104; CSIRO v BASF Plant Science; ToolGen v Fisher (No 3) [2024] FCA 539; Jupiters v Neurizon [2005] FCAFC 90. "Breadth is not ambiguity"; costs followed the event. Why aired: a usable restatement of the amendment-opposition tests.

    Pharmazen Limited v Pharmalink International Limited [2026] APO 33 - Felix White, Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 5 November 2026. Headnote JL 19. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 18(1), 40, 59, 60(3B). A later-published PCT application with an earlier priority date formed part of the prior art base; under the modified Cripps question the problem was an alternative anti-inflammatory composition; manner of manufacture and sufficiency grounds failed. Why aired: range claims must carry technical significance to confer novelty.

    Mifsud (Ea MacIntyre, Senior Member, 6 November 2026), Dixonbuild (Member McLean-Williams), Swan (RM Grueber, Deputy President) and CAH (Members King-Scott, Bartlett and Newlands) are aired from the edition's Signal synopses (Illustrative); no outcome is stated or aired.

    The victims assistance review is reported for its legal principles: the tribunal's view that the spitting was a crime was for the purposes of the scheme only, no one was charged and no one is identified. The teacher disciplinary matter is reported by its legal framework only and the registry by subject only. In Wang v McKay claims were remitted, and in Pharmazen submissions on amendment are still to come; nothing here predicts how either will end. Headnoted outcomes are as the headnotes state them. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

23. Australian Courts of Appeal (5 November 2026)

    November 5, 202618 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailSeven headnoted appellate decisions from the Courts of Appeal of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in the edition of Thursday 5 November 2026 …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Seven headnoted appellate decisions from the Courts of Appeal of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in the edition of Thursday 5 November 2026, with the New South Wales and Western Australia editions of the same day folded in. A costs certificate after an acquittal and a court whose power was spent; an exclusive right to negotiate that bound nobody; a cattle stud in the wrong court; three sentencing appeals; who instructs a liquidator's solicitors; a victim's earlier award and an offender's compensation order; and a judge alone's findings nobody put, with a retrial ordered. Sexual offence matters are reported as legal doctrine only.

    Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

    • Singh v District Court of New South Wales [2026] NSWCCA 180 - refusal of a certificate under s 2 Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) after a trial on indictment is an interlocutory order appellable by leave under s 5F(3)(a) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), so judicial review under s 69 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) is ordinarily declined, with costs for maintaining it; grounds must identify error; no unfairness for want of an interpreter where the represented applicant was bound by counsel's choices and the judge was not on notice; once perfected the order could not be reopened (functus officio; the slip rule is civil only; revised ex tempore reasons are not a re-exercise of power). Summons dismissed with costs; leave on grounds 1 to 4; appeal dismissed (Ward ACJ, Stern JA, Price AJA; also New South Wales edition). JADE

    Commercial Law Desk.

    • Cranbrook Group Pty Ltd v Milstern Retirement Services Pty Limited [2026] NSWSC 1369 - a bare promise to negotiate exclusively, in an offer declaring itself non-binding, is unenforceable for uncertainty absent an external standard, a third-party mechanism or a fixed body of contractual rights; no implied good faith beyond honesty; alternatively the obligation ran only for the 60-day exchange period, and was terminable; loss of a chance is compensable in damages, so no injunction or specific performance; no conventional estoppel. Claims for relief dismissed with costs (Peden J; New South Wales edition). JADE

    Public Law Desk.

    • Lily & Dong Cattle Stud Pty Ltd v Minister of the Department for Energy and Mining [2026] SASCA 138 - s 28 Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993 (SA) confers a power to grant declarations within existing jurisdiction, not jurisdiction; public law challenges to the grant or transfer of a mining tenement belong in the Supreme Court; relief under s 9AA(9) Mining Act 1971 (SA) is a private remedy between landowner and tenement holder after statutory notice; exempt status does not invalidate a tenement; a self-represented company is bound by the case it ran below. Appeal dismissed with costs (Livesey P, S Doyle JA, Brown AJA). JADE

    Criminal Law Desk (three sentencing appeals).

    • DPP v Caithness [2026] VSCA 259 - Crown appeal: a sentence for dangerous driving causing death after short inattention was lenient but not manifestly inadequate; the duty to stop and render assistance under s 61 Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) applies regardless of fault or unusual circumstances, and that sentence, the total effective sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly inadequate; absent a specific representation, no assumption that no Crown appeal will be brought within time. Appeal allowed; resentenced (Kennedy and Taylor JJA, Gorton AJA). JADE
    • SPG v The State of Western Australia [2026] WASCA 155 - implied error is assessed against the sentence imposed, not the notional sentence before a s 8(5) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) cooperation discount; seriousness on the quantity known at apprehension; comparables where leave was refused are generally of no assistance. Extension of time, leave and appeal dismissed (Mitchell, Vaughan and Sweeney JJA; also Western Australia edition; SPG are initials). JADE
    • Assi v The King [2026] VSCA 258 - parity: intervention only where the equivalence of co-offenders' sentences was clearly unjustifiable; general deterrence in targeted arson constrains personal factors. Extension of time refused (Orr P, Osborn JA). JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk.

    • Frigger v Mervyn Jonathon Kitay as Liquidator of Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd [No 18] [2026] WASC 485 - a liquidator's retainer under s 477(2)(b) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) authorises solicitors for both liquidator and company, and absent s 477(2B) approval bears only on costs between them; no memorandum of appearance is an irregularity, not a nullity; a trustee disqualified by a dishonesty conviction under s 120(1)(a)(i) SIS Act remains trustee until removal, but participation in that capacity would be an abuse of process: a stay, not an order to cease representing the fund. Counterclaim stayed against that party as trustee; applications otherwise dismissed; the counterclaim proceeds to trial (Seaward J; Western Australia edition). JADE

    Criminal Law Desk (legal doctrine only).

    • White v The King [2026] VSCA 255 - a s 85B Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) compensation order is a sentence; a s 8A Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) special financial assistance award is in substance for pain and suffering and must be deducted under s 85I to the extent of overlap (V1 v Xydias not followed); complexity must be raised below; a high award not manifestly excessive; a post-sentence compensation order is not fresh evidence on the term of imprisonment. Leave granted; appeal allowed in part; extension refused (Boyce and T Forrest JJA). JADE
    • Sweeney (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] SASCA 136 - a judge sitting alone who makes findings departing from the prosecution case in a way not reasonably to be anticipated may deny procedural fairness; materiality needs only a realistic possibility that unmade submissions could have affected the outcome, and the proviso is not engaged. Convictions set aside; re-trial ordered; the accused is presumed innocent (Livesey P, David and B Doyle JJA; Sweeney is a pseudonym). JADE

    Also on the docket.

    • In the matter of A.J. Grant Building Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] NSWSC 1373 - a cost-proportionality approach allowing a liquidator to treat all incomplete work in progress as non-circulating across more than 5,000 jobs; true employer factors within a group (Nixon J; New South Wales edition, synopsis only). JADE

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

    • D.X. Property Investment Pty Ltd v Jones trading as Phoenix Homes [2026] NSWSC 1384 - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • Zhang v Banerjee [2026] NSWSC 1227 - winding up. JADE
    • Ashton v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1381 - abuse of process. JADE
    • Australian Continuing Legal Education Centre Pty Limited v Philip Bates (Penalty) [2026] NSWSC 1385 - contempt. JADE
    • State of NSW v Leuthwaite (preliminary) [2026] NSWSC 1388 - high risk offenders. JADE
    • ApyHome Pty Ltd v Clarence Valley Council [2026] NSWLEC 1742 - development consent. JADE
    • The Trustee for SLD Development Fifteen Unit Trust & TYD Development Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1741 - development consent appeal. JADE
    • Coomealla Investments Pty Limited v Wentworth Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1739 - development consent appeal. JADE
    • Law v Inner West Council [2026] NSWLEC 1740 - development appeal. JADE
    • Yardley v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1737 - development consent. JADE
    • Port Stephens Council v Young [2026] NSWLEC 142 - environmental protection. JADE
    • Price v Price [2026] WASC 484 - estate administration. JADE

    Some matters are still to be decided: Sweeney is to be re-tried and the accused is presumed innocent, the Frigger counterclaim proceeds to trial, and the high risk offender matter is listed only; untested allegations are only allegations, and nothing here predicts any outcome.

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

    Chapters (12)

    1. 0:06Open
    2. 0:50Costs certificates and a spent power
    3. 3:05A word from JADE
    4. 3:23An exclusive right to negotiate
    5. 5:14A cattle stud in the wrong court
    6. 7:06Three sentencing appeals
    7. 9:49Who instructs the liquidator's solicitors
    8. 11:25Compensation and a victim's earlier award
    9. 13:20A retrial: findings nobody put
    10. 15:11The registry, and the thread
    11. 16:15Content Standards
    12. 17:15Close

    Transcript

24. Australian Fair Work (5 November 2026)

    November 5, 202612 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailThe Fair Work Tribunals edition of Thursday 5 November 2026: 113 decisions, five with headnotes. Two rideshare drivers with the same defect in their deactivation warnings, one reactivated and …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Fair Work Tribunals edition of Thursday 5 November 2026: 113 decisions, five with headnotes. Two rideshare drivers with the same defect in their deactivation warnings, one reactivated and one not; two Full Bench decisions; and a regular casual on a system.

    Fair Work Desk: unfair deactivation, every word of the warning (opening story).

    • Jahanzaib Ali Khan v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4247 - Lake DP. Code consistency first (s 536LW(c)); each item of conduct relied on needs a s 8 compliant warning or the s 9 exception; warnings omitting the delegate or registered organisation employee words do not comply; Code compliance confined to conduct in the notices (s 14(4)). Objection dismissed; unfair; reactivation ordered; lost pay to be determined.
    • Application by Khurram Ahmed [2026] FWC 4235 - Clancy DP. The same s 8(2)(c) omission meant non-compliance (s 536LJ(3)), but a valid reason and a breach "trifling in the extreme" meant the deactivation was not unfair. Application dismissed.

    Fair Work Desk: the Full Bench.

    • United Workers’ Union v Thrive Group Tasmania Inc [2026] FWCFB 285 - Gibian VP, Bell and Farouque DP. Majority (Gibian VP, Farouque DP): discontinuing to avoid a s 191A amendment is generally a significant, often compelling, reason to extend time under s 185(3)(b); Bell DP found no appellable error. Unanimous: the BOOT is anchored to the award when the application is made (s 193(1), (6)). Permission to appeal refused.
    • Linh Tran v Westpac Banking Corporation t/as Bank of Melbourne [2026] FWCFB 287 - Gibian VP, Millhouse and Bell DP. Correctness standard for s 739 jurisdiction on appeal; dispute steps flexible on the clause's words; no referral in perpetuity after prolonged inaction. Permission granted; appeal dismissed.

    Fair Work Desk: a casual on a system.

    • Stephen Morgan v Origin Education Group Pty Ltd Trading AS Origin Institute [2026] FWC 4222 - Easton DP. Systematic basis, not systematic hours. Jurisdictional objection rejected; the application itself is still to be determined.

    Registry: two synopses.

    • Erica Bosloper v Linkpoint Lawyers Pty Ltd and Jun Pan [2026] FWC 4208 - Sloan C. s 15AA employee test; a partner in name only, not qualified as a principal, can practise only as an employee (synopsis).
    • AMWU v Robern Menz Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4234 - Thornton C. Majority support determination: an employer that "may consider" bargaining has not agreed to bargain (synopsis).

    Registry by topic (listed without reasons; no outcome stated).

    • Unfair deactivation: FWC 4239, FWC 4230.
    • Unfair dismissal: FWC 4245, FWC 4240, FWC 4047, FWC 4241, FWC 4254, FWC 4224, FWC 4246, FWC 3816, FWC 4046, FWC 4204, FWC 4186, FWC 4274, FWC 4272, FWC 4251, FWC 4244, FWC 4203, FWC 4193, FWC 4112, FWC 4256, FWC 4250, FWC 4273, FWC 4269, FWC 3072, FWC 4237, FWC 4231, FWC 4216, FWC 4215, FWC 4114.
    • General protections: FWC 4264, FWC 4205, FWC 4161, FWC 3774, FWC 4214, FWC 4207, FWC 4152, FWC 4268, FWC 4206, FWC 4201.
    • Industrial disputes: FWC 4228, FWC 4221, FWC 4154, FWC 4120, FWC 4265, FWC 4182, FWC 4181, FWC 4180, FWC 4202, FWC 4198, FWC 4191, FWC 4137, FWC 4129, FWC 4104, FWC 4075, FWC 4183, FWC 4057, FWC 4056.
    • Protected action ballots and industrial action: FWC 4217, FWC 4267, FWC 4259, FWC 4242, FWC 4233, FWC 4220, FWC 4219, FWC 4185, FWC 4227, FWC 4184, FWC 4179, FWC 4105.
    • Full Bench, permission to appeal and extension of time: FWCFB 268, FWCFB 267, FWCFB 288, FWCFB 266.
    • Other: FWC 4144, FWC 4086, FWC 4190, FWC 4192, FWC 4177, FWC 4248, FWC 4213, FWC 4200, FWC 4176, FWC 4199, FWC 4232, FWC 4158, FWC 4212, FWC 4209, FWC 1997, FWC 4223, FWC 4061, FWC 4151, FWC 4173, FWC 4266, FWC 4187, FWC 4194, FWC 4252, FWC 4197, FWC 4261, FWC 4260, FWC 4218, FWC 4238, FWC 4225, FWCD 135, FWCD 103, FWCD 177.

    Two aired matters continue before the Commission (lost pay in FWC 4247; the unfair dismissal application in FWC 4222); nothing here predicts their outcome. Individual applicants are not named on air. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

25. Australian Federal Courts (5 November 2026)

    November 5, 20268 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailSix decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Thursday 5 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, two with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: undertakings by a …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Six decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Thursday 5 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, two with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: undertakings by a departing executive not to misuse confidential information will not ordinarily answer an interlocutory application to enforce a covenant against working for a competitor, and suppression orders need evidence of necessity, not commercial or personal sensitivity alone. Then redundancy when a services contract changes hands, where losing the head contract was itself the employer's decision that the jobs were no longer required, and the registry. Suppression orders are in force in the restraint case; nothing they protect is reported here.

    Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story).

    • Telstra Group Limited v Ieraci [2026] FCA 1661 (Snaden J, 29 October 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; Illustrative; JL p. 8. An employer may protect its confidential information and customer connections by a covenant against employment with a competitor that goes no further than reasonably necessary; a strong prima facie case was shown. Undertakings not to misuse information do not answer such a covenant, which exists so the former employee is not left to judge for himself what may properly be used; the risk of innocent misuse and the loss of the bargained-for protection were not remediable in damages; the employer's undertaking as to damages and undertaking to pay remuneration limited the inconvenience, and there was no evidence the new position was at risk. Delay, partly the applicant's own, was relevant but did not displace relief. Under s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), commercial sensitivity alone does not ordinarily justify suppression, but suppression is necessary where disclosure would make the litigation a vehicle for competitors to gain advantage or make disclosure the price of litigating; an oral application to suppress personal and financial details failed on bare assertion, the s 37AF question being whether suppression is necessary to avoid an identified prejudice to the administration of justice. Interlocutory injunction granted until 1 January 2027 on the usual undertakings; the employer's confidential information suppressed for five years by consent; the respondent's suppression application refused; costs reserved. JADE

    Commercial Law Desk.

    • Serco Australia Pty Ltd v United Workers Union [2026] FCA 1648 (Vandongen J, 3 November 2026) - JL p. 5. Under an enterprise agreement whose jobs are defined by a services contract, redundancy occurs when that contract ends and the employer ceases the services, the employer necessarily deciding it no longer requires the jobs though it had no choice; a manager's evidence that he made no decision misunderstood the clause. An employee resigns only by notice under the agreement's termination clause. Mere acceptance of an offer of future employment is not repudiation; commencing other employment is repudiatory only if repugnant to the original contract, and only the employer's acceptance terminates the contract. A dispute about the construction of an enterprise agreement is a matter arising under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) where it determines an immediate liability of real practical importance, but a concession can remove the controversy. Application for declarations dismissed; costs to be heard. JADE

    Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

    • Majak v Barnden [2026] FCA 1647 (Vandongen J, 3 November 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v State of South Australia [2026] FCA 1663 (O'Bryan J, 4 November 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • DIZ18 (by her litigation representative DJA18) v Minister for Home Affairs (No 4) [2026] FCA 1664 (Snaden J, 4 November 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • Mcintyre v Nine Entertainment Co Pty Limited [2026] FCA 1659 (Colvin J, 2 November 2026) - default judgment. JADE

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

26. New Zealand Edition (5 November 2026)

    November 5, 202614 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailThe Petal's New Zealand edition for Thursday 5 November 2026 carries 11 decisions newly reported from the High Court. Ten are aired, the four costs rulings grouped as one item. The thread …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Petal's New Zealand edition for Thursday 5 November 2026 carries 11 decisions newly reported from the High Court. Ten are aired, the four costs rulings grouped as one item. The thread is the price of each step: security for costs paid in stages so a claim can go on, a short-form procedure that did not fit a trust dispute, an appeal lost for unpaid security, costs that stayed on the scale, and sentencing discounts that, taken together, changed a sentence.

    Commercial Law Desk (lead).

    • Wake Up Commercial Ltd v Extension Capital Ltd [2026] NZHC 2814 - security for costs under r 5.45 of the High Court Rules 2016 against a natural person plaintiff who conceded inability to pay: on the merits assessment, none of the Bowkett v Action Finance indicia of an unconscionable bargain were present (Stubbings v Jams 2 distinguished), the claims against the co-trustee mortgage adviser faced a broker's exclusion clause and a trustee exemption clause, and a shareholder and director cannot recover the company's losses (reflective loss); self-representation, conduct the Court found threatening and oppressive, the absence of public interest and self-caused impecuniosity favoured security; security confined to future costs, in staged tranches, with an automatic stay on non-payment. Applications granted; the claims continue (Associate Judge Cogswell, 15 September 2026). JADE
    • Smith v McColl [2026] NZHC 3328 - leave to bring a review of trustees' disclosure decisions under s 126 of the Trusts Act 2019 by originating application declined under r 19.5(1): the procedure is exceptional in contested proceedings, suited to confined statutory issues, not to substantive rights, disputed facts or urgency; s 126 review aligns with the equitable supervisory jurisdiction, and information as of right is limited, beyond which disclosure turns on trustee determinations under ss 51 to 55; long-standing knowledge defeated the claimed urgency (Jagose J, 27 October 2026). JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk.

    • Bhana v Moses [2026] NZHC 3030 - an appeal under s 119 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 lies only for error of law; under r 18.13 of the District Court Rules 2014 the Judge must fix security for a non-legally aided appellant without any application, payable within ten working days of the conference where no time is directed, and a tender after dismissal is irrelevant; appeal struck out (Harvey J, 2 October 2026). JADE
    • Yorston v Attorney-General [2026] NZHC 3392 - a non-party has access to the formal court record as of right under r 8(1) of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017; further access is a balance of open justice against privacy and confidentiality; a vague research purpose, a party's objection and a wide request led to view-only access without copies. Granted in part (Grau J, 2 November 2026). JADE
    • Costs, four rulings - Baker v King [2026] NZHC 2845: complexity and multiple filings by the losing party do not of themselves warrant an uplift (Associate Judge Cogswell, 17 September 2026) JADE; Moodie v Brandts-Giesen [2026] NZHC 3191: no double costs for overlapping steps, no uplift for a short-notice bundle, costs of unrelated affidavits reserved to the substantive proceeding (Gardiner J, 16 October 2026) JADE; Coulson v ASB Bank Limited [2026] NZHC 2856: a pending appeal is no reason to reserve costs, which may be revisited if the appeal succeeds (Harvey J, 17 September 2026) JADE; Norton v Kemp-Towns [2026] NZHC 2805: no second counsel on a standard summary judgment application, increased costs not engaged where the loser had an arguable case, and a refused Calderbank offer did not warrant an uplift on the facts (Associate Judge Wild, 14 September 2026) JADE.

    Criminal Law Desk.

    • Gujarati v The King [2026] NZHC 3206 - reported as legal doctrine only. On a sentence appeal, credible evidence that is not fresh is admitted if its exclusion could leave the sentence manifestly excessive; following Philip v R, the impact of imprisonment on an offender's child under s 8(h) and (i) of the Sentencing Act 2002 is not subordinated because the offender is not the primary caregiver; the upper range of a good character discount is reserved for a broader contribution to society; where the starting point is in range, intervention requires the deductions collectively to fall materially short. Appeal allowed; home detention imposed (Crook J, 16 October 2026). JADE
    • R v Matakatea [2026] NZHC 3021 - sentence for participation in an organised criminal group under s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 proceeds on the facts found proved at a judge-alone trial, and an acquittal on a supply charge did not displace a finding made at trial; under s 39A(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 a firearms prohibition order may be necessary although no firearm was used, where the offending makes the offender unsuitable to possess firearms. Imprisonment and an order made (Dunningham J, 1 October 2026). JADE

    Gujarati is reported as legal doctrine only, with no one identified. The claims in Wake Up Commercial, the appeal in Coulson and the reserved costs in Moodie continue. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome. Also in the edition, not aired: Begbie v Yang Group Limited [2026] NZHC 3192, an unopposed lease cancellation and possession on formal proof under the Property Law Act 2007 (Harvey J). JADE

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

27. Australian Tribunals (5 November 2026)

    November 5, 20268 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailA quiet day in the Tribunals edition of Thursday 5 November 2026: twelve decisions from three state tribunals, none with a headnote, and three worked examples from synopses. Who has to justify …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    A quiet day in the Tribunals edition of Thursday 5 November 2026: twelve decisions from three state tribunals, none with a headnote, and three worked examples from synopses. Who has to justify the black ink when an agency redacts documents in an access review; when a refused non-publication application can be revisited and what "necessary" means for an order on health grounds; and how special circumstances costs work in a no-costs tribunal.

    Tribunals Desk: greyhound records and the black ink (lead; framework and outcome from the synopsis).

    • Animal Liberation NSW v Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission [2026] NSWCATAD 338 - synopsis: GIPA merits review (s 63 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)); the s 5 presumption favouring disclosure, the s 13 balancing test and the closed list in s 14 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW); the agency's burden under s 105(1); Table items tied to particular redactions; affidavits, cross-examination and concessions; confidential material under s 107 and s 64 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Only specified redactions released; the balance affirmed. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: a practitioner and non-publication (framework from the synopsis; no outcome stated).

    • Medical Board of Australia and a Practitioner [2026] WASAT 121 - synopsis: non-publication orders under ss 61 and 62 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA); revisiting a refused interlocutory application needs a material change of circumstances or new evidence (interests of justice); "necessary" under s 61(4)(d) means a real and substantial connection, not a remote possibility; residual third-party risk no bar; expert evidence in a tribunal not bound by the rules of evidence; framing workable orders. JADE

    Tribunals Desk: special circumstances and costs (framework from the synopsis).

    • HYH v University of Wollongong (No 5) [2026] NSWCATAD 341 - synopsis: the two-stage s 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) test; post-decision conduct generally not a basis for costs; repeatedly seeking final-style relief as interim relief under s 105 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) can be special circumstances; countervailing factors can narrow an order to a single hearing appearance; costs on the papers, no deferral pending appeal. JADE

    Registry (list only; by subject; no outcome): Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Barker [2026] WASAT 135 (strike out); Medical Board of Australia and a Practitioner [2025] WASAT 135 (interlocutory orders; citation as printed in the edition); Judge and Churches [2026] WASAT 133 (administrative review); Cimbrone Park Pty Ltd and Regional Director, Swan Avon Region as Delegate of the Minister for Water [2026] WASAT 134 (administrative review); YTW v YVL [2026] NSWCATAP 345 (appeal grounds); Hunter Homes Pty Ltd v Christopher Burg [2026] NSWCATAP 346 (appeal grounds); Tahlysa Pty Limited v Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS329337E [2026] VCAT 914 (costs); Wootton v Melbourne Fine Fencing Pty Ltd [2026] VCAT 919 (breach of contract); Li v Kingston CC [2026] VCAT 920 (tree removal permit).

    Case notes

    Animal Liberation NSW v Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission [2026] NSWCATAD 338 - S Higgins, Senior Member, 5 November 2026. Signal: Illustrative. Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) ss 5, 13, 14 (Table items 1(d), 1(f), 1(g), 3(a)-(b), 5(c)), 15, 58(2), 105(1), 107; Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) s 63; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 64(1)(c)-(d). Privacy, confidentiality, regulatory-function and animal-safety grounds connected to particular redactions; later public material (the Drake Report) and concessions narrowed the dispute; parts of the reasoning are confidential. Item-by-item outcome: only specified redactions released, the balance affirmed. Why aired: a practical template for conducting and evidencing a GIPA review; hold the agency to its burden and the closed list, redaction by redaction.

    Medical Board of Australia and a Practitioner [2026] WASAT 121 - Glancy P, 5 November 2026. Signal: Illustrative. State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) ss 61, 61(4)(d), 62; Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print Pty Ltd (1988) 217 ALR 44; Hordyk and Wanslea Family Services Inc [2022] WASAT 117. Expert opinion must meet the admissibility conditions (Cross on Evidence) and the duty to the tribunal; supplementary report correcting the expert's instructions; orders by pseudonym, limited to identifying information, with carve-outs for AHPRA, treating practitioners and the practitioner's own disclosures. No outcome stated in the synopsis. Why aired: when a refused interlocutory application can be renewed and what "necessary" demands for a health-based non-publication order.

    HYH v University of Wollongong (No 5) [2026] NSWCATAD 341 - Dr J Lucy, Principal Member, 5 November 2026. Signal: Illustrative. Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 36(1), 50(2), 60, 60(3); Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 105; Zonnevylle v Secretary, Department of Education [2023] NSWCATAP 117; FZK v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 4) [2025] NSWCATAP 278. Each alleged special circumstance assessed individually, then cumulatively; costs are compensatory for conduct in the proceedings. Why aired: a step-by-step application of the NCAT special circumstances test, changing how costs are argued in a no-costs jurisdiction.

    A practitioner's non-publication application is reported for its legal principles only, and the registry by subject only; no one is identified. Several rulings were made in matters still to be decided; nothing here predicts their outcome. No headnotes in this edition; aired propositions rest on the edition's synopses. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

28. Australian Courts of Appeal (4 November 2026)

    November 4, 202618 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailSeven headnoted appellate decisions, three from the High Court, in the Court of Appeal edition of Wednesday 4 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania editions of …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Seven headnoted appellate decisions, three from the High Court, in the Court of Appeal edition of Wednesday 4 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania editions of the same day folded in. Payroll tax on rideshare fares; a wash sale and the limits of dividend stripping; jury advantage in a murder appeal now sent back; estoppel on a promise nobody signed; the hearing rule; councillors removed for absence; and family provision in a small estate. The murder appeal concerns a death after an argument between partners and is reported as legal doctrine only.

    Tax and Revenue Desk (opening story).

    • Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] HCA 40 - under the contractor provisions of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW), a service is supplied to a designated person who is owed a contractual obligation to provide it, even if supplied simultaneously to another (s 32(1)(b)); supply is under a contract at least where the contract is the source of the obligation, the wider construction left open; the s 32(2)(a) ancillary-to-goods exclusion needs use of goods of greater contractual significance than the work; s 35(1) deemed wages need a connection to work, not a quid pro quo; the provisions are not read down for gig economy models. Appeal dismissed with costs, Steward J dissenting (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ; also today's Federal Courts edition). JADE
    • Commissioner of Taxation v Merchant [2026] HCA 39 - dominant purpose under s 177A(5) and s 177D Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) is the ruling, prevailing or most influential purpose, found by a global non-arithmetical evaluation; an alternative postulate excluded by the findings is not reasonable under s 177CB(3) (three Justices); an internal wash sale had the dominant purpose of crystallising a capital loss (unanimous); by four to three, the Consolidated Press Holdings characteristics of dividend stripping are essential, and in a Pt IVC appeal a s 177E assessment cannot rest on a capital loss cancelled under s 177F(1)(c); all seven: a dominant tax avoidance purpose is an unexpressed element of s 177E. Taxpayers' appeal dismissed; Commissioner's appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed; s 177E objection allowed and remitted for reassessment (Gageler CJ, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ dissenting in part; also today's Federal Courts edition). JADE

    Criminal Law Desk (legal doctrine only; the appeal is pending; no one identified).

    • O'Connell v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] HCA 41 - an intermediate appellate court may raise an issue apparent on the material if a party takes it up and the other is heard; on an unreasonable verdict ground under s 37O(2)(a)(i) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) it must make full allowance for the jury's advantages and assess a circumstantial case on the combined effect of all circumstances, not piecemeal; remittal turns on the interests of justice; s 37O(1)(d) permits entry of a guilty verdict for an alternative offence. DPP's appeal allowed, the ACT Court of Appeal's orders set aside and the matter remitted for determination according to law; the accused's appeal dismissed (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ; also today's Federal Courts edition). Anyone facing a charge is presumed innocent; nothing is predicted. JADE

    Commercial Law Desk and Practice and Procedure Desk.

    • Makis v Kyriacou [2026] NSWCA 234 - proprietary estoppel by encouragement founded on a promise requires a clear and unequivocal promise (following the Kramer v Stone plurality; Kronenberg v Macaulay not adopted); oral representations may stand independently of an unsigned document; detriment is measured against the no-promise counterfactual; relief reflecting the promise may be preferred to compensation; reasons on agreed issues without a r 28.2 UCPR order or declaration create no issue or Anshun estoppel. Appeal dismissed with costs (Bell CJ, Ball JA and Griffiths AJA; also today's New South Wales edition). JADE
    • Macdonald v Public Transport Authority [2026] WASCA 156 - under s 90(1)(c) Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) the right to be heard concerns a fair hearing, not a fair outcome,; no right to file further material without leave after the decision is reserved. Appeal dismissed (Thomson, Mitchell and Seaward JJ; also today's Western Australia edition). JADE

    Public Law Desk.

    • Burner v City of Salisbury & Anor; Bawden v City of Salisbury & Anor [2026] SASCA 134 - the fair-minded lay observer applies the bias test to the facts found; a council removing members under s 54(1)(d) Local Government Act 1999 (SA) is not held to the judicial paradigm, and a declared general conflict under s 75B(4) without more founds no apprehension; the only jurisdictional fact is absence without leave from three or more consecutive ordinary meetings, the power concerning forgiveness not permission. Appeals dismissed (Bleby and B Doyle JJA, Vaughan AJA). JADE

    Family Law Desk.

    • Glennon v Robinson [2026] NSWCA 235 - partial dependency under s 57(1)(e)(i) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) may be temporary and need not be exclusive, if more than minimal; the whole relationship is relevant to whether it ended before death; provision need not be strictly proportionate to dependency, and the whole of a small estate was within range; rent-free post-death occupation did not spend the moral claim. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs (Leeming, Adamson and McHugh JJA; also today's New South Wales edition). JADE

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

    • Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Dragicevic [2026] NSWSC 1375 - judicial review. JADE
    • Highgrove Bathrooms Summer Hill Pty Ltd t/as Highgrove Bathrooms v JJ Built This Pty Ltd t/as JJJ Constructions [2026] NSWSC 1365 - leave to appeal. JADE
    • GI 320 Pty Ltd v Raftery [2026] NSWSC 1376 - security for costs. JADE
    • AB v CD [2026] NSWSC 1380 - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • In the matter of Keybridge Capital Limited [2026] NSWSC 1377 - directors' duties. JADE
    • Turn Oze Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1731 - development consent appeal. JADE
    • Sutherland Shire Council v Edwards [2026] NSWLEC 140 - environmental civil enforcement. JADE
    • Duan v Chong-White [2026] NSWLEC 1734 - environmental protection. JADE
    • Williams v Clarence Property Corporation Limited [2026] NSWLEC 139 - interlocutory orders. JADE
    • Habib Hamade v Georges River Council [2026] NSWLEC 1732 - development consent. JADE
    • 399 NSHR Developments Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1738 - development consent. JADE
    • Street of the Fishing Cat Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 1735 - occupation certificate. JADE
    • Cranbrook Group Property Wentworth Pty Ltd ATF Cranbrook Group Property Wentworth Unit Trust v Waverley Council [2026] NSWLEC 1733 - development consent. JADE
    • The State of Western Australia v Mckenna [No 2] [2026] WASC 479 - post-sentence supervision. JADE
    • Property Development (WA) Pty Ltd v Commercial N Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] WASC 483 - security for costs. JADE
    • Pearse v Sanders [2026] WASC 481 - estate administration. JADE
    • Mather v McTaggart & Anor [2026] TASSC 71 - coroner's jurisdiction. JADE

    The three High Court decisions also feature in today's Federal Courts edition, from the editions of Wednesday 4 November 2026. Anyone facing a charge, or whose appeal is still to be decided, is presumed innocent; nothing here predicts any outcome.

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

    Chapters (11)

    1. 0:06Open
    2. 0:52Rideshare drivers and payroll tax
    3. 3:33A wash sale and a dividend strip
    4. 6:26A murder appeal sent back
    5. 8:49A promise nobody signed
    6. 10:32Finality, and a reserved decision
    7. 12:26Councillors absent without leave
    8. 14:00Family provision in a small estate
    9. 15:25The registry, and the thread
    10. 16:22Content Standards
    11. 17:16Close

    Transcript

29. Australian Federal Courts (4 November 2026)

    November 4, 20267 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailEight decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Wednesday 4 November 2026: three from the High Court of Australia and five from the Federal Court of Australia, four with Judicial Ledger …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Eight decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Wednesday 4 November 2026: three from the High Court of Australia and five from the Federal Court of Australia, four with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: receivers caught between competing secured creditors can get directions from the Court only on a legal question, not on commercial prudence, and may sell despite a prior security interest when the statutory conditions are met and the proceeds are held in trust. Then a worked example on extending time to challenge a migration decision, and the registry. The three High Court decisions air at depth in today's Courts of Appeal brief.

    Commercial Law Desk (opening story).

    • Healey v I'm Organic Pty Ltd, in the matter of AC Invest Hospitality Trading Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2026] FCA 1641 (Younan J, 3 November 2026) - JL p. 14. The power under s 424 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to give directions to a receiver appointed under an instrument is broad but does not extend to pronouncing on commercial prudence; some legal issue of substance, procedure, power, propriety or reasonableness must be raised. A real, not speculative, risk of personal claims from competing secured parties whether or not the receivers sold, and title uncertainty affecting price, justified a direction that the receivers were justified in selling a liquor licence with gaming machine entitlements, on the proviso that the net proceeds be held in trust pending the priority dispute. An order under s 420B is predicated on the absence of the prior secured party's consent and requires each of s 420B(2)(a)-(d); consent need take no particular form, but the Court proceeded cautiously where consent was emailed to a non-party and not communicated to the Court; the receivers were managing controllers with power of sale apart from the prior charge, sale was in the best interests of creditors and the company, and the trust avoided unreasonable prejudice. A non-party cannot apply under r 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) but may seek joinder under r 1.32, the r 9.05 constraints generally applying; a competing secured creditor whose rights could be directly affected was joined. Application granted. JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk (a worked example).

    • Razwantee v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1649 (O'Sullivan J, 3 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Extension of time under s 477A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth): the six-factor checklist from Katoa v Minister [2022] HCA 28; the merits assessment is usually reasonably impressionistic, but a longer or unexplained delay requires a stronger or even exceptional case; solicitor error (wrong-court filing, defective forms) is a partial but incomplete explanation, and each period of delay needs detailed affidavit evidence; Direction 110, para 8.1.2(2)(c): duration of stay has no linear relationship with risk of harm, and formulaic versus genuine evaluative reasoning; s 501(1) and s 501(3A) are separate and distinct powers (Chetcuti [2021] FCAFC 98). No outcome stated in the synopsis. JADE

    Registry (list only, no outcome stated).

    • Tax Practitioners Board v Ke (No 2) [2026] FCA 1657 (Wheatley J, 3 November 2026) - stay of proceedings. JADE
    • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd (No 4) [2026] FCA 1658 (O'Sullivan J, 20 October 2026) - winding up. JADE
    • O'Halloran v ABL Financial Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1653 (O'Bryan J, 30 October 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE

    High Court (pointer only; at depth in today's Courts of Appeal brief).

    • Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] HCA 40 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ, 4 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 11. Payroll tax contractor provisions and rideshare drivers; appeal dismissed, Steward J dissenting. JADE
    • Commissioner of Taxation v Merchant [2026] HCA 39 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ, 4 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 21. Part IVA, the dominant purpose test, the alternative postulate and dividend stripping under s 177E; the Justices divided on s 177E (see the reasons). JADE
    • O'Connell v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] HCA 41 (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ, 4 November 2026) - JL p. 17. Unreasonable verdict review and the power to substitute an alternative verdict; the Court of Appeal's orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The matter is pending; nothing is predicted. JADE

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

30. New Zealand Edition (4 November 2026)

    November 4, 202613 minPlay next

    Send us Fan MailThe Petal's New Zealand edition for Wednesday 4 November 2026 carries 8 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court and the High Court. Seven are aired, as six items. The thread is the …

    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Petal's New Zealand edition for Wednesday 4 November 2026 carries 8 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court and the High Court. Seven are aired, as six items. The thread is the gap between a wish and a promise: matching wills that carried a hope rather than a binding agreement, an equal share that met a parent's duty whatever one child hoped for, a settlor's wish read as care, and counter-intuitive evidence that explains how children respond without proving what happened.

    Commercial Law Desk (lead).

    • Perpetual Guardian Trustee Holdings Ltd v Meersma [2026] NZHC 3009 - wills made before 1 November 2007 fall under the equitable doctrine of mutual wills, not s 30 of the Wills Act 2007; a constructive trust needs corresponding wills and an agreement, intended to bind each testator, not to revoke, proved on the balance of probabilities with very great care; an honourable understanding or mutual expectation is not enough, and the absence of any written agreement despite legal advice, with a later inconsistent will through the same solicitor, told against one. On capacity, the propounder bears the onus once it is a tenable issue; a retrospective expert opinion weighs less than a contemporaneous assessment; recall of earlier wills is not a standalone requirement; capacity is task-specific; the third Banks v Goodfellow limb asks whether the will-maker could appreciate claims, not whether she gave effect to them. Claim dismissed (Gardiner J, 2 October 2026). JADE
    • Lewis v Lewis [2026] NZHC 2854 - under s 4(1) of the Family Protection Act 1955, half of two substantial estates was adequate provision for an adult child, and the equal division could not be impugned; the lack of a mechanism to buy the family property at registered valuation was not a failure of proper support; properly understood the claim challenged the testators' inferred intention, for which the Act is not the vehicle. Obiter, the jurisdiction is not solely financial and a right of first refusal may suit a future case. Claim dismissed (Harland J, 17 September 2026). JADE

    Practice and Procedure Desk.

    • Stockman Family Trustee Limited v Stockman [2026] NZHC 3182 - the Court may bless a trustee's momentous decision under s 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 on full disclosure, asking whether the trustee could properly form its view, not substituting its own; a beneficiary's preferred agent's higher figure did not show a breach of s 26(a); unsupported allegations of conflict and an uninvoked duress claim did not warrant withholding approval; termination of both trusts approved under s 124 for future and unascertained beneficiaries (Tantrum J, 15 October 2026). JADE
    • Affco New Zealand Ltd v Meat Masters Ltd [2026] NZHC 3297 - leave to appeal an interlocutory decision under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 is a high-threshold filter, granted only where the significance of an arguable error warrants delaying the case; applications dismissed; the liquidation proceeding continues (Jagose J, 23 October 2026). JADE

    Criminal Law Desk.

    • R v M [2026] NZHC 3425 and R v M [2026] NZHC 3426 - reported as legal doctrine only; suppression orders apply. Two sentencings for manslaughter by omission: mental health may in rare cases reduce the starting point itself where it alters the character of the offending; there is no presumption for or against home detention, which calls for a considered and principled choice of the least restrictive sentence; special conditions under s 80D(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 need a significant risk of further offending; halving the term is common but not required; extreme hardship needs more than the ordinary consequences of conviction, and suppression may be needed under s 200(2)(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to protect a co-defendant's order. Home detention in both (Heine J, 23 October 2026). JADE (NZHC 3425) JADE (NZHC 3426)
    • Tovey v The King [2026] NZSC 167 - reported as legal doctrine only. Probabilistic references in a s 9 statement of admitted facts on counter-intuitive evidence did not create an appearance of miscarriage where the statement set out the limits of the research; a closing that could be taken as suggesting complainants were more likely truthful because they behaved as described was cured by directions that the evidence was educative only; the omitted DH v R caution was not material. Leave dismissed (Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ, 4 November 2026). JADE

    R v M and Tovey are reported as legal doctrine only, with no one identified. The liquidation proceeding in Affco and the remaining steps in Stockman continue. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome. Also in the edition, not aired: Hu v Xu [2026] NZHC 2756, an unopposed summary judgment against a guarantor on the settled test (Associate Judge Wild). JADE

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

    Chapters

    Loading chapters …

    Transcript

These are the latest 42 of 403 episodes. You’ll find older episodes in the podcast’s feed.