News

Latest Judgments from the Federal Court

• Woodhouse (Liquidator), in the matter of Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2026] FCA 62720 May 2026CORPORATIONS – liquidation – company had offered derivative products to customers – 8,600 former customers with separate claims against the company – orders previously made for optional abridged claim assessment and adjudication process – where assets subsequently realised and dividend will be declared – application made under s 90-15 of Sch 2  to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations)) for orders modifying operation of regulations to enhance efficient process for finalising proofs of debt, declaration of dividend and distribution of payment to former customers – treatment of unclaimed moneys – direction as to use of exchange rate – ancillary orders – whether appropriate to exercise power – orders made
• Altrad Australia Pty Ltd v Dropulich (No 3) [2026] FCA 61920 May 2026PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for further and better particulars – applicable principles – fair notice of the case to be met – adequacy of particulars
• Kuksal v Victorian Legal Services Board (Appeal and Interlocutory Matters) [2026] FCAFC 6520 May 2026BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY — appeal against sequestration orders — validity of bankruptcy notices — whether multiplicity of notices gave rise to an abuse of process — whether notices were invalid because of joint and several liability — whether notices were invalid due to methods of service — whether available acts of bankruptcy — whether satisfactory proof of debts and amounts owing required under s 52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) — whether primary judge should have gone behind the various judgment debts concerning costs — whether there was “other sufficient cause” established under s 52(2)(b) of the Act that enlivened the discretion not to make the sequestration orders — whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias concerning the primary judge — whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias concerning one or more members of the Full Court – other interlocutory questions — appeal dismissed
• Olsen, in the matter of Babyskin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 62220 May 2026CORPORATIONS - application under s 439A(6) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to extend convening period in s 439(5) - orders granted
• Britten v Grant, in the matter of Britten [2026] FCA 62520 May 2026BANKRUPTCY – application for annulment of bankruptcy – sequestration order – where applicant claims to have been unaware of proceeding in which sequestration order made – where applicant claims to have been unaware of bankruptcy – applicant has not established that sequestration order ought not to have been made – inappropriate to exercise discretion to annul bankruptcy – application dismissed
• Angelis v CP Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 62320 May 2026CONTRACTS – whether security interest granted pursuant to a loan agreement – where lender was related to solicitor for the applicant – where lender of last resort to prevent receivers selling family business and family home where lender was related to solicitor for the applicant – whether any agreement had been reached – whether post-contractual conduct indicates agreement was formed – where agreement falls within fourth Masters v Cameron class CORPORATIONS – securities – where applicant seeks order under s 182(4) of the Personal Property Securities Act (Cth) to amend the Personal Property Securities Register to remove registration – where applicant claims no security interest granted – whether loan agreement had been reached
• YBFZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 62420 May 2026MIGRATION – application for extension of time – whether Tribunal erred in the way it considered unproved criminal charges in determining whether the applicant posed a danger to the Australian community – whether Tribunal erred in finding there was a virtual absence of any mitigating circumstances – denial of procedural fairness – illogical or irrational reasoning – consideration of meaning of ‘danger to the Australian community’ within the meaning of s 36(1C)(b)
• United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Perth Airport Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 62020 May 2026CONSUMER LAW – misleading and deceptive conduct – whether statements in information brochure and in-person meeting as to when Qantas would relocate terminals at Perth Airport were misleading – representations were with respect of future matter and not merely statements as to an expectation or state of mind – whether applicant relied on representations – whether representations caused applicant to enter into transaction – whether applicant would have sought to agree alternative transaction. LOSS AND DAMAGE – which party bears the legal and evidentiary onus – consideration of Potts v Miller analysis in an alternative transaction case – what is the relevant loss claimed – whether applicant needs to show value of income-producing asset. EVIDENCE – where misleading conduct plead on part of corporation – consideration of relevant decision-maker within corporation and attribution of knowledge for the purposes of reasonable grounds in s 4 of the Australian Consumer Law– where no board member from respondent gave evidence – consideration of Jones v Dunkel and Blatch v Alder. PLEADINGS AND PROCEDURE – whether loss of opportunity case advanced by applicant prior to closing submissions – whether any denial of procedural fairness for plaintiff to rely on loss of opportunity case.
• Chen v Netstrata Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 62119 May 2026BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – where the appellant is a bankrupt – where the appellant seeks to appeal from a decision dismissing his applications for an extension of time and to annul a sequestration order against his estate – where the appellant filed an interlocutory application seeking relief including the hearing of separate questions and the receipt of further evidence – whether granting of such relief is appropriate PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for summary dismissal – where the notice of appeal names as respondents parties who were not involved in the proceeding below – where the first respondent sought summary dismissal of the proceeding as against it – whether summary dismissal should be granted
• Frigger v Trenfield [2026] FCAFC 6719 May 2026BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – appeal of decision not to set aside sequestration orders on the basis of fraud – appeal of decision not to annul bankruptcies – where alleged substantive or procedural irregularities in bankruptcy notice – alleged substantive or procedural irregularities found baseless – allegations of fraud found baseless – appeal dismissed COSTS – where primary judge varied costs order under rr 39.05(h), or alternatively, r 40.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where appellants contended that the primary judge had no power to amend the costs order previously made – found primary judge had power to vary the costs order – appeal dismissed
• Ardalan v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia [2026] FCA 61519 May 2026COSTS – where application for review of parole refusal decision became moot after new refusal decision made – where merits of proceeding had been fully tried and judgment was reserved – whether applicant should have his costs – where application would almost certainly have succeeded – where both parties acted reasonably – order that respondent pay applicant’s costs
• Cameron v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCA 60919 May 2026TAXATION – six appeals brought under s 14ZZ of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) in respect of objection decisions of Commissioner – issue in WAD325-327/2023 is whether interest on sub-trust loans paid by a family trust is deductible under s 8-1(1)(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) – issue in WAD184-186/2024 is whether a valid family trust election was made in respect of the Cameron Family Trust for the purposes of Sch 2F to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – appeals dismissed
• Dong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 55419 May 2026MIGRATION – decision of Administrative Review Tribunal affirming decision of delegate of the First Respondent not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether decision of Tribunal affected by jurisdictional error – whether Tribunal misconstrued materials before it – whether Applicant denied procedural fairness – application dismissed
• Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SIF v Insurance Australia Limited [2026] FCA 61818 May 2026PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery – application that foreign parties produce unredacted copies of discovered documents under r 20.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where production may involve a contravention of Swiss and Luxembourg banking secrecy laws – whether power to order production should be exercised as a matter of Australian procedure – held: production ordered PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – where procedural questions governed by law of the forum – whether comity requires Australian court to refrain from ordering production of discovered documents – whether production of documents likely to result in prosecution or civil liability under Swiss and Luxembourg laws – where foreign parties seeking to be excused from production are the applicants and cross-respondents in proceedings – where documents sought relate to central issues in proceedings – held: affording a fair trial outweighed risk of breach of, or prosecution under, foreign laws
• LK Law Pty Ltd v Karas (No 6) [2026] FCA 55118 May 2026PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — RECUSAL — application by first and fourth respondents for a stay of enforcement of judgment — application by first respondent that judge recuse himself on the ground of apprehended bias — where first respondent the subject of adverse credit findings in the primary judgment — where applicants accept that for the purposes of the application for a stay of enforcement, the respondents have an arguable case on appeal — where first respondent is not to be cross-examined on stay application hearing — where the applicants will not challenge the credibility of the first respondent on the stay application — where there is no logical connection between adverse credit findings made in primary judgment and the question of whether there should be a stay of enforcement — whether fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the application for stay of enforcement of judgment — recusal application dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — CONFIDENTIALITY — applications for confidentiality orders over certain documents filed in stay proceeding pursuant to ss 37AF and 37AG of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) — where no party advanced substantive submissions in support of confidentiality — application for confidentiality refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — STAY — application by first and fourth respondents for stay of proceedings pending appeal pursuant to r 36.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) — where fourth respondent proffers bank guarantee from recognised foreign bank as security for judgment debt — liberty to apply to increase security for post-judgment interest — stay to be granted in relation to fourth respondent — assessment of assets available to first respondent for contribution to or security for judgment debt — where first respondent undertakes not to dispose of or encumber assets and to prosecute appeal expeditiously — assessment of financial position of first applicant — where applicants accept that, for the purposes of the stay application, there are arguable grounds of appeal — where significant prejudice to the first respondent if stay not ordered — stay to be granted in relation to first respondent upon satisfaction of conditions — right reserved to reconsider partial stay in relation to first respondent in the event first applicant does not undertake to preserve certain of its assets pending outcome of appeal
• Australian Strategic Materials Limited, in the matter of Australian Strategic Materials Limited [2026] FCA 61618 May 2026CORPORATIONS – concurrent shareholder scheme of arrangement and option holder scheme of arrangement – first court hearing for orders convening meetings – orders made
• Lindsay v Qld Childcare Centres Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 61318 May 2026REAL PROPERTY – Application by defendants in shareholder oppression proceedings for appointment of statutory trustee for sale under the Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) – where the property is the site of the operation of the business the subject of the oppression claim – where plaintiff offered to acquire co-owners’ interests in property and business – whether appointment appropriate – whether just and fair to require sale of property with business – application granted
• Ogbonna v Young [2026] FCA 61018 May 2026ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of decision made by Registrar to reject documents for filing under r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether proposed originating application, statement of claim and supporting affidavit are an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious – application dismissed
• Leung v Omnia Inclusive Employment Solutions Ltd [2026] FCA 60615 May 2026INDUSTRIAL LAW – Appeal from decision dismissing claims by appellant that her former employer had contravened s 340 and s 352 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) – where appellant claimed excessive judicial intervention and apprehended bias – where appellant claimed procedural unfairness, failure to consider material considerations and failure to reconcile alleged inconsistencies between oral and documentary evidence – whether primary judge erred in application or nonapplication of s 340, s 352 and s 361 of FW Act and s 248 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) – appeal dismissed
• Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 6415 May 2026HUMAN RIGHTS – where the respondent registered for the appellants’ women-only mobile phone application – where access was granted by AI software but then restricted upon review by an individual – where the respondent sought re-admission to the application and the appellants refused – where the primary judge made a declaration that the appellants engaged in unlawful indirect discrimination under s 5B(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) – where the appellants challenge this declaration and the respondent cross-appeals seeking a declaration that the appellants engaged in direct discrimination – whether the appellants engaged in unlawful direct discrimination in contravention of s 5B(1) of the SDA on the basis of gender identity by excluding the respondent from the application and then refusing to re-admit the respondent to the application STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – construction of the SDA – whether s 7D(2) (special measures) applies to a measure with the purpose of achieving substantive equality between men and women despite discriminating against another protected group under the SDA DAMAGES – assessment of damages – where the appellants and the respondent appeal the primary judge’s award of damages – whether the appellants’ conduct of the proceeding and public commentary on the proceeding warrants an award of aggravated damages – whether the appellants’ bona fide beliefs are a sufficient basis to not warrant the award of aggravated damages