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. 12h ago

    Australian Federal Courts (13 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Ten decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Tuesday 13 October 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia. The opening story: the strike pay prohibition in s 470(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) turns on a connection between the entitlement to a payment and the performance of, or availability for, work during protected industrial action, not on timing; an allowance for the hardships of remote work, reciprocal with rostered duties, could be withheld for a stoppage, but a transport allowance whose entitlement arose from travel already done could not. Then costs after an abandoned proceeding and the liability of a co-applicant who lends his name, leave to appeal under a vexatious proceedings order, and interim suppression in a class action. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Australian Workers' Union v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1492 (Lenehan J, 13 October 2026) - separate questions answered: s 470(1) requires a connection between the entitlement to the payment and work or availability for work during the industrial action, not a temporal or direct time earnings test, and a payment merely falling due during the action is not enough; reciprocity is a question of construction; a contract stating an entitlement is contained in a policy obliges payment as the policy sets it, though policies are said not to form part of the contract; the Total Remuneration Statements were not incorporated; the Field Loading Allowance was within s 470(1), so no contravention; the Transport Allowance, whose entitlement arose on completion of travel, was outside it, and its deductions contravened s 323(1) as a single contravention; s 470(1), where it applies, removes the s 323(1) obligation; listed for further hearing on consequential orders and costs. JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Britten v eBroker.com.au Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1512 (McDonald J, 13 October 2026) - costs applications granted: an applicant who abandons a proceeding ordinarily pays the respondents' costs, r 26.12(7) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) applying by analogy without a filed notice of discontinuance; abandonment alone does not warrant indemnity costs; a proceeding may be objectively vexatious without a vexatious purpose; a co-applicant who authorised the proceeding in his name, was wilfully blind to its conduct and took no step to dissociate himself was assessed in his own right and ordered to pay indemnity costs to the date of his withdrawal; joint and several liability; lump sum orders because taxation would be protracted and recovery doubtful. JADELawrence, in the matter of Lawrence [2026] FCA 1507 (Younan J, 13 October 2026) - leave to institute an appeal from a vexatious proceedings order dismissed with costs: under s 37AT(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the applicant must show the proposed appeal is not vexatious, ordinarily by a reasonably arguable ground; the inclusive s 37AM(1) definition reaches defensive proceedings and appeals as of right; interlocutory steps are separate proceedings; counsel's opinion annexed to an affidavit is inadmissible hearsay and contrary to r 23.11; lump sum costs to be fixed on the papers. JADEWilliams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (Suppression Orders) [2026] FCA 1518 (Lee J, 13 October 2026) - synopsis only: once interim suppression orders are made, s 37AI(2) requires urgent determination, and interim orders are not holding devices; class action settlement confidentiality under s 37AG(1)(a) needs demonstrated necessity; parties cannot by private agreement dictate the terms on which the Court receives applications. JADESammut v Lawrence, in the matter of Lawrence [2026] FCA 1506 (Younan J, 13 October 2026) - the companion creditor's petition ruling under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth); synopsis only. JADEAlso on the docket. Pokharel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1498 (Abraham J, 13 October 2026) - extension of time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the s 104 duty to notify changed contact details; synopsis only. JADEBPK17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1508 (McEvoy J, 9 October 2026) - migration judicial review. JADEBAH21 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1516 (Banks-Smith J, 13 October 2026) - migration judicial review. JADEReeve, in the matter of an application by Reeve [2026] FCA 1474 (Longbottom J, 12 October 2026) - interlocutory application. JADERosherville Pty Ltd v ASX Limited [2026] FCA 1515 (Jackman J, 13 October 2026) - derivative proceedings. JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Federal Courts (13 October 2026)

  2. 12h ago

    New Zealand Edition (12 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for Monday 12 October 2026 carries 7 decisions newly reported from the Court of Appeal and the High Court. A quiet day, three at desk length: why a limitation defence cannot stop a bankruptcy notice on an old tribunal costs order; what a builder and its director owe in tort, and what they don't; and an extension of time granted once but not twice. Plus a short registry from the High Court. Practice and Procedure Desk (lead). Ellis v New Zealand Law Society [2026] NZCA 488 - a "claim to enforce a judgment by action" under s 35(1) of the Limitation Act 2010 means a fresh proceeding to obtain a second judgment for the debt; enforcement processes and insolvency proceedings fall outside it, so filing Tribunal costs orders under s 258(3) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and requesting a bankruptcy notice attracted no limitation defence; Riddiford v New Zealand Law Society cannot be considered good law on the scope of s 35(1); a bankruptcy notice is not an enforcement process under Part 17 of the High Court Rules 2016, so no leave under r 17.9(2)(b) was needed although more than six years had passed. Appeal dismissed (Campbell, Powell and Tahana JJ, 7 October 2026). JADEMega Aqua Limited v Sunnya Pty Limited [2026] NZCA 481 - an extension of time to file the case on appeal after deemed abandonment under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 turns on the interests of justice; granted on the substantive appeal (prompt application, active engagement, the death of former counsel, and an appeal not clearly hopeless on whether breach of s 164(1) of the Evidence Act 2006 gives a private enforcement remedy); the same indulgence was not extended a second time on the costs appeal, which stays abandoned; leave to amend the grounds refused; costs to the respondent (Ellis and Whata JJ, 5 October 2026). JADECommercial Law Desk. DTB Construction Limited v Dobbe [2026] NZCA 492 - cl 5.1.3 of NZS 3910:2013 is engaged only where the contract makes the contractor responsible for design, and cl 5.1.4 requires any design the contractor undertakes to be done with reasonable skill and care; breach of a contract standard must be proved by positive evidence, and the absence of producer statements or engineering approval does not discharge the onus; the duty in tort of builders, including directors and employees, is to take care to achieve Building Code compliance or possibly reasonable building standards, with no duty in tort to build to a contract standard (the Court preferring the Building Code view and doubting the broader "reasonable builder" formulation); an allegation of fabrication must be put to the witness; refusing further evidence on loss after trial was plainly right (obiter). Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed (Campbell, Robinson and Eaton JJ, 9 October 2026). JADERegistry (High Court). McKenzie v Manawatu Motors 1970 Ltd [2026] NZHC 3045 - a litigant restrained under s 164C of the Senior Courts Act 2016 after filing a proceeding needs leave to continue it; leave declined for a long-delayed appeal from the Disputes Tribunal with no prospects (Grau J, 5 October 2026). JADEAbrahamson v Hennessy Grading Systems Ltd [2026] NZHC 2759 - in jointly heard proceedings, steps taken before the later proceeding was filed are allocated to the earlier one; a plaintiff that obtains financial relief on the principal contested issue is the successful party though it recovers less than claimed (Anderson J, 11 September 2026). JADER v Tevao [2026] NZHC 3024 - Class A supply and participation in an organised criminal group: a starting point below band four of Zhang v R was available for a party with a lesser role; home detention; no firearms prohibition order under s 39A of the Arms Act 1983, the risk of harm being low (Dunningham J, 1 October 2026). JADEIn the notes only: Complete Construction Canterbury Ltd v Garden City Civil Ltd [2026] NZHC 3059 - costs on mixed success after a dismissed liquidation application, reduced by 50 per cent (Associate Judge Taylor, 6 October 2026). JADE Mega Aqua's substantive appeal now proceeds; nothing in this episode predicts the outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    New Zealand Edition (12 October 2026)

  3. 12h ago

    New Zealand Edition (13 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for Tuesday 13 October 2026 carries 6 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court and the High Court. Four at desk length: when the Court will bless a family trust settlement, and how a beneficiary removed by the settlor is put back; the leave test for a restrained litigant's second appeal; who must prove what when an airgun is carried to protect poultry from a dog; and the evidence needed for permanent name suppression on safety grounds. Plus a short registry from the Supreme Court. Commercial Law Desk (lead). ABC Trust [2026] NZHC 2979 - a blessing application under s 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 falls in the second Public Trustee v Cooper [2001] WTLR 901 category: the trustees keep their discretion and the Court asks whether they formed the opinion, whether a reasonable body of properly instructed trustees could have reached it, and whether it is vitiated by a disabling conflict of interest; not a rubber stamp, but no insurmountable hurdles; the decision to settle a family trust dispute after mediation was reasonably open and, with every beneficiary consenting, untouched by conflict; the settlor's personal power of appointment did not survive his death, so reinstating a removed beneficiary required a variation under s 122, approved for the parties' reasons including as to the non-consenting classes; an agreed settlement with a complete record may be determined on the papers. Settlement blessed, variation approved (Isac J, 30 September 2026). JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. McKenzie [2026] NZHC 2989 - where a litigant restrained under s 164C of the Senior Courts Act 2016 seeks leave to bring a second appeal, the ordinary s 60 test applies (a question capable of bona fide and serious argument, of sufficient importance to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal); no plausible error in the finding that the s 16 Harassment Act 1997 preconditions (distress, need for protection) were unmet; the High Court's determination is final under s 164C(5)(c). Leave declined (Radich J, 30 September 2026). JADECriminal Law Desk. Heta v Police [2026] NZHC 2920 - on a charge of carrying an airgun other than for a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose under s 45 of the Arms Act 1983, the defendant bears the burden on the balance of probabilities, the purpose assessed objectively at the time charged; reliance on s 60(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires proof that the dog was seen, was at large and was among the poultry; an earlier attack by a different dog is irrelevant; undue emphasis on a narrow passage of evidence caused no miscarriage of justice under s 232(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Appeal dismissed (Anderson J, 24 September 2026). JADER v P [2026] NZHC 3068 - the endangerment-of-safety ground for suppression under s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 is not comparative and asks whether the consequence is likely in fact; a description of a defendant's fragile mental state is not enough, but the treating clinician's accepted opinion met the threshold; open justice was displaced because the balance clearly favoured suppression. Permanent suppression ordered (Grau J, 7 October 2026). Reported as legal doctrine only. JADERegistry (Supreme Court). Gorgus v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZSC 145 - whether unreasonable force against a remand prisoner also breaches s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a question of general importance, but this case was not an appropriate vehicle (unreasonableness conceded, the events on CCTV, concurrent findings of fact). Leave to appeal dismissed (Ellen France, Williams and Cooke JJ, 13 October 2026). JADEMcGuire v Commissioner of Police [2026] NZSC 146 - a direction for a Court of Appeal transcript under r 7 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004 is given only where necessary in the interests of justice; leave turns on the judgment below, not the argument. Application dismissed; the leave application remains to be decided (Cooke J, 13 October 2026). JADEThis episode includes a name suppression ruling concerning a defendant's mental illness and a risk of suicide, reported as legal doctrine only. The McGuire leave application is still to be decided; nothing in this episode predicts the outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    New Zealand Edition (13 October 2026)

  4. 14h ago

    Australian Courts of Appeal (13 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Six headnoted appellate decisions in the Court of Appeal edition of 13 October 2026, from four courts, with the Queensland, ACT and Tasmania editions of the same day riding in this brief. Tasmania's Full Court on the land-rich ratio before completion and on remitting interest after years of revenue office silence; Queensland's Court of Appeal on home warranty cover in high rises and on photo board identification directions; the New South Wales Court of Appeal on breach, causation and appeal practice in a police officer's psychiatric injury claim; Victoria's Court of Appeal on security for costs against a shell company; and a Queensland Supreme Court decision on pleading the counterfactual. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening story. Tax and Revenue Desk (opening story). Ningbo Kaixin Investment Co Ltd and Van Dairy (Hong Kong) Group Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] TASFC 15 - an agreement by a parent to procure its wholly owned subsidiaries to transfer land, for a price payable to it, is an agreement for the sale of land under s 61(4) of the Duties Act 2001 (Tas), concerned with existence not enforceability; before completion the land and non-land assets are valued on a consistent basis at the date of the agreement as the property being sold, without deducting the unpaid price, so the company was not land-rich (59.007%); "beneficial ownership" in s 49 keeps its equitable meaning; an intermediate appellate court should determine all grounds. Appeal allowed; grounds 1, 3 and 4 dismissed; orders below set aside (Shanahan CJ, Estcourt and Brett JJ; also the Tasmania edition). JADECommissioner of State Revenue v Van Dairy (Hong Kong) Group Ltd and Ningbo Kaixin Investment Co Ltd [2026] TASFC 16 - remission of interest under s 38(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Tas) is not governed by an exceptional circumstances requirement; "rare" does not mean "never"; the Commissioner's almost five years of inaction was determinative; no House v The King error from findings on agreed facts; an irrelevant consideration must be material and determinative. Extension of time refused (Shanahan CJ, Estcourt and Brett JJ; also the Tasmania edition). JADEPublic Law Desk. D'Arcy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCA 200 - "work on or for a ... multiple dwelling" of more than three storeys in s 26(a) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) includes renovation work within a unit, so it is excluded from the home warranty scheme; the regulation is within power under s 67WB(1)(f) and its three-storey threshold is a policy line. Leave to appeal refused with costs (Mullins P, Doyle JA and Freeburn J; also the Queensland edition). JADEPractice and Procedure Desk (the last item reported as legal doctrine only). Caller v State of NSW [2026] NSWCA 212 - no breach, found or alleged, caused a police officer's PTSD, because proper records would only have confirmed what the examining clinicians knew; reasonable steps on training; a late challenge to findings on expert evidence fails without compliance with r 51.36(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW); a failure-to-give-reasons ground is ordinarily inutile on a rehearing; state the assumptions under a notional apportionment. Appeal dismissed with costs (Leeming, Stern and Ball JJA; also in today's New South Wales brief). JADETriple One Gardenvale Pty Ltd v Belot Property Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 245 - security for costs of a leave application under r 64.38(4) where there is an unacceptable risk that a shell company applicant could not meet an adverse costs order and it filed no evidence in answer; prospects not strong, no sufficient public interest, no stultification. Security ordered; the leave application remains to be decided (Richards and Osborn JJA; also in today's Victoria brief). JADEElvina Catherine Palmer v State of Queensland [2026] QSC 30 - (Queensland edition; reported as legal doctrine only) negligence by omission must be pleaded with a clear, consistent counterfactual; a duty to prevent deliberate third-party harm needs a special relationship of care, supervision or control; statutory guardianship lay with an official, not the State; judgment under r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rather than leave to replead a failed third iteration. Judgment for the defendant with costs (Johnstone J). JADECriminal Law Desk (reported as legal doctrine only). R v BFJ [2026] QCA 199 - a specific warning about a photo board's composition is required only where it is objectively suggestive; no rule that a jury must always be warned of the general dangers of photo board identification; a judge must isolate weaknesses in identification evidence without opining on counsel's arguments; recording a conviction against a young offender under s 184 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) was well open. Conviction appeal dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused (Mullins P, Boddice JA and Henry J; also the Queensland edition). JADERegistry (ACT edition; listed without headnotes, no outcome stated). DPP v Whitall (No 2) [2026] ACTSC 395 - sentence appeal (White J). JADEDPP v Scott [2026] ACTSC 396 - sentence appeal (White J). JADECaller also appears in today's New South Wales brief, and Triple One Gardenvale in today's Victoria brief, of 13 October 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Courts of Appeal (13 October 2026)

  5. 14h ago

    Australian Tribunals (13 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Eleven decisions from four tribunals and the Australian Patent Office in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 13 October 2026, five with headnotes, one reported as doctrine: when a deposited-strain method claim fails for reaching bare soil; why VCAT will not simply sign an agreed consent order on a permit; how an attorney's caveat over the donor's home cost an enduring power of attorney; and why a prior use must be strictly proved, and a messaging scheme stays a scheme. Tribunals Desk: fungus, soil and a carbon claim (lead). Jones Tulloch Pty Ltd v Loam Bio Pty Ltd [2026] APO 25 - claims to the use of deposited strains are confined to genetically identical strains, so novelty and inventive step failed; "effective amount" is construed a priori, as what the skilled worker would expect; a method claim need not work every time to be plausible or useful; but "and/or" swept in inoculating soil without plants, beyond the technical contribution, so the opposition succeeded to that extent for lack of support, sufficiency and utility. Two months to amend; no costs. JADEA word from JADE. Tribunals Desk: a second home and a consent order refused. Gourlay v Greater Geelong CC [2026] VCAT 754 - a consent order under s 93 VCAT Act is refused unless the material shows an acceptable planning outcome; unresolved, interconnected matters (bushfire, tree removal, an unidentified waterway permission, earthworks) cannot be deferred to secondary consent; interrelated permissions are assessed holistically; remittal under s 51(2)(d) preferred to s 51A. Decision set aside and the permit application remitted to the council. JADETribunals Desk: an attorney, a caveat and a guardianship order (legal doctrine only). LOIS [2026] WASAT 123 - an attorney's fiduciary obligation under s 107 Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) to act in the donor's interests, to the exclusion of their own, may make an enduring power of attorney inappropriate as a less restrictive alternative; lodging a caveat to protect the attorneys' own interest in the donor's home was inconsistent with that obligation and evidenced a conflict of interest; enduring family conflict and intertwined finances made the proposed guardians and administrators unsuitable. EPA revoked; the Public Advocate appointed limited guardian and the Public Trustee plenary administrator. JADETribunals Desk: a generator, a prior use and a messaging scheme. UON v Allied Pumps Pty Ltd [2026] APO 28 - a "control signal" conveys a direction or command, not mere information; a prior use anticipates only by an enabling disclosure of every essential integer; prior public use must be strictly proved, and factory testing in the applicant's own test area was not public. Opposition unsuccessful, with costs. JADEKonstantinos Amouris [2026] APO 26 - the computer-implemented invention principles extend to networked computers and mobile devices; standard components programmed with a new method do not make a new or improved system; better targeting of promotional content is a business effect, and an incidental data saving is insufficient. Claims not a manner of manufacture; three months to gain acceptance. JADERegistry and the thread (no outcome stated). Director of Proceedings on Behalf of the Health Ombudsman v JCP [2026] QCAT 352 - synopsis: professional misconduct for criminal offences under s 5 National Law (Qld), sanctions and disqualification periods, and the Fleischmann principle (framework only). JADERadtke v Baw Baw SC [2026] VCAT 843 - synopsis: the Kantor principles for extending a planning permit's expiry under s 85(1)(f) Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). JADEDirector of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman v Adams [2026] QCAT 413 - list only (professional misconduct). JADESaini v Safe Transport Victoria [2026] VCAT 832 - list only (administrative appeal). JADENajibi v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATOD 134 - list only (administrative review). JADEZonnevylle v Secretary, Department of Education [2026] NSWCATAP 319 - list only (interlocutory applications). JADEThe thread: the whole picture. A claim must work across everything it covers; a consent order needs every permission on the table; an attorney acts for the donor, and only the donor. Case notes Jones Tulloch Pty Ltd v Loam Bio Pty Ltd [2026] APO 25 - Felix White, delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 10 September 2026. Signal: Doctrine; Practice & Procedure. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 59. Held, upholding the opposition in part: deposited-strain claims confined to genetically identical strains; "effective amount" a priori; plausibility and utility need not mean success every time; claims covering inoculation of soil without plants not plausible and beyond the contribution. Why aired: the edition's only Doctrine entry, on drafting and attacking biological method claims. Gourlay v Greater Geelong CC [2026] VCAT 754 - Mary-Anne Taranto, Member, 13 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure. Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) s 79; VCAT Act ss 51(2)(d), 51A, 93; Greater Geelong Planning Scheme cll 35.07-4, 53.02. Why aired: identify every permission trigger before seeking consent orders. LOIS [2026] WASAT 123 - Ms R Bunney, Member, 13 October 2026. Signal: Practice & Procedure. Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) ss 4, 43(1), 44(1), 44(5), 51(2)(g), 68(1)(c)-(d), 107. Pseudonyms as published. Why aired: an attorney with a stake in the donor's assets must put the donor first. UON v Allied Pumps Pty Ltd [2026] APO 28 - Andrew Burgess, delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 29 September 2026. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(1)(a), 7(2), 18(1)(c), 24, 40(2)(a), 40(3), 59. Why aired: prior use needs an enabling disclosure, and public use strict proof. Konstantinos Amouris [2026] APO 26 - Dr N R Madsen, Deputy Commissioner of Patents, 11 September 2026. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 18(1)(a), 45; Patent Regulations 1991 (Cth) reg 13.4(1)(g). Why aired: the computer-implemented invention principles reach networked and mobile systems. A guardianship matter and a health practitioner's misconduct arising from criminal offences are reported as legal doctrine only; no one is identified. The Gourlay application returns to the council, and the Loam Bio and Amouris applicants have time to amend or gain acceptance; nothing here predicts any outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Tribunals (13 October 2026)

  6. 14h ago

    New South Wales (13 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Eighteen decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of 13 October 2026, three of them headnoted. Informal shareholder assent cannot waive a statutory contravention, a sole shareholder's assent needs an outward sign, and honest directors who paid themselves fees without members' approval were refused relief while a covenant not to sue one director left contribution intact; the State's duty to its police is to take reasonable steps to train, educate and monitor, and a late challenge to findings on expert evidence will fail; and at a forensic patient's preliminary hearing the question is whether the material, if proved, would justify an extension, with expert opinion not binding and less restrictive means judged as they really are. One more on the docket, and fourteen list-only decisions on the registry. The Court of Appeal decision also features in the Court of Appeal brief of the same day; here it gets the New South Wales angle. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Motasea Pty Limited v Gooley [2026] NSWSC 1162 - (Kunc J, 13 October 2026) relief granted in part in a derivative claim for breach of directors' duties. Causing a company to pay money it is not obliged to pay breaches ss 181 and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); directors cannot fix their own remuneration without the general meeting, and an honest belief does not satisfy s 181 unless rational; Duomatic assent binds the company only to what the general meeting could lawfully do, so it cannot waive a statutory contravention, and a sole shareholder's assent needs an external manifestation of a conscious decision; Greenhalgh's "company as a whole" does not displace separate personality. An admission of a contravention as a conclusion of law imports no state of mind. Under ss 1317S and 1318 honesty is necessary but not sufficient: relief refused on the fees (personal benefit, no reasonable value proved, no legal advice), granted on the invoices. Co-defaulting directors may claim contribution as to half, unaffected by a covenant not to sue the other director in a deed to which the claimant was not a party. Further orders and costs to come. JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Caller v State of NSW [2026] NSWCA 212 - (Leeming, Stern and Ball JJA, 13 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) appeal dismissed in a police officer's negligence claim for PTSD. The State's duty was to take reasonable steps to train, educate and monitor officers; one officer's failure to recognise symptoms does not by itself prove breach; records that would only have confirmed what the clinicians knew did not cause the injury; a late oral challenge to findings on expert evidence without compliance with r 51.36(2) UCPR fails, breach being assessed prospectively; a failure-to-give-reasons ground is ordinarily inutile on a rehearing; the assumptions behind a notional apportionment are better stated expressly. JADEPublic Law Desk (reported as legal doctrine only; preliminary hearing). Attorney General for New South Wales v Perry (bht Limbury) (Preliminary) [2026] NSWSC 1256 - (Hamill J, 13 October 2026) summons for an extension of forensic patient status dismissed under s 126(6) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). At the preliminary stage (ss 126(5), 130(b)) the question is whether the Court would be justified in making an extension order assuming the supporting material proved, not whether a future judge would; "low" is no substitute for the statutory words; the high risk offender authorities guide construction; an expert opinion is one part of the evidence and the onus stays on the plaintiff; less restrictive means must be realistic, not hypothetical. A Court of Appeal decision set aside by the High Court on a conceded point no longer strictly binds but remains persuasive on other points. Nothing here predicts any future application. JADEAlso on the docket. Sahin v Sahin [2026] NSWSC 1257 - (Richmond J, 13 October 2026; Signal Illustrative) per the synopsis, proprietary estoppel and constructive trust claims rejected for want of a proven representation, reliance and detriment; a 99-year lease at nominal rent set aside for unconscionable conduct and under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW); non est factum rejected; a near-identical spousal affidavit rejected unless corroborated. JADERegistry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Supreme Court of New South Wales. In the matter of M and PG Projects Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1248 - list only (creditors' rights). JADEIn the matter of RCM ST Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1246 - list only (statutory demand). JADECho v Sethi [2026] NSWSC 1258 - list only (interlocutory application). JADECostantino v Hillier (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1260 - list only (costs). JADEDolan v The Corporation of the Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart [2026] NSWSC 1259 - list only (interlocutory application). JADELand and Environment Court of New South Wales. Iron Wealth Pty Ltd trading as CHEGO v Fairfield City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1679 - list only (development appeal). JADEKumar v Hornsby Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1681 - list only (development application). JADEDarling and Waterview Pty Ltd ATF Darling and Waterview Unit Trust v Inner West Council [2026] NSWLEC 1693 - list only (joinder). JADETDMS Studio Pty Ltd trading as TDMS Studio v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1684 - list only (development application). JADEHamdor Pty Ltd ATF Hamdor Family Trust v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1676 - list only (development application). JADE1A Punch Street Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1683 - list only (development application). JADEJAVEEE Homes Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1686 - list only (development consent). JADESchofields Childcare Holding Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1677 - list only (development consent). JADESalerno Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 1685 - list only (development application). JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    New South Wales (13 October 2026)

  7. 14h ago

    Victoria (13 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail One state, every court: the Victoria edition of 13 October 2026, one decision of the Court of Appeal and five of the Supreme Court. A building action is brought against a joined party when VCAT makes the joinder order, not when the application is filed, and VCAT, a creature of statute, cannot backdate a joinder to beat the strict ten-year limit in the Building Act, whatever its own listing delays. Then further evidence on a VCAT appeal to show that a jurisdictional fact the Tribunal assumed did not exist, with remittal exceptionally available; and security for costs ordered against a shell company that filed nothing in answer, a decision that also features in today's Court of Appeal brief, here with the Victorian angle. Three more decisions on the registry. House spot: a word from JADE after the opening story. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). Cavey v Owners Corporation PS 719168C [2026] VSC 667 - (Irving AsJ, 13 October 2026) leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, and the joinder application dismissed. Construed in light of the purpose of a single, certain ten-year period, "brought" in s 134(1) of the Building Act 1993 (Vic) means commenced, so a building action against a joined party is brought when VCAT makes the order under s 60 of the VCAT Act, not when the application is filed; the claim against a director joined after expiry was statute-barred. VCAT's jurisdiction is wholly statutory: absent an express power it cannot ante-date its orders (s 118(1)), and joinder nunc pro tunc was also contrary to s 134, which applies despite any other Act or law; nothing in s 134 was intended to remedy VCAT's resourcing delays (O'Shea and H Building not followed; Barnes and Re Keystone distinguished). Where only one conclusion is open, the Court may make the order VCAT should have made (s 148(7)). The 28-day period in s 148(2)(a) is subject to the vacation period in r 3.04(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025. JADETriple One Gardenvale Pty Ltd v Belot Property Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 245 - (Richards and Osborn JJA, 13 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) security for the costs of an application for leave to appeal from preliminary questions under s 29(1) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic), ordered under r 64.38(4). There was an unacceptable risk that a shell company with no evidence of material assets, which filed nothing in answer to a prima facie case of impecuniosity, could not meet an adverse costs order; no discretionary consideration weighed against security (a commercial dispute with competing multimillion dollar claims, a prompt application, a proportionate sum, no evidence of stultification); without a concluded view, prospects were not shown to be strong, and a construction question of some general importance did not raise a dispute of such public importance as to require the respondent to relitigate it without security. The leave application is yet to be decided. JADEPublic Law Desk. Tobin v Sure Building Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 658 - (K Judd J, 9 October 2026) leave to appeal granted and the appeal allowed; VCAT's possession and reopening orders set aside. On an appeal under s 148 of the VCAT Act, further evidence showing that a jurisdictional fact did or did not exist may be received even where it was available below, and so is new rather than fresh; uncontradicted affidavits showed the occupant had not signed the residential rental agreement on which VCAT assumed jurisdiction, so VCAT erred. A finding of no jurisdiction ordinarily precludes remittal, but remittal was exceptionally available because VCAT was never asked to decide jurisdiction; the matter is to be remitted if the respondent elects to pursue a tenancy by estoppel. The residual discretion to refuse leave for lack of utility was not exercised. JADERegistry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Supreme Court of Victoria. Piletech Australia Pty Ltd v S J Higgins Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 668 - list only (commercial arbitration). JADEPerpetual Corporate Trust Ltd v Ching [2026] VSC 664 - list only (summary judgment). JADERe Mummery [2026] VSC 663 - list only (bail application; the applicant is presumed innocent of any charge). JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Victoria (13 October 2026)

  8. 21h ago

    Australian Courts of Appeal (12 October 2026)

    Send us Fan Mail Twelve appellate decisions from three courts in the Court of Appeal edition of 12 October 2026, with the Queensland and Western Australia editions of the same day folded in. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal holds that the State offence of perverting the course of justice protects Federal Court proceedings. Also: the first limb of self-defence, the test for discharging a jury after prejudicial evidence (retrial ordered), unreasonable and inconsistent verdicts in sexual offence appeals, the "harm done to the victim" sentencing purpose, and a sentence that mistook its own effect. The Federal Circuit and Family Court's appeal division on the 2024 amendments and part-heard property hearings, judicial questioning in children's cases, and stays pending special leave. Western Australia's Court of Appeal on opposing a short extension. Public Law Desk (opening story). Markovich v R [2026] NSWCCA 161 - the "course of justice" protected by s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is not confined to proceedings "in and of" New South Wales; Pt 1A fixes the geographical nexus and s 12(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) does not confine Pt 7; because a single composite body of State and Commonwealth law applies, the offence reaches Federal Court proceedings applying no State law; "judicial tribunal" includes consensual arbitral panels; no distinct State interest required; R v Lowe distinguished. Leave granted (an appeal before sentence, not to be taken as encouragement); appeal dismissed; sentence yet to be passed (Mitchelmore JA, Dhanji and Emmett JJ). JADECriminal Law Desk (two items reported as legal doctrine only). Vujica v R [2026] NSWCCA 156 - on independent review the Crown excluded any reasonable possibility that the applicant believed stabbing necessary in self-defence (s 418(2)(a)), though the deceased approached with a brick; anger, the aggressor, opportunity to withdraw, excessiveness and post-offence conduct not equally consistent with a defensive belief as circumstantial markers (Payne JA); judge-alone reasons adequate under s 133(2) read with the case run. Murder conviction appeal dismissed (Payne JA, McNaughton and Muston JJ). JADEGR v R [2026] NSWCCA 159 - a judge deciding a jury discharge application asks what a fair trial requires, not whether continuing risks a substantial miscarriage of justice; stage of trial and deliberateness matter only as they bear on fairness; directions are not presumed always to cure; the proviso is ordinarily unavailable where the irregularity may have affected contested credibility, oath against oath. Convictions quashed; retrial ordered; the accused is presumed innocent (Free JA, Rigg and Sirtes JJ). JADEYao v R [2026] NSWCCA 163 - verdicts are not inconsistent where a rational distinction in the evidence explains them; credibility challenges are assessed individually and cumulatively with full regard to the jury's advantages; instrumental lies for a visa may be quarantined; caution against assumptions about how victims behave (Kirk JA and Emmett J). Appeal dismissed (Kirk JA, Emmett and Rigg JJ). JADERB v R [2026] NSWCCA 162 - non-consensual intercourse can occur within an otherwise consensual relationship; messages and delayed complaint do not of themselves raise a doubt; the two-step unreasonable verdict approach. Appeal dismissed (Stern JA, Fagan and Chen JJ). JADEEljamal v R [2026] NSWCCA 155 - the "harm done to the victim" in s 3A(g) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is the direct harm of the offence, not hardship caused by the offender's imprisonment; leniency for hardship to dependants only where highly exceptional. Appeal dismissed (Leeming JA, Fagan and Cavanagh JJ). JADEMuldoon v R [2026] NSWCCA 158 - an unintended extension of an existing non-parole period by miscalculation is error in applying totality even where the principles were understood. Appeal allowed; resentenced (Stern JA, Fagan and Dhanji JJ). JADEFamily Law Desk. Trevose & Sarma [2026] FedCFamC1A 184 - under Sch 1 item 68 of the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) the amended s 90SM does not apply where the final hearing commenced before 10 June 2025, including a part-heard hearing; applying it was an error of law but occasioned no miscarriage of justice. Appeal dismissed (Schonell J). JADECowden & Walsman (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 183 - (reported as legal doctrine only) whether judicial questioning in child-related proceedings occasions a miscarriage of justice is assessed on the whole transcript, having regard to the court's duty to manage proceedings actively; a "failure to consider evidence" complaint needs a contention of manifest unreasonableness. Appeal dismissed with costs (Campton J). JADEPractice and Procedure Desk. Pensak & Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1A 182 - (reported as legal doctrine only) a stay pending special leave rests only on inherent jurisdiction and requires exceptional circumstances; no utility once a Hague return order is implemented; the Court in its appellate jurisdiction cannot exercise original jurisdiction with respect to children. Application dismissed; special leave was pending when the Court ruled (Campton, Schonell and Parker JJ). JADEComplete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd v Lhre Group Pty Ltd [2026] WASCA 143 - (also the Western Australia edition) a first, two-week extension for a respondent's answer, sought in time after a change of solicitors, granted in the interests of justice; concern about future default no reason to refuse; the appellant should have consented, so each party bears its own costs (Mitchell JA). JADERegistry (no outcome stated). Decision restricted [2026] NSWCCA 160 - restricted reasons, orders not published; per the published summary, manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act should have been left as an alternative though not sought at trial (Stern JA, Hamill and Dhanji JJ). JADEBluhdorn Investments Pty Ltd v Crook [2026] QSC 246 - (Queensland edition, listed without a headnote) statutory derivative action (Freeburn J). JADEMiller v Monaghan [2026] WASC 441 - (Western Australia edition, list only) commercial arbitration (Lundberg J). JADERe Chin; Ex Parte Chin [2026] WASC 442 - (Western Australia edition, list only) pleadings (Solomon J). JADEAttorney General v WAW by his guardian ad litem THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE [No 2] [2026] WASC 440 - (Western Australia edition, list only) mental impairment (Whitby J). JADEFull typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger. Theme music by Michael Green SC.

    Australian Courts of Appeal (12 October 2026)
See All (300)

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