The Petal: Australian Case Law Daily from JADE OpenLaw

Send us Fan Mail The Trade Marks Office and six tribunals, thirty two decisions, in the Tribunals edition of Friday 30 October 2026, eight with headnotes. A wakeboard park that was not a tourist operation, seven trade marks rulings, and worked examples on information access, risk assessment and tribunal practice. Tribunals Desk: a wakeboard park and the use class (lead). Hagger and Abraham v Sorell Council and Alexander v Sorell Council [2026] TASCAT 142 - use is categorised by purpose on the evidence, not the applicant's label (best-fit rule, cl 6.2.4); a tourist operation needs cogent evidence; organised recreation is Sports and Recreation, prohibited in the zone. Permit set aside; refusal substituted. JADE Tribunals Desk: trade marks, reputation and likeness (headnoted). Opposition by The Boeing Company to registration of trade mark application number 2485115 (classes 12 and 37) - 747 Performance & Motorsport - in the name of Aus Auto Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 206 - s 60 reputation; a trade nexus through engines survived the aircraft exclusion. Refused; costs. JADE Opposition by Christine Shenoda to registration of trade mark application number 2451614 (class 45) - [2026] ATMO 207 - ANCHORED FAMILY LAW v ANCHORAGE LEGAL: ss 44, 60, 42(b), 62A all failed. Opposition dismissed. JADE Opposition by ZIPPI ENTERPRISES PTY LTD to registration of trade mark application number 2429919 (class 12) - [2026] ATMO 213 - LIL RIPPA v RIPPA: a shared distinctive element; late evidence (s 44). Refused; costs. JADE Tribunals Desk: trade marks, registrability and non-use (headnoted). Wenquing Kung [2026] ATMO 211 - STEEL FORCE: wholesale services not closely related to goods by default (s 44). Accepted. JADE Trade mark application number 2580774 (classes 6 and 9) - [2026] ATMO 215 - GUARD WHAT MATTERS: purpose or laudatory (s 41). Rejected. JADE Clove Brand Inc [2026] ATMO 210 - a c with a macron (ss 41, 44). Rejected. JADE Opposition by Quiling Chen to application under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 214 - non-use removal; declaration form (reg 21.6); intention at the filing date (ss 92(4)(a), 100(1)(a)). Removed. JADE Tribunals Desk: government information (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). HSF v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 329 - synopsis: GIPA and body-worn video; cl 1(d) confidentiality; view-only access (s 72). JADE Efremov v The University of Sydney [2026] NSWCATAD 332 - synopsis: s 60(1)(e) refusal where the applicant is in current proceedings. JADE Tribunals Desk: fitness and risk (legal frameworks only; no outcome stated). Harris v COMMISSIONER FOR FAIR TRADING (Occupational Discipline) [2026] ACAT 63 - synopsis: WWVP (ACT) risk assessment; totality; non-conviction information (s 140 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), Briginshaw). JADE Addison v Victorian Institute of Teaching [2026] VCAT 887 - synopsis: fit and proper person (s 2.6.9(2) ETR Act 2006 (Vic)); diversion orders as evidence. JADE Tribunals Desk: appeals, leave and permits (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). Juergens v Alpha CB&C Pty Ltd t/as Luxcon & Co [2026] NSWCATAP 336 - synopsis: questions of law; s 18B(1)(a) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW); USB and video evidence; futility. JADE HQS v State of New South Wales No 3 [2026] NSWCATAD 333 - synopsis: leave (s 96); services versus statutory functions (s 49M). JADE Strode v Mornington Peninsula SC [2026] VCAT 906 - synopsis: permit triggers; superseded clause 54 references after VC282; a mid-proceeding overlay. JADE Registry and the thread (list only, by subject; no outcome stated): Wasley v Worboys [2026] NSWCATAP 340 (consumer law, tribunal jurisdiction); Angel's Paradise Wagga Pty Ltd ATF The APW Business Trust v NSW Early Learning Commissioner [2026] NSWCATAD 327 (early learning regulator review); HSW v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 331 (victims support review); Walters v Unison Housing [2026] VCAT 883 (residential tenancy); White v Darebin CC [2026] VCAT 918 (planning permit); Watkins v Whitehorse CC [2026] VCAT 917 (planning permit); Adams v Whitehorse CC [2026] VCAT 911 (permit review time limits); Adams v Whitehorse CC [2026] VCAT 910 (administrative appeal); KLT v (Delegate of the Registrar) Registration of Working with Vulnerable People [2026] TASCAT 140 (WWVP registration review); SUD (Review of Guardianship Order) [2026] TASCAT 143 (guardianship review); CMQ (Application to review an enduring power of attorney; Application to review an enduring guardian instrument) [2026] TASCAT 141 (enduring appointments review); Basirijouybari v WANG & ANOR (Appeal) [2026] ACAT 62 (civil appeal); Wilson v THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (Discrimination) [2026] ACAT 64 (discrimination); Legal Services Commissioner v Muir [2026] QCAT 489 (practitioner discipline); Legal Services Commissioner v Sorbello [2026] QCAT 490 (practitioner discipline); The Owners of 59 Point Walter Road Bicton Strata Plan 20805 and Creswell [2026] WASAT 129 (interlocutory orders); Discovery Holiday Parks Pty Limited and Young [2026] WASAT 131 (interlocutory orders). Case notes Hagger and Abraham v Sorell Council and Alexander v Sorell Council [2026] TASCAT 142 - RM Grueber, Deputy President, and ME Ball, Member, 29 October 2026. Tasmanian Planning Scheme – Sorell cll 6.2, 6.2.4, Table 6.2, cll 21.3.1, 21.4.2. Alternative findings (not necessary): operational need, conversion of agricultural land and sensitive use satisfied. Why aired: the label on an application does not fix the use class; purpose must be proved. Decision-makers and dates: ATMO 206 and 213, Benjamin Goldsworthy (15 and 20 Oct); ATMO 215, Benjamin Goldsworthy (23 Oct); ATMO 207, Sean McManis (15 Oct); ATMO 211, Nicholas Smith (20 Oct); ATMO 210, Bianca Irgang (19 Oct); ATMO 214, Anne Makrigiorgos (22 Oct), all delegates of the Registrar; NSWCATAD 329, M Riordan SM; NSWCATAD 332, J Smith SM; NSWCATAD 333, J Gatland SM; NSWCATAP 336, G Burton SC and D Goldstein SMs (all 30 Oct); ACAT 63, Acting Presidential Member Dr W Neville (23 Oct); VCAT 887, S Nyabally PM, P Gysslink and J McCormick (22 Oct); VCAT 906, Sarah Porritt SM and Donna D'Alessandro (30 Oct). Why aired, in a line each: reputation crosses classes through a trade nexus (206); a four-ground checklist for professional services marks (207); composite marks and late evidence (213); wholesale services are not automatically related to goods (211); purpose slogans need use evidence (215); letter marks are read as buyers read them (210); declaration form and intention at filing (214); GIPA requests for police footage (329) and during litigation (332); WWVP risk assessment (63); diversion orders in registration reviews (887); home building appeals (336); services versus statutory functions (333); stale cross-references after VC282 (906). All Trade Marks Office and Hagger outcomes are as the headnotes state them; synopsis and list-only decisions carry no outcome. A working with vulnerable people review and a teacher registration review are reported by their legal frameworks only; the guardianship, victims support, screening and practitioner discipline matters by subject only; no one is identified. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Twenty four decisions from four courts in the New South Wales edition of Friday 30 October 2026, eight of them headnoted. One payment claim after a construction contract ends; contributory negligence measured by each party's own skill; preference is not fraud on creditors; apprehended bias at the Judicial Commission; an undecided claim for a lesser penalty; an intensive correction order refused; leave under a vexatious proceedings order; and feral horses in a national park. Sixteen list-only decisions on the registry. The five appellate decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same day; here they get the New South Wales angle. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Reosteel Pty Ltd v Reem Built Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1348 - (Pike J, 30 October 2026; Signal Doctrine) adjudication determination quashed, costs to the plaintiff, moneys in court released. Section 13(1C) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) permits only one payment claim after termination; it cannot be unilaterally withdrawn and replaced, and calling the later claim a replacement does not avoid the limit (BCFK Holdings v Rork Projects followed). No absurdity: a claimant can defer its one claim until all invoices are in. A standing offer of rates accepted by individual requests forms separate contracts, not one overarching construction contract even on the s 4 definition, so the s 8(2) licensing ground (Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)) failed. JADE Practice and Procedure Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief). Encore Aviation Pty Ltd v O'Driscoll Aviation Pty Ltd; Encore Aviation Pty Ltd v O'Driscoll; O'Driscoll v Encore Aviation Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 227 - (Leeming and Stern JJA, Price AJA, 30 October 2026) Encore's appeals dismissed, the owner's cross-appeal allowed, the pilot's appeal allowed in part; recalculated judgments, interest and costs to be determined on the papers. Under s 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) the standard of care is set by the special skill possessed and professed; regulatory permission for both pilot and engineer to do the daily inspection does not make them equally skilled. The maintenance contract and the pilot's knowledge of the engineer's prior inspection count; the reduction was 40%, not 50%. JADE Sanjiv v Shah [2026] NSWCA 231 - (Ward ACJ, Ball JA and Griffiths AJA, 30 October 2026) appeal against a vexatious proceedings order dismissed; leave to institute refused on the rest; costs. Written submissions seeking a wider order, with a chance to respond, satisfy procedural fairness. A party already under an order needs leave under s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), and without an affidavit substantially complying with s 14(3) dismissal is mandatory (s 15(1)(a)). Anshun estoppel: claims arising from family law consent orders should have been raised in the Federal Circuit and Family Court. JADE Commercial Law Desk . The Owners – Strata Plan No 97938 v Golden Rain Development Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1362 - (Parker J, 30 October 2026) proceedings under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) dismissed with costs; indemnity costs refused. An intent to prefer existing creditors is inconsistent with an intent to defraud, and intent to defraud is not inferred from the preference alone. Decisive: the security grants altered priority without diminishing the debtor's assets. Related-party creditors with genuine debts are treated no worse than outsiders. The owners corporation's defects claim continues. JADE Public Law Desk . Freund v Attorney General of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 232 - (Leeming, Payne and McHugh JJA, 30 October 2026; also in the Court of Appeal brief) the Judicial Commission's referral decision quashed and the complaint remitted. An excluded member, sent the board papers by administrative error, read them and messaged another member, undisclosed: under the double might test (Ebner) a reasonable apprehension of bias on a very narrow basis. Apprehended bias is jurisdictional error irrespective of effect; no deliberate conduct was suggested. The complaint is pending and untested. JADE Carmen Jackson v Alex Graham, Deputy Secretary, National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (No 2) [2026] NSWLEC 135 - (Pepper J, 30 October 2026) summons dismissed. The applicant bears the onus. The s 81 duty under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) to give effect to an adopted plan of management authorises removal of feral horses, the method being an operational matter for the Secretary limited by reasonableness; remove includes lethal means. Under Carltona, officers acting for the Secretary share the deemed s 171(3) authority. JADE Criminal Law Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief). Henderson v R [2026] NSWCCA 177 - (Stern JA, Hamill and Yehia JJ, 30 October 2026; Signal Practice and Procedure) leave granted, appeal allowed, resentenced to a shorter sentence. A claim for a lesser penalty under s 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is utilitarian and distinct from remorse, and must be determined; using the same evidence for remorse does not answer it (Doyle v R). The error was material, so manifest excess was not decided. JADE Chamakuri v R [2026] NSWCCA 176 - (N Adams CJ at CL, Campbell and Coleman JJ, 30 October 2026) leave granted, appeal dismissed, bail revoked. In the s 66(2) comparison, lack of insight and failure to accept responsibility may be weighed against favourable findings and may render it inconclusive; community safety is then not decisive and the s 3A purposes may decide against an intensive correction order (Stanley v DPP (NSW) applied). JADE Registry (list only, no outcome stated). Supreme Court of New South Wales. Nicolaou v Minster for Education [2026] NSWSC 1316 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE Akbar v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd t/as Insurance Company [2026] NSWSC 1350 - list only (unconscionable conduct). JADE Junxiu Chen Almaoui Pty Ltd atf the Junxiu Almaoui Trust v Opus One Developments Pty Ltd atf the Opus One Unit Trust [2026] NSWSC 1359 - list only (costs orders). JADE Wilnet Pty Ltd v Smart Laundry Manager Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] NSWSC 1360 - list only (stay pending appeal). JADE In the matter of Annsca Energy Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1300 - list only (shareholder oppression). JADE JPG Investments Holding Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 53865 [2026] NSWSC 1346 - list only (costs orders). JADE Valor and Pride Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Ord Developments Pty Ltd (No 4) [2026] NSWSC 1355 - list only (breach of lease). JADE Pettit v Davis [2026] NSWSC 1363 - list only (family provision). JADE Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Bavaro v City of Canada Bay Council [2026] NSWLEC 1725 - list only (heritage conservation). JADE Sealark Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1729 - list only (joinder). JADE Scott v Maitland City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1625 - list only (development control orders). JADE Little v Warrumbungle Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 134 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE Allera Planning Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1723 - list only (development consent appeal). JADE Aurora Rose Bay 2 Pty Ltd ATF Aurora Rose Bay 2 Unit Trust v Woollahra Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1724 - list only (development consent appeal). JADE Jubilee St Pty Ltd v Maitland City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1726 - list only (development consent). JADE Xiao v Nguyen [2026] NSWLEC 1722 - list only (easements). JADE Headnotes are AI-generated and marked check for accuracy. The voices in this program are AI-generated. Nothing in this episode is legal advice. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Thirteen decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Friday 30 October 2026, one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia and twelve from the Federal Court, six with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: an employer that relied on legal advice in deciding to end a contract does not waive privilege by putting its state of mind in issue in an adverse action claim, and the reverse onus changes nothing; with a guide to privilege over investigations, in-house counsel, PR advisers and drafts. Then oppression relief after the company has failed: directors ordered to compensate a diluted minority shareholder personally, measured as a notional buyout (the Full Court appeal also features in today's Court of Appeal brief). Plus a chief executive bound by officers' duties before he joined the board, CBD advertising behind a password, and the legal consequences a visa decision-maker must weigh. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). Henderson v Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd (Legal Professional Privilege) [2026] FCA 1632 (Jackman J, 30 October 2026) - in adverse action proceedings under s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), privilege is not waived merely because legal advice was obtained, relied upon or contributed to the termination decision; waiver requires that the holder put the contents of the privileged communications in issue, or brought a case that necessarily lays them open, and the s 361 reverse onus does not alter that inquiry. The board's 'legal strategy' was the CEO's recommendation, identifiable from his memorandum. Investigation documents are privileged where the decision-maker commissioned the investigation for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice, despite a non-decision-maker's contrary email and a start before external solicitors were engaged; in-house counsel acting in a professional capacity, PR and IR advisers under confidentiality, unsent drafts and private notes can all attract privilege; affidavit evidence of 'the purpose' may be evidence of dominant purpose, confirmed on inspection. All three interlocutory applications dismissed; costs timetabled. The adverse action claim is an untested allegation and continues. JADE Commercial Law Desk (oppression relief, and a civil penalty pair). Aulich v Scott [2026] FCAFC 139 (Charlesworth, Goodman and Neskovcin JJ, 30 October 2026) - appeal dismissed, unanimously. Dilutive $1.00 share issues were oppressive under s 232(e) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). On relief: there is no starting position against relief once oppression has ceased; oppression is assessed at the institution of proceedings and relief when the discretion is exercised; continuing unremedied effects may justify relief even where the company is in a liquidation the oppression did not cause. The s 233(1) power extends to ordering directors personally to compensate a shareholder for loss distinct from the company's, limited to alleviating the consequences of the oppression, quantified as a notional buyout at the date of each dilution rather than a loss of chance. Also in today's Court of Appeal brief. JADE Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden (Liability – Jones) [2026] FCA 1617 (Kennett J, 30 October 2026) - a CEO who performs the role, is held out as CEO and to whom reporting lines lead is an officer under s 9(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), before appointment as a director; a civil penalty defendant is not immune from a Jones v Dunkel inference; s 180(1) needs exposure to a risk of harm, not actual harm; consciously failing to raise known fellow-director conflicts with the board contravened s 181(1); a conscious decision not to act can be an exercise of power, a negligent failure to inform oneself cannot; the s 182(1) claim failed. Penalty and costs still to be determined. JADE Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden (Liability and Penalty – Pattenden) [2026] FCA 1616 (Kennett J, 30 October 2026) - agreed facts and relief: declarations, a 15 year disqualification, a penalty and an agreed lump sum costs contribution; the maximum civil penalty in force at the time of the contravention governs, not a later increase (s 7(2)(c), (d) Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth); the presumption against retrospectivity). JADE Public Law Desk . Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care v CDA Clinics QLD Pty Ltd trading as CDA Express [2026] FCA 1623 (Collier ACJ, 30 October 2026) - online CBD product pages, blog posts and Facebook posts were advertisements, even if informational in form; the s 42AA(4) exclusion of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) for information given directly to a patient by a health practitioner in the course of treatment did not apply to a password-protected site with a standardised questionnaire; a former sole director's s 191 agreed facts were evidence against the absent company in liquidation, though not binding; accessorial liability under s 42YC needs knowledge of the essential facts, not of unlawfulness; each day of publication a separate contravention; liquidation does not diminish general deterrence. Company penalty $6.5 million; the director's agreed penalty $450,000. JADE Cheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1631 (Colvin J, 30 October 2026) - para 9.1 of Direction no. 110 requires consideration of legal consequences within the legislative framework of a s 501CA(4) decision that flow from it by operation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), not every indirect consequence legal in character, so the effect on Family Court orders and parole conditions was outside it; the HZCP principle does not extend to findings that did not support the sentence. Application dismissed. JADE Also on the docket . Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1638 (Moshinsky J, 30 October 2026) - leave for an unrepresented migration appellant to raise new grounds (WGKS); evidence needed for procedural fairness complaints about telephone hearings and interpreters; the staged GPN-COSTS lump sum process. No outcome stated in the edition. JADE From the registry (list only; no outcome stated in the edition). Balbir Singh v Western Australian General Practice Education and Training Ltd [2026] FCA 1626 (Stewart J, 30 October 2026) - leave to appeal. JADE Balbir Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] FCA 1627 (Stewart J, 30 October 2026) - leave to appeal. JADE Randall v Woodside Energy Ltd [2026] FCA 1630 (Feutrill J, 30 October 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE Singh v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] FCA 1596 (Collier ACJ, 30 October 2026) - strike out. JADE Boi v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1576 (McElwaine J, 23 October 2026) - class action settlement approval. JADE Ausprout Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Gordon, in the matter of Ausprout Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 1635 (Wheatley J, 30 October 2026) - corporate governance. JADE Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Twelve headnoted appellate decisions from six courts in the edition of Friday 30 October 2026, with the Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia editions of the same roll-up folded in. A tax fraud prosecution stayed on terms; directors ordered to compensate a diluted shareholder personally; a split decision on an off-the-plan sunset clause; contributory negligence measured by skill; vexatious proceedings orders; a remitter and a reference date; apprehended bias at the Judicial Commission; and the death cap mushroom appeal. Two child sexual offence appeals are reported as legal doctrine only. Criminal Law Desk (opening story). Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Clarke (a pseudonym) [2026] QCA 219 - questioning under s 353-10 Sch 1 Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) about suspected fraud is within the administration of the tax laws, and a mixed improper purpose is substantial only on a but-for test; misconduct on a related discontinued State charge is relevant by its connections; ten misconduct findings upheld; relief may be moulded short of a permanent stay. Appeal allowed in part: the prosecution is stayed and not to proceed without an order of the District Court, on an application on undertakings within 90 days. The respondent has not been tried and is presumed innocent (Bond, Brown and Bradley JJA; also the Queensland edition). JADE Patterson v The King [2026] VSCA 253 - the double might test for jury separation where only a risk is relied on, facts found first; seeing is not communicating; a calculated forensic choice binds; the 30-year minimum under s 11A(4) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) is a floor; harsh conditions do not compel a non-parole period. Conviction appeal dismissed; Director's appeal allowed, the 33-year non-parole period set aside and no non-parole period fixed (McLeish, Taylor and Kidd JJA; also the Victoria edition). JADE R v NAL [2026] QCA 218 - an attempt to suborn a witness is an implied admission capable of showing consciousness of guilt; mere denials cannot found that inference; the repeated Liberato direction neutralised the prosecutor's error. Appeal dismissed (Mullins P, Callaghan and Sullivan JJ; also the Queensland edition). Legal doctrine only. JADE Dunn (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] SASCA 130 - after a judge-alone trial, the must-not-might test; reasons are inadequate only if they fail to explain a conclusion on a significant dispute that is a necessary step to the verdict; improbability reasoning not deployed. Permission granted on two grounds; appeal dismissed (Bleby, David and Stanley JJA). Legal doctrine only. JADE Commercial Law Desk . Aulich v Scott [2026] FCAFC 139 - under s 232(e) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) unfairness is objective, but an improper purpose lets it be found more readily; a constitutional power to allot shares on any terms is fiduciary and no answer; unfairness judged on facts known to the directors; directors may be ordered personally to compensate a shareholder under s 233(1). Appeal dismissed (Charlesworth, Goodman and Neskovcin JJ; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADE CAV Gasworks Pty Ltd v JYP Jiang Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 221 - by majority, 'cannot' in an off-the-plan sunset clause extends to a practical inability to give a notice triggering settlement within 14 days; Hindman J implied a term of honest and reasonable satisfaction; Bradley JA dissenting. Appeal allowed; the judgment set aside save the declaration concerning the deposit (Bradley JA, Crow and Hindman JJ; also the Queensland edition). JADE Practice and Procedure Desk . Encore Aviation Pty Ltd v O'Driscoll Aviation Pty Ltd; Encore Aviation Pty Ltd v O'Driscoll; O'Driscoll v Encore Aviation Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 227 - under s 5R Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) the standard of care is set by the skill a person possesses and professes; regulatory authorisation does not equate a pilot with a licensed engineer; contract and knowledge bear on apportionment; reduction 40 per cent, not 50; Browne v Dunn and the silent non-party statement. Encore's appeals dismissed; the contributory negligence challenges allowed (Leeming and Stern JJA, Price AJA). JADE Sanjiv v Shah [2026] NSWCA 231 - leave under s 14(2) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) is needed to challenge other orders, and without a substantially compliant affidavit s 15(1)(a) compels dismissal; procedural fairness by written submissions; Anshun estoppel for claims belonging in the FCFCOA. Appeal dismissed; leave to institute proceedings refused (Ward ACJ, Ball JA, Griffiths AJA). JADE Alphington Developments Pty Ltd v Amcor Pty Ltd (No 6) [2026] VSC 700 - a remitter continues the trial in light of the appellate judgment; probabilistic cost modelling is admissible but a finding needs actual persuasion; informed estimation where apportionment is impossible. Liability determined; leave to file further evidence on quantum (Garde J; Victoria edition, first instance). JADE Hauton Rd Childcare Pty Ltd v Checkpoint Construction Pty Ltd & Tanzer & QBCC [2026] QSC 262 - under s 67(2) Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) termination fixes the final reference date; an adjudicator relying on an unavailable reference date has no power, so nothing can be severed; a payment claim including work after the reference date is not valid. Application granted; the decision void (Wilson J; Queensland edition, first instance). JADE Public Law Desk . Freund v Attorney General of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 232 - apprehended bias on a very narrow basis where an excluded Judicial Commission member read misdirected papers and messaged another member; jurisdictional error irrespective of effect. The referral quashed and the complaint remitted to the Commission (Leeming, Payne and McHugh JJA). JADE Also on the docket . R v Jones [2026] SASCA 131 - a distinctly lenient domestic violence sentence, likely within range; pleas never entered and the Crown's part in the error weigh on permission. Permission to appeal refused (Livesey P, Stanley and B Doyle JJA). JADE Henderson v R [2026] NSWCCA 177 - a s 22A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) claim for a lesser penalty for facilitating the administration of justice is distinct from remorse and must be resolved. Appeal allowed; resentenced to a shorter term (Stern JA, Hamill and Yehia JJ). JADE Chamakuri v R [2026] NSWCCA 176 - where the s 66(2) comparative risk assessment for an intensive correction order is inconclusive, the s 3A purposes may decide. Appeal dismissed (N Adams CJ at CL, Campbell and Coleman JJ). JADE BP14 Pty Ltd & Anor v Kelea Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] VSC 705 - security for costs under r 62.02 and s 1335, ordered in stages (Hannon J; Victoria edition). JADE Registry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). KZQ v Queensland College of Teachers [2026] QSC 260 - judicial review. JADE LCM Operations Pty Ltd v R Kelly & Ors (No 2) [2026] QSC 261 - costs. JADE KADS Warehousing & Logistics Pty Ltd v Tarantino Investments Pty Ltd [No 2] [2026] VSC 710 - costs. JADE Re the Estate of Farago [2026] VSC 692 - probate. JADE Peet Keysborough Pty Ltd v Chihder Shanchan Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 706 - injunctions. JADE Groothuis v Care Park Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] VSC 703 - duty of care. JADE Blue Cap Mining Pty Ltd v Deutsche Balaton Aktiengesellschaft [2026] WASC 470 - voluntary administration. JADE Perihelion Health Pty Ltd v Dinovitser [2026] WASC 469 - summary judgment. JADE Fritzsch v Fritzsch [2026] WASC 473 - probate. JADE Aulich v Scott also features in today's Federal Courts brief; Encore Aviation, Sanjiv v Shah, Freund, Henderson and Chamakuri also feature in today's New South Wales brief, from the editions of Friday 30 October 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail A trade marks day: twenty seven decisions in the Tribunals edition of Thursday 29 October 2026, nineteen of them from the Trade Marks Office, all headnoted. Why a SaaS business could not prove use for software goods; when preparatory steps count as use; bad faith three ways; the words too plain to register; and six oppositions on likeness and reputation. Tribunals Desk: a software brand and a hosted service (lead). Opposition by Longsys Electronics (HK) Co., Limited to registration of trade mark application numbers 2235597 (9, 35, 42) – [2026] ATMO 199 - LEXER v LEXAR: similar goods by full notional scope (s 14(1)); deceptively similar as wholes (s 10); honest concurrent use failed (s 44(3)(a)) because hosted SaaS is not use for class 9 software goods. Opposition upheld for class 9 only; the rest proceeds. JADE A word from JADE (Announcer). Tribunals Desk: use, a herd and the paperwork . Opposition by Edward Troutbeck to application under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 183 - preparatory steps directed to supply, with an existing intention to trade, are use in good faith without sales. Removal declined. JADE Opposition by Bryan Cortese, Premium Pet Products Pty Ltd and Donna-Marie Cortese to an application under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 195 - assertions without commercial records; one photograph and an undated price list not enough. Mark removed. JADE Opposition by André Delaite to application under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 188 - use by the owner's sole director and shareholder is authorised by unity of purpose (s 8); small genuine use suffices. Three goods deleted. JADE Tribunals Desk: bad faith three ways (s 62A). Opposition by A & B Global Mining (Pty) Ltd to application for registration by ABGM Pty. Ltd. of trade mark numbers 2495308 (class 42) – [2026] ATMO 182 - a controlling mind's knowledge of a dissolution agreement bar; dishonesty not required. Registration refused. JADE Opposition by Cirketix LLC to registration of trade mark application number 2530334 (class 11) - WEAQUA - in the name of Yaobo Nong [2026] ATMO 189 - a mere failure to search is not bad faith; s 58 made out for some goods, so the application failed as a whole. Refused. JADE Opposition by Chef's Choice Foods Manufacturer Co. Ltd. to registration of trade mark application number 2333823 (classes 29 & 30) – Chef's Choice & 3 mountains device - in the name of HBC TRADING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2026] ATMO 197 - modernising a long-used registered mark raises no inference of bad faith; s 44(3)(b) other circumstances. Opposition rejected. JADE Tribunals Desk: words too plain to own (s 41). Re: Trade mark application number 2483119 (Class 35, 37 and 42) – [2026] ATMO 203 - MOBILETYRESHOP directly descriptive; use mostly with the MTS logo. Rejected. JADE Trade mark application number [2026] ATMO 191 - BRISK INVOICING: acceptance revoked (s 38), returned to examination. JADE Opposition by SONAFI to registration of trade mark application 2502183 (30) – [2026] ATMO 204 - TADKA FOOD ESSENCE: stylisation and a nameplate do not rescue a descriptive mark. Refused. JADE Trade mark application number 2410812 (class 29) – [2026] ATMO 201 - laudatory olive oil label used under a house brand. Rejected. JADE Trade mark application numbers 2533578 (class 44) and 2533582 (class 45) - GENTLE SENSORY- in the name of GENTLE SENSORY PTY LTD [2026] ATMO 190 - a covert and skilful allusion. Accepted. JADE Opposition by Markwise Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application number 2526941 (classes 3, 9, 16, 18, 41, 42 & 44) - FRESH HEALTH - in the name of FRESH IP HOLDING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2026] ATMO 198 - allusive; filing is evidence of intention to use (s 59). Opposition dismissed. JADE Tribunals Desk: likeness and reputation . Opposition by Henkel AG & Co KGaA to registration of trade mark application number 2427179 (classes 3 and 35) – [2026] ATMO 181 - 2B COSMETICS deceptively similar to GOT2B. Refused. JADE Opposition by Altec Industries Inc to registration of trade mark application number 2523393 (classes 7 and 37) - [2026] ATMO 202 - shared prefix not enough; careful buyers. Opposition dismissed. JADE Opposition by Target Brands, Inc. to registration of trade mark application 2488901 (35) – [2026] ATMO 186 - a letter A in motion is not the arrow. Opposition dismissed. JADE Opposition by Tripp Limited to extension of protection under regulation 17A.33 of the [2026] ATMO 187 - NEW TRIP: allusive common element; no Australian reputation. Opposition rejected. JADE Opposition by Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty. Limited to extension of protection under regulation 17A.33 of the [2026] ATMO 205 - s 60 needs no deceptive similarity; NATURES BAY and NATURE'S WAY. Protection refused. JADE Oppositions by Winyama Pty Ltd to registration of trade mark application numbers 2471824 WINYAMA CONTRACTING GROUP (figurative) and 2471881 Winyama Contracting both in class 37 - in the name of Winyama Contracting Group Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 196 - specialised reputation; misdirected communications are not confusion from reputation. Oppositions rejected. JADE Registry and the thread (list only, no outcome stated): Chen v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2026] NSWCATAD 328 ; Damodaran v Medical Council of New South Wales [2026] NSWCATOD 140 ; Smardon v The Owners – Strata Plan No 95695 [2026] NSWCATAP 333 ; McGaw v The Owners - Strata Plan No 2627 [2026] NSWCATAP 335 ; Amponsem v Calvary Administration Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 334 ; Elbashir v Creating Links (NSW) Ltd [2026] NSWCATAD 330 ; Application of HLD under s 121 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) [2026] NSWCATOD 141 ; Glenview Rise Pty Ltd v Merri-bek CC [2026] VCAT 912 . Case notes Opposition by Longsys Electronics (HK) Co., Limited to registration of trade mark application numbers 2235597 (9, 35, 42) – [2026] ATMO 199 - Louise Tuohy, Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks, 9 October 2026. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 10, 14(1), 44(1), 44(3), 58. Held also: s 58 ownership failed (no substantial identity); an earlier class 35 registration was no basis under s 44(3)(b); class 9 deleted from both applications, which otherwise proceed in classes 35 and 42. Why aired: evidence of a hosted service does not prove use for software goods; draft and gather evidence accordingly. All Trade Marks Office outcomes are as the headnotes state them. Three list-only matters (a births, deaths and marriages review, a medical registration suspension and a lay associate application) are reported by subject only; no one is identified. ATMO 191 returns to examination and McGaw concerns a stay pending appeal; nothing is predicted. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Sixteen decisions from three courts in the New South Wales edition of Thursday 29 October 2026, four of them headnoted. In a construction subcontract, "estimated" completion dates paired with an extension mechanism bind, a deemed ground for extension must still be claimed within the notice bar, and a reserve power to extend for the contractor's benefit excludes the prevention principle. A party who has not closed its case must be allowed to tender its evidence before the defendant goes into evidence, and should be heard on reopening without a forced admission. A party that does not ask for reasons in a list that does not ordinarily give them cannot complain of their absence on appeal. Habeas corpus does not lie against detention under unchallenged superior court orders, nor reagitate a concluded conviction appeal. Worked examples on mortgagee-sale caveats, security for costs and costs among defendants, and nine list-only decisions on the registry. The three Court of Appeal decisions also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same day; here they get the New South Wales angle. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Tallai Project Group Pty Ltd v Ellair Solutions Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1332 - (Rees J, 29 October 2026) judgment for the plaintiff contractor for the overpayment, with costs. Estimated Dates for Practical Completion, paired by experienced parties with a bespoke extension of time mechanism, operate as binding dates unless extended; no reasonable time implied; time not at large (XJS World distinguished). A clause making delay in possession a ground for extension is not an automatic extension: the subcontractor must claim, a 14-day notice bar defeats unclaimed extensions, and the contractor has no duty to ensure a claim. A reserve power exercisable in the contractor's sole discretion for its own benefit excludes the prevention principle and any implied duty of fair exercise. A 10% cap on the undefined contract sum applied to each separable portion; contra proferentem was excluded and is a last resort. A fixed lump sum subcontract for the whole of the works is an entire contract, divisible here by separable portion; no quantum meruit for a party terminated for default. A show cause power on the contractor's reasonable opinion carries an implied duty of reasonableness and good faith but does not require the contractor to subordinate its own interests; termination valid. JADE Equity-One Mortgage Fund Limited v Edwards [2026] NSWSC 1352 - (Slattery J, 29 October 2026) synopsis only; no outcome stated here. A template for caveat removal in a mortgagee sale: the application treated as an interlocutory injunction inquiry; damages commonly adequate given s 111A(4) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW); the Inglis payment-in requirement, a personal undertaking no substitute where the mortgagor is in other default; prejudice to non-joined purchasers; scrutiny of refinancing evidence; marketing campaign evidence answers an undervalue claim. JADE Practice and Procedure Desk (Tabbaa and MMP also in the Court of Appeal brief). Tabbaa v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 230 - (Mitchelmore and Stern JJA, Griffiths AJA, 29 October 2026) leave granted in part; appeal allowed as to the malicious prosecution claim, which is remitted to the District Court; leave otherwise refused. Summary judgment under r 29.10 UCPR is interlocutory; the s 127 District Court Act threshold needs a realistic prospect of changing wealth by $100,000, and unsupported assertions of economic loss do not meet it. Whether a party has closed its case is a question of fact. A party that has not closed, and has made no disabling forensic choice, must be permitted to tender before the defendant goes into evidence; refusal denied procedural fairness, not cured by a reopening offer conditioned on an admission. Materiality may be inferred without seeing the documents. Where a precondition is genuinely disputed, s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) favours hearing the application without admissions. The remitted claim is untested. JADE MMP Industrial Pty Ltd and MMP NZ Ltd v Yaem Pty Ltd as trustee for the R & R Discretionary Trust [2026] NSWCA 229 - (Stern and McHugh JJA, Black J, 29 October 2026) leave to appeal dismissed with costs. Leave from an interlocutory procedural order is confined to principle, general importance or reasonably clear injustice, with appellate restraint at the leave stage; the standard of review was left undecided. In a list that does not ordinarily give reasons unless asked, the duty may depend on a request; a party that did not ask cannot rely on their absence. The apparent relevance threshold is not met where relevance rests on an unsupported assumption; a fishing expedition; no obligation to narrow an over-broad subpoena when no narrowing was sought. The Commercial List proceedings continue. JADE Alexicon Pty Ltd v Alexiou [2026] NSWSC 1356 - (Richmond J, 29 October 2026) synopsis only. Security for costs under r 42.21(1A) UCPR, factor by factor: once s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is engaged the defendant keeps the legal burden and the plaintiff carries an evidential onus; stultification requires a full explanation of funding to completion; a personal costs undertaking is a powerful consideration; no abuse of process despite an earlier abandoned family provision claim. JADE Rayman v Brown (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1353 - (Ward ACJ, 29 October 2026) synopsis only. Plaintiff's costs apportioned between defendants by proportionate liability (15% builder, 85% owner) to the builder's offer, then 100% to the owner; an offer of compromise may be framed as a percentage of liability; the offeree bears the onus of showing rejection reasonable, with prospects assessed defendant by defendant; a marginal beat of the plaintiff's own offer still attracts indemnity costs. JADE Public Law Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief). Fantakis v Commissioner of Corrective Services (NSW) [2026] NSWCA 228 - (Mitchelmore, McHugh and Ball JJA, 29 October 2026) leave to appeal against the refusal of declarations refused; appeal otherwise dismissed with costs. An order of a superior court of record, even if made in excess of jurisdiction, is valid until set aside, so unchallenged sentencing orders and warrant answer habeas corpus. Habeas corpus cannot reagitate complaints finally determined on a conviction appeal. Bias must be proved, not asserted. Declarations collaterally attacking a conviction are an abuse of process. Leave is not needed to appeal the dismissal of habeas corpus (s 101(3)) but is needed for declarations refused in the same proceeding (s 101(2)(r)). JADE Registry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Supreme Court of New South Wales. Anderson v Windabble Pty Ltd as Trustee for Lizard Island Trust [2026] NSWSC 1342 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE Holohan v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1349 - list only (interlocutory applications). JADE Liu v Yang [2026] NSWSC 1344 - list only (award enforcement). JADE Transport for NSW v Registrar-General of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 1354 - list only (strata title). JADE In the matter of Murphy McCarthy & Associates Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] NSWSC 1337 - list only (voidable transactions). JADE The Adoption of Dorothea Brooke Bellini and Cecilia Mary Bellini [2026] NSWSC 1341 - list only (adoption orders). JADE Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Wellfortune Property Group Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1719 - list only (development consent). JADE Mackenzie Architects International Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1720 - list only (development consent). JADE The Trustee for Hunter Property Trust No 4 v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1721 - list only (development consent appeal). JADE Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Eight decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Thursday 29 October 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, none with a Judicial Ledger headnote and two with a Signal synopsis. A quiet day, and a loud lead: security for costs against a company that sues, where the company claiming that security would stifle its claim must prove that the people who stand to benefit from the litigation are also without means, with a staged, testable method for fixing the amount and a stay, not dismissal, as the usual consequence of non-payment. Then leave to plead an oppression case, where the express terms of the shareholders' deed and the constitution defeat a pleaded expectation. Neither synopsis states the final orders, so none are given here. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). Hudson Global Investments Pty Ltd v Elkerton [2026] FCA 1577 (Moore J, 29 October 2026) - two checklists: the non-exhaustive factors for leave for a non-lawyer to represent a corporation under rr 1.34 and 4.01(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (conflict of interest, the witness and representative dual role, a more liberal approach for defendant corporations); and security for costs under s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including the Bell Wholesale Co Pty Ltd v Gates Export Corp (No 2) (1984) 2 FCR 1 requirement that, to establish stultification, the plaintiff prove that those who will benefit from the litigation are also without means. A worked quantification: a staged task-based estimate, an assumed 70% party/party recovery, then a further discount because security is not a complete indemnity (Brundza v Robbie & Co (No 2) (1952) 88 CLR 171). A stay, not automatic dismissal, is the usual consequence of failing to provide security; dismissal is available on a later application. Collateral purpose and personal benefit to a shareholder bear on both discretions. No final orders are stated in the edition. JADE Commercial Law Desk . Marlton Investments Pty Ltd v Villawood Management Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1613 (O'Callaghan J, 29 October 2026) - leave to file a statement of claim in oppression proceedings under s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 2.4 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth): the pleading must disclose an arguable cause of action that would survive strike-out (General Steel; Spencer), assessed against the overarching purpose in ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); legitimate expectation and "foundational understanding" pleas fail where they contradict the express terms of the shareholders' deed and the constitution (majority voting clauses); lack of good faith and improper purpose must be pleaded with specificity, including the scope of the power and the alleged purpose (Pharm-a-Care Laboratories (No 3) (2010) 267 ALR 494); no incorporation by reference of allegations made in other proceedings; annexed procedural chronologies are of no assistance and will be disallowed; costs follow where the applicant fails on most contested paragraphs. No final orders are stated in the edition. JADE Also on the docket (list only; no outcome stated in the edition). Saywell v Comcare (No 2) [2026] FCA 1614 (Anderson J, 29 October 2026) - extension of time (civil appeal). JADE FDB17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1612 (O'Callaghan J, 29 October 2026) - judicial review. JADE Majak v State of Victoria (No 2) [2026] FCA 1634 (O'Sullivan J, 29 October 2026) - costs orders. JADE Barnden (Trustee) v Ross, in the matter of Chami (Bankrupt) (substituted service) [2026] FCA 1633 (Cheeseman J, 29 October 2026) - service. JADE Gussen v Momentum Media Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1618 (Anderson J, 29 October 2026) - defamation defences. JADE AusNet Services Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCA 1609 (Moshinsky J, 29 October 2026) - tax assessment. JADE Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Five headnoted appellate decisions from three courts in the edition of Thursday 29 October 2026, with the Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania editions of the same day folded in. A self-represented litigant treated as having closed a case he said was still open; a partner named senior next of kin, and why that status confers no right to bury; habeas corpus and a conviction already decided on appeal; reasons never asked for and a subpoena that went fishing; a mixed out-of-court statement and the closing address; and what a file's modified date proves. Two matters involving sexual offending against children and child exploitation material are reported as legal doctrine only. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). Tabbaa v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 230 - whether a party has closed its case is a question of fact, and caution is needed where it says it has not; a party that has not closed must be permitted to tender its evidence before the defendant goes into evidence, so refusing the tender before a r 29.10 UCPR (NSW) summary judgment motion denied procedural fairness; an offer to hear a reopening application conditioned on admitting the case was closed did not cure it, and s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) favours entertaining the application without admissions; materiality inferred without seeing the documents; summary judgment is interlocutory, and unsupported assertions of economic loss do not meet the s 127 District Court Act 1973 (NSW) threshold. Leave granted in part; appeal allowed as to the malicious prosecution claim, which is remitted to the District Court and remains to be decided (Mitchelmore and Stern JJA, Griffiths AJA; Signal Practice and Procedure; also today's New South Wales brief). JADE MMP Industrial Pty Ltd and MMP NZ Ltd v Yaem Pty Ltd as trustee for the R & R Discretionary Trust [2026] NSWCA 229 - for interlocutory procedural orders appellate restraint is engaged at the leave stage, and the standard of review does not arise until leave is granted (left open for setting aside a subpoena); a party that did not seek reasons for a procedural decision in a list that gives none unless asked cannot rely on their absence on appeal; apparent relevance under r 33.4 UCPR (NSW) is not met where it rests on an unsupported assumption, and there is no duty to narrow a subpoena when no narrowing is sought. Leave to appeal refused with costs (Stern and McHugh JJA, Black J; also today's New South Wales brief). JADE Public Law Desk . Wells v Mackey [2026] TASSC 69 - the Coroner's determination that the deceased's partner was her spouse and so senior next of kin under s 3A Coroners Act 1995 (Tas) affirmed under s 3B(2)(a); practical inability to cohabit and a recent disagreement need not defeat spousal status; the status operates only for that Act and confers no right to bury, which rests under the general law with the personal representative or the person with the best right to administration; injunction in the inherent jurisdiction restraining the senior next of kin from exercising any right of burial; the Attorney-General intervened as of right; a served party who ignores the process will not be heard by telephone once the hearing begins (Shanahan CJ; Signal Doctrine and Practice and Procedure; Tasmania edition). JADE Fantakis v Commissioner of Corrective Services (NSW) [2026] NSWCA 228 - an order of a superior court of record is valid until set aside, even if made in excess of jurisdiction, so unchallenged sentencing orders and the warrant answer habeas corpus under s 71 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW); habeas corpus is no avenue to reagitate a conviction appeal finally determined; declarations impugning the conviction are an abuse of process; leave is needed under s 101(2)(r) for declarations refused in a habeas proceeding; bias requires more than assertion. Leave refused; appeal otherwise dismissed; costs (Mitchelmore, McHugh and Ball JJA; also today's New South Wales brief). JADE Criminal Law Desk (legal doctrine only). OMX v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2026] WASCA 153 - the prosecution need not treat a mixed inculpatory and exculpatory statement as wholly true to rely on its inculpatory part; an accused's question was admissible narrative under the Christie discretion; a closing address is assessed as a whole and in context; where all conduct is cross-admissible as tendency evidence under s 31A Evidence Act 1906 (WA), an improbable coincidence submission invites no impermissible reasoning; failure to object is relevant but not determinative. Extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed (Vaughan, Archer and Sweeney JJA; Vaughan JA would have granted leave on one ground but dismissed it; also the Western Australia edition; OMX is a pseudonym). JADE Humphreys v The King [2026] SASCA 128 - inferences from a file's modified date are open where other information identifies the event it records; an expert's concession that a contrary state is possible may be treated as theoretical; describing discreditable conduct evidence as of substantial rather than strong probative value under s 34P(2) Evidence Act 1929 (SA) is not error where it is in fact strong; a reasoning challenge under s 158(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) must show a fundamental, material breakdown; obiter doubt that accessibility at the charged date is always essential to possession. Permission to appeal granted; appeal dismissed (Livesey P, S Doyle and Stanley JJA; also the South Australia edition). JADE Registry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). Ching v Nxt Tec. Ltd [2026] WASC 467 - Western Australia; promissory estoppel (Solomon J). JADE Re Carnaby Resources Ltd; Ex Parte Carnaby Resources Ltd [No 2] [2026] WASC 468 - Western Australia; scheme approval (Hill J). JADE National Australia Bank Limited v Reynolds [2026] WASC 465 - Western Australia; interlocutory orders (Whitby J). JADE Bleathman v Hawkey, Heald v Hawkey [2026] TASSC 70 - Tasmania; discovery (Daly AsJ). JADE AYKB v State of Tasmania [2026] TASSC 67 - Tasmania; costs assessment (Daly AsJ). JADE Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail The Patent Office and three tribunals, twelve decisions, in the Tribunals edition of Wednesday 28 October 2026, one with a headnote. Why a reward scheme run through a payment terminal is mostly not a manner of manufacture after Aristocrat '25; how to get back into a VCAT case you missed and how to test a Calderbank offer; why a small business sale without a disclosure statement is void; and the exceptional case test in a blue card review. Tribunals Desk: a reward scheme at the Patent Office (lead). Kyro Card Capital Pty Ltd [2026] APO 31 - after Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131, POS lock-down and PCI standards are artificial restrictions, not technical limitations, so overcoming them is not a technical problem; claim 1 was an abstract idea manipulated on a computer, administrative in nature; an asserted artificial state of affairs or 'something more' is not enough; one-way hashing of PANs is established technique and comparing hashes an administrative step (s 18(1)(a) Patents Act 1990 (Cth)). Most claims in both sets not a manner of manufacture; amended claims 2 and 3 remitted for further examination, with new prior art on inventive step. JADE Tribunals Desk: missed hearings and costs offers (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). Turner v Mico [2026] VCAT 901 - synopsis: s 120 VCAT Act review of an order made in a party's absence (awareness, reason for non-attendance, a reasonable case); 14 days from awareness and one application without leave (r 4.24); the right form and fee are essential (s 132, r 3.07); GP certificates tested against s 3 and PNVCAT2. JADE Stanley v EWH Construction West Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] VCAT 896 - synopsis: s 109(3) criteria one by one; a Calderbank offer inclusive of costs is tested with costs as at the offer date; pre-proceeding 14-day offers may be unreasonable where the offeree has no lawyers; fixing costs under s 111(a) versus the Costs Court. JADE Tribunals Desk: a business sale and a building contract (frameworks from synopses). Bowen Smith Pty Ltd v Mane & Ors [2026] VCAT 899 - synopsis: the s 52 Estate Agents Act 1980 (Vic) statement in Form 2; without it a small business sale contract is absolutely void under s 52(6), indemnity and liability clauses included; invite submissions on an unpleaded decisive point. No outcome stated. JADE Newearth Constructions Pty Ltd v Gillis & Anor [2026] VCAT 897 - synopsis: subdivision civil works outside the DBC Act, jurisdiction under ss 182 and 184 ACLFT Act; AS 4905 conditions incorporated by express reference; progress certificates on account do not extinguish defect claims; a fencing breach found but no award without proof of net loss. JADE Tribunals Desk: blue card reviews and unacceptable risk (legal framework only; no outcome stated). Blue Card Applicant MG v Director-General Department of Justice [2026] QCAT 501 - synopsis: the exceptional case framework (ss 221(2), 226, 360 as printed); the Tribunal applies the same evaluative test, Briginshaw imposes no higher standard; unacceptable risk, not a balance of risk and protective factors; an exceptional case may be found where the risk is less than an even chance; transitional provisions, the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and the weight of unsworn investigator summaries. JADE Registry and the thread (list only, by subject; no outcome stated): HPL Construction Vic Pty Ltd v Gardenview Homes Pty Ltd [2026] VCAT 903 (estoppel); Millington v Bala Homes Pty Ltd & Anor (Costs) [2026] VCAT 902 (costs); Mason Constructions (VIC) Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2026] VCAT 889 (heritage permit conditions); HJZWLIJ Pty Ltd v Bass Coast SC [2026] VCAT 841 (rural subdivision); Arnold v Macedon Ranges SC [2026] VCAT 711 (strike out); GWF v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 326 (victims support review). Case notes Kyro Card Capital Pty Ltd [2026] APO 31 - Dr W.E. Guinea (delegate of the Commissioner of Patents), 22 October 2026. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 18(1)(a), 40(2)(a), 40(3); Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) reg 13.4(3). Held also: the physical integers were standard components; claim 1 was not limited to PCI compliance (claims construed to avoid redundancy); the terminal was altered only by the data it stored; distributed storage on the reward server is well established (Rokt). Acceptance date set at six months. Why aired: a clean application of the post-Aristocrat '25 practice to computer implemented claims. Pending: further examination; nothing predicted. Turner v Mico [2026] VCAT 901 - I Lulham, Deputy President, 4 September 2026. Why aired: a reusable checklist for reviews of orders made in a party's absence. Stanley v EWH Construction West Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] VCAT 896 - I Lulham, Deputy President, 14 October 2026. Why aired: Calderbank timing and when VCAT fixes costs itself. Bowen Smith Pty Ltd v Mane & Ors [2026] VCAT 899 - I Lulham, Deputy President, 14 October 2026. Why aired: a drastic statutory consequence for small business sales. Newearth Constructions Pty Ltd v Gillis & Anor [2026] VCAT 897 - Member R Curie, 21 October 2026. Why aired: jurisdiction for subdivision works, incorporation by reference, certificates on account, and breach without loss. Blue Card Applicant MG v Director-General Department of Justice [2026] QCAT 501 - Member P Roney KC, 20 October 2026. Why aired: a full restatement of the exceptional case test that corrects a common balancing error. A working with children review is reported by its legal framework only, and a victims support review by subject only; no one is identified. The patent application remains under examination and nothing here predicts its outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Eight decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Wednesday 28 October 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia and seven from the Federal Court, five with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: a divided Full Court holds that a union permit holder's genuine purpose, even one resting on a mistake, enlivens the right of entry under s 484 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Then the first contested penalty under the AML/CTF Act ($260 million against the Star casino entities), parliamentary privilege meeting a whistleblower's pleading, a migration agent's appeal on who is a "client", and the conduct behind a finding of guilt recorded without conviction in a citizenship decision. The Full Court decision also features in today's Court of Appeal brief. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). ECA Training Pty Limited v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2026] FCAFC 138 (Rangiah, Snaden and Hatcher JJ, 28 October 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 19. By majority (Rangiah and Hatcher JJ), the s 484 right of entry arises where the permit holder genuinely holds the purpose of discussions with employees having the paras (a)-(c) characteristics; those are elements of the purpose, not objective preconditions, so a purpose resting on a mistake of fact or law still supports entry; the s 518(3)(b) declaration is an objective indicator of that purpose; occupiers are protected by proof of no genuine purpose, s 503(1) and ss 490-492A and 500. CEPU v Elecnor [2025] FCA 156 approved. Snaden J dissented (entry depends on the actual existence of the circumstances; Coco v The Queen; Elecnor wrongly decided). Unanimously, the new contention that the belief had to be reasonably held could not be raised on appeal (Coulton v Holcombe). By majority, and not strictly necessary, apprentices in mandatory, paid, employer-disciplined training perform "work". Appeal dismissed. JADE Public Law Desk (an AML/CTF penalty and a citizenship appeal). Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre v The Star Pty Limited [2026] FCA 1606 (Moore J, 28 October 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 23. The first contested pecuniary penalty under s 175 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth). The "primary purpose" of a Part A program (s 85(2)(a)) is the end the program document seeks to achieve, not its effect or objective capability by design; an absent, manifestly inadequate or formulaic risk assessment may support an inference; AUSTRAC ran no fall-back case. Section 36(1) is contravened once per customer not monitored, not per designated service; customers using the same channel are separate contraventions. Capacity to pay is not a cap (Pattinson); insolvency claims need cogent evidence including funders' intentions; prior agreed penalties (Crown) have a limited role. Penalties of $260 million ($195 million Star Sydney, $65 million Star Queensland) in four instalments; declarations; costs. JADE Jamdar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1620 (Rofe J, 28 October 2026) - JL p. 13. Sections 85ZR and 85ZS of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (Pt VIIC) are directed to the fact of a charge, conviction or finding of guilt and do not prevent an administrative decision-maker considering the underlying conduct in a citizenship good character assessment (Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s 21(2)(h)); Pt VIIC confers no immunity from answering questions, so the Administrative Review Tribunal was not obliged to advise a legally represented applicant of it; the deliberate withholding finding was not legally unreasonable. Extension of time granted under s 174(2) of the ART Act; appeal dismissed. JADE Practice and Procedure Desk (parliamentary privilege and an appeal from a tribunal). Moses v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] FCA 1607 (Halley J, 28 October 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 27. Communications between members of Parliament about whether to table a document are "proceedings in Parliament" under s 16(2)(b) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), even with no matter yet before the House; the test is objective functional connection, members' motives are irrelevant (Carne distinguished); the s 16(3)(c) prohibition on drawing inferences extends to motive and state of mind, so allegations of knowledge for whistleblower detriment under s 1317AD of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) could not rest on privileged communications (bare facts exception not engaged). Paragraphs struck out; leave to file a further amended statement of claim. The plaintiff's allegations are untested and the proceeding continues; nothing is predicted. JADE Kearney v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2026] FCA 1615 (Dowling J, 28 October 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; JL p. 16. A "client" under reg 3(1) of the Migration Agents Regulations 1998 (Cth) includes a person to whom the agent agrees to provide immigration assistance, without a retainer and without mutuality; a finding of reckless indifference forecloses the argument that intermediaries' fraud vitiated the relationship; s 276(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not require the recipient's knowledge; the Court confined itself to errors developed in written submissions, merits challenges disclose no error of law, and concessions below were decisive. Appeal dismissed. JADE Also on the docket . Australian Securities and Investments Commission v eToro Aus Capital Limited (No 3) [2026] FCA 1604 (Stellios J, 28 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Contested suppression and non-publication orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): the evidence needed to show necessity under s 37AG(1)(a), ACCC v Valve (No 5) distinguished, narrowly tailored redactions and fixed durations under s 37AJ. No outcome stated in the edition's synopsis. JADE Jahani v Qiu, in the matter of Ralan Property Services Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (non-party application) [2026] FCA 1619 (Cheeseman J, 28 October 2026) - interlocutory applications; list only. JADE TLAS Pty Ltd as trustee for the TLAS Trust v Arrowes Roading Safety Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 1621 (Hespe J, 28 October 2026) - costs orders; list only. JADE Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail The first Fair Work brief: Fair Work now has its own daily stream. Sixteen Fair Work Commission decisions from the Fair Work Tribunals edition of Wednesday 28 October 2026, one with a headnote and one with a synopsis. How to identify the regulated host of a labour hire crew inside a corporate group under the same job, same pay regime; and why a platform seeking a stay pending appeal needs evidence of its own prejudice. Fair Work Desk: who is the host in a group (lead). Application by The Australian Maritime Officers' Union & The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers [2026] FWC 4170 - Beaumont DP. A regulated labour hire arrangement order under s 306E Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) needs supply, direct or indirect (indifferent to privity), of employees to perform work "for" the host in the s 306D(2) benefit sense; identifying the regulated host looks to the host business the work benefits, not merely an employer; work is not done for a related entity merely because it supplies contracted services supporting the business the labour is supplied to; joint venture and common enterprise need probative evidence, and group membership is not enough; the applicant bears the onus. Application dismissed. JADE Fair Work Desk: a stay without the evidence (worked example from the Signal synopsis; the appeal itself is pending and nothing is predicted). Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd Trading AS Uber v Ali Hamza [2026] FWC 4164 - Easton DP. Synopsis: a thirteen-point checklist of s 606 stay principles (building on Kellow-Falkiner Motors v Edghill) applied in the new unfair deactivation jurisdiction for digital labour platforms; an arguable case for permission to appeal differs from an arguable case on the merits; status quo arguments are insufficient and there is no prima facie position favouring a stay of reinstatement orders; the stay applicant carries the evidentiary burden on the balance of convenience, and leading no evidence of prejudice, relying only on general safety submissions, was fatal. JADE Registry (listed in the edition without reasons; no outcome stated). Unfair dismissal: Raquel Gray v BESB Couriers Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4143 ; Marco Maletti v Kitcraft Kitchens Pty Ltd Trading AS Kitchen Craftsmen [2026] FWC 4162 ; Peter Deane v Hawkesbury Pools Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4093 ; Daniel Cowell v Brief Access Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4165 . Protected action ballot orders: Transport Workers' Union of Australia v K&S Freighters Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4168 ; v Mazda Australia Pty Limited [2026] FWC 4060 (applicant not printed) . Enterprise agreements: Cv Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4172 ; Wambo Coal Pty Limited Trading AS Peabody Energy Australia [2026] FWC 4159 ; Application by UGL Operations and Maintenance Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4155 . Award interpretation: “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 4166 . Redundancy pay: Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association [2026] FWC 4157 . Transfer of business: Evolution Precast (Vic) Pty Ltd Trading AS Evolution Precast [2026] FWC 4153 . Employment contract: Elizabeth O'Donnell v Fresleven Pty Ltd ATF The Muley Graves Unit Trust t/as Coral Bay Ecotours & Roger Bailye and Others [2026] FWC 4171 . Full Bench, leave to appeal: v Woodward Foods Australia Pty Ltd & Richard Tomasevic [2026] FWCFB 284 (applicant not printed; Asbury VP, Lake DP, 23 October 2026) . Case notes Application by The Australian Maritime Officers' Union & The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers [2026] FWC 4170 - Beaumont DP, 26 October 2026. Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Part 2-7A, ss 12, 306C, 306D(1)-(2), 306E(1)(a)-(b), (2), (3), (6), (9); Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 15AA, 15AB. Held also: because the proposed host was not the regulated host, its enterprise agreements were not covered employment instruments (s 306E(1)(b)); fair and reasonable (s 306E(2)) unnecessary to decide. Applied Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Mining and Energy Union [2025] FCAFC 195; followed Batchfire [2024] FWCFB 299. Why aired: the edition's only headnote (four stars) and a first-instance construction of the regulated host test for corporate groups. Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd Trading AS Uber v Ali Hamza [2026] FWC 4164 - Easton DP, 26 October 2026. Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 387(a), 400, 375A, 536LH(1)(a), (c), 536MA, 604(2), 606; Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (Qld) ss 67N, 67T. Synopsis also: valid reason under s 536LH(1)(a) mirrors s 387(a) (Hotak v Rasier Pacific [2025] FWCFB 214); a warning against hyperbolic characterisation of unchallenged findings. Why aired: a reusable stay checklist, first applied in the unfair deactivation jurisdiction. The rideshare platform's appeal is still to be decided; nothing here predicts its outcome. Individual applicants are not named on air. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Eight headnoted appellate decisions from seven courts in the edition of Wednesday 28 October 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and ACT editions of the same day folded in. An adjournment refused for want of the client's own evidence; stealing that was never an available alternative verdict; an unreasonable verdict claim after a judge-alone trial; the Crown held to its case and joint commission; discovery and the pleaded case; who pays third parties brought into an appeal, and separate lawyers for an insurer; and the union right of entry. A child sexual offence appeal is reported as legal doctrine only. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). El Youssef v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2026] NSWCA 225 - a party seeking an adjournment to investigate a settlement deed must show some factual basis, and the client's own evidence is the obvious source; where the client could depose and does not, the court may infer the evidence would not have assisted; refusal is reviewable only for House v The King error; an extension of time fails without a fairly arguable appeal; Kirk JA (obiter) on judgments by consent and leave under s 101(2)(c) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). Extension refused; summons and notice of appeal dismissed (Leeming, Kirk and McHugh JJA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd v Cole [2026] VSCA 252 - relevance for discovery is tested by the pleaded case; credit is not a pleaded issue; leave refused for want of substantial injustice, given prior applications, delay and an imminent trial. Leave to appeal refused (Niall CJ, Lyons and Nichols JJA; also the Victoria edition). JADE Saadat v Commonwealth & Ors (No 2) [2026] SASCA 132 - a defendant that files a contingent appeal against third parties and procures consolidation so they are bound is, if the primary appeal fails, in substance unsuccessful against them, and costs follow the event. The Commonwealth to pay the third parties' costs (Livesey P, S Doyle and Bleby JJA; also the South Australia edition). JADE Agokk v Programmed Skilled Workforce Pty Ltd [2026] WASC 464 - the power to allow a defendant more than one set of lawyers comes from the inherent jurisdiction (s 16 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)); dual representation is exceptional and must be shown by evidence to be required by the interests of justice; the usual course is independent representation and third party proceedings against insurers. Application refused (Western Australia edition, first instance). JADE Criminal Law Desk . Wheldon v Tasmania [2026] TASCCA 9 - under ss 332 and 341 Criminal Code 1924 (Tas) stealing is an alternative to aggravated carjacking only if the crime as described or charged necessarily involves it, and s 240A requires no dishonest taking or intent to permanently deprive; an error raised by the Court in a sentence appeal; acquittal, not retrial, on conceded error. Conviction quashed, acquittal entered; a related summary charge to be resentenced (Wood, Estcourt and Cuthbertson JJ; also the Tasmania edition). JADE Gordon (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] SASCA 126 - after a judge-alone trial, whether the judge must, not might, have had a reasonable doubt, with full allowance for the judge's advantages; weighing a child complainant's inconsistencies; the appellate court is not bound by the trial judge's weight on circumstantial evidence; s 34R Evidence Act 1929 (SA) directions are shaped by the forensic context. Permission granted; appeal dismissed (Livesey P, David and Stanley JJA; also the South Australia edition). Legal doctrine only. JADE Lahood v The King [2026] WASCA 148 - the Crown is held on appeal to burdens it assumed at trial; under s 11.2A Criminal Code (Cth) an accused need not be ad idem with every participant in the agreement (Quinlan CJ, Sweeney JA); the exclusion hypothesis was not reasonably open. Leave granted; appeal dismissed (Quinlan CJ, Archer and Sweeney JJA; also the Western Australia edition). JADE Public Law Desk . ECA Training Pty Limited v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2026] FCAFC 138 - by majority, the s 484 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) right of entry arises where the permit holder genuinely holds the purpose of discussions with employees having the paras (a) to (c) characteristics, even on a mistake of fact or law; apprentices in mandatory paid training under employer discipline perform work; a new reasonable-belief argument could not be raised on appeal. Appeal dismissed (Rangiah and Hatcher JJ, Snaden J dissenting; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADE Also on the docket . Chipwanya v Queensland Police Service [2026] QCA 202 - where criminal proceedings are current, complaints about the prosecution material belong in the criminal court and an unlawful arrest claim is premature. Appeal dismissed (Mullins P, Boddice JA, Henry J; also the Queensland edition). The appellant awaits trial and is presumed innocent. JADE Mellon v Isgroup Pty Ltd [2026] WASC 462 - where a contract permits termination for specified conduct, the question is whether that conduct occurred, not the employer's purpose. Parts of the amended reply struck out (Hill J; Western Australia edition). JADE Registry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). R v Schade [2026] NSWSC 1345 - sentencing. JADE In the matter of Lets Build NSW Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1347 - creditors' rights. JADE Peterkin v Tadros (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1325 - assessment of damages. JADE New South Wales Crime Commission v Chellew [2026] NSWSC 1323 - interlocutory orders. JADE Tannock v Metro Finance Pty Limited (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1343 - costs. JADE MPG Funds Management Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1717 - development consent. JADE Hickey v State of Queensland [2026] QSC 257 - judicial review. JADE Smith v Amaca Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] QSC 240 - duty of care. JADE Smith v Amaca Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2026] QSC 259 - costs. JADE White v Poynton [No 4] [2026] VSC 702 - indemnity costs. JADE Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council [No 3] [2026] VSC 704 - costs. JADE Giglia v Giglia [No 2] [2026] WASC 461 - family provision. JADE Keelty v Walsh [2026] WASC 463 - family provision. JADE Haythornthwaite v Bhp Minerals Pty Ltd [2026] WASC 466 - joinder. JADE DPP v Howe (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 411 - sentencing. JADE ECA Training also features in today's Federal Courts brief, from the editions of Wednesday 28 October 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail The Australian Patent Office and four tribunals, seven decisions in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 27 October 2026, two with headnotes. Why two patent oppositions failed against claims wider than the examples; and what a tribunal expects of someone who manages another person's money. The Fair Work Tribunals edition of the same day (twenty five Fair Work Commission decisions, all listed without reasons) is folded in by one line. Tribunals Desk: two patent oppositions and claims wider than the examples (lead). Quarry Mining and Constructions Equipment Pty Limited v Sandvik Mining and Construction G.m.b.H.; Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia Pty Ltd; Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia (Production/Supply) Pty Ltd [2026] APO 27 - "secured inside", given its ordinary meaning, excludes couplings that come undone, so postulated inoperative variants fall outside the claims; no undue burden from the absent upper bound on thread lead (s 40(2)(a)); no excess over the technical contribution (s 40(3)); inutility must be proved by evidence, not speculation (ss 7A, 18(1)(c)). Opposition unsuccessful; costs against the opponent. JADE Dorel Australia Pty Ltd v Wonderland Switzerland AG [2026] APO 30 - claims need not mirror a single depicted embodiment if the invention can plausibly be performed across the full scope without undue burden; clarity is a workable meaning read in a practical, common sense manner; novelty needs every essential integer; for a combination, whether the combination is obvious; a late SGP amendment refused without explanation for the delay; costs apportioned at the date narrowing s 104 amendments were allowed. Opposition dismissed; the application proceeds to grant, subject to appeal. JADE Tribunals Desk: administrators, accounts and gifts (worked example from a synopsis; legal framework only; no outcome stated). Patrick [2026] WASAT 128 - synopsis: review of an administration order under ss 4, 64 and 68 Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA): the three-element capacity test; administrator suitability, including Public Trustee reporting; transfers of a represented person's funds without gifting authority breach the best interests requirement; the cost of delayed accommodation deposits; s 73(1) SAT Act direction to the Public Trustee to investigate. JADE Registry and the thread (listed without reasons; by subject only; no outcome stated): Semple v Greater Geelong CC [2026] VCAT 908 (planning permit); Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Bali [2026] VCAT 900 (professional misconduct); HPQ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2026] NSWCATAD 325 (victims support review); Health Care Complaints Commission v Bah [2026] NSWCATOD 139 (professional discipline). Case notes Quarry Mining and Constructions Equipment Pty Limited v Sandvik Mining and Construction G.m.b.H.; Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia Pty Ltd; Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia (Production/Supply) Pty Ltd [2026] APO 27 - Neil Miller, delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 25 September 2026. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7A, 18(1)(c), 40(3), 59; Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) Sch 8. Held also: inventive step not made out; costs followed the event. Why aired: an opponent cannot defeat a broad claim by postulating unworkable variants; construction can exclude them, and insufficiency, lack of support and inutility need evidence. Dorel Australia Pty Ltd v Wonderland Switzerland AG [2026] APO 30 - M Umehara, delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, 20 October 2026. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(1)-(3), 18(1), 40(2)(a), 40(3), 59, 60(3A), 104; Sch 8. Held also: sufficiency particulars outside the SGP not excluded where the substance was unchanged and no prejudice; incremental crash testing routine, so testing costs not an undue burden (CSR distinguished). Why aired: the same principle from a second delegate, with transferable procedure on late amendment and costs after narrowing amendments. Patrick [2026] WASAT 128 - Ms R Bunney, Member, 27 October 2026. Signal: Illustrative. Why aired: a practical checklist for administrators and their advisers. A guardianship and administration matter is reported by its legal framework only, and the disciplinary and victims support matters by subject only; no one is identified. Fair Work Tribunals edition of Tuesday 27 October 2026: twenty five Fair Work Commission decisions (nine unfair dismissals, six industrial disputes, and agreements, awards, general protections, protected action ballots and a platform deactivation), listed without reasons; not covered. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Nine decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Tuesday 27 October 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, newly reported, and eight from the Federal Court of Australia, four with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: how the Full Court measures a substantial part of a computer program under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), by the originality of the copied code's expression rather than its importance to the device, so that copying a small proportion of a large program can infringe. Hytera v Motorola (No 2) also features in today's Court of Appeal brief. Then a visa tribunal that treated Direction 110 as exhaustive, the deemed-receipt rule that makes the day an email is sent day one of a review period, and two lessons for litigants in person: AFCA determinations are not judicially reviewable, and appeals from the Administrative Review Tribunal lie only on a question of law. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 122 (Beach, O'Bryan and Rofe JJ, 7 September 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 16. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), substantial part in a computer program asks whether the totality of code copied from each work is a substantial part of that work, assessed qualitatively by the originality with which the copied code expresses its computing functions, including structure and the choice, combination and sequencing of commands; importance to the operation of the device is not the test (Data Access v Powerflex; IceTV v Nine Network applied). The s 10 reference to a device having digital information processing capabilities concerns the processor's computing operations; a but for essentiality test is unhelpful; findings through a segment-by-segment functional materiality lens warrant circumspection. Header code is not of lesser significance than source code; architecture and framework goes to expression; reused antecedent code is not less original; animus furandi rehabilitated as an evidentiary aid, evidence of labour saved admissible; line-count evidence discounted, including for destroyed source code. 45 of about 5,000 and 82 of about 5,866 files were a substantial part of the firmware suites. Entered orders not reflecting the Court's intention varied nunc pro tunc under r 39.05(e), (h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Appeal grounds 2 to 5 dismissed; cross-appeal allowed on grounds 2, 3 and 4; each party bears its own costs of the patent issues, Hytera to pay Motorola's costs of the copyright issues. Compensatory relief, additional damages and the costs of the trial are left to the primary judge; nothing is predicted. JADE Public Law Desk . Roseingrave v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1602 (McDonald J, 27 October 2026) - JL p. 11. Direction 110 is not exhaustive of the considerations under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); the limits of its primary considerations in cll 8.3 and 8.4 do not relieve the Tribunal of its obligation to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations. The Tribunal treated the absence of the applicant's wife and son from Australia as conclusive and did not evaluate substantial and clearly articulated claims about the impact of non-revocation on them; the error was material and jurisdictional (Plaintiff M1/2021, LPDT applied). A bare, unparticularised assertion of a connection with an Indigenous community, unsupported and not pursued, does not oblige consideration under cl 8.3 (Brownlie distinguished). Certiorari and mandamus; remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted; the Minister to pay costs. Nothing is predicted. JADE EEN25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1600 (McDonald J, 27 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative (synopsis). Under s 494C(5) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), notification by email is deemed received at the end of the day of transmission, and actual non-receipt is irrelevant; that day is day one of the 28-day review period in reg 4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (item 2 of the table in s 36(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)); the AAT-to-ART transitional provisions; no discretion in the Tribunal or either court to extend; summary dismissal of out-of-time applications. JADE Practice and Procedure Desk . Hamid v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2026] FCA 1587 (Moore J, 26 October 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; JL p. 13. AFCA determinations, including a decision that a complaint is time-barred and a refusal to extend time, derive their force from the tripartite contract formed by the AFCA Rules and are not decisions under an enactment for the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth); Sch 1 para (hba) excludes them in any event; s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) is excluded by s 1337A(2)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). On an objection to competency under r 31.05 the applicant bears the burden, not discharged by a theoretical contractual claim; leave to reconstitute refused (no limitation prejudice, the financial firm not joined, no claim formulated, s 37M); dismissal not on the merits. Objection upheld, proceeding dismissed with costs. JADE Avati v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2026] FCA 1597 (Stewart J, 27 October 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; JL p. 9. Appeals under s 172 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) lie only on a question of law, and the s 44 AAT Act principles apply; weight and fact grounds are incompetent; leave refused for grounds beyond the notice of appeal. Under s 19(2) the Tribunal may weigh the merits in any manner it considers relevant (by analogy with s 477A(2) of the Migration Act as construed in Tu'uta Katoa; the Seiler dictum does not govern); the longer the delay, the more significant other considerations may need to be; no running commentary required under s 55(1). Appeal dismissed; costs follow the event despite the applicant's self-representation and impecuniosity. JADE Also on the docket (list only; no outcome stated in the edition). Nano v Sound Advice Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1608 (Younan J, 27 October 2026) - winding up. JADE Comcare v Zakman [2026] FCA 1603 (Goodman J, 27 October 2026) - appeal grounds. JADE Australian Property Scout Pty Ltd v Titus [2026] FCA 1610 (Snaden J, 27 October 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd v Arrotex Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (Interlocutory Costs) [2026] FCA 1611 (Jackman J, 27 October 2026) - costs orders. JADE Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Six headnoted appellate decisions from four courts in the edition of Tuesday 27 October 2026, with the Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. A parole term that needs its own reasons; relief from a guillotine consent order when the pleading was served but not filed; substantial part in software copyright; a failed joint endeavour between mother and daughter, and adequacy not equality in family provision; group costs order returns at a class action settlement; and bail before a murder retrial. A domestic violence sentence appeal is reported as legal doctrine only. Public Law Desk (opening story). President of the Parole Board Queensland v Anderson [2026] QCA 216 - the public interest in s 175I(4)(a) Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) is not confined to the s 175H(2) matters (offences, risk, victims) but is construed by the text, scheme and s 3 purposes, including the dignity and special needs of offenders arising from age and disability; failing to consider the prisoner's health, disabilities and medical reports in fixing the term of a restricted prisoner declaration was an error of law; the term is a separate decision and not a jurisdictional fact; s 48 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) affects construction only where there is a constructional choice. Appeal dismissed with costs; the end date of the declaration to be reconsidered according to law (Mullins P, Brown and Bradley JJA; also the Queensland edition). JADE Practice and Procedure Desk . Millinium Capital Managers Limited v Mount Cathay Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 217 - the r 7(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) power to extend time under a self-executing consent order needs good reason for depriving the other party of that benefit, whether or not the order records an agreement (Chavez v Moreton Bay Regional Council); whether relief is available where the agreement promises not to seek it was left open; a pleading settled and served, but not filed, before the deadline was substantial compliance; the primary judge failed to address the client's reliance on its former solicitors. Appeal allowed and time extended; leave to file the deficient pleading refused; indemnity costs confined; remitted to the Commercial List (Mullins P, Doyle JA, Henry J; also the Queensland edition). JADE Gawler v FleetPartners Group Ltd (No 2) [2026] VSC 698 - at settlement the Court evaluates of its own motion under s 33ZDA(3) Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) whether a group costs order rate remains appropriate and necessary; the return must be proportionate to the risk; law practices should provide return on investment and internal rate of return calculations on actual labour and overhead costs plus external disbursements, not fees charged; unregistered group members face a high bar under s 33ZF and need affidavit evidence of the cause. Settlement approved; rate maintained (Craig J; Victoria edition). JADE Commercial Law Desk . Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 122 - substantial part in a computer program asks whether the totality of code copied from each work is a substantial part of it, measured by the originality with which it expresses its computing functions (structure, and the choice, combination and sequencing of commands), not its importance to the device; a "but for" test is unhelpful; header files, architecture and framework, and antecedent versions; evidence of labour saved is admissible (animus furandi as an evidentiary aid); quantity only where reliably comparable. Appeal grounds dismissed, cross-appeal allowed in part; compensation and damages left to the primary judge (Beach, O'Bryan and Rofe JJ; also the Federal Courts brief). JADE Family Law Desk . GUNN v Hildegard Inge Meiners by Next Friend the Public Trustee [2026] WASCA 149 - equitable relief on the failure of a joint endeavour without attributable blame is not conditioned on an arrangement defining mutual proprietary rights; the endeavour must be consensual, not necessarily contractual, and extend to the parties' material welfare and security (Muschinski v Dodds; Baumgartner v Baumgartner); a transfer that is a gift in strict terms may take its character from the endeavour (Atwood v Maude); an endeavour may be modified. Application and appeal dismissed (Mitchell, Vaughan and Lemonis JJA; also the Western Australia edition). JADE Paterson v Paterson & Ors [2026] SASCA 129 - under s 7 Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA) adequacy is not equality: the court does not rewrite a will to its own notions of fairness, still less to equalise beneficiaries; the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women confers no right of action and does not control the assessment; vulnerability and disability were no satisfactory explanation for a two-year delay. Extension refused; appeal dismissed (Livesey P, B Doyle JA; also the South Australia edition). JADE Criminal Law Desk . Re Lynn [No 2] (Bail) [2026] VSC 696 - after a conviction is set aside and a retrial ordered, whether delay is inordinate allows reasonable time for each step; the principal focus is the time to retrial, as bail is primarily forward-looking, with total custody a surrounding circumstance; custodial conditions not exceptional, alone or together. Bail refused (Niall CJ; Victoria edition). The applicant awaits a retrial and is presumed innocent. JADE Also on the docket . R v ABR [2026] QCA 215 - appellate intervention on comparative sentences only where the disparity shows some misapplication of principle (Wong v The Queen). Leave to appeal against sentence refused (Bond and Doyle JJA, Hindman J). Legal doctrine only. JADE Registry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). McEwan v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] QSC 258 - Queensland; counsel recusal (Cooper J). JADE Matysik ATF Webmoves Incentive Trust v Matta [2026] VSC 695 - Victoria; civil appeal (Harris J). JADE Director of Public Prosecutions v Dipacce [2026] VSC 694 - Victoria; sentencing (Elliott J). JADE Shao v ZCA Pty Ltd [2026] ACTSC 400 - ACT; expert evidence (Muller J). JADE Hytera (No 2) also features in today's Federal Courts brief, from the edition of Tuesday 27 October 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail The Petal's New Zealand edition for Tuesday 27 October 2026 carries 8 decisions newly reported from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and all eight are aired. The thread is using the court's process for what it's for: when a hopeless proceeding is plainly an abuse of process and when it is merely hopeless; a judicial conduct complaint used to reopen an old claim; the reach of Court of Appeal leave; a court-ordered sale that turns a disputed mortgage into a trust fund; recalling an accused to the witness box; and credit for electronically monitored bail. Practice and Procedure Desk (lead). Ora Ora Titles Private Trust v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited [2026] NZCA 507 - under the own-initiative strike-out power (s 164B of the Senior Courts Act 2016), a proceeding is plainly an abuse of process where it uses the court process for a purpose or in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use, clear beyond doubt from the claim; lack of merit, or a remediable defect of form, is not enough; a pseudo-law admiralty claim over a mortgage of land disclosed no cause of action and was abusive. Appeal dismissed (Mallon, Peters and Tracey Walker JJ, 20 October 2026). JADE Heinrich v Misiuk [2026] NZCA 504 - an unmeritorious or legally untenable appeal is not, for that reason alone, plainly an abuse of process; because s 164B strike-out may occur without hearing the filing party, more than lack of merit is required. Strike-out of an appeal against the refusal of habeas corpus declined; the father substituted as appellant; the appeal continues (Palmer J, 19 October 2026). JADE Kaye v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2026] NZSC 161 - a proposed appeal whose object is to collaterally challenge earlier final decisions of the Court is an abuse of process and leave must be declined (Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police applied); the relief sought showed the aim was to reopen a negligence claim; in any event the leave criteria (s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016) were not met. Leave dismissed (Williams and Cooke JJ, 27 October 2026). JADE Karmarkar v Rajsic [2026] NZCA 513 - the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to grant leave for a second appeal (s 60(2) of the Senior Courts Act 2016) arises only after the High Court refuses leave and extends only to the issues in the High Court leave decision; a second appeal is not general error correction, and the question must be capable of bona fide and serious argument and important enough to outweigh the cost and delay. Leave declined (Courtney and Mallon JJ, 23 October 2026). JADE Commercial Law Desk . Dalton v Coluccio [2026] NZHC 3056 - a liquidator, as agent of the company, has standing to apply under s 107 of the Property Law Act 2007; s 108 confers a broad, overriding and unfettered discretion to direct a sale over a mortgagee's opposition on conditions, including a sale under an existing agreement with the disputed balance held on trust in substitution for the security; such an order is not final relief; the high degree of assurance for mandatory interim relief was met; obiter on clogging the equity of redemption. Interim orders granted; the amount owed remains to be resolved (Tracey Walker J, 5 October 2026). JADE Criminal Law Desk . Wilson v The King [2026] NZSC 162 - reported as legal doctrine only. Whether an accused should be recalled to give further evidence depends on whether recall is in the interests of justice (s 99(1) of the Evidence Act 2006), a highly case-specific balance; the trial Judge correctly weighed the prejudice of exposing a matter the parties had agreed not to explore, the prior agreement, the extent of earlier exploration and the summing up; no substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred (s 74(2)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 2016). Leave dismissed (Ellen France, Williams and Cooke JJ, 27 October 2026). JADE Ormsby v The King [2026] NZCA 509 - credit for time on electronically monitored bail depends on the time spent, the relative restrictiveness of the conditions and compliance, never on time alone (s 9(2)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002); three matters may, in an appropriate case, raise whether EM bail and home detention are equivalent, but this was not that case. Leave for a second appeal declined (Mallon, Peters and Tracey Walker JJ, 21 October 2026). JADE Kondratyeva v The King [2026] NZCA 503 - absent a guideline judgment, the seriousness of animal welfare offending may justify a starting point considerably higher than the comparator cases; a 20 per cent uplift for previous convictions was stern but available; a causative psychological disorder was given appropriate weight; affidavits adding nothing were not fresh evidence. Appeal dismissed (Collins, Harland and Radich JJ, 19 October 2026). JADE Wilson arises from sexual offending against children and is reported as legal doctrine only, with no one identified. The habeas corpus appeal in Heinrich and the dispute over the amount owed in Dalton continue; nothing in this episode predicts their outcome. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Four tribunals and seventeen decisions in the Tribunals edition of Monday 26 October 2026, five with headnotes, four of them from the Trade Marks Office. Why a mature child's settled wish to change his name needn't wait for proof of harm; what counts as use when a registered trade mark faces removal; why oppositions without evidence fail; and three worked examples on review and valuation. Tribunals Desk: a settled wish and a new surname (lead; reported as legal doctrine only). CPC v JQE [2026] SACAT 102 - internal review under s 70 SACAT Act reaches the correct or preferable decision without finding error; a child under 18 may consent to a change of name under s 26 BDM Registration Act 1996 (SA) unless unable to understand its meaning and implications, and age alone does not settle capacity; a mature child's uninfluenced and enduring wishes are likely often to outweigh the Tribunal's own view of possible harm (CBS v UIE and GTB v MNK modified insofar as read to require proof of harm). Decision set aside; surname change granted, middle names not. JADE Tribunals Desk: use it or lose it on the register (Trade Marks Office, non-use removal). Wynstan Designs Pty Ltd v Dotdigital Group plc [2026] ATMO 200 - use for one kind of software does not rebut non-use for other kinds within a broad description; a solicitor's bare statement of intention carries limited weight; the owner bears the s 101 onus. Class 9 limited to software for controlling blinds, shutters and awnings; no order as to costs. JADE Oppositions by HLA Brand Management Co Ltd to applications under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 209 - preparatory steps can be use without a sale only if the owner has committed itself and the mark is used to promote trade; authorisation certificates are not use; plans set in motion during the period weigh in the s 101(3) discretion; retention fairly reflects the trade done and cannot add retail services. Logo mark removed; the other retained in part. JADE Tribunals Desk: oppositions without the evidence . Burk Pty Ltd v Solo Oil Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 192 - an inconsistent colour-mark endorsement is read with the representation through the interested reader's eyes; s 60 reputation needs sales or advertising evidence; a s 42(b) ground naming only the Competition and Consumer Act fails; bad faith (s 62A) needs evidence. Opposition rejected, costs against the opponent. JADE Opposition by Markwise Pty Ltd to extension of protection under regulation 17A.33 of the [2026] ATMO 208 - similar services is a practical, multifactorial question; honest concurrent use under s 44(3)(a) is the holder's onus and was made out; s 42(b) needs proof that use would, not could, be contrary to law. Opposition rejected, costs against the opponent. JADE Tribunals Desk: revocation, consent and valuation (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). Jetsunma Pty Ltd v Housing Safety Authority [2026] SACAT 98 - synopsis: jurisdiction attaches on filing a valid review application and survives later revocation; merits review only (ss 34, 37 SACAT Act). JADE Bayport Industries Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC [2026] VCAT 330 - synopsis: proving fifteen years' continuous use for existing use rights (cll 63.01, 63.11); no declarations by consent under s 149A(1) P&E Act. JADE 1st Impressions Early Learning Centre (ACN: 614 081 337) v Valuer-General [2026] SACAT 101 - synopsis: value an unencumbered estate in fee simple (s 5(1) Valuation of Land Act 1971 (SA)); a ground lease is disregarded; without a valuer member the Tribunal adopts a party's valuation or remits. JADE Registry and the thread (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). Medical Board of Australia v Spark [2026] SACAT 100 - synopsis, legal framework only: protective sanctions under amended s 196 National Law (SA); disqualification and reinstatement prohibitions are discretionary, not automatic on cancellation. JADE The Owners – Strata Plan No 6707 v Gaters; Gaters v The Owners – Strata Plan No 6707 [2026] NSWCATAP 331 - synopsis: rental loss under s 106(5) SSM Act needs actual loss, evidence on oath and net profit; costs on appeals and cross-appeals. JADE Parker v HMA Wholesalers Pty Ltd t/as Group 1 Prestige [2026] NSWCATAP 332 - synopsis: the four-factor s 41 extension test; negotiation is not an adequate explanation for delay. JADE Aroosa Invest Pty Ltd as trustee for Aroosa Family Discretionary Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 323 - synopsis: foreign person deeming for discretionary trusts (s 5D Land Tax Act, s 104JA Duties Act); rectification deeds after the taxing date are not retrospective. JADE List only (no outcome stated): Van Der Giessen v Super SA [2026] SACAT 99 ; MRW v Department of Human Services – Central Assessment Unit [2026] SACAT 97 ; HKU v The Hon Yasmin Maree Catley [2026] NSWCATAD 322 ; Guirguis v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 324 ; Wood v Nisiotis [2026] VCAT 886 . Case notes CPC v JQE [2026] SACAT 102 - Hughes P, 16 October 2026. BDM Registration Act 1996 (SA) ss 25(2)(c), 26, 29; SACAT Act s 70. Held also: informal use under s 29 is relevant but a granted wish is itself a benefit; no legislative preference for cultural identity where the child does not rely on it; the middle-name change reflected the applicant's view. Why aired: the edition's top-rated headnote and a doctrinal shift for name-change applications for older children. Wynstan Designs Pty Ltd v Dotdigital Group plc [2026] ATMO 200 - Benjamin Goldsworthy, Hearing Officer (delegate), 9 October 2026. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 92(4)(a), 100, 101(3)-(4). Why aired: broad class 9 specifications will not be held by niche use. Oppositions by HLA Brand Management Co Ltd to applications under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 209 - Tracey Berger, Delegate, 19 October 2026. Trade Marks Act ss 7(3), 8, 92(4)(b), 100, 101(3), 221. Held also: s 101(3) is broader than ss 7 and 8 attribution; costs split with the outcome. Why aired: when preparation counts as use. Burk Pty Ltd v Solo Oil Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] ATMO 192 - Sean McManis, Hearing Officer (delegate), 2 October 2026. Trade Marks Act ss 42(b), 43, 44(2), 52, 58, 58A, 60, 62A, 221(1); reg 4.3. Held also: s 58 needs prior use of a substantially identical mark; s 58A needs acceptance under s 44(4); s 43 needs a connotation inherent in the applied mark. Why aired: colour endorsements and unevidenced grounds. Opposition by Markwise Pty Ltd to extension of protection under regulation 17A.33 of the [2026] ATMO 208 - Tracey Berger, delegate, 19 October 2026. Trade Marks Act ss 10, 14, 42(b), 44(2), 44(3)(a), 58, 221; regs 17A.33, 17A.34. Held also: s 58 failed. Why aired: a model of honest concurrent use. A child's change of name is reported as legal doctrine only, and a health practitioner's disciplinary matter by its legal framework only; no one is identified. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Eight decisions from four courts in the New South Wales edition of Monday 26 October 2026, three of them headnoted. A shareholders' deed indemnity for costs arising out of or in connection with a default is measured by that objective connection, not by a costs assessor's reasonableness, and no reasonableness term is implied; only a grossly excessive expense falls outside it. Defence counsel's failure to put a point to a complainant is no miscarriage of justice if it was a rational forensic decision, or if it could not realistically have affected the verdicts, and the Crown need not cure it by re-examination or recall. A sentencing judge who accepts that a mental condition contributed to the offending may have to weigh deterrence even without submissions. And when the Court of Appeal remits an appeal's costs to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, it can direct that special circumstances need not be shown. One Illustrative decision on the docket; four list-only decisions on the registry. The criminal appeal and the Tribunal remitter also feature in the Court of Appeal brief of the same day; here they get the New South Wales angle. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Dexus Capital Investment Services Pty Ltd v Australia Pacific Airports Corporation Limited (No 4) [2026] NSWSC 1330 - (Hammerschlag CJ in Eq, 26 October 2026) judgment for the cross-claimants under a shareholders' deed indemnity against the defaulting shareholder; ordinary costs against two other Dexus entities; a provisional indemnity costs order, discounted by 20% for two claimants; liberty to apply. On its plain words, an indemnity against costs and liabilities 'arising out of or in connection with' a default covers whatever has that objective connection; the yardstick is not reasonableness as measured on an indemnity costs assessment under r 42.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). An evaluative judgment may be needed, but no discretion is exercised. No term of reasonableness is implied: it is not necessary and is inconsistent with the express terms. A cost so excessive that it flows from the claimant's own choice to spend 'beyond the pale' is outside the indemnity, and grossly excessive claims may breach the covenant to be just and faithful, but that line was not crossed even for senior counsel at $4,000 an hour. Duplication is inevitable in multi-party litigation; shareholders whose board representatives' integrity was under attack need not leave their defence to the company. Salaried staff time and an unevidenced communications retainer were not recovered. The costs of enforcing the indemnity are recoverable under it, save those referable to disallowed claims. Declarations refused. JADE Criminal Law Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief; a sexual offence and assault appeal, reported as legal doctrine only). Large v R [2026] NSWCCA 175 - (Stern JA, Fagan and Dhanji JJ, 26 October 2026) extension of time and leave granted; appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed and the applicant resentenced to a lesser aggregate term. The question on a conviction appeal about counsel's conduct is not competence but whether, viewed objectively, a material irregularity occurred; there is none where the course was a rational forensic decision, even one made on a misunderstanding of the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (Stern JA and Dhanji J; Fagan J found conspicuous errors). Counsel's error establishes no miscarriage unless it could realistically have affected the verdicts (Fagan and Dhanji JJ). The Crown was not obliged to re-examine the complainant or seek her recall on a matter for the defence to put; either party may seek recall under s 46 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). On sentence, where the judge accepts that a mental condition contributed to the offending, the judge may be required to consider whether general and specific deterrence carry reduced weight, even absent submissions; a finding of brain-injury-related impulsivity carried an implicit finding of reduced moral culpability, and its omission here occasioned serious injustice (Sampson v R [2026] NSWCCA 117 distinguished). JADE Practice and Procedure Desk (also in the Court of Appeal brief). Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure v Thaler (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 226 - (Leeming and Ball JJA, Price AJA, 26 October 2026) motion to vary orders granted in part. An order that serves no purpose need not be made, so a remitter whose scope the Tribunal had recorded by consent was not varied. The costs of the appeal decided on 18 September 2026 ( Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure v Thaler [2026] NSWCA 200 ) are better decided once the practical outcome of the remitted disciplinary question is known. The power conferred on a superior court by Sch 5 cl 29(8) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is construed broadly and, with the directions power in para (d), extends to authorising the Tribunal to depart from the special circumstances rule in s 60; because the Tribunal must be satisfied of its own power, the Court directed that special circumstances need not be established. No order on the costs of the motion. The remitted disciplinary question is still before the Tribunal; nothing here predicts its outcome. JADE Also on the docket (Illustrative decision, synopsis only). Walker v Adams (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 1326 - (Sirtes J, 26 October 2026) costs: the principle in Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd [1995] QB 137 applies only where a change substantially alters the case to be met and is necessary for success, and even then requires identifiable additional costs; abandoning untenable points should not be discouraged; no percentage reduction for separable issues that took little hearing time; rejecting a Calderbank offer to vary an easement under s 89 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) was not unreasonable on the Hazeldene's Chicken Farm factors; a letter merely reserving the right to seek costs from a date does not foreshadow indemnity costs. JADE Registry (list-only decisions, no headnote, no outcome stated). Supreme Court of New South Wales. Yuan v Zhou [2026] NSWSC 1333 - list only (equitable execution). JADE Formerly Lambda Pty Ltd v Strong Rich Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1327 - list only (interlocutory orders). JADE Dexus Capital Investment Services Pty Ltd v Australia Pacific Airports Corporation Limited (No 5) [2026] NSWSC 1331 - list only (indemnity construction; companion to No 4). JADE Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Richebourg 621 Development Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2026] NSWLEC 1715 - list only (development consent appeal). JADE Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Ten decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Monday 26 October 2026: five from the Federal Court of Australia and five from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction, the five family appeals with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: how the Federal Court decides whether to stay or defer a ground foreclosed by Full Court authority while the High Court has the same point on special leave, and when silence about immigration detention in a s 501BA Migration Act cancellation is, and is not, jurisdictional error. The synopsis states no outcome, and the High Court appeal is pending. Then the family appeal list's gates: a harmful proceedings order restrains starting an appeal, so leave comes first; the s 102NA cross-examination protection is not legal aid; and two lessons in appellate craft, the summary of argument and further evidence on appeal. The five family appeals also feature in today's Court of Appeal brief. The parenting matters are reported as legal doctrine only; court pseudonyms are not voiced. Public Law Desk (opening story). Fred-Tutavaha v Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1586 (Hill J, 26 October 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. A framework for deciding whether to defer or stay determination of a ground precluded by existing Full Court authority where the High Court has granted special leave on the same issue, reconciling Garratt [2026] FCA 1340 and Mukhtar [2026] FCA 1337 and applying the adjournment factors in Assistant Minister for Immigration v Hood (Adjournment) [2026] FCAFC 98; (2026) 317 FCR 178 (likely effect of the appeal on the outcome, nature of the hearing, prejudice to each party), including whether the applicant would succeed on other grounds and whether an appeal lies as of right. Under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the Minister must correctly understand the legal consequences of cancellation; omission of express reference to immigration detention does not of itself give rise to an inference of non-consideration (BVD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 34), but cases with barriers to removal, such as non-refoulement obligations, may require express consideration of extended detention (Kerr [2026] FCA 726; Kim [2026] FCA 1243); signed briefing materials as evidence the consequences were appreciated. The edition's synopsis states no outcome. The High Court appeal on the same issue is pending; nothing is predicted. JADE Family Law Desk (harmful proceedings orders and the cross-examination protection; children's matters, reported as legal doctrine only). Vanetti [2026] FedCFamC1A 185 (McClelland DCJ, Schonell and Curran JJ, 19 October 2026) - JL p. 15. The restraint in a harmful proceedings order extends to the institution of an appeal, so leave under s 102QAE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is required, and the Div 1B gateway governs the appellate court's decision whether to grant leave to appeal. The applicant bears the onus under s 102QAG(1); an appeal instituted without reasonable grounds is vexatious and must be dismissed under s 102QAF(2). The supporting affidavit substantially complied with s 102QAE(3); grounds that the primary judge arguably overstated the father's decision-making powers under the final orders had reasonable prospects. Leave granted to appeal the orders of 21 August 2026 on Grounds 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6; refused for the March 2025 orders. The appeal proceeds; nothing is predicted. JADE Sallings [2026] FedCFamC1A 187 (Schonell J, 20 October 2026) - JL p. 13. Leave sought under s 102QAE by a person subject to a harmful proceedings order: none of eight grounds had reasonable prospects, so the proposed appeal was vexatious (s 102Q(1)(c)) and must be dismissed (s 102QAF(2)); brevity of a hearing does not of itself establish a denial of procedural fairness; s 65DAAA reconsideration. Application in an Appeal dismissed. JADE Klimova & Klimova [2026] FedCFamC1A 190 (Riethmuller J, 22 October 2026) - JL p. 8. Section 102NA of the Family Law Act protects alleged victims of family violence in cross-examination and is not an alternative means of providing legal aid; a foreign family violence order falls outside the s 4 definition but may bear on the s 102NA(1)(c)(iv) discretion; a foreign charge can be an offence involving violence, but needs clear evidence with particulars; a s 102NA order or refusal is not separately appellable and may be relied on only in challenging the final orders where it caused a miscarriage. NAATI accreditation is a registry quality-control measure, not a prerequisite; under the Re F guidelines a judge may question witnesses but must not act as advocate for a litigant in person; expert risk assessment and independent credibility findings. Applications and appeal dismissed. JADE Practice and Procedure Desk (appellate craft in the family appeal list). Escamilla & Astrauskas (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 189 (Schonell J, 20 October 2026) - JL p. 6. Failure to comply with r 13.23(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and procedural directions was of itself sufficient to warrant dismissal under r 13.45, though the appeal was decided on its merits; a refusal of costs is disturbed only on House v The King error, and a weight complaint only if the result is unreasonable or plainly unjust; grounds must be specific and concise; costs of a meritless appeal under s 114UB(2) of the Family Law Act. Appeal dismissed with costs. JADE Vora & Vora [2026] FedCFamC1A 188 (Schonell J, 20 October 2026) - JL p. 10. Further evidence under s 35(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) is received only where it would demonstrate the order is erroneous, to avoid an error not otherwise remediable; material always available and ventilated below does not qualify. Procedural fairness is directed to the conduct of the hearing, not earlier case management steps; reasons for interim stopgap parenting orders need not address every fact. Appeal dismissed; the parenting proceedings await a single expert report. JADE Also on the docket (list only; no outcome stated in the edition). Hurst-Meyers v Hoy (No 2) [2026] FCA 1598 (Cheeseman J, 26 October 2026) - personal insolvency. JADE Grigorovich v Morgan Environmental Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1601 (Feutrill J, 26 October 2026) - costs orders. JADE Wanambi v Wanambi [2026] FCA 1591 (Jackson J, 23 October 2026) - leave to appeal. JADE TVVT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1595 (Bennett J, 23 October 2026) - judicial review. JADE Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Send us Fan Mail Eight headnoted appellate decisions from four courts in the edition of Monday 26 October 2026, with the Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, ACT, Tasmania and Northern Territory editions of the same day folded in. When defence counsel's failure to put a point is a rational forensic decision, and deterrence for an offender with a brain injury; an accused bound by counsel's choices; a superior court directing a tribunal on remitted costs; family violence cross-examination protections, foreign charges and interpreters in a parenting appeal; and harmful proceedings orders and leave to appeal. A sexual offence appeal and children's parenting matters are reported as legal doctrine only. Criminal Law Desk (opening story). Large v R [2026] NSWCCA 175 - the question is not counsel's incompetence but whether, viewed objectively, a material irregularity occurred, and there is none where the course is explicable as a rational forensic decision that could yield a legitimate advantage (Stern JA, Dhanji J agreeing); not putting an inconsistency to the complainant or seeking her recall was such a decision although counsel misunderstood the rule in Browne v Dunn; Fagan J found conspicuous errors but no realistic effect on the verdicts; the Crown was not obliged to re-examine or seek recall. Where a sentencing judge accepts that a mental condition contributed to the offending, the judge may be required to consider whether general and specific deterrence carry reduced weight even absent submissions; serious injustice shown. Extension and leave granted; conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed and the applicant resentenced (Stern JA, Fagan and Dhanji JJ; also the New South Wales brief). Legal doctrine only. JADE Doyle v Bott [2026] NTCA 10 - on a s 51 Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT) appeal the question is whether the order below was wrong, and failing to correct a Local Court error is itself error; an accused is bound by counsel's conduct of the trial even without or contrary to instructions or negligently, and only flagrant incompetence giving rise to a mistrial suffices (R v Birks); absent corroborating material is not of itself error; describing the appellant as "outspoken" to resolve a discrete issue raised no apprehension of bias. Appeal dismissed (Kelly and Blokland JJ, Riley AJ; also the Northern Territory edition). JADE Public Law Desk . Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure v Thaler (No 2) [2026] NSWCA 226 - an order serving no purpose need not be made where a consent notation in the Tribunal fixed the remitter's scope; the costs of an appeal are not decided before the practical outcome of a remitter is known; the power in Sch 5 cl 29(8) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), conferred on a superior court and construed broadly, authorises directing NCAT to decide remitted appeal costs without the s 60(2) special circumstances requirement. Direction made; motion otherwise dismissed; no order as to the motion's costs; the disciplinary action remains to be decided by the Tribunal (Leeming and Ball JJA, Price AJA; also the New South Wales brief). JADE Family Law Desk (legal doctrine only). Klimova & Klimova [2026] FedCFamC1A 190 - s 102NA Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) protects alleged victims of family violence in cross-examination and is not an alternative form of legal aid; an "offence involving violence" is not confined to Australian offences but needs clear evidence of the charge and its particulars, and a foreign family violence order is outside the s 4 definition though relevant to the discretion; a s 102NA order or refusal is not separately appellable; NAATI accreditation is not a prerequisite for an interpreter; the Re F guidelines; an expert's risk assessment may be used if the judge makes independent credibility findings. Applications and appeal dismissed (Riethmuller J). JADE Vanetti [2026] FedCFamC1A 185 - a harmful proceedings order extends to the institution of an appeal, so leave under s 102QAE is required and the Div 1B gateway governs the appellate court's leave decision; the applicant bears the onus, and an appeal without reasonable grounds is vexatious and must be dismissed; the affidavit substantially complied with s 102QAE(3), and it is arguable that disclosure "about the application" does not require the litigation history. Leave granted to appeal on limited grounds; otherwise dismissed; the appeal is still to be heard (McClelland DCJ, Schonell and Curran JJ). JADE Sallings [2026] FedCFamC1A 187 - leave under s 102QAG requires the applicant to show reasonable prospects and that the proceedings are not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse; none of eight grounds met it; brevity of a hearing does not of itself deny procedural fairness; weight and alternative outcomes do not show discretionary error. Application dismissed (Schonell J). JADE Also on the docket . Vora & Vora [2026] FedCFamC1A 188 - further evidence under s 35(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) is received only where it would show error not otherwise remediable; procedural fairness is directed to the conduct of the hearing, not earlier case management; reasons on interim stopgap orders. Appeal dismissed (Schonell J). Legal doctrine only. JADE Escamilla & Astrauskas (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 189 - non-compliance with the r 13.23(2) summary of argument requirement is of itself sufficient to warrant dismissal under r 13.45; a weight complaint needs a result that is unreasonable or plainly unjust (House v The King); departure from the s 114UB(2) rule that each party bears its own costs justified for an appeal without merit. Appeal dismissed with costs (Schonell J). JADE Registry (listed without a headnote; no outcome stated). NRT v MGN Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 229 - Queensland; discovery (McCafferty J). JADE McKechnie v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (No 2) [2026] VSC 699 - Victoria; cultural rights (Harris J). JADE Legal Practice Board v Hawkins [2026] WASC 459 - Western Australia; Full Court (Quinlan CJ, Musikanth and Jeyamohan JJ). JADE In the Matter of the Pindan Group [No 8] [2026] WASC 457 - Western Australia; remuneration approval. JADE Re European Lithium Limited; Ex Parte European Lithium Limited [No 2] [2026] WASC 458 - Western Australia; scheme of arrangement (Lundberg J). JADE R v Beale [2026] ACTSC 405 - ACT; sentencing (McCallum CJ). JADE DPP v Sturt (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 409 - ACT; sentencing (McWilliam J). JADE Secretary of the Department of Health v Vaughan [2026] TASSC 68 - Tasmania; mental impairment (Pearce J). JADE Thaler (No 2) and Large also feature in today's New South Wales brief, and the five Federal Circuit and Family Court appeals in today's Federal Courts brief, from the editions of Monday 26 October 2026. Full typeset judgments are in the Judicial Ledger . Theme music by Michael Green SC.