The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

BarNet OpenLaw (JADE)

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. 11h ago

    Australian Courts of Appeal (10 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Three headnoted appellate decisions from two courts in the Court of Appeal edition of Tuesday 10 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. Interlocutory appeal costs payable forthwith; an anonymous tip-off that was no protected confidence; indemnity costs against a litigant in person; a request for an original that was not a call; and an unreasonable verdict ground that failed. Sexual violence and family violence are reported as legal doctrine only. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). Golden Rain Development Pty Ltd (ACN 166 672 537) v The Owners-Strata Plan No 97938 (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 238 - an appeal or leave application is a separate proceeding, so the 'conclusion of the proceedings' in r 42.7 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) means the end of the appeal and interlocutory appeal costs are payable forthwith absent a contrary order; Metropolitan Petar not followed; on re-exercise below, r 42.7 applies (discreteness, unreasonable conduct, remaining duration). Costs of the appeal and the motion below payable forthwith (Bell CJ, Leeming and Ball JJA; also Tuesday's New South Wales edition). JADECommercial Law Desk. MLC Limited v Preuss [2026] NSWSC 1424 - a s 126A Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) protected confidence needs a relationship between confider and confidant; an unsolicited tip is no relationship; NRMA v John Fairfax not followed; a profession is marked by selflessness and an insurer's claims handling is not one; no protection for related documents or identity information. Relief against production refused (Kunc J; New South Wales edition). JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Morris v Morris [No 2] [2026] VSCA 265 - indemnity costs against a self-represented litigant where her conduct outweighed the usual reluctance; a gross sum under r 63.07(2)(c) and s 65C(2)(c) Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) to avoid taxation; GST only without an input tax credit. Costs fixed somewhat below the sums claimed (Walker JA). JADEFang v Yao (No 3) [2026] QSC 267 - the rule in Walker v Walker is engaged only by a formal call for a document the caller is not otherwise entitled to see; a disclosed document available for inspection is not such a document; obiter, no all-purpose admission against co-defendants who made no call. Copy admitted for a limited purpose; the trial continues (Hindman J; Queensland edition). JADECriminal Law Desk (doctrine only; no complainant identified). Murchison (a pseudonym) v The King [2026] VSCA 263 - an unreasonable verdict ground must show the jury must, not might, have had a doubt, with regard to the jury's advantages; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; an overview account need not match a full statement. Leave to appeal against conviction refused (Orr P, Walker and Kaye JJA). JADERegistry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). Stockley Excavations Pty Ltd (in liq) v Stockley [2026] NSWSC 1422 - summary judgment. JADEJBC v Western Sydney Local Health District [2026] NSWSC 1405 - settlement approval. JADEDC Legal Pty Limited v Joukhador (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1428 - costs. JADEChen v Ye [2026] NSWSC 1423 - equitable remedies. JADEDPG Projects 59 Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2026] NSWLEC 1748 - development consent appeal. JADEMitrothanasis v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1749 - development consent appeal. JADEJQDM Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1746 - development consent appeal. JADEWeng v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1751 - development consent appeal. JADEWestern Suburbs (N'cle) Leagues Club Ltd v The City of Newcastle [2026] NSWLEC 1757 - development consent. JADELi v Ma [2026] NSWLEC 1754 - tree dispute. JADERe Atlantic Lithium Limited; Ex Parte Atlantic Lithium Limited [2026] WASC 490 - scheme of arrangement. JADEAb by Next Friend Cd v The Housing Authority [No 2] [2026] WASC 487 - costs. JADEMcgregor v Smith as joint and several administrator of Bayview Health - Matilda Bay Pharmacy Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) [No 3] [2026] WASC 491 - winding up. JADEDPP v Al-Mofathel (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 433 - sentencing. JADEThe Queensland trial continues and the building defects claim behind the costs appeal is still to be heard; nothing is predicted. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Courts of Appeal (10 November 2026)

  2. 11h ago

    Australian Federal Courts (10 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Nine decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Tuesday 10 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: a contingent creditor with an unliquidated damages claim has standing to seek a liquidator's removal, and a liquidator chosen by the people behind a questionable transfer of the company's only assets is removed for apprehended bias. Then the lessons for creditors, two rulings on decisions made by registrars, security for costs worked line by line, an unopposed native title determination on the papers, and the registry. Commercial Desk (opening story; lessons for creditors on the Practice and Procedure Desk). Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd v Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd, in the matter of Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 1676 (McElwaine J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; JL p. 9. A contingent creditor with an unliquidated damages claim provable under s 553 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is "a creditor of the company" within s 5-30 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), with standing under s 90-20 to seek orders under s 90-15, even though a genuinely disputed claim would not found a winding up application. The Ebner test of apprehended bias applies to a liquidator's removal in three steps, including a liquidator appointed by members' resolution. Apprehended lack of impartiality established on cumulative matters (appointment by those behind the impugned transfer, the draft statutory report circulated to prospective defendants, failure to engage with funding offers or to use the ss 530A to 530B powers); actual bias not determined. Section 545 no answer where funding would probably have been agreed. Liquidator removed and a funded, consenting replacement appointed. A personal costs order first raised in closing could not be determined without adequate notice; costs deferred for written submissions. JADEPractice and Procedure Desk (two worked examples, Owens J). Harvey v Henderson, in the matter of Henderson [2026] FCA 1697 (Owens J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. A process server's letter annexed to a solicitor's affidavit held inadmissible hearsay under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) without identification of its maker; review of a Registrar's order under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is a de novo rehearing; service is "not practicable" under r 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) if not achievable by reasonable effort, less stringently where the document has come to the respondent's attention; deemed service (r 10.23) distinguished from substituted service (r 10.24); dispensing with service under rr 1.34 and 1.35; each party bearing its own costs may be appropriate. No final order stated in the synopsis. JADEGrabovsky v Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia [2026] FCA 1674 (Owens J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. A Registrar's decision under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) is administrative, not judicial, so not reviewable under s 35A(5); review lies only under s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth); the Rana v Google categories for s 39B(1A)(c); misfeasance in public office must identify the officers, powers and material facts; the Commonwealth as respondent does not itself confer jurisdiction. No final order stated in the synopsis. JADECommercial Desk (a worked example). SGM MLIA Gold Investment Pty Ltd (as Trustee for the SGM MLIA Unit Trust) v Leviathan Resources Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1681 (Halley J, 3 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Further security under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 19.01 assessed only for the additional costs of late pleading amendments; respondent-caused impecuniosity fails without proof of stultification; a receiver's deed of indemnity does not disentitle security; delay excused; category-by-category discounts on the solicitor's estimate, unsubstantiated items disallowed, an increased duplication discount; security of $473,991.20 assessed from $1,445,220.39 sought; non-payment strikes out only the newly added paragraphs. JADEPublic Law Desk (a worked example). Bowler Enterprises Pty Ltd v State Minister for the State of Queensland [2026] FCA 1678 (McEvoy J, 10 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. An unopposed non-claimant native title application under s 86G of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) determined on the papers: the s 86G(1) preconditions; the Mace v Queensland and Wagonga principles; the representative body's decision not to engage after s 66 notification; no register entries; a prior overlapping claim re-boundaried away; neighbouring negative determinations; tied to lease-to-freehold conversion under s 164 of the Land Act 1994 (Qld). JADERegistry (list only, no outcome stated). Peers v Eastern Health [2026] FCA 1677 (McEvoy J, 10 November 2026) - constitutional validity. JADECivil Aviation Safety Authority v Sky High Helicopters Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1683 (Thawley J, 9 November 2026) - aviation safety. JADEGroom, in the matter of Groom [2026] FCA 1686 (Feutrill J, 10 November 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADEAIN19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1693 (Jackman J, 10 November 2026) - judicial review. JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Federal Courts (10 November 2026)

  3. 11h ago

    Australian Tribunals (10 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Seven decisions from tribunals in the ACT, Victoria and Queensland in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 10 November 2026, one with a headnote and three more worked examples from synopses. A medical practitioner who committed perjury and tried to pervert the course of justice, and what it takes to resist cancellation; a building claim under the consumer guarantee of fitness for a disclosed purpose; costs after a mixed result in a domestic building dispute; and sanction on agreed facts in health practitioner discipline. Tribunals Desk: recusal, cancellation and staged costs (lead; headnoted). Medical Board of Australia v KADER (No 2) (Occupational Discipline) [2026] ACAT 66 - adverse credit findings at the liability stage did not ground a reasonable apprehension of bias at penalty (the Ebner test as formulated in Sunshine Loans; no logical connection where the presiding member's view prevailed under s 52(3)); perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice within all three limbs of s 5; clear, corroborated proof of change is required and is not assumed from the passage of time; s 195 costs follow the event by stage. Reprimanded; registration cancelled; no disqualification period; 90 per cent of Stage 1 costs to the practitioner, own costs of Stage 2. JADETribunals Desk: worked examples from synopses (frameworks; no outcomes stated). Andrew v Ajc Portables Pty Limited Acn 602 941 604 (Civil Dispute) [2026] ACAT 65 - s 55 Australian Consumer Law: contract compliance alone does not satisfy the fitness guarantee; three issues and the onus; disclosed purpose by implication; objective NCC Class 1a and EER benchmarks; expert thermal modelling evidence; s 236 compensation. JADEMillander Nominees Pty Ltd v Lynford Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] VCAT 925 - the s 109 VCAT Act fairness gateway and its factors in a mixed-result building dispute; forensic conduct as costs facts; apportionment after partial success; fee reimbursement under ss 115B and 115C. JADEMedical Board of Australia v Epa [2026] VCAT 944 - framework only: agreed statements of findings and determinations; the Lee nine-point sanction checklist; the fit and proper limb of professional misconduct; the weight of mitigation and character references. JADERegistry (list only; by subject; no outcome): MG Estates Pty Ltd v Coliban Water Corporation [2026] VCAT 938 (discovery); Chief Executive, Office of Fair Trading, Department of Justice v Yahia [2026] QCAT 521 (statutory reimbursement); Gear v Department of Youth Justice and Victim Support [2026] QCATA 158 (appeal grounds). Case notes Medical Board of Australia v KADER (No 2) (Occupational Discipline) [2026] ACAT 66 - Acting Presidential Member G Curtin SC (presiding) and Senior Member E Morrison, 28 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure; headnote JL 10. Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (ACT) ss 3(2)(a), 3A(1), 4, 5, 193, 195, 196; ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT) s 52(3). The apprehended bias test applied is from Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63, as formulated in Sunshine Loans Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2026] HCA 8 (an authority applied, not a decision reported in this edition). The Stage 1 decision is Medical Board of Australia v Kader [2026] ACAT 19. The costs quantum is still to be agreed or determined. Why aired: a full penalty, cancellation and recusal compendium for discipline practitioners. Andrew (Senior Member J Francis, 26 October 2026), Millander (Member R Bennett, 5 November 2026) and Epa (J Billings, Senior Member and Presiding Member, with Dr R McRae and Dr L Warfe Oam, as printed, Medical Practitioner Members, 10 November 2026) are aired from the edition's Signal synopses (Illustrative); no outcome is aired. The discipline decision involving sexual harassment is reported for its legal framework only, and no practitioner is named. In Kader the amount of costs is still to be worked out; nothing here predicts it. Headnoted outcomes are as the headnote states them. A word from JADE is the house spot. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Tribunals (10 November 2026)

  4. 11h ago

    New Zealand Edition (10 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for 10 November 2026 carries six decisions newly reported, all from the High Court, and all six are aired. The thread is old paper: an appeal abandoned but not finished, two family trusts and a charity brought up to date, a century-old divorce file opened, and a mortgage and a draft will that finally stopped holding two estates up. Practice and Procedure Desk (first story). Stone v Bennett [2026] NZHC 3389 - on a Registrar's referral under s 164A of the Senior Courts Act 2016, a proceeding is struck out under s 164B only if plainly abusive, a finding reserved for clear cases such as improper motive, collateral purpose or manifest unfairness; a meritless proceeding or a remediable defect is not of itself an abuse; deemed abandonment of an appeal for non-payment of security for costs under s 126(3) of the District Court Act 2016 does not end the appellant's appeal rights, so a fresh appeal with leave out of time is not necessarily relitigation, though the appellant must show good reason for the failure to pay; the diverging authority on extending time to pay security after abandonment was noted, not decided. Strike-out declined; the proceeding to be accepted for filing on payment of the fee; the leave application is a separate question (Tracey Walker J, 30 October 2026). JADEDarrall [2026] NZHC 3385 - a divorce file falls within the r 7(2) exception in the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, so access needs a r 11 application weighed on the r 12 matters with no presumption of disclosure and no hierarchy; after the hearing, open justice and privacy both carry greater weight (r 13(c)); the hundred years since the 1926 proceeding and the applicant's family connection outweighed privacy, and a publication condition was unnecessary. Access granted without conditions (Sussock J, 30 October 2026) JADE.Butler [2026] NZHC 3430 - under r 19.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 the Court may permit a proceeding not listed in rr 19.2 to 19.4 to start by originating application in the interests of justice; a mortgagee company removed from the Companies Register cannot be found within s 109(1)(a) of the Property Law Act 2007, so the mortgage may be discharged under ss 110 and 111, and s 105(1) of the Land Transfer Act 2017 was an alternative route because any claim was barred by the Limitation Act 2010. Mortgage discharged (Boldt J, 5 November 2026) JADE. Estate of Van Vugt [2026] NZHC 3331 - under s 14(2) of the Wills Act 2007 the inquiry is the deceased's intentions rather than the formal steps taken; cogent evidence on the balance of probabilities is required and testacy is preferred to intestacy; an unexecuted draft expressed the testator's intentions where his failure to sign was explained by a stated practical reason, not second thoughts. Draft declared a valid will (Boldt J, 27 October 2026) JADE.Commercial Law Desk. Easter Family Company Limited [2026] NZHC 3381 - approval of trust variations on behalf of unborn, unascertained and future beneficiaries under s 124 of the Trusts Act 2019 is discretionary, guided by the s 124(4) factors including the true settlors' ascertainable intentions; the Court weighs benefits and detriments across the arrangement as a whole and may not reduce or remove a vested interest; consent under s 122 was waived under s 125(1) for associated companies and trusts whose interests were co-extensive with the consenting beneficiaries'; the trustee may adopt consolidated deeds (Gavin v Gavin [2021] NZHC 550 applied). Orders made as sought; costs from the trust funds (Boldt J, 2 November 2026). JADEHeart Lung Foundation [2026] NZHC 3136 - a scheme under s 32 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 requires an originally charitable purpose that has become impossible, impracticable or inexpedient, and substituted charitable purposes that accord as closely as reasonably possible with the original trust; the disestablishment of the hospital whose work the 1971 trust supported met the test, and purposes confined to the modern equivalents of its specialties accorded; the s 33 threshold that administration could be facilitated is not high, and a unanimous, purpose-protected amendment power was appropriate; absent an express clause a charitable trust cannot be terminated, but the existing deed already provided for failure. Scheme approved (Robinson J, 12 October 2026). JADEThe leave application in Stone v Bennett continues. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    New Zealand Edition (10 November 2026)

  5. 1d ago

    Australian Courts of Appeal (9 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Thirteen headnoted appellate decisions from four courts in the Court of Appeal edition of Monday 9 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. Double counting in sentencing police officers; Fair Work costs that the conduct did not cause; hardship and reliance in setting aside a financial agreement; reasons that hide the path; a native title holder's right to be heard; an off-the-plan sunset rescission refused; and admissions, totality and youth sentencing. Violence against a woman in a mental health crisis, family violence, sexual offences against children and a child's terrorism offence are reported as legal doctrine only, as are the children's matters. Criminal Law Desk (opening story; doctrine only). Black v R; Trautsch v R [2026] NSWCCA 185 - a s 21A(2)(f) gratuitous cruelty finding for an assault risks double counting and is not engaged merely because violence exceeds the ordinary (result agreed; reasoning Dhanji J's, McNaughton J noting no zero baseline for police, Coleman J that it is not an absolute bar); available for the prohibited weapon offence; trust and authority under s 21A(2)(k) are distinct and a judge finding both must articulate what one adds. Leave granted, appeals allowed, both resentenced to full-time imprisonment (Dhanji, McNaughton and Coleman JJ; also Monday's New South Wales edition). JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. HealthX Group Pty Ltd v Palling [2026] FCAFC 141 - a s 570(2)(b) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) costs order needs a causal nexus between the unreasonable act or omission and the incurring of costs; withdrawing a contention is not of itself unreasonable; obiter, a late restraint claim may lack reasonable cause under s 570(2)(a); no error in a failure to make a finding not sought below. Appeal allowed in part (Snaden, Meagher and Bennett JJ; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADEFamily Law Desk (legal doctrine only; no party identified; all nine also in today's Federal Courts brief). Bray & Poole [2026] FedCFamC1A 194 - s 90K(1)(d) hardship needs some comparison of positions with and without the agreement, not a net asset accounting; s 90K(1)(b) misrepresentation needs inducement; Browne v Dunn and affidavit evidence; Kennon: lay evidence suffices, litigation conduct is not family violence without more; unexplained equal contributions plainly wrong. Order 1 appeal dismissed; property orders set aside and remitted for rehearing before a different judge (Williams, Jarrett and Behrens JJ). JADEMassen & Massen [2026] FedCFamC1A 200 - reasons that do not expose the path to a critical finding are an error of law. Appeal allowed; s 79 applications remitted for rehearing by a different judge (Williams, Kari and Parker JJ). JADEZenta & Zenta [2026] FedCFamC1A 203 - findings disturbed only if demonstrably wrong or glaringly improbable; best interests are values, not facts. Appeal dismissed (Schonell J). JADEWick & Hopper [2026] FedCFamC1A 198 - interim parenting orders: no statutory baseline; unilateral relocation does not alter s 61C responsibility; consequences of untested allegations may be weighed without findings. Appeal dismissed; the allegations remain for the final hearing (Christie J). JADEPanza & Adriaansen [2026] FedCFamC1A 192 - a partial property distribution is neither notional property nor a s 90SM(4) contribution; reasons silent on its s 90SM(5) treatment vitiated the adjustment; discretion re-exercised. Ground 5(c) upheld, otherwise dismissed (McClelland DCJ). JADESallings (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 197 - dismissal of a leave application finally determines the controversy; relitigation is an abuse rightly rejected for filing. Application dismissed (Schonell J). JADEMikhailova & Parrino [2026] FedCFamC1A 202 - on an extension of time the substantial issue threshold comes first; s 79A(1)(a) looks to circumstances at or before the orders. Application dismissed (Schonell J). JADERothman & Rothman [2026] FedCFamC1A 199 - transcript deadline extended on condition the appeal stands dismissed in default; no dispensation (Schonell J). JADELunde & Lunde (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 201 - time extended and the hearing vacated; liberty to apply should be used (Schonell J). JADEPublic Law Desk. Ut-Alkar Aboriginal Corporation v Chief Executive Department of Environment [2026] QSC 263 - a s 527 Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) appeal is a rehearing that cannot be resolved by consent; a directly affected non-party native title holder was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard; a submission on the file is not a hearing. Consent orders set aside and the appeals remitted to the Land Court (Henry J; Queensland edition). JADECommercial Law Desk. Casula Estate Pty Ltd ACN 643 475 414 as trustee for Casula Estate Unit Trust v Singhal and; Casula Estate Pty Ltd ACN 643 475 414 as trustee for Casula Estate Unit Trust v Lenka [2026] NSWSC 1409 - s 66ZS Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) does not qualify the vendor's contractual preconditions; unreasonable conduct includes communications with purchasers; self-representation does not lower the standard of proof. Claims dismissed; deposits repaid with interest (Pike J; New South Wales edition). JADECriminal Law Desk (doctrine only; no complainant identified). Singh v The King [2026] VSCA 262 - admissions to contextual conduct are admissible; incident-specific admissions may be directed to that charge; no unrequested ambiguity direction under s 16(1) Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). Extension refused (Boyce, Donaghue and Kaye JJA). JADEOllis v The King [2026] VSCA 254 - absence of common aggravating features is not mitigating; comparables a yardstick; totality judged against all sentences and cumulation orders. Extension refused (Walker JA). JADER v RK [2026] NSWSC 1414 - diminished relevance of youth is not an overriding principle in terrorism sentencing; no principle mandates full-time imprisonment for every young offender. Community correction order (Campbell J; New South Wales edition). JADEDocket and registry (Lu v Tasman from a synopsis; the rest listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). Lu v Tasman 61 Bh Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1419 - capitulation costs; offer of compromise checklist; indemnity costs (synopsis only). JADEKchevetskaia v Korlevic [2026] NSWSC 1243 - pleadings. JADEMichales v CharterLaw Legal Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1416 - strike out. JADEIn the matter of Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1420 - scheme of arrangement. JADEToohey v Mapp [2026] NSWSC 1417 - probate. JADEWong v Mooney [2026] NSWLEC 1745 - tree dispute. JADEManly Property Group No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1747 - development consent appeal. JADESutton Property Pty Ltd v AAKK Investments Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 266 - costs. JADERotella v Meschberger [2026] WASC 486 - estate administration. JADEWestpac Banking Corporation v Farrant [No 7] [2026] WASC 488 - interlocutory orders. JADEDPP v Chan (No 4) [2026] ACTSC 426 - criminal trial procedure. JADEDPP v Chan (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 424 - sentencing. JADETwo family property cases are remitted for rehearing, the interim parenting allegations are untested and remain for the final hearing, two family appeals are still to be heard, and the Queensland appeals return to the Land Court; nothing is predicted. Anyone facing a charge in the registry's criminal listings is presumed innocent. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Courts of Appeal (9 November 2026)

  6. 1d ago

    Australian Federal Courts (9 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Fifteen decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Monday 9 November 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, five from the Federal Court and nine from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) appellate jurisdiction. The opening story: a unanimous Full Court holds that a Fair Work costs order for an unreasonable act or omission needs a causal link between that conduct and the costs, so an employer that abandoned a late restraint claim was not liable on that basis, and flags the "without reasonable cause" gateway instead. Then a worked example on late evidence at an Administrative Review Tribunal migration review, and the registry. The Full Court decision and the nine family appeals also feature in today's Courts of Appeal brief. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). HealthX Group Pty Ltd v Palling [2026] FCAFC 141 (Snaden, Meagher and Bennett JJ, 9 November 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; JL p. 11. Unanimous. An order under s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires a causal nexus between the unreasonable act or omission and the incurring of costs; where costs were incurred because the restraint claim was pursued at all, not because of delay, the order was not open on either standard of review. Withdrawing a contention is not of itself unreasonable, and negligence or inefficiency is not unreasonableness. Obiter: a time-limited restraint claim brought too late to be decided in time might lack reasonable cause under s 570(2)(a). An appellant cannot establish error in a failure to make a finding not sought below (Coulton v Holcombe); the profit share was not discretionary; considerable doubt that profit share or resignation-notice terms are "safety net contractual entitlements" under s 12. Appeal allowed in part; the costs order replaced by costs thrown away on the reasonable notice claim; no order as to the costs of the appeal. JADEPublic Law Desk (a worked example). Toalei v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1672 (Dowling J, 9 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Procedural fairness under s 55(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) where an 81-page bundle is served immediately before the hearing of a s 501CA(4) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) revocation review: prior access to summonsed material, the key report identified, overnight consideration, questioning the next day, an invitation to make submissions, earlier opportunities to file evidence; transcript exchanges can defeat a fairness claim; materiality as a realistic possibility of a different outcome (LPDT); the limits in ss 500(6H), (6J) and (6L). No outcome stated in the synopsis. JADEFamily appeals (at depth in today's Courts of Appeal brief). Bray & Poole [2026] FedCFamC1A 194 (Williams, Jarrett and Behrens JJ, 4 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; property settlement, financial agreements; JL p. 16. JADEMassen & Massen [2026] FedCFamC1A 200 (Williams, Kari and Parker JJ, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative; appeal grounds; JL p. 20. JADEWick & Hopper [2026] FedCFamC1A 198 (Christie J, 4 November 2026) - parenting orders; JL p. 25. JADEZenta & Zenta [2026] FedCFamC1A 203 (Schonell J, 6 November 2026) - parenting orders; JL p. 14. JADEMikhailova & Parrino [2026] FedCFamC1A 202 (Schonell J, 6 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative; extension of time; JL p. 22. JADESallings (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 197 (Schonell J, 4 November 2026) - appellate jurisdiction. JADERothman & Rothman [2026] FedCFamC1A 199 (Schonell J, 4 November 2026) - extension of time. JADELunde & Lunde (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 201 (Schonell J, 5 November 2026) - extension of time. JADEPanza & Adriaansen [2026] FedCFamC1A 192 (McClelland DCJ, 2 November 2026) - property settlement. JADERegistry (list only, no outcome stated). Al Shawi v Ghaffari-Hesari (No 2) [2026] FCA 1673 (O'Callaghan J, 5 November 2026) - corporate governance. JADEGuider v Coutts Lawyers & Conveyancers Pty Ltd, in the matter of Coutts Lawyers & Conveyancers Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1679 (Markovic J, 2 November 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADEAustralian Postal Corporation v Quinn [2026] FCA 1682 (Dowling J, 9 November 2026) - workers compensation assessment. JADEGlover v Al-Talebi (Suppression) [2026] FCA 1680 (Bromwich J, 9 November 2026) - suppression. JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Federal Courts (9 November 2026)

  7. 1d ago

    Australian Tribunals (9 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Seventeen decisions from the Trade Marks Office and four state tribunals in the Tribunals edition of Monday 9 November 2026, five with headnotes and eight more worked examples from synopses. Why an unmarked choice on a Western Australian enduring power of guardianship makes it invalid, and whether an all-functions guardian can consent to restrictive practices in aged care; a strata appeal where the Tribunal decided an issue it had told a party not to argue; three trade mark oppositions; and worked examples on spam-filtered email, settlement-offer costs, objector reviews, time limits, land tax and health practitioner discipline. Tribunals Desk: guardianship and restrictive practices (lead; headnoted). M [2026] WASAT 130 - an "All functions authorised" enduring power of guardianship reaches restrictive practices consent under the Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth); no election between options 4A and 4B makes the instrument invalid; s 110N is not used to add a function or fix scope; an invalid EPG is no less restrictive alternative. EPG declared invalid; variation dismissed; joint limited guardians appointed. JADETribunals Desk: procedural fairness in a strata appeal (headnoted). The Owners – Strata Plan No. 66375 v Baltusrol Pty Ltd and Stollery [2026] NSWCATAP 356 - a material denial of procedural fairness is a question of law, appellable as of right; confining submissions to one issue and deciding another without notice breaches ss 38(2) and 38(5)(c); no forensic waiver; materiality is undemanding. Appeal allowed; remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal. JADETribunals Desk: trade mark oppositions (headnoted; all three registrations refused). Luyten 3D Pty Ltd v Contour 3D Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 222 - s 41: a composite word keeps its descriptive meaning; no sales, advertising or customer evidence; stylised logo use carries minimal weight; examination acceptance is no answer. JADEOpposition by Paraskevas Mourikis to registration of trade mark application number [2026] ATMO 219 - s 58 ownership by first use; undeclared documents given no weight. JADELesun (Shenzhen) Technology Co Ltd v Cong Ning [2026] ATMO 218 - s 62A bad faith: knowledge plus acceptable commercial standards; reproduction and a pattern of 23 applications for other traders' brands. JADETribunals Desk: worked examples from synopses (frameworks; no outcomes stated). Cameron v East Coast Trailers and Horse Floats Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 355 - s 13A Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW): an email in a spam folder is received if capable of retrieval; contracts by email; the limits of a repairer's lien. JADEMavid Construction Pty Ltd v Blair [2026] NSWCATAP 352 - r 38 costs after a rejected Calderbank offer; unreasonableness a factor, not a precondition. JADEHawkins v Yarra Ranges SC [2026] VCAT 936 - the notice of decision defines review jurisdiction; no first-instance ruling on an unapplied-for land use. JADESweeney v Bass Coast SC [2026] VCAT 931 - a special charge review: time runs from the date of issue, not receipt; the Hunter Valley factors. JADEEnugu Pty Ltd as trustee for the Cornock Family Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 345 - the s 10AA Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) dominant use test, step by step. JADEHealth Care Complaints Commission v Panetta [2026] NSWCATOD 143 and Health Care Complaints Commission v Fouad [2026] NSWCATOD 144 - framework only: onus, the Briginshaw standard, peer opinion, contemporaneous documents, s 176D. JADE (Panetta) JADE (Fouad)Medical Board of Australia v Singh (Sanction) [2026] QCAT 491 - framework only: the Lockie sanction factors, cancellation versus suspension. JADERegistry (list only; by subject; no outcome): Warhurst v Fuentes [2026] NSWCATAP 349 (appeal grounds); Baz v Shearer [2026] NSWCATAP 353 (appeal grounds); YVT v YVU [2026] NSWCATAP 357 (appeal grounds; anonymised); Paramedicine Board of Australia v Halligan [2026] VCAT 939 (uncategorised). Case notes M [2026] WASAT 130 - Dr E Marillier, Senior Member, 6 November 2026. Signal: Doctrine; headnote JL 23. Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) ss 4, 43, 45(1), 110E, 110G, 110K, 110N; Guardianship and Administration Regulations 2005 (WA) Sch 1; Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth) s 28(2)(c); Aged Care Rules 2025 (Cth) r 6.20(1)(b). LK and EB [2013] WASAT 70 and Re C [2012] WASAT 50 distinguished; HL and HS [2012] WASAT 118 applied. Under a limited order or limited EPG restrictive practices must be specified. Why aired: a common drafting defect, and the new Commonwealth restrictive practices regime, in one decision. The Owners – Strata Plan No. 66375 v Baltusrol Pty Ltd and Stollery [2026] NSWCATAP 356 - M Tyson, Senior Member, N Kennedy, Senior Member, 9 November 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure; headnote JL 21. Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 38, 80(2)(b), Sch 4 cl 8(2); Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 132, 232; Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26. The characterisation question and the respondents' merger and estoppel objection were remitted; consent orders with a renewal right need a compliance period. Why aired: protecting reserved contentions when a tribunal narrows the hearing. The trade mark decisions: Luyten (Tracey Berger, delegate, 3 November 2026; headnote JL 29), Mourikis (Benjamin Goldsworthy, delegate, 26 October 2026; JL 26), Lesun (Tracey Berger, delegate, 26 October 2026; JL 27); Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 41, 55(1), 58, 62A, 221. Cameron (P Durack SC and H Woods, Senior Members), Mavid (E Bishop SC and Dr D Goldman, Senior Members), Hawkins (6 November 2026; member not legible in the edition), Sweeney (Sarah Porritt, Senior Member), Enugu (Ea MacIntyre, Senior Member, as printed), Panetta, Fouad and Singh are aired from the edition's Signal synopses (Illustrative); no outcome is aired. The guardianship matter is reported for its legal principles, and no one in it is identified. The health practitioner discipline matters are reported by their legal framework only, no practitioner is named, and where any related proceeding is before a court the presumption of innocence applies. In Baltusrol questions were remitted; nothing here predicts how they will end. Headnoted outcomes are as the headnotes state them. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Tribunals (9 November 2026)

  8. 1d ago

    New Zealand Edition (9 November 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for 9 November 2026 carries nine decisions newly reported, all from the Court of Appeal, and all nine are aired. The thread is who gets a say, and how far it goes: the Commissioner of Inland Revenue gets a vote, not a veto; a neighbour gets adequate information, not a perfect assessment; a covenant can sign the say away; and a prisoner's appeal goes ahead unless the abuse is plain. Commercial Law Desk (lead). Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Pronk as Provisional Trustee [2026] NZCA 534 - the ratio of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Wilson [2017] NZCA 100 is confined to a Commissioner who is the sole, non-consenting creditor (s 328(4) of the Insolvency Act 2006), and its remark that the Commissioner's Tax Administration Act 1994 powers cannot be reconciled with the s 331 voting provisions was obiter; where the tax debt is one of many and a compliant proposal is made under subpt 2 of pt 5, the Insolvency Act governs and the Court may approve a proposal under s 333 binding the Commissioner even though he voted against it; the regimes run in parallel and his tax duties give him no veto; tax-system integrity arguments go to expedience under s 333(3)(c), not reasonableness under s 333(3)(b); bankruptcy is protective, not punitive. Appeal dismissed (Ellis, Harland and Radich JJ, 4 November 2026). JADEXray Trust Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2026] NZCA 528 - on a non-notification decision under ss 95A-95E of the Resource Management Act 1991, an affected person approval is the only way a neighbour's agreement can be taken into account; the applicant's misstatement was immaterial; information must be adequate to understand the activity, assess the magnitude of effects and identify affected persons (Discount Brands), and a consent authority reasonably satisfied of its reliability may adopt the applicant's assessment; a condition is uncertain only if its meaning stays unclear after objective, contextual interpretation, and a catch-all condition required updated management plans. Further evidence declined; appeal dismissed (Palmer, Campbell and Edwards JJ, 4 November 2026). JADEReed v Waikato District Council [2026] NZCA 544 - a registered no complaints encumbrance, construed objectively, can preclude judicial review of a resource consent if its language is sufficiently clear, without naming judicial review; a claim to quash the consent was a prohibited objection; a land use consent runs with the land (s 134), so the identity of the applicant did not trigger the release clause; a liquidated damages clause was enabling, not exclusive, and strike-out for the continuing breach was appropriate. Appeal dismissed (Thomas, Downs and Anderson JJ, 6 November 2026). JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Tatana v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZCA 543 - on a Registrar's referral under s 164A of the Senior Courts Act 2016, a proceeding may be struck out under s 164B only if plainly abusive, the abuse clear beyond doubt; lack of merit, untenability and remediable non-compliance are not enough, and strike-out is not automatic; on appeal the question is whether the appeal itself is abusive; no different test applies to habeas corpus appeals, which Parliament left as of right; the misnamed respondent was substituted and the appeal confined to the two High Court decisions. Strike-out declined; the appeal proceeds (Katz J, 6 November 2026). JADEHona v Māori Land Court [2026] NZCA 539 - a rehearing appeal under r 47 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 runs on the High Court record; an appeal is not a vehicle for reviving a declined interlocutory application; a serious allegation that a court recording was falsified needs a proper evidential foundation before forensic examination is ordered. Production orders declined; a brief extension granted (Katz and Whata JJ, 5 November 2026) JADE. Tangikaroro and Whakaangiangi Kaitiaki Group Trust v Ingleby New Zealand LP [2026] NZCA 532 - under r 36 the appellant must show legal aid was applied for before the notice of appeal; dispensing with security requires merit enough for a reasonable and solvent litigant to pursue the appeal, and generic, unparticularised grounds are hopeless. Review declined (Johnstone J, 4 November 2026) JADE. Jindal v District Court at Auckland [2026] NZCA 527 - review of the sealing of a judgment with an amended costs schedule declined, the same issue having been decided against the applicant (Ellis J, 3 November 2026) JADE.Criminal Law Desk. The King [2026] NZCA 537 (the edition prints no appellant name) - knowledge of a drug importation and its scale, as an aggravating fact under s 24(2)(c) of the Sentencing Act 2002, is proved if, on all plausible inferences, there is no reasonable possibility the offender lacked it; each adverse inference need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt; Crown delay in responding to a proposed summary of facts warranted the same 20 per cent plea reduction allowed to others similarly placed; addiction is reflected within the lesser role category (Berkland). Both appeals allowed and sentences reduced (Whata, Dunningham and Becroft JJ, 6 November 2026) JADE. Taotahi v The King [2026] NZCA 536 - reliance on a disputed aggravating fact without proof under s 24(2) does not make a sentence manifestly excessive where it does not change the aggravating feature (a weapon was established anyway); parity requires a gross and unjustifiable disparity. Appeal dismissed (Palmer, Harland and Tahana JJ, 5 November 2026) JADE.The habeas corpus appeal in Tatana and the appeal in Hona continue. Nothing in this episode predicts any outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    New Zealand Edition (9 November 2026)
See All (393)

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