The Petal from JADE OpenLaw

BarNet OpenLaw

The Petal Daily Brief — the day in Australian law, on your perambulations. Each weekday morning the Host and our desk correspondents (Criminal, Commercial, Public Law, Practice & Procedure, Tax & Revenue, Tribunals and the Trans-Tasman Desk) bring you the decisions that matter from Australia's and New Zealand's courts and tribunals, selected for what they say about legal principle. Produced from The Petal, the curated daily editions of BarNet OpenLaw's Jade Ledger — read the judgments at ledger.jade.io. Reviewed under OpenLaw's content and podcasting standard; the voices in this program are AI-generated. Theme music by Michael Green SC. Nothing in this program is legal advice.

  1. 8h ago

    Australian Courts of Appeal (21 September 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Six appellate decisions from four benches in the Court of Appeal edition of 21 September 2026. Victoria's Court of Appeal sets aside a camping park's safety conviction over a fallen branch and orders a new trial: the accident evidence was relevant but, as led, should have been excluded, and by majority the prosecution proves that the employer's existing system was insufficient, not that its own measure would have done better in isolation. South Australia's Court of Appeal dismisses a doctor's appeal from disciplinary findings, holding that the impact of trauma on memory is brought to bear as developed forensic experience rather than judicial notice, with a caution against treating the Lehrmann observations as a short-form treatise. Three family appeals from the appellate division on further evidence, harmful proceedings orders and extensions of time, aired at depth here and pointed to from the Federal Courts brief of the same date. And Queensland on joinder by form and service, and why the slip rule cannot carry an appeal. Cheema, Yarra Valley and Repine also appear in the South Australia, Victoria and Queensland briefs of the same date. Criminal Law Desk (lead). Yarra Valley Park Lane Holiday Park Pty Ltd v The King [2026] VSCA 233 - OHS Act s 26 offences are risk-based, not outcome-based; evidence of the death was relevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act to the degree of harm (s 20(2)(b)) and not neutralised by an informal concession; but as led at trial, extensive and emotive about a single tree the specified measure would not have touched, it should have been excluded under s 137, and the directions did not guard against the jury treating the case as responsibility for the death: a substantial miscarriage (unanimous); by majority (Boyce and Kidd JJA), where a charge particularises a single measure and the accused has a system, the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the existing system was insufficient (Baiada Poultry), not a counterfactual comparison of its measure in isolation, so the verdict was open; Walker JA would have held the verdict not open. Leave granted, appeal allowed, conviction set aside, new trial ordered; the charge is untested and no view is expressed. JADEPublic Law Desk. Cheema v Medical Board of Australia [2026] SASCA 109 - appeal from SACAT findings of professional misconduct and cancellation of registration on allegations of sexual misconduct and a breach of professional boundaries, and the supply of an unrecorded tablet; reported with restraint. Where s 6B(2) of the HPRNL Act excludes s 71(3a) of the SACAT Act, r 218.17(a) of the Uniform Civil Rules makes the appeal one by way of rehearing requiring material error; inconsistency of detail is not necessarily antithetical to the credibility of an allegation of sexual assault, a matter of developed experience informed by contemporary understanding of trauma, not judicial notice, but the Lehrmann observations are not a totemic short-form treatise; no denial of procedural fairness where the Tribunal used them only as a possible explanation; a tribunal not bound by the rules of evidence may weigh consistencies in properly admitted prior statements as well as inconsistencies; rejecting a hypothesised explanation is not reversing the onus; Briginshaw does not require an intermediate finding on every frailty; admitted unprofessional conduct may rebut good standing put in issue without tendency reasoning. Appeal dismissed (unanimous). JADEFamily Law Desk. Rehova & Rehova [2026] FedCFamC1A 165 - Full Court; further evidence under s 35 of the FCFCOA Act is received to demonstrate error and a different result, and a valuation available at trial but not tendered, deficient as to instructions and authentication, is refused; the judgment is presumed correct, the appellant bears the onus of House v The King error, and the court will not fossick through broad contentions to construct grounds (r 13.23); a procedural-fairness complaint that cannot be evaluated without a transcript fails, and active trial management is not unfairness; dissatisfaction with single expert valuations is not error; s 79(3)(a) requires identification of interests in overseas property absent res judicata or enforcement concerns. Further-evidence application and appeal dismissed. JADENaisby [2026] FedCFamC1A 164 - Full Court; a harmful proceedings order under s 102QAC applies to appeals, and leave under s 102QAG requires that the appeal is not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse and has reasonable prospects, the onus on the applicant; of fourteen grounds, the challenge to the 52/48 contributions assessment as unreasonable and the challenge to the 15 per cent s 75(2) adjustment (a 30-percentage-point differential worth about $497,000 on a $3.3 million pool divided 67/33) had reasonable prospects; grounds identifying no specific evidence or error failed; time to file the Notice of Appeal extended where the leave application was filed within the 28 days. Leave granted in part. JADEFhaolain & Fhaolain [2026] FedCFamC1A 168 - single judge; review of an appeal judicial registrar's decision under Pt 5.3 of the Rules is de novo and may be determined on the papers (rr 13.37, 13.38); an applicant for an extension of time to appeal (r 13.03) must show a substantial issue, that inquiry being central, with delay, explanation, prejudice and finality then informing the discretion; the orders were an interlocutory exercise of broad discretion and a differing view of the evidence discloses no House v The King error; grounds duplicating a pending Full Court appeal lack utility. Application in an Appeal dismissed. JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Repine v Antech Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 177 - a person named as a respondent and served is joined as a party although no relief is sought against them; the s 48 Judicial Review Act power to dismiss may be exercised on application or of the Court's own motion without identifying which, and summary dismissal against a private builder incapable of making a reviewable decision was not in error notwithstanding the removal alternative under rr 67 and 69 UCPR; an extension of time to seek leave is refused with no substantial injustice and no prospects (r 748, s 48(5)); affidavits about later events that do not alter the claims are not received; r 667(2)(d) is not engaged where the order reflects the judge's expressed intention, and an application that is in substance an appeal may be declined; prompt disposition is not a denial of natural justice. Extension of time refused with costs; appeal dismissed with costs. JADEThe three family appeals are also listed in the Federal Courts brief of 21 September 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Courts of Appeal (21 September 2026)

  2. 8h ago

    Australian Federal Courts (18 to 20 September 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Six Federal Court decisions in the weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026. A Singapore-resident shareholder resists security for costs in his oppression suit because his shares in the company he is suing are an available asset within the jurisdiction, and the company's joint defence alongside its directors counts against security. ASIC obtains interim asset preservation orders without notice over an unregistered property investment scheme: no prima facie case is required, a freezing order is the lesser alternative to receivers, and the power reaches property offshore. The Full Federal Court settles the form of the remittal order in the Far West Coast sea claim and declines to reopen a finding never challenged on the appeal. Three decisions listed without a headnote. The Full Court's native title remittal also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend, which points here. Practice and Procedure Desk (lead). Barber v Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] FCA 1378 - security for costs under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) against a non-resident plaintiff in an oppression suit (ss 233, 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)): the discretion exists to secure a fund within the jurisdiction against which a costs judgment can be enforced, and there is no rule that a non-resident must give security; the plaintiff's 28.33 per cent shareholding, located in Australia by the share register (s 1070A(4)(a)) and conservatively worth nearly $100 million on the company's audited accounts, was an adequate available asset, liquidity not being the inquiry and the defendants having adduced no evidence of value; contractual restraints on dealing did not defeat adequacy; unfair to require the plaintiff to liquidate or borrow against the asset in suit; a company's funds are not to be used to defend the majority against the minority, and the company's joint, undifferentiated pursuit of security was a strong countervailing circumstance; application dismissed subject to an undertaking not to further encumber the shares without 14 days' written notice, failing which initial security of $500,000. JADECommercial Law Desk. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1380 - ex parte interim orders under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in an ongoing ASIC investigation into an unregistered property investment scheme (about $19.1 million from about 111 investors on promissory and convertible notes): jurisdiction is enlivened by an investigation into a suspected contravention, actual or potential liability to aggrieved persons and the Court's opinion that an order is necessary or desirable; ASIC need not establish a prima facie case; freezing orders are permitted in aid of s 1323 (with s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act and r 7.32 of the Federal Court Rules) as the less intrusive alternative to receivership; the power extends to property outside Australia through jurisdiction in personam; ex parte relief requires good reason and full and frank disclosure; travel restraint and passport orders framed to take effect on return; non-publication orders under ss 37AF and 37AG until service; substituted service by email under r 10.24; application granted, inter partes hearing listed 23 September 2026, costs reserved. Interim orders on suspected contraventions only; no finding of liability. JADEPublic Law Desk. Richards v State of South Australia (Far West Coast Sea Claim) (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 128 - form of orders on remittal under s 28(1)(c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) after the Full Court set aside the answer to who holds native title in the sea claim (Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 225): where all parties support remittal as a continuation of the trial and none seeks more than the usual direction, the order takes the usual form; an appellate court will not fetter the primary judge's case management by procedural directions where it lacks that judge's familiarity with the evidence, including on-country Aboriginal evidence; a submission on the form of remittal cannot obtain variation of the appellate orders to set aside the existence of native title, a finding never challenged on the appeal, without denying procedural fairness; separate question (b)(i) remitted, variation refused. Joint reasons of Burley, O'Bryan and Longbottom JJ. JADERegistry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Groom v State of South Australia [2026] FCA 1384 - list only (summary judgment). JADEKaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1379 - list only (visa refusal). JADEBilal v Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1382 - list only (leave to appeal). JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Federal Courts (18 to 20 September 2026)

  3. 8h ago

    Australian Federal Courts (21 September 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Six decisions in the Federal Courts edition of 21 September 2026: two Federal Court decisions at depth, one substituted-service framework, and three family appeals from the appellate division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court, carried at depth in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date and linked below. A law lecturer who signed a deed of release, then said he had assumed the payment came tax free and his employment ran on to late December, learns that a deed means what a reasonable person would take from its words and the parties' conduct, not what one side assumed. The liquidators of a company that was only ever a trustee recover their general costs from the one fund that produced any money, without apportionment. And a checklist for substituted service by messaging app. Tuesday control day: no house spot. Commercial Law Desk (lead). Gussen v Swinburne University of Technology [2026] FCA 1389 - separate question in the Fair Work Division answered that a Deed of Release of 18 September 2024 (resignation, $67,493 taxed according to law, mutual releases, entire-agreement and acknowledgment-of-advice clauses) is valid and enforceable in three proceedings: contractual rights are determined objectively and accord and satisfaction requires objective agreement on the substituted performance, the asserted 'Date Representation' (employment to 24 December 2024) and 'Payment Representation' (tax-free treatment under Div 83 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) being assumptions not reasonably open (Toll v Alphapharm; Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas; McDermott v Black); misleading conduct by silence requires a duty to disclose and is assessed as a whole against clear terms and disclaimers, Swinburne having rejected the proposed 'voluntary early retirement scheme payment' wording as not correct and the public VERP material disclosing ETP taxation; unilateral mistake requires a serious mistake as to a fundamental term known to or objectively apparent to the other party and unconscientious conduct (Taylor v Johnson); allegations of prior adverse action under ss 340 and 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 do not without a vitiating factor invalidate a later deed, and a deed conferring a benefit is not itself adverse action, no arguable duress; under ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 the operation of the deed as a bar to particular pleaded claims was returned to the docket judges, costs reserved. JADEWalley, in the matter of Royal National Capital Alliance Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2026] FCA 1383 - directions under s 90-15(1) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) granted: a direction protects an external administrator who has made full and fair disclosure where a legal issue or the propriety or reasonableness of a proposed decision is raised, and the liquidators of a corporate trustee were justified in not conducting public examinations, in discontinuing recovery proceedings against insolvent guarantors and in distributing the trust property; earlier orders are construed by their terms read as a whole with the reasons and, instructively, the transcript, and the 2021 orders confining investment-specific costs to that investment's proceeds did not govern general costs (no slip rule under r 39.05 needed); where a company acts solely as trustee and has no other activities its liquidators and receivers recover their costs, expenses and remuneration, for trust administration and general liquidation work alike, from the trust assets, the winding up being part and parcel of the administration of the trust (Suco Gold; AAA Financial Intelligence; Re Krejci); an expense-allocation clause is internal accounting between members creating no sub-trusts and no basis to apportion, so general costs of $370,121.09 and the costs of the application are payable from the Southport proceeds. JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. CLZ26 v State of Victoria (Substituted Service) [2026] FCA 1370 - framework (synopsis): substituted service under r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 requires that personal service is not sensible or realistic and that the proposed method will in all reasonable probability bring the documents to the party's attention; the evidentiary checklist of affidavit evidence of skip trace searches, process server attempts and subpoena results, proof of ownership of the number through prior official communications and of continued use through an active service and delivered messages, and screenshots of WhatsApp delivery status (grey versus green ticks), applying Commissioner of Taxation v Caratti (No 2) and Royal Express v Huang (No 3) to a modern platform. The applicant is pseudonymised. JADEFamily appeals (pointers: these three decisions of the appellate division are carried at depth in the Court of Appeal brief of 21 September 2026). Rehova & Rehova [2026] FedCFamC1A 165 - appeal from property adjustment orders dismissed with the application to adduce further evidence: the s 35 discretion is directed to demonstrating error and a different result; a judgment is presumed correct and the appellant bears the House v The King onus; procedural fairness requires only an adequate opportunity to be heard and cannot be evaluated absent a transcript; dissatisfaction with single-expert valuations identifies no appellable error; s 79(3)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 requires identification of interests including overseas property. JADENaisby [2026] FedCFamC1A 164 - leave to appeal granted in part to an applicant subject to a harmful proceedings order: the s 102QAC restraint extends to appeals and leave under s 102QAG requires reasonable prospects, onus on the applicant; the challenges to the 52/48 contributions assessment and to the 15 per cent s 75(2) adjustment had reasonable prospects; grounds not identifying specific evidence or error failed; time to file the Notice of Appeal extended. JADEFhaolain & Fhaolain [2026] FedCFamC1A 168 - review of an appeal judicial registrar's refusal of an extension of time to appeal, determined on the papers, dismissed: review under Pt 5.3 of the Family Law Rules is de novo; an applicant must show a substantial issue, and interlocutory discretionary orders require House v The King error; an extension is refused where the proposed appeal lacks utility because its grounds duplicate a pending appeal. JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Federal Courts (21 September 2026)

  4. 8h ago

    Australian Tribunals (18 to 20 September 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Four decisions, all from the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in the weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026: two with headnotes, both from the Appeal Panel, and two illustrative synopses carried as framework. The lead is a self-represented appellant's internal appeal against the Commissioner of Police on an information-access refusal: the Appeal Panel exercises administrative, not judicial, power on GIPA appeals but is not confined to merits review; a question of law is the subject matter of an appeal as of right, not merely a qualifying condition; an appeal that names no ground and seeks no leave is misconceived and dismissed; and a misconceived appeal with unfounded allegations of serious misconduct and repeated non-compliance is a special-circumstances costs case. Also: a shopping-centre lessor that won its interim-relief appeal in June cannot have the reserved costs now, because the 'event' is judged by the final outcome and an interlocutory win may prove pyrrhic; and two frameworks, on whether an unsuccessful joinder applicant has standing to bring an internal appeal, and on leave to proceed with a disability discrimination complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act. Weekend roll-up, no house spot. Tribunals Desk: the appeal without a ground, and costs that wait for the event (lead). Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 297 - when NCAT exercises its internal appeal jurisdiction under the GIPA Act it exercises administrative power, not judicial power, but that does not confine it to a merits review: it may exercise all its statutory powers, including determining appeals on questions of law (ss 32, 80 NCAT Act); an appellant must identify one or more grounds to enliven the jurisdiction, the existence of a question of law being not merely a qualifying condition but the subject matter of the appeal, with no right of appeal 'on the merits' as of right; an appeal identifying no ground on a question of law, with no leave sought on other grounds, is misconceived and is dismissed under s 55(1)(b), and late submissions will not be treated as grounds where that would be procedurally unfair to the respondent; special circumstances for costs under s 60 exist where the appeal is misconceived with no tenable basis in law, the appellant has made unfounded allegations of serious misconduct, and has failed to comply with procedural directions necessitating multiple compliance hearings; at first instance the Tribunal had rejected a Burns v Corbett jurisdiction objection based on the appellant's residence in Tasmania; appeal dismissed, the appellant's costs applications dismissed, the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis; affirms [2025] NSWCATAD 204; Wojciechowska v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2023] NSWCA 191 applied. Care: a self-represented litigant, not named on air. JADEStanhope SC Pty Ltd atf Stanhope SC Investment Trust v Sharetea Leasing Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 298 - an application to vary an order reserving the costs of interlocutory proceedings pending final hearing will be declined where the interlocutory success may be rendered a pyrrhic victory by the final outcome; the concept of the 'event' for costs purposes must be assessed in light of the final outcome of the proceedings (s 81 NCAT Act; rr 38, 38A NCAT Rules); the lessee had sought urgent interim relief under s 72 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 (stay of forfeiture, resumption of possession) for a kiosk lease in a western Sydney shopping centre, the primary member granted relief against forfeiture and reinstated the lease, and on 10 June 2026 the Appeal Panel set those orders aside as final relief granted without procedural fairness, remitted the matter for an expedited final hearing and reserved the costs of the appeal (order 9); the lessor's contentions that the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000 and that the lease provided for indemnity costs did not warrant varying order 9 now; costs of interim relief appeals will generally remain reserved until the substantive rights are finally determined; application to vary order 9 declined and dismissed. JADEFramework (Illustrative synopses, no outcome stated). Cameron Hotels Pty Ltd v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 295 - synopsis (framework only, no outcome stated): the interpretation of s 80(1) of the NCAT Act, specifically whether unsuccessful joinder applicants have standing to bring internal appeals; 'party to the proceedings in which the decision is made'; the distinction between the underlying proceedings and interlocutory decisions for standing purposes; r 27 of the NCAT Rules 2014 on who constitutes a party; alternative remedies (judicial review) when internal appeal standing is denied; comity to earlier Appeal Panel decisions. JADESchwedler v Employers Mutual Ltd [2026] NSWCATAD 281 - synopsis (framework only, no outcome stated): leave applications under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the 'fair and just' test (Ekermawi; Norbis v Norbis); criteria for a complaint 'lacking in substance'; the elements of direct disability discrimination under ss 49B and 49D; evidence taken at its highest at the leave stage (Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises); the relevance and weight of the President's reasons under s 92(1)(a)(i); the meaning of 'services' under s 4 in a workers compensation context. Care: carried as a framework line under restraint; the applicant is not identified and nothing of the complaint's facts is aired. JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Tribunals (18 to 20 September 2026)

  5. 8h ago

    Australian Tribunals (21 September 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Twelve decisions from four tribunals in the Tribunals edition of 21 September 2026, one of them with a headnote. The lead is a Victorian freedom of information review over two ministerial briefs on the Suburban Rail Loop sought by a Member of Parliament: routine deliberative advice in the corporate plan brief was not exempt as an internal working document, but the managing contractor's variation pricing was exempt as business undertaking information, the Authority's risk pricing and budget allocations were exempt as internal working and agency commercial documents, and the public interest override did not require disclosure, the significant public interest in scrutinising the project's expenditure being outweighed by unreasonable commercial disadvantage in a highly competitive market. Seven further Signal entries are Illustrative synopses carried as frameworks with no outcome stated: interim orders and non-publication orders in a discrimination complaint against a university, proportionate costs in a strata appeal, the timing of a firearms prohibition order, leave for a declined anti-discrimination complaint, a prisoner's discrimination complaint and the internal complaints precondition, and direct and indirect disability discrimination in the ACT. Four list-only decisions are on the registry. Tuesday control day: no house spot. Tribunals Desk: the rail loop briefs (lead). Department of Treasury and Finance v Rowswell MP [2026] VCAT 719 - Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) ss 28(1)(c), 30, 34(1), 34(4), 50(4): paragraph 7 of the corporate plan brief was not exempt under s 30, being routine advice of a type expected from a public agency whose release would not impede frank and fearless advice; the variation pricing proposals in the variation brief (paragraph 11 table 1) were exempt under s 34(1) as information acquired from Laing O'Rourke, a business undertaking, about costs and margins, disclosure of which would expose it unreasonably to competitive disadvantage by letting competitors benchmark pricing and refine bids (the legend rows not exempt); paragraph 20 of the variation brief was exempt under s 30 as financial information and extracts from a highly sensitive Cabinet briefing revealing the Authority's risk pricing, and table 3 within it under s 34(4) as commercial information revealing budget allocations and weakening the Authority's bargaining position; the s 50(4) public interest override did not require disclosure, the significant public interest in scrutinising Suburban Rail Loop expenditure being outweighed by unreasonable commercial disadvantage to Laing and the Authority in a highly competitive market; applications dismissed in part, the decision under review affirmed except for the specified parts of the variation brief; Tucker, Davis and Osland applied. Single member. JADETribunals Desk: frameworks (Illustrative synopses; no outcome stated beyond what the synopsis states). HYH v University of Wollongong [2026] NSWCATAD 282 - synopsis: the three limbs of s 105(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for interim orders (status quo, preserving rights, returning the parties to pre-contravention circumstances); s 105(1)(b) is limited to preserving existing statutory rights and does not create new entitlements or override academic standards; the connection test between interim relief, the harm averted and the final relief claimed (Dhillon v RailCorp); template procedural orders for s 64 non-publication applications under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). JADEHYH v University of Wollongong (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAD 283 - synopsis: s 64 non-publication and non-disclosure orders decided on the papers; the 'desirability' test and how it differs from the higher threshold in courts; prohibiting disclosure of names as distinct from publication of reasons or evidence; open justice balanced against privacy in health information; the evidence sufficient for suppression orders. JADESelkirk v The Owners-Strata Plan No 2661 [2026] NSWCATAP 299 - synopsis: r 38(2)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) applies to proceedings rather than to separate claims within them; proportionate costs where a party succeeds on some issues and fails on separable issues (Bostik v Liddiard (No 2)), quantified by a broad brush (60% awarded, as the synopsis records); misconduct (false documents) affects the award without depriving the successful party of all costs; single claims seeking multiple remedies distinguished from multiple separate claims. JADEIslam v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 284 - synopsis: a firearms prohibition order takes effect only on personal service under s 73(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), not when signed; 'disqualified person' under s 75(2) is assessed at the date of the application for review by reference to the AVO history under s 11(5)(c); AVO history provable by police COPS records and court orders, admissible under s 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW); jurisdictional dismissal under s 55(1)(b) where the applicant lacks standing as a disqualified person. JADEBozkurt v Department of Communities and Justice (Homes NSW) [2026] NSWCATAD 285 - synopsis: the five-part framework for the s 96(1) leave discretion under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for declined complaints, 'fair and just' with the onus on the applicant; the four-element checklist for direct discrimination under ss 7, 49B and 49ZYA including the causal link (Aldridge; Seltsam v McGuiness); the two-element test for indirect discrimination under ss 49B(1)(b) and 49ZYA(1)(b); unsatisfactory conduct distinguished from unlawful discrimination, inferential evidence beyond 'poor conduct' required. JADEMeehan v State of Queensland (West Moreton Hospital and Health Service) [2026] QCAT 432 - synopsis: s 319E(1) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) requires prisoners to exhaust the internal complaints procedure before making an external discrimination complaint; the five-factor test for hearing out-of-time complaints under s 175(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (length of delay, explanation, prejudice to each side, merits); the evidentiary burden for statutory preconditions and the consequences of failing to controvert a strike-out application; Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31 compatibility; a non-compliant complaint as a lack of jurisdiction and an abuse of process supporting strike-out under s 47 of the QCAT Act. JADEApplicant 35/2025 v Apple Pty Ltd (Discrimination) [2026] ACAT 54 - synopsis: direct discrimination requiring unfavourable treatment 'because of' disability under s 8(2) of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT); the indirect discrimination framework (condition or requirement, disadvantage, reasonableness under s 8(3)-(4)); evidence for discrimination and compensation, including medical evidence and the factors affecting quantum for psychological harm; applicant anonymisation where sensitive health information is central; complaint periods, jurisdiction and the interaction between the ACT Human Rights Commission and ACAT. JADERegistry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Decision restricted [2026] NSWCATAP 296 - list only (civil appeals, appeal grounds); a restricted decision of the Appeal Panel, listed without reasons. JADENMB v Mental Health Tribunal [2026] VCAT 778 - list only (interlocutory application); a mental health matter, carried by letters only. JADEVEJ [2026] VCAT 773 - list only (appointment of guardian and administrator); carried by letters only. JADEMelton CC v Singh (Costs) [2026] VCAT 776 - list only (costs orders). JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Tribunals (21 September 2026)

  6. 8h ago

    New South Wales (18 to 20 September 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Eight decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of 18 to 20 September 2026, the state weekend. A five-judge bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal revokes the R v Whyte guideline for dangerous driving offences under s 52A of the Crimes Act and replaces it with a non-numerical statement of sentencing principles; a seventeen-year aggregate for an armed club robbery, the highest in the JIRS statistics, comes down to ten; a double-punishment error that changed nothing on resentence; a Crown interlocutory appeal that could not resurrect an argument disavowed at trial; and the Court of Appeal on why criminal totality does not translate to councillor discipline under the Local Government Act. From the Land and Environment Court, a framework on positive covenants as access arrangements, and one decision listed without a headnote. Cripps, Thaler, Douglas, Forbes and Crook also appear in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend; here they get the New South Wales angle. Criminal Law Desk (lead). Cripps v R (s 52A guideline judgment) [2026] NSWCCA 144 - five-judge bench, joint reasons: the R v Whyte guideline for dangerous driving offences under s 52A of the Crimes Act 1900 is revoked and replaced with a non-numerical statement of sentencing principles (ss 36, 42A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act); objective seriousness (the crime and matters causally related to it) and moral culpability (the offender's blameworthiness) are distinct, and Whyte's 'critical component of the objective circumstances' language does not reflect the current law; the 'plea of limited utilitarian value' characteristic is potentially inconsistent with the Div 1A Pt 3 and s 25D fixed discount scheme; the typical case has changed; standard non-parole periods have diminished the role of guidelines; no finding that Whyte depressed sentencing. New guideline: close attention to the s 3A purposes, s 5 and the maximum penalty; regard to s 21A factors without double counting s 52A(7); a non-exhaustive list of matters going to objective seriousness (extent of injuries, number of people put at risk, speed, intoxication, erratic or competitive driving, length of the journey, ignoring warnings, failing to stop); reduced moral culpability (mental illness, cognitive impairment, deprived childhood, youth) considered separately where raised and not an automatic discount; a failure to heed a warning goes to objective seriousness; past decisions and JIRS statistics remain of limited assistance and fix no boundaries; an ICO remains available for a head sentence of two years or less (aggregate three) and may suit a brief lapse of attention. On the appeal: the judge took age and prior convictions into account under the objective seriousness heading, error shown; on re-exercise the Court would have gone slightly higher; leave granted, appeal dismissed. JADEForbes v R [2026] NSWCCA 147 - manifest excess: sentencing statistics are a blunt instrument but a yardstick, and the highest recorded JIRS sentence for s 112(3), a significant outlier, required careful scrutiny; a sentence wholly disproportionate (not merely markedly different) to the offending, compared with R v Musa, was plainly unjust, reflecting excessive accumulation and a failure to apply totality; on resentence, significant childhood hardship may reduce moral culpability absent a causal link; the standard non-parole period is a legislative guidepost, not a starting point; leave granted, appeal allowed, the aggregate of 17 years with a non-parole period of 10 quashed, resentenced to 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 (ss 86(2)(a), 112(3) Crimes Act; ss 5, 21A, 44, 54A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act). JADECrook v R [2026] NSWCCA 146 - the objective seriousness of a charged offence cannot be elevated by reference to other offending in the same sentencing exercise (double punishment; Tadrosse, Courtney); materiality is whether the error could realistically have affected the reasoning process, not whether the sentence would have differed (Farrugia, Brawn); on a Kentwell re-exercise the fresh sentence was not lower than 6 years 4 months; leave granted, ground made out, appeal dismissed (s 33B Crimes Act; s 5 Criminal Appeal Act). JADER v Douglas [2026] NSWCCA 145 - Crown interlocutory appeal under s 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, doctrine only, prosecution not yet tried: a party who expressly disavowed an argument at trial may not advance it on appeal (Metwally (No 2)); the disavowed argument did not render the appeal incompetent; where the Crown declines to prove either actual age or any mental element as to age, proof that the child was in fact under 16 is the only way the s 272.9(2) attempt (ss 11.1, 11.1(6A), 272.9(4) Criminal Code (Cth)) is an offence known to law, so the trial judge was correct; obiter, proof of intention that the child be under 16 would have sufficed had the point been open; no Suitors' Fund certificate; appeal dismissed. JADEPublic Law Desk. Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure v Thaler [2026] NSWCA 200 - Leeming JA (Ball JA and Price AJA agreeing): the criminal sentencing principle of totality for a 'single episode of misconduct' does not translate in any closely analogous way to disciplinary action under the Local Government Act 1993, because each Code contravention is misconduct, the purposes differ and s 275(1A) disqualifies for five years on a third suspension regardless of length; totality is still relevant so a councillor is not in substance dealt with twice, but there is no implied 'time for reflection' constraint on the Secretary; a reprimand, cease order, apology and training were manifestly inadequate for sustained and deliberate abuse of two councillors and two members of the public in conscious disregard of earlier misconduct and without contrition; the Tribunal's s 440L task is the correct and preferable decision; leave granted, appeal allowed, NCAT orders set aside, remitted for determination on up-to-date evidence, the Secretary's decision stayed for six weeks under s 440L(3A); cross-appeal dismissed with costs. JADEParo Planning Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2026] NSWLEC 1617 - framework (synopsis): construction of a public positive covenant under s 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (text, context, purpose; Westfield, Jeshing, Theunissen), distinguished from an easement and enforceable by council under s 88E(5), as the basis for 'adequate arrangements' for vehicular access under cl 6.9 of a LEP; parking variations need a survey or documentary support, not high-level assertions, particularly beyond 800 m of rail or metro; s 7.11 contributions for a parking shortfall quantified per space ($40,449.82) and DCP parking credits; cl 4.6 requests and the design excellence framework (Toga Penrith), expert agreement alone insufficient. JADERegistry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Decision restricted [2026] NSWCCA 129 - list only (criminal appeal, restricted). JADENowra Investments No. 1 Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1615 - list only (development application). JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    New South Wales (18 to 20 September 2026)

  7. 8h ago

    New South Wales (21 September 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Seven decisions from two courts in the New South Wales edition of 21 September 2026, a quiet day with one loud story. The Supreme Court's Technology and Construction List on a $78 million power station contract: a principal that directs the superintendent to decide an extension of time claim on its merits elects, waives the contractor's non-compliance with the conditions precedent, and cannot hide behind a no waiver clause; the prevention principle survives a reserve power expressed in absolute discretion; the float belongs to the contractor; delay costs include margin, overheads and profit; a government pandemic order not in evidence cannot be judicially noticed; and superintendents owe a sophisticated contractor no duty of care. Two frameworks from the Practice Desk, on security for costs and on an interlocutory injunction in civil enforcement proceedings under the Biodiversity Conservation Act. Four decisions listed without a headnote. No decision in this edition appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same date. Commercial Law Desk (lead). Clarke Energy (Australia) Pty Ltd v Alinta Energy Transmission (Roy Hill) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1124 - EPC contract for a gas-fired power station in Western Australia; where the superintendent's determinations are not final or binding the Court decides the underlying dispute on all the evidence, retrospectively, including whether the Guarantee Test alarms were in fact satisfactory; removal of the existing underground services was the principal's task, and accepting 'Site Conditions' at the contract date did not accept the site as left after excavation; the implied duty to cooperate governs a sole-discretion notice to proceed (no breach of cl 2.3 on the facts), but the principal breached its obligation to give notice of its own delay; the float belongs to the contractor where the extension equals the delay to Practical Completion and the contractor's ability to finish early is disregarded, though loss of activity float off the critical path earns neither extension nor delay costs; a principal that asserts non-compliance with EOT conditions precedent and then directs the superintendent to determine the claim substantively elects between inconsistent rights and waives the non-compliance, a 'no waiver' clause not precluding waiver by election; an epidemic or quarantine order is a Force Majeure Event, and alleged non-compliance with a notice condition precedent failed where the government instrument was not in evidence and could not be judicially noticed under s 143(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); 'reasonable additional costs and expenses directly incurred' include usual margin, overheads and profit absent clear excluding words; a relocation direction was a Variation but the contractual claim was barred for want of a Variation Order in the required form, while promissory estoppel gave $69,000; Practical Completion required the Guarantee Tests passed with a satisfactory level of alarms, not an optimised plant (Date of Practical Completion 10 November 2022); the prevention principle is not excluded by a discretionary 'reserve power' exercisable 'in absolute discretion' absent words removing any obligation to consider exercising it; ACL and EOT 1 estoppel points obiter; no duty of care in tort owed by superintendents to a sophisticated, well-advised contractor lacking vulnerability; liquidated damages calculated under cl 19.1 with early generation revenue deducted from the sum, not the cap. Extensions of time totalling 142 days declared; judgment for the plaintiff for $7,192,414 (subject to variation after the parties confer); $2,502,365 in liquidated damages set off against milestone amounts. JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Antymniuk v Davies [2026] NSWSC 1139 - framework (synopsis): security for costs under r 42.21 UCPR, with the r 42.21(1A)(a)-(n) discretionary factors applied one by one; the 'broad brush' quantum principles from Haselhurst v Toyota at [12]-[16]; a checklist of defects in a solicitor's costs schedule (estimates for work already done, wrong number of hearing days, unsupported hourly rates); foreign-resident plaintiffs and the absence of evidence about ease of enforcement in the home country (Li v New South Wales); the distinction between an impecunious corporate plaintiff, where security may stifle proceedings, and a foreign individual plaintiff, against whom security was ordered. JADESave Wallum Incorporated v Bayside Brunswick Pty Ltd [2026] NSWLEC 121 - framework (synopsis): the two-limb interlocutory injunction test (ABC v O'Neill; Beecham v Bristol Laboratories) in an environmental restraint context; civil enforcement proceedings under s 13.14 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) and the s 2.4(1) offence with the 'damage habitat' and 'threatened species' definitions in s 1.6; the planning approval defence in s 2.8(1)(a)(i) against development consents under the EP&A Act; how reinstatement undertakings and cross-undertakings as to damages mitigate the balance of convenience and defeat the 'nugatory appeal' argument; the effect of concurrent Federal Court proceedings (Save Wallum v Clarence Property Corporation (No 5) and (No 6)) on a fresh application in a separate jurisdiction. JADERegistry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Wright v Trustees of the Patrician Brothers [2026] NSWSC 1142 - list only (interlocutory application). JADEHughes-Mason v SES Village Pty Limited t/as SES Village Pty Limited & Ors [2026] NSWSC 1140 - list only (interlocutory applications). JADEMallia v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1623 - list only (interlocutory application). JADEPertsinidis v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2026] NSWLEC 1624 - list only (development consent). JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    New South Wales (21 September 2026)

  8. 8h ago

    Queensland (18 to 20 September 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Three decisions in the Queensland weekend edition of 18 to 20 September 2026, two of them headnoted. The Supreme Court sets aside the Parole Board's refusal of exceptional circumstances parole to a prisoner with terminal kidney disease: weight is for the Board, interrogating the adequacy of custodial care is what the guidelines require, and comparison with other prisoners is not irrelevant, but reduced life expectancy from a terminal illness not apparent at sentence is an obvious relevant consideration that must be actively considered, and the Board's reasons never mentioned it. The Court of Appeal refuses leave in a personal injury damages appeal where surveillance footage tendered mid trial was never put by the plaintiff to her own expert: the rule in Browne v Dunn does not shift the onus. One Attorney-General application is listed without a headnote. Bullock v Wraight also appears in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend. Public Law Desk (lead). Vakameilalo v Parole Board Queensland [2026] QSC 223 - judicial review of a Parole Board Queensland refusal of exceptional circumstances parole under the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 17; Ministerial Guidelines to the Parole Board Queensland cl 5.7): the weight given to the burden of dialysis and diet was for the Board and its conclusion was not unreasonable, particularly with no material on how management would differ on parole [50]-[63]; where the applicant contends custody is not adequately addressing his condition, interrogating the adequacy of care is precisely what cl 5.7 mandates, and acting on the clinicians' opinions was reasonable [64]-[67]; comparison with other prisoners with health conditions was not an irrelevant consideration given the Board's broad discretion [69]-[70]; but reduced life expectancy from a terminal illness not apparent at sentence is an obvious relevant consideration that must be actively considered, not merely acknowledged (the explanatory notes give a terminal illness with short life expectancy as an example of exceptional circumstances), it was raised in the submissions and addressed in the medical material, and the Board's reasons made no reference to it [71]-[84]; application granted, the decision of 18 March 2026 set aside, costs and further orders to be heard. Leggett v Queensland Parole Board considered; Dranichnikov referred to. The applicant's condition is described only as far as the doctrine requires. JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Bullock v Wraight [2026] QCA 176 - application for leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) from a District Court personal injury judgment ($34,858.27 on a claim exceeding $510,000) dismissed with costs, Bond JA (Mullins P and Boddice JA agreeing): leave for a judgment below the Magistrates Courts limit requires a clearly articulated substantial basis for contending error [64]-[65], [107]; the rule in Browne v Dunn does not oblige the opposing party to put surveillance footage to the plaintiff's own expert, the party bearing the onus must prove the facts underlying its expert's opinion, and the respondents could instead cross-examine the plaintiff and invite adverse credit findings [70]-[74]; no unfairness in the absence of cross-examination on resolution of the injuries where the pleaded defence asserted full recovery and the footage was deployed on it [75]-[79]; reliance on unexplored toll records was de minimis [80]; credit-based findings stand unless glaringly improbable, contrary to compelling inferences or inconsistent with incontrovertible facts [67], [82]-[88]; expert opinions (a forensic accountant, an occupational therapist) resting on rejected self-reporting may be given little weight [90]-[96]; pre-accident commercial assistance is no bar to an award, the question being causation [94]-[95]; general damages under the Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) are reviewable only on the House v The King standard, and the shoulder (item 98) was properly the dominant injury over the cervical spine (item 89) [68], [97]-[106]. Also in the Court of Appeal brief of the same weekend. JADERegistry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Crutch [2026] QSC 222 - list only (listed by the edition under Criminal Law, Sentence Appeal; Treston J). JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Queensland (18 to 20 September 2026)
See All (206)

About

The Petal Daily Brief — the day in Australian law, on your perambulations. Each weekday morning the Host and our desk correspondents (Criminal, Commercial, Public Law, Practice & Procedure, Tax & Revenue, Tribunals and the Trans-Tasman Desk) bring you the decisions that matter from Australia's and New Zealand's courts and tribunals, selected for what they say about legal principle. Produced from The Petal, the curated daily editions of BarNet OpenLaw's Jade Ledger — read the judgments at ledger.jade.io. Reviewed under OpenLaw's content and podcasting standard; the voices in this program are AI-generated. Theme music by Michael Green SC. Nothing in this program is legal advice.

Information

  • Creator
    BarNet OpenLaw
  • Years Active
    2026
  • Episodes
    206
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 The Petal from JADE OpenLaw
  • Show Website
    The Petal from JADE OpenLaw

You Might Also Like