The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

BarNet OpenLaw (JADE)
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Government

The Petal is the daily Australian law podcast for lawyers, barristers, law students and anyone who follows the courts. Each weekday it covers the new judgments that matter from the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court and Full Federal Court, the state and territory Courts of Appeal and Supreme Courts (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory), Australian tribunals such as VCAT, QCAT, WASAT and the Fair Work Commission, and the courts of New Zealand. The day in Australian law, on your perambulations. The Host and our desk correspondents (Criminal Law, Commercial Law, Public Law, Practice and Procedure, Tax, Family Law, Tribunals and the Trans-Tasman Desk) explain what each case decides and why it matters to practice, in about ten minutes. Alongside the daily briefs: The Fortnight in Practice, The Petal: In Practice, Deep Dives on High Court decisions, and state editions. Produced by BarNet OpenLaw, the creators of JADE, from The Petal, the curated daily editions of the Jade Ledger. Read the judgments at jade.io and ledger.jade.io. Every episode and every case discussed: Episode Guide and Case Index. 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. 14h ago

    Australian Courts of Appeal (3 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Seven headnoted appellate decisions from the Courts of Appeal of Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia and the ACT and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in the edition of Tuesday 3 November 2026, with the Federal Courts, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. A disablement policy's work test that was really a time limit; good reason for a medical referral, notice and a textbook nobody saw; a power of attorney, attribution and remedies against family transfers; a golf course scheme of development and a car park order; a patent read integer by integer; grounds of appeal, stays and missed deadlines. A civil claim alleging abuse is reported as legal doctrine only. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). AIA Australia Limited v Kelly-Stevens [2026] QCA 220 - s 54(1) Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) applies by substance, not form, and is not confined to increase-of-risk terms; a group life policy's requirement to have worked 15 hours a week for three months before disablement is a temporal qualification collateral to the policy's essential character, not a restriction inherent in the claim; the omission did not contribute to the loss and enlarged liability is not prejudice. Appeal dismissed (Brown and Bradley JJA, Freeburn J; also Queensland edition). JADELeung v On Sky Enterprise (HK) Limited; Leung v On Sky Enterprise (HK) Limited [2026] NSWCA 233 - an attorney under a s 163B Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) power expressly authorising self-benefit has fiduciary duties that accommodate it (no breach, by majority); fraud on a power is not necessarily a fiduciary breach and yields no account of profits; ordinary agency attribution governs the s 37A intent to defraud; relief is avoidance with interest, tracing and a charge, not a constructive trust over the whole or an account of profits; intent need not be the sole purpose. 2020 appeal dismissed; 2019 appeal allowed in part (Ward P, Payne and Ball JJA; also NSW edition). JADEPublic Law Desk. LUKE v Department of Primary Industries and Regions [2026] SASCA 133 - referral of a whole person impairment reassessment to an independent medical adviser under s 121 Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) needs good reason, not a finding of error; no adverse finding without notice unless the risk inheres in the issues; a specialist tribunal may use only its own disclosed corpus of knowledge, so an anatomy text not in evidence fell outside judicial notice; relief requires practical injustice and may be tailored. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; remitted to the trial judge (Livesey P, S Doyle and Stanley JJA). JADEACT v Higgins [2026] ACTCA 38 - a scheme of development needs a shared intention to create mutually enforceable obligations as a local law; a community of interest does not of itself create them; the ACT leasehold and planning context made a private covenant scheme over golf course land very unlikely. Appeals allowed, cross-appeal dismissed (McCallum CJ, Mossop and Baker JJ; also ACT edition). JADENG Landholdings No 15 Pty Ltd v The Owners – Units Plan No 14971 [2026] ACTSC 421 - the presumption of regularity is not an aid to construing an admitted development approval; unapproved signage is development amenable to a controlled activity order. Appeal allowed in part (Muller J; ACT edition). JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Tama Australia Pty Ltd v Parterra Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1643 - claim construction gave each surface of the cover a fixed identity, so a folded cover lacked an essential integer; no secondary liability without primary infringement; ordinary use does not decide a product claim's features; the revoking party bears the onus on inventive step and utility; unopposed s 105 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) amendment allowed. Application and cross-claim dismissed (Owens J; Federal Courts edition). JADEWSS v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2026] QCA 224 - grounds of appeal must briefly and specifically identify the error (r 747(1)(b) UCPR (Qld)), equally for self-represented litigants; leave needs a reasonably arguable case of error. Extension of time refused (Bond and Boddice JJA, Freeburn J; also Queensland edition). JADEReynolds v National Australia Bank Limited [2026] WASCA 154 - a stay pending appeal turns on nugatory appeal, reasonable prospects and the balance of convenience; an appeal against orders enforcing an accepted possession judgment has no reasonable prospect. Stay refused; the appeal is pending (Vaughan JA, Beech AJA; also WA edition). JADEWatson v Albury City Council (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1371 - dismissal against one defendant under s 61(3)(a) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for repeated failure to serve an evidentiary statement; a reasonable opportunity is not repeated opportunities; a gross sum costs order under s 98(4)(c) needs evidence of costs incurred (Sirtes J; NSW edition, synopsis only; reported as legal doctrine only). JADEAlso on the docket. Re Application by Octavian Brinzei [2026] NSWCCA 178 - review of a Registrar's refusal to extend time for a notice of intention to appeal against conviction dismissed; bare assertions are not arguable grounds and known information is not fresh evidence (Yehia J; also NSW edition). JADERegistry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). W T H Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2026] FCA 1650 - award interpretation. JADETransport for NSW v Vella [2026] NSWSC 1372 - interlocutory orders. JADEHika Tarawa Te-Kowhai v Registrar, Aboriginal Land Rights Act [2026] NSWSC 1374 - leave to appeal. JADEDenny v Zimerman (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1368 - costs. JADEMHN Design Union Pty Limited v Mosman Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 141 - appeal grounds. JADEEACT Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1727 - development consent appeal. JADEAfaghi v North Sydney Council [2026] NSWLEC 1736 - development consent. JADE400 Peel Pty Ltd v Tamworth Regional Council [2026] NSWLEC 1730 - development consent appeal. JADESiberia Mining Corporation Pty Ltd v Gardner [2026] WASC 480 - contract construction. JADERe 4Lifeskills Inc. (Administrators Appointed) [2026] WASC 478 - external administration. JADEThreadgold Architecture Pty Ltd v Staunton Developments Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] WASC 477 - interlocutory orders. JADERe Gh1 Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2026] WASC 482 - interlocutory orders. JADEThe State of Western Australia v Urquhart [2026] WASC 472 - high risk offenders. JADETerritory Planning Authority v Gungahlin Golf Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 420 - administrative appeals. JADESome matters are still to be decided: LUKE is remitted, the Reynolds appeal is pending and the Watson claim can continue against another defendant; 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.

  2. 14h ago

    Australian Tribunals (3 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail A quiet day at the Trade Marks Office and two state tribunals: six decisions in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 3 November 2026, one with a headnote and one worked example. A restaurant owner who held the trade mark in her own name while her company traded, and lost it for non use; and a trap in health practitioner discipline, where interim conditions lapse once the complaint is decided. Tribunals Desk: a trade mark, a restaurant and its company (lead). Liyuan You v Jonathon Rossi [2026] ATMO 217 - removal for non use (s 92(4)(b)): real commercial use need not be continuous or substantial, but goods and services are proved separately; use by the owner's company is not the owner's use unless control under s 8 is proved, a question of fact and degree not assumed from mere association; obstacles to use need evidence (s 100(3)(c)); the owner must positively satisfy the Registrar that retention is reasonable (s 101(3)). Opposition rejected; removal directed; costs against the owner. JADETribunals Desk: interim conditions, costs and reprimands (worked example from a synopsis; legal framework only; no orders stated on air). Health Care Complaints Commission v Nulty [2026] NSWCATOD 142 - synopsis: interim conditions imposed by a Council under s 150 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) lapse under s 150H(2)(a) when the complaint is disposed of, so fresh orders under s 149A(1)(b) are needed if they are to continue; Sch 5D cl 13 displaces the NCAT Act s 60 special circumstances rule, and costs generally follow the event absent disentitling conduct by the HCCC; withdrawal of particulars before hearing is not, without more, disentitling; the purposes of a reprimand. JADERegistry and the thread (listed without reasons; by subject only; no outcome stated): Stanhope SC Pty Ltd atf Stanhope SC Investment Trust v Sharetea Leasing Pty Ltd [No 3] [2026] NSWCATAP 343 (costs); Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 342 (appeal grounds); Jones v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 336 (administrative review); Butler v JH & MH Pty Ltd and ors [2026] QCAT 503 (race discrimination). Case notes Liyuan You v Jonathon Rossi [2026] ATMO 217 - Tracey Berger, Hearing Officer (Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks), 26 October 2026. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 7(3), 8, 92(4)(b), 100(1), 100(3)(c), 101(3), 221; Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) Sch 8. Held: the dated photograph and third-party records, taken cumulatively, showed a restaurant trading under the mark in the relevant period, but not which class 30 goods were offered; the contemporaneous documents identified the owner's company as proprietor and operator; the owner's role, including as nominated food safety supervisor, was not explained in terms of the authority or supervision she exercised, so control was not proved and the s 100 onus was not discharged; the discretion was not exercised (limited evidence of scale, duration and reputation, no subsequent use, an intention to resume unsupported beyond ABN and business-name re-registrations). Why aired: an owner who trades through her own company must prove control; association is not enough. Health Care Complaints Commission v Nulty [2026] NSWCATOD 142 - K Robinson, Principal Member; P Sinclair and J Zwart, Senior Members; B Seth, General Member; 3 November 2026. Signal: Illustrative. Per the synopsis, the findings were made on admissions; it also addresses when a reprimand with time-limited conditions suffices despite a professional misconduct finding. Why aired: a procedural trap (interim conditions do not survive disposal) and a consolidated HCCC costs framework. The health practitioner discipline matter is reported by its legal framework and the registry matters by subject only; no one is identified. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

  3. 14h ago

    New Zealand Edition (3 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for Tuesday 3 November 2026 carries 10 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court and the High Court. Seven are aired at depth and three in the registry. The thread is that what goes on the table stays there: an admission that cannot be unmade while the advice behind it stays privileged, costs a non-party can claim if it shows its working, a loan that buys no seat without security, and a confession that should have been recorded when it counted. Practice and Procedure Desk (lead). Financial Markets Authority (Formerly Commerce Commission) v Second Chance Finance Limited [2026] NZHC 3321 - leave to withdraw an admission under r 15.16(2) of the High Court Rules 2016 is a discretion exercised in the interests of justice and needs a reasoned case, not a change of mind (Bridgecorp applied); where withdrawal rests on allegedly inadequate legal advice, the Court will not accept the applicant's untested account while privilege over that advice is withheld; prejudice to the regulator and borrowers, time-barred abandoned claims and delay weighed against leave, and granting it would undermine regulators' willingness to settle. Application declined; the penalty hearing is to come (Wilkinson-Smith J, 23 October 2026). JADELun v Kong [2026] NZHC 3294 - a non-party is entitled to its actual reasonable costs, usually in full, of both the application and compliance (rr 8.21, 8.22(3)); an unopposed application still requires reasonable attendances; global invoices without a narrative of steps, hours and disbursements cannot be assessed, so an interim payment, security in a solicitor's trust account on undertakings and a single final determination were ordered (Associate Judge Wild, 21 October 2026). JADECommercial Law Desk. Scott v Bourke [2026] NZHC 3179 - joinder under r 4.56(1)(b) is a two-stage inquiry needing at least a tenable claim to rights directly affected by the orders; a mere creditor's interest is not enough; orders under ss 339 and 343 of the Property Law Act 2007 cannot direct payment to an unsecured creditor; trustees of a bare trust cannot prefer one beneficiary over another. Joinder declined (Associate Judge Wroe, 15 October 2026). JADEAE Logistics Ltd v Sylvia Park Business Centre Ltd [2026] NZHC 3257 - where a lease validly excludes the covenants implied by sch 3 of the Property Law Act 2007 (s 279), there is no arguable sch 3 abatement claim; transitory interference does not make premises untenantable; a counterclaim needs evidence of duty, breach and loss; a no set-off clause answered set-off against rent. Application to set aside the statutory demand (s 290(4) Companies Act 1993) dismissed (Associate Judge Wroe, 21 October 2026). JADECriminal Law Desk. R v Tukaokao [2026] NZHC 2740 - police may question a person advised to stay silent if the person knows their rights and there is no bad faith, oppression or overbearing conduct; cognitive impairment does not make questioning unfair where rights are understood and real choices made; the right to a lawyer is waived where an offered call is knowingly declined; isolated appeals to conscience are not improper; an unrecorded admission in breach of r 5 of the Practice Note on police questioning was improperly obtained, but exclusion was disproportionate under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006. Statements held admissible (MacGillivray J, 9 September 2026). JADEB (SC 77/2026) v The King [2026] NZSC 168 - reported as legal doctrine only. Where evidence of a complainant's behaviour is given, the judge should consider directing the jury on its proper use, and it will generally be important to warn against jumping from behavioural change to the conclusion that the offending occurred; the general directions given were sufficient, a further direction may have been counterproductive, and no miscarriage arose. Leave dismissed (Ellen France, Cooke and Campbell JJ, 3 November 2026). JADEChief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Hawkins [2026] NZHC 2842 - reported as legal doctrine only. On an unopposed extended supervision order application the Court must still be satisfied that the criteria in ss 107I and 107IAA of the Parole Act 2002 are met, consent going only to discretion; a proclivity need not be manifest at all times; actuarial tools may form part of the risk assessment. Two-year order made (MacGillivray J, 16 September 2026). JADERegistry. Body Corporate 355711 v Wymount Property Services Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] NZHC 3170 - liquidators' remuneration must be fair and reasonable for the value delivered, whatever the prior disclosure; a rate above that approved on appointment was not approved retrospectively (Associate Judge Malarao). JADEMoore v Police [2026] NZHC 3214 - the least restrictive outcome principle does not compel home detention; sentencing reasons are read as a whole; appeal dismissed (Crook J). JADEDavey v Cardinali [2026] NZHC 3213 - final judgments are not to be subverted by collateral challenge once appeal rights are exhausted; stay applications struck out (Andrew J). JADEB and Hawkins arise from sexual offending and are reported as legal doctrine only, with no one identified. The penalty in Second Chance Finance, the sale and relationship property proceedings in Scott, and the proceeding in Lun continue; Tukaokao is reported as a ruling on evidence. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome. No decision in the edition was rejected. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

  4. 1d ago

    Australian Courts of Appeal (2 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Five headnoted appellate decisions from the Full Federal Court and the appeal division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court in the edition of Monday 2 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. A director's misleading answer that never moved the share price; accessorial liability and disclosing a counterparty's reasons; ASX answers, drafting help and advice; unacceptable risk on a parenting appeal; orders outside the parties' cases; errors that do and do not change the result; and a pleadings checklist from Victoria's Commercial Court. Children's matters, and a parenting appeal touching on allegations about a child's safety, are reported as legal doctrine only. Commercial Law Desk (opening story) and Practice and Procedure Desk. Southern Cross Payments Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2026] FCAFC 140 - proof of a material share price movement is not an element of a contravention of s 180(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); a representation confirming and perpetuating an existing market misunderstanding suffices, absence of price movement going to seriousness; involvement in a continuous disclosure omission (ss 674(2A), 79) requires actual knowledge of the information, its non-availability and the facts establishing materiality; disclosing a risk of termination is not disclosing that it has materialised, and a counterparty's stated reasons are material whether or not true; under s 1309(2) and (4) an answer omitting a subject the ASX expressly asked about is misleading by omission, and consulting a solicitor who relies on the director for the facts is not reasonable steps; drafting help is not advice on adequacy; relief under ss 1317S(2) and 1318(1) poses three successive questions; an overexpansive s 1317E declaration replaced on appeal, the failure to seek correction below relevant to costs. Appeal allowed only to replace Declaration 6, otherwise dismissed (Stewart, Cheeseman and Neskovcin JJ; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADEFNH United Pty Ltd v United Petroleum Franchise Pty Ltd (Pleadings) [2026] VSC 711 - the amendment test is whether the pleading would be liable to be struck out; particulars may be deferred until after discovery only on a proper basis with the best particulars available; a term implied by law into a class of contract needs its supporting features pleaded, especially when extending franchise good faith authorities to commission agency agreements; corporate knowledge from internal systems scrutinised; leave refused in the current form, leave to replead (Nichols J; Victoria edition, synopsis only). JADEFamily Law Desk (legal doctrine only; no party identified). Boleno & Newcombe [2026] FedCFamC1A 191 - an unacceptable risk finding is evaluative and reviewed for correctness, while final parenting orders need House v The King error; risk assessment weighs magnitude and likelihood by reference to past conduct, insight and capacity for change; an inference from a psychologist's notes was open; no complaint on appeal about an order not sought; a fixed transition to unsupervised time may rest on expert evidence; s 65DAAA. Appeal dismissed (Altobelli, Christie and Parker JJ; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADERangel & Bird (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 193 - procedural fairness ordinarily requires an opportunity to address orders materially outside the range sought or reasonably anticipated; no denial where an adverse finding is an obvious and natural inference from the issues joined; a procedural ground cannot attack whether a finding was open. Appeal allowed; discretion re-exercised under s 36(1) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (Campton J; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADEKellen & Ida [2026] FedCFamC1A 195 - an error of fact warrants intervention only if it affected the result; an inference of limited earning capacity is not judicial notice under s 144 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth); a post-judgment change of circumstances discloses no appellable error. Appeal dismissed (Riethmuller J; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADEFlores & Flores [2026] FedCFamC1A 196 - inadequate reasons for a percentage division and no or plainly wrong weight to health issues under s 79(5) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are appellable error; finality favours re-exercise on appeal, but not where the evidence cannot support it. Appeal allowed by consent; remitted for rehearing before a different judge (Harper J; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADERegistry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). State of New South Wales v Wheatley (Variation) [2026] NSWSC 1364 - statutory interpretation. JADEMoscardo v Secretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 137 - interlocutory applications. JADEMoscardo v Secretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water [2026] NSWLEC 136 - interlocutory orders. JADEBorg v Penrith City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1728 - development consent appeal. JADESecretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water v Dalton [2026] NSWLEC 138 - sentencing. JADEHarkin v Vapold Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] VSC 709 - discovery. JADEGiurina v Deak [2026] VSC 708 - interlocutory orders. JADERe Western Peeled Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [No 2] [2026] WASC 476 - liquidation. JADEThe State of Western Australia v Cox (Aka Roe) [2026] WASC 475 - high risk offenders. JADECampion v Mainray Nominees Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] WASC 471 - pleadings. JADEKane (a pseudonym) v Calbert [2026] ACTSC 415 - sentence appeal. JADEDPP v Evans [2026] ACTSC 417 - sentencing. JADEUponi v Aksenov [2026] ACTSC 365 - bail. JADEAll five appellate decisions also feature in today's Federal Courts brief, from the editions of Monday 2 November 2026. 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.

  5. 1d ago

    Australian Federal Courts (2 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Twelve decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Monday 2 November 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, seven from the Federal Court and four from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) appellate jurisdiction, six with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: discharge from bankruptcy releases the bankrupt but does not end the administration while proofs of debt remain to be adjudicated, so vested property (including an unregistered interest in land) stays with the trustee. Then a unanimous Full Court on answering ASX queries and disclosing a counterparty's reasons, worked examples on discrimination leave, a student visa, self-executing orders and adjournments pending special leave, and one pass over four family appeals. The Full Court decision and the four family appeals also feature in today's Court of Appeal brief. This episode includes a parenting appeal touching allegations of child sexual abuse, reported as legal doctrine only. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Thompson v Lane (No 4) [2026] FCA 1599 (Collier ACJ, 30 October 2026) - JL p. 11. Discharge releases the bankrupt personally but does not end the bankruptcy; the definition of "end of an administration" in s 5-5 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) applies only for the purposes of that schedule; ss 152 and 129AA of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) presuppose continuation; unadjudicated proofs of debt and a s 102 dividend are a continuing purpose; vested property does not revest on discharge. An equitable interest under an executed but unregistered transfer vested in the trustee under ss 58 and 132, so the trustee could be registered after discharge. A discharged bankrupt whose estate is under administration has standing under IPS s 90-20 to seek removal, but on broad misconduct allegations must first show substantial grounds; a breakdown caused by the bankrupt's non-cooperation is no ground; removal refused. The s 30(1)(b) possession power is not confined by discharge. Declarations; possession and liberty to sell; the bankrupt's proceedings dismissed. JADEPublic Law Desk (the Full Court, and two worked examples). Southern Cross Payments Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2026] FCAFC 140 (Stewart, Cheeseman and Neskovcin JJ, 2 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 15. Unanimous. Under s 1309(2) and (4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) an ASX query and its answer are read together, and an answer omitting a subject the ASX expressly raised is misleading by omission; consulting a solicitor who relied on the officer for the facts was not reasonable steps. Disclosing a risk of termination is not disclosing that it has materialised (s 674(2)); a counterparty's stated reasons are material whether or not true, and may be attributed with the company's disagreement. A material share price movement is not an element of s 180(1). A s 1317E declaration must state the conduct precisely and not enlarge the findings; Declaration 6 was replaced under s 28(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); appeal otherwise dismissed with costs. JADETutoveanu v State of New South Wales [2026] FCA 1624 (Markovic J, 2 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Leave under s 46PO(3A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth): the James v WorkPower checklist; a reasonably arguable case is a threshold, onus on the applicant; direct discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth); when police investigation and report writing is a "service"; claims must arise from the same acts as the terminated complaint. No outcome stated in the synopsis. JADEKaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1644 (Rofe J, 30 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Sections 359A and 359AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) are not engaged by the Tribunal identifying gaps in the applicant's own documents; a letter of offer alone may not prove enrolment; legal unreasonableness is not disagreement with fact-finding; applies the AAT provisions as at 2018. No outcome stated in the synopsis. JADEFamily Law Desk (one pass; at depth in the Court of Appeal brief). Boleno & Newcombe [2026] FedCFamC1A 191 (Altobelli, Christie and Parker JJ, 30 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative; JL p. 28. An unacceptable risk finding is evaluative (correctness); final parenting orders are discretionary (House v The King); a fixed transition to unsupervised time may be tied to a known future event where the evidence supports it. Appeal dismissed. Reported as legal doctrine only. JADERangel & Bird (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 193 (Campton J, 29 October 2026) - JL p. 24. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity to address orders materially outside the range sought or reasonably anticipated; appeal allowed, discretion re-exercised. JADEKellen & Ida [2026] FedCFamC1A 195 (Riethmuller J, 30 October 2026) - JL p. 22. An error of fact warrants intervention only if it affected the result; a post-judgment change of circumstances discloses no appellable error. Appeal dismissed. JADEFlores & Flores [2026] FedCFamC1A 196 (Harper J, 28 October 2026) - JL p. 27. An unexplained percentage division under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is appellable error; allowed by consent and remitted for rehearing before a different judge. The matter continues; nothing is predicted. JADEPractice and Procedure Desk (two worked examples). United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Bomma (No 3) [2026] FCA 1640 (Wheelahan J, 30 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Extension of time under r 1.39 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), read with s 37M, after non-compliance with a self-executing order: explain delay, sometimes by the client's own evidence; relief is remedial but finality counts; futility of a proposed amendment assessed impressionistically. No outcome stated in the synopsis. JADEZNKS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1645 (Bennett J, 19 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. The five-factor Hood test for adjourning an appeal pending a High Court special leave application; a respondent's concession that adjournment would follow a grant supports adjourning beforehand. No outcome stated in the synopsis; the special leave application is pending, nothing is predicted. JADERegistry (list only, no outcome stated). Lehrmann v Commonwealth Special Minister of State [2026] FCA 1637 (Markovic J, 2 November 2026) - subpoenas. JADEChen v Strata Plan 94402 (No 2) [2026] FCA 1636 (Kennett J, 30 October 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

  6. 1d ago

    Australian Tribunals (2 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail The Patent Office, the Trade Marks Office and three state tribunals, twenty two decisions, in the Tribunals edition of Monday 2 November 2026, four with headnotes. What the hearing rule does and doesn't require when a tribunal weighs hardship evidence in a social housing termination; a facial recognition entry system that is a manner of manufacture but not inventive; a logo that changed shape and lost its registration; an extension for the right error; and frameworks on unlicensed builders, building contract damages, a private buyer's claim against a manufacturer, residential park filing gates, costs on a withdrawn appeal and view sharing. Tribunals Desk: social housing and the hearing rule (lead). Postchild v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 338 - the Kioa v West hearing rule has no application where an issue is squarely contested; under SZBEL an adverse conclusion need be disclosed only where not obviously open, and provisional views on weight need not be exposed; an unchallenged witness need not be believed; reasons read fairly and as a whole (will and likely); s 154D(3)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) is evaluative, with no mandatory relevant considerations. Appeal dismissed; possession order suspended three months by agreement. JADETribunals Desk: a facial recognition patent (headnote). Todd Martin [2026] APO 32 - an AI classifier that alters the system's computational operation and solves a technical problem makes conventional hardware a manner of manufacture (s 18(1)(a) Patents Act 1990 (Cth)); post-filing evidence cannot supply what the specification lacks; AI augmentation of facial recognition was common general knowledge, so no inventive step (s 7(2)). Three months to amend, failing which revocation. JADETribunals Desk: trade marks, non use and a late filing (headnotes). Opposition by Trilogy Funds Management Limited to application under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 220 - a ring device embedded in the owner's name substantially affects identity (s 7(1) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)); no exhibit dated in the relevant period; s 101(3) discretion not exercised. Marks removed; costs against the owner. JADEApplication by JSCAN PTY LTD for an extension of time to file a Statement of Grounds and Particulars to oppose trade mark application number 2601666 (class 38) – Rollerz – in the name of Belinda Schwerdt [2026] ATMO 221 - the error or omission must precede and cause the failure to file; an error of judgment can qualify; declarations must address the right error (regs 5.9(4)(a), 5.10 Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth)). One-month extension granted; the opposition proceeds. JADETribunals Desk: unlicensed builders and building contracts (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). McDonald v Allemande Pty Ltd t/as Cosmopolitan Shutters and Blinds [2026] QCAT 506 - synopsis: s 42 QBCC Act 1991 (Qld) unlicensed contractor principles; a non-compliant level 1 regulated contract has no effect (sch 1B s 13). JADEEnglish v Vaquero [2026] QCAT 505 - synopsis: the sterilising effect of s 42(3), the s 42(4) exception, onus on the unlicensed builder, the homeowner's right to recover; Bellgrove v Eldridge rectification. JADEVision Group (Qld) Pty Ltd v Bayley & Anor [2026] QCAT 504 - synopsis: BP Refinery implied terms where a contract is silent on a finish; pre-litigation legal costs as damages, invoice by invoice; physical inconvenience versus disappointment (Baltic Shipping). JADETribunals Desk: a used car and a residential park (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). Ateco Automotive Pty Ltd t/as LDV Automotive v Wallace [2026] QCATA 155 - synopsis: a private-sale buyer may be an affected person able to sue the manufacturer under s 271 ACL, following Williams v Toyota [2024] HCA 38; Mackness distinguished; leave checklist. JADEPilling & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QCAT 511 - synopsis: the ss 107, 108 and 114 Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) steps are jurisdictional gates, not waivable or curable; s 47 QCAT Act dismissal of claims against non-existent eviction notices. JADETribunals Desk: costs on a withdrawn appeal and a coastal view (frameworks from synopses). KYS Investments Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 73081 [2026] NSWCATAP 341 - synopsis: costs without a merits hearing, unreasonable conduct or capitulation on clear evidence; capitulation measured over the appeal; the early withdrawal was not capitulation. JADEManifold v Corangamite SC [2026] VCAT 922 - synopsis: no general right to a private view; bushfire measures and vegetation outside the applicant's control; practical permit conditions. No outcome stated. JADERegistry and the thread (by subject; no outcome stated): Chief Executive, Office of Fair Trading, Department of Justice v Park View Lodge (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] QCAT 512 (claim fund reimbursement); Chief Executive, Department of Justice v Storry & Anor [2026] QCAT 513 (real estate agent discipline); LCP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2026] QCAT 507 (administrative review); James v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCAT 510 (strike out); CATMAX Clear Net Enclosure v Mackie [2026] QCATA 156 (appeal grounds); Drury v Harris [2026] QCATA 157 (leave to appeal); Richardson v Letitia [2026] NSWCATAP 337 (tenancy appeal); YZO v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 339 (appeal grounds); JBD v Castle Hill RSL Club Ltd [2026] NSWCATAD 335 (disability discrimination); Jacob Properties Pty Ltd v Alpine SC [2026] VCAT 913 (administrative review); Soon v Minister for Planning [2026] VCAT 923 (review of a rejected application). Case notes Postchild v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 338 - G Blake AM SC, Principal Member, and K Merrick, Senior Member, 2 November 2026. Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ss 91(1)(b), 154D(1)(c), 154D(3)(b); Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 80(2)(b), 81(1)(a). Held also: further evidence admitted only on the suspension period; a natural justice ground is decided first. Why aired: what the hearing rule requires when evidence is weighed, and the evaluative-versus-mandatory-considerations line, in the highest-volume tribunal setting. Todd Martin [2026] APO 32 - Mr Kevin Restrick (delegate of the Commissioner of Patents), 30 October 2026. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2), 7(3), 18(1)(a), 97(2), 101. Held also: disclosure deficiencies are s 40 matters, not part of characterisation; dependent claims (automated payment, neural network, autodeletion) not inventive; obiter doubts on sufficiency and support. Why aired: where the post-Aristocrat line runs for AI-augmented systems. Pending: amendment window; nothing predicted. Opposition by Trilogy Funds Management Limited to application under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 220 - Benjamin Goldsworthy (delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks), 29 October 2026. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 7(1), 92(4)(b), 100(1)(c), 100(3), 101(3), 221. Why aired: a refreshed logo can cost the registration, and undated evidence will not hold a mark. Application by JSCAN PTY LTD ... [2026] ATMO 221 - Nicole Worth, Hearing Officer (delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks), 30 October 2026. Why aired: the antecedent-and-causal test for extensions, with a practical warning on declarations. Pending: the opposition proceeds; nothing predicted. A social housing appeal is reported for its legal principles; the discipline, administrative, appeal and discrimination matters on the registry by subject only; no one is identified. The patent may still be amended and the trade mark opposition proceeds; nothing here predicts either outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

  7. 1d ago

    New Zealand Edition (2 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for Monday 2 November 2026 carries 26 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. Ten are aired at depth and sixteen in the registry. The thread is telling the real thing from its look alike: injury made worse against symptoms made worse, a common interest against a common blackout, consents that run with the land, and an admission that counts even after the verdict. Practice and Procedure Desk (lead). Prasad v Accident Compensation Corporation [2026] NZHC 3164 - aggravation that makes the underlying injury materially worse, not merely its symptoms, may satisfy the contributes-to-the-cause limb of s 30(2)(b)(i) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; under s 30(2A) the Corporation bears the burden of showing the risk was not significantly greater, and an absence of literature is relevant but not determinative; an expert's view on the legal standard was beyond his expertise. Appeal allowed; remitted to the District Court (Andrew J, 14 October 2026). JADESkibo Limited v Transpower New Zealand Limited [2026] NZHC 3275 - the r 4.24 same interest test is a low threshold, but where liability depends on a novel duty of care whose elements may vary with each member's loss and circumstances, the duty cannot be assumed common to the class; opt out, common fund and notification orders declined; the plaintiffs may recast (Heine J, 21 October 2026). JADECantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NZHC 3218 - no blanket direction on whether a party's Australian instructing solicitors may inspect confidential documents disclosed in New Zealand; the risk of subconscious use in parallel proceedings is not fanciful and undertakings are not a complete answer; decided document by document or category by category, with leave reserved (Fitzgerald J, 19 October 2026). JADECommercial Law Desk. Cochrane v Auckland Council [2026] NZHC 3043 - a land use or subdivision consent attaches to the land unless it expressly provides otherwise (s 134(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991); the original applicant remains a consent holder able to apply under s 127, but removing the owners' right to enjoy the consents is an adverse effect to be assessed for notification, and allocating economic benefit between private parties is not a proper purpose for a condition. Decisions set aside as to those consents (Arthur J, 5 October 2026). JADETramroad Ltd v Guru NZ Forests Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] NZHC 3324 - leave for a late summary judgment application; a director liable for breaches of ss 135 and 136 of the Companies Act 1993, and, following Yan v Mainzeal, a creditor may claim compensation from the director directly under s 301(1)(c) (Associate Judge Taylor, 27 October 2026). JADECriminal Law Desk. Et (SC55/2026) v The King [2026] NZSC 163 - reported as legal doctrine only. Whether juvenile conduct may be used as propensity evidence for later adult offending, and whether the disjunctive definition in s 40(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 still requires a relevant propensity to be identified, are arguable but were not decided; the case was not an appropriate vehicle and no miscarriage risk arose. Leave dismissed (Ellen France, Kós and Cooke JJ, 2 November 2026). JADEKavanaugh v The King [2026] NZCA 518 - statements to a pre-sentence alcohol and drug report writer are not privileged and not hearsay (s 27 of the Evidence Act 2006); an unequivocal post-conviction admission made to secure, and securing, a sentence discount means a retrial would abuse the Court's processes, so no miscarriage of justice arises. Appeals dismissed (Johnstone, Dunningham and Becroft JJ, 28 October 2026). JADER v Pongia [2026] NZHC 3363 - the life imprisonment presumption for murder displaced for a young offender on the cusp (s 102(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002); under ss 9H to 9K the plea discount is capped at 10 per cent unless a higher figure is appropriate, and 15 per cent was allowed (Downs J, 29 October 2026). JADERegistry. Meenken v Registrar-General [2026] NZHC 3286 - own-initiative general civil restraint order for four years (Jagose J). JADEWaxman v The Medical Council of New Zealand [2026] NZHC 3309 - impecuniosity is no reason in itself to refuse costs (Jagose J). JADEPiacun v Whitham [2026] NZHC 3212 - an interest and fees clause did not carry indemnity costs (O'Gorman J). JADENagpal v Varma [2026] NZHC 3271 - an avoidable urgent application was an unnecessary step; costs lie where they fall (Wilkinson-Smith J). JADECummins v Body Corporate 172108 [2026] NZCA 515 - when a cross-claim is genuinely triable at bankruptcy adjudication (French P, Jagose and McQueen JJ). JADEQuigley v Onehi [2026] NZHC 3098 - abandonment does not apply to registered freehold; the Registrar may sign for an unadministered estate (MacGillivray J). JADEMau v Glasgow [2026] NZHC 3201 - a time-barred historic mortgage discharged (Andrew J). JADEKatope NZ Ltd v Body Corporate 14605 [2026] NZHC 3176 - administrator appointed (Gordon J). JADEDuncan v Body Corporate 343200 [2026] NZHC 3018 - joint administrators appointed (Heine J). JADEDonald v Hastings District Council [2026] NZHC 2730 - rezoning for private development is not part of the public work (Grice J and WJM Reid). JADEDog Lovers of Monte Cecilia Incorporated v Auckland Council [2026] NZHC 3302 - review of an off-leash decision dismissed (Becroft J). JADEJindal v Auckland Standards Committee 1 [2026] NZSC 164 - no jurisdiction to extend a suspension stay pending a UN communication (Kós, Cooke and Campbell JJ). JADEKinzett v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2026] NZCA 511 - differing inferences are not an appellable error of law (French P and Courtney J). JADEMcClutchie v The King [2026] NZCA 524 - an omitted separate-consideration direction caused no miscarriage (Whata, Dunningham and Becroft JJ). JADEJetti v The King [2026] NZCA 520 - second sentence appeal, leave declined (Johnstone, Dunningham and Becroft JJ). JADEKhan v Police [2026] NZHC 3234 - calculation error and excessive uplift; sentence reduced (Andrew J). JADEEt arises from sexual offending against a child and is reported as legal doctrine only, with no one identified. The accident compensation claim in Prasad returns to the District Court, and Skibo and Cantarella continue; nothing in this episode predicts their outcome. Not aired: Tauru v Unison Networks Limited [2026] NZCA 522 and Duncan v Body Corporate 343200 [2026] NZHC 3131. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

  8. 2d ago

    Australian Courts of Appeal (Friday 30 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Twelve headnoted appellate decisions from six courts in the edition of Friday 30 October 2026, with the Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia editions of the same roll-up folded in. A tax fraud prosecution stayed on terms; directors ordered to compensate a diluted shareholder personally; a split decision on an off-the-plan sunset clause; contributory negligence measured by skill; vexatious proceedings orders; a remitter and a reference date; apprehended bias at the Judicial Commission; and the death cap mushroom appeal. Two child sexual offence appeals are reported as legal doctrine only. Criminal Law Desk (opening story). Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Clarke (a pseudonym) [2026] QCA 219 - questioning under s 353-10 Sch 1 Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) about suspected fraud is within the administration of the tax laws, and a mixed improper purpose is substantial only on a but-for test; misconduct on a related discontinued State charge is relevant by its connections; ten misconduct findings upheld; relief may be moulded short of a permanent stay. Appeal allowed in part: the prosecution is stayed and not to proceed without an order of the District Court, on an application on undertakings within 90 days. The respondent has not been tried and is presumed innocent (Bond, Brown and Bradley JJA; also the Queensland edition). JADEPatterson v The King [2026] VSCA 253 - the double might test for jury separation where only a risk is relied on, facts found first; seeing is not communicating; a calculated forensic choice binds; the 30-year minimum under s 11A(4) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) is a floor; harsh conditions do not compel a non-parole period. Conviction appeal dismissed; Director's appeal allowed, the 33-year non-parole period set aside and no non-parole period fixed (McLeish, Taylor and Kidd JJA; also the Victoria edition). JADER v NAL [2026] QCA 218 - an attempt to suborn a witness is an implied admission capable of showing consciousness of guilt; mere denials cannot found that inference; the repeated Liberato direction neutralised the prosecutor's error. Appeal dismissed (Mullins P, Callaghan and Sullivan JJ; also the Queensland edition). Legal doctrine only. JADEDunn (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] SASCA 130 - after a judge-alone trial, the must-not-might test; reasons are inadequate only if they fail to explain a conclusion on a significant dispute that is a necessary step to the verdict; improbability reasoning not deployed. Permission granted on two grounds; appeal dismissed (Bleby, David and Stanley JJA). Legal doctrine only. JADECommercial Law Desk. Aulich v Scott [2026] FCAFC 139 - under s 232(e) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) unfairness is objective, but an improper purpose lets it be found more readily; a constitutional power to allot shares on any terms is fiduciary and no answer; unfairness judged on facts known to the directors; directors may be ordered personally to compensate a shareholder under s 233(1). Appeal dismissed (Charlesworth, Goodman and Neskovcin JJ; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADECAV Gasworks Pty Ltd v JYP Jiang Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 221 - by majority, 'cannot' in an off-the-plan sunset clause extends to a practical inability to give a notice triggering settlement within 14 days; Hindman J implied a term of honest and reasonable satisfaction; Bradley JA dissenting. Appeal allowed; the judgment set aside save the declaration concerning the deposit (Bradley JA, Crow and Hindman JJ; also the Queensland edition). JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Encore Aviation Pty Ltd v O'Driscoll Aviation Pty Ltd; Encore Aviation Pty Ltd v O'Driscoll; O'Driscoll v Encore Aviation Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 227 - under s 5R Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) the standard of care is set by the skill a person possesses and professes; regulatory authorisation does not equate a pilot with a licensed engineer; contract and knowledge bear on apportionment; reduction 40 per cent, not 50; Browne v Dunn and the silent non-party statement. Encore's appeals dismissed; the contributory negligence challenges allowed (Leeming and Stern JJA, Price AJA). JADESanjiv v Shah [2026] NSWCA 231 - leave under s 14(2) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) is needed to challenge other orders, and without a substantially compliant affidavit s 15(1)(a) compels dismissal; procedural fairness by written submissions; Anshun estoppel for claims belonging in the FCFCOA. Appeal dismissed; leave to institute proceedings refused (Ward ACJ, Ball JA, Griffiths AJA). JADEAlphington Developments Pty Ltd v Amcor Pty Ltd (No 6) [2026] VSC 700 - a remitter continues the trial in light of the appellate judgment; probabilistic cost modelling is admissible but a finding needs actual persuasion; informed estimation where apportionment is impossible. Liability determined; leave to file further evidence on quantum (Garde J; Victoria edition, first instance). JADEHauton Rd Childcare Pty Ltd v Checkpoint Construction Pty Ltd & Tanzer & QBCC [2026] QSC 262 - under s 67(2) Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) termination fixes the final reference date; an adjudicator relying on an unavailable reference date has no power, so nothing can be severed; a payment claim including work after the reference date is not valid. Application granted; the decision void (Wilson J; Queensland edition, first instance). JADEPublic Law Desk. Freund v Attorney General of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 232 - apprehended bias on a very narrow basis where an excluded Judicial Commission member read misdirected papers and messaged another member; jurisdictional error irrespective of effect. The referral quashed and the complaint remitted to the Commission (Leeming, Payne and McHugh JJA). JADEAlso on the docket. R v Jones [2026] SASCA 131 - a distinctly lenient domestic violence sentence, likely within range; pleas never entered and the Crown's part in the error weigh on permission. Permission to appeal refused (Livesey P, Stanley and B Doyle JJA). JADEHenderson v R [2026] NSWCCA 177 - a s 22A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) claim for a lesser penalty for facilitating the administration of justice is distinct from remorse and must be resolved. Appeal allowed; resentenced to a shorter term (Stern JA, Hamill and Yehia JJ). JADEChamakuri v R [2026] NSWCCA 176 - where the s 66(2) comparative risk assessment for an intensive correction order is inconclusive, the s 3A purposes may decide. Appeal dismissed (N Adams CJ at CL, Campbell and Coleman JJ). JADEBP14 Pty Ltd & Anor v Kelea Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] VSC 705 - security for costs under r 62.02 and s 1335, ordered in stages (Hannon J; Victoria edition). JADERegistry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). KZQ v Queensland College of Teachers [2026] QSC 260 - judicial review. JADELCM Operations Pty Ltd v R Kelly & Ors (No 2) [2026] QSC 261 - costs. JADEKADS Warehousing & Logistics Pty Ltd v Tarantino Investments Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] VSC 710 - costs. JADERe the Estate of Farago [2026] VSC 692 - probate. JADEPeet Keysborough Pty Ltd v Chihder Shanchan Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 706 - injunctions. JADEGroothuis v Care Park Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] VSC 703 - duty of care. JADEBlue Cap Mining Pty Ltd v Deutsche Balaton Aktiengesellschaft [2026] WASC 470 - voluntary administration. JADEPerihelion Health Pty Ltd v Dinovitser [2026] WASC 469 - summary judgment. JADEFritzsch v Fritzsch [2026] WASC 473 - probate. JADEAulich v Scott also features in today's Federal Courts brief; Encore Aviation, Sanjiv v Shah, Freund, Henderson and Chamakuri also feature in today's New South Wales brief, from the editions of Friday 30 October 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Courts of Appeal (Friday 30 October 2026)
See All (372)

About

The Petal is the daily Australian law podcast for lawyers, barristers, law students and anyone who follows the courts. Each weekday it covers the new judgments that matter from the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court and Full Federal Court, the state and territory Courts of Appeal and Supreme Courts (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory), Australian tribunals such as VCAT, QCAT, WASAT and the Fair Work Commission, and the courts of New Zealand. The day in Australian law, on your perambulations. The Host and our desk correspondents (Criminal Law, Commercial Law, Public Law, Practice and Procedure, Tax, Family Law, Tribunals and the Trans-Tasman Desk) explain what each case decides and why it matters to practice, in about ten minutes. Alongside the daily briefs: The Fortnight in Practice, The Petal: In Practice, Deep Dives on High Court decisions, and state editions. Produced by BarNet OpenLaw, the creators of JADE, from The Petal, the curated daily editions of the Jade Ledger. Read the judgments at jade.io and ledger.jade.io. Every episode and every case discussed: Episode Guide and Case Index. 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

You Might Also Like