News

Latest Judgments from the Federal Court

• LAZ24 v Purcell (Examiner) (Stay Application) [2025] FCA 94618 Aug 2025CONTEMPT OF COURT – sentencing - application for temporary stay pending appeal – held appeal grounds not sufficiently strong to ground a stay – compassionate or discretionary grounds a foreseeable consequence of coercive sentence – stay not granted
• Baggaley v Attorney-General (Commonwealth) [2025] FCA 96818 Aug 2025ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of decision to refuse applicant’s release on parole – whether there was no evidence or other material to justify the decision – whether respondent denied applicant procedural fairness by failing to take applicant’s submissions into account – whether decision was unreasonable – whether respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations – whether respondent failed to provide adequate reasons – application dismissed
• Palmer v Lazar, in the matter of Lazar (Bankrupt) (No 2) [2025] FCA 96718 Aug 2025BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – application to compel the transfer of property to the trustee in bankruptcy – where the bankrupt failed to engage with the trustee and Court – trustee presently unable to gather-in sufficient funds to discharge the bankrupt estate – property received as distribution of deceased estate – no steps taken to transfer title into personal capacity – bankrupt failed to comply with s 77(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – consent to the proposed transfer given by other registered title holder – where likely surplus funds available following the sale of the property – trustee orders granted directing the transfer of title – order allowing for the execution of any transfer documents by the registrar or court officer – bankrupt to give vacant possession within 28 days
• Palmer v Lazar, in the matter of Lazar (Bankrupt) [2025] FCA 96618 Aug 2025PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bankrupt’s application for further adjournment – failure to engage with the Trustee in bankruptcy and the Court prior to the hearing – failure to file any evidence in support of the adjournment application – where evidence suggests the Trustee has been unable to gather-in sufficient funds for creditor distributions – circumstances where a further adjournment will result in further fees and expenses to the detriment of any surplus distribution to the Bankrupt – application for further adjournment dismissed
• BQD18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 84918 Aug 2025MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div 2) dismissal of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing the grant of a Temporary Protection Visa – whether Tribunal erred in referring to non-existent evidence – whether reference tainted Tribunal’s ultimate conclusion – whether jurisdictional error shown – appeal dismissed
• Australian Energy Regulator v CAM Engineering and Construction Pty Ltd (Costs) [2025] FCA 97218 Aug 2025COSTS – where respondent conceded to making of declarations in respect of admitted contravention of s 112(2) of the National Energy Retail Law (NSW) at initial trial – where admissions made eight months after proceeding commenced and after completion of the applicant’s evidence – where no dispute as to facts underlying the contravening conduct – where applicant seeks costs on standard basis in a fixed amount – where respondent did not oppose awarding of those costs
• Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited (Penalty) [2025] FCA 97118 Aug 2025INDUSTRIAL LAW – where Qantas was previously found to have engaged in the largest ever contravention of the general protections provisions of Pt 3–1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where the issue of pecuniary penalty fell to be determined – consideration of culture within Qantas where evidence of contrition is not persuasive and as to reform is mixed – the applicable law and principles governing the imposition of a pecuniary penalty considered – where the relevant considerations in determining the pecuniary penalty identified – where findings made as to each of the relevant considerations – where the quantum of the penalty determined in the amount of $90,000,000 – where the proper recipient to whom the penalty should be paid in whole or in part considered – orders made
• Hendry v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 95618 Aug 2025PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE - proposed summary dismissal of first respondent's strike out application - orders also sought to regulate respondents' communication with witnesses and third parties - stay of proceeding - related criminal proceeding - close correspondence between issues - risk of prejudice to first respondent's defence in criminal proceeding - stay granted - strike out application not dismissed but stayed - no orders made in relation to communication with witnesses and third parties - suppression application not stayed
• Lin v One Funds Management Limited (Security for Costs) [2025] FCA 97315 Aug 2025PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for security for costs – where applicant is a natural person ordinarily resident outside of the jurisdiction – where applicant has insufficient assets in the jurisdiction to meet an adverse costs order where applicant has unpaid legal debts in the jurisdiction - whether risk that an order for costs will not be satisfied – whether leave to appeal has reasonable prospects of success – whether discretion should be exercised to make an order for security for costs – Held: application granted with costs
• McGinn v High Court of Australia (No 5) [2025] FCA 97515 Aug 2025PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment application – where applicant’s medical certificate given minimal weight – overarching purpose – application dismissed HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – whether appropriate to make vexatious proceedings order against applicant pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where nine sets of proceedings brought by applicant, together with separate applications for disqualification – where each application dismissed – where notices of appeal filed in eight proceedings – where previous judge dismissed three other applications brought by applicant – where two duty judges dismissed two further applications brought by applicant – each application has lacked reasonable grounds – where grounds in notices of appeal do not raise tenable or arguable challenges to decisions – overarching purpose – vexatious proceedings order made
• Platinum Asia Investments Limited, in the matter of Platinum Asia Investments Limited (No 2) [2025] FCA 97415 Aug 2025CORPORATIONS – members’ scheme of arrangement – second court hearing – application pursuant to s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to approve scheme of arrangement – Held: scheme approved
• Norden Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Martens Investments Pty Ltd (Trustee), in the matter of Amazonia IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 5) [2025] FCA 96515 Aug 2025PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Where most of the Respondents’ amended concise statement was struck out as an abuse of process – Successful party’s application for indemnity costs – Whether indemnity costs appropriate – Indemnity costs ordered.
• Roberts, in the matter of an application by Roberts [2025] FCA 95715 Aug 2025CORPORATIONS - application for leave to manage corporation under s 206G(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - application for order that applicant is not a disqualified person under s 126J(1)(b) Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) - corporation is the trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund and carries on business solely in that capacity - applicant undischarged bankrupt - applicant and wife are sole members of the self-managed superannuation fund - application granted
• Director, Professional Services Review v Yoong (No 2) [2025] FCAFC 10615 Aug 2025PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of judgment orders pending appeal – relevant considerations – whether stay should operate retroactively from date of judgment orders – failure to seek stay at the time of judgment due to the inadvertence of legal advisors
• Fanca Technologies Pty Ltd v CFH Airtechnic Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 95315 Aug 2025PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicants applied for leave to file an amended originating application and statement of claim which re-defines some of the impugned products and alleges additional claims of infringement – where respondents submit that the infringed products are defined to include ‘hypothetical’ products – where the respondents submit that the particulars to the applications’ alternative cases of direct infringement and indirect infringement in the form of authorised infringement, infringement as joint tortfeasors, and infringement under s 117 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) are so indefinite that the respondents are not fairly on notice of the case against them – whether the impugned products are adequately pleaded – whether the pleadings are adequately pleaded so as to raise a triable issue of fact
• SSVJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 95415 Aug 2025MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision made by the respondent under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where the respondent cancelled the applicant’s visa having been satisfied that the applicant did not pass the character test and it was in the national interest to do so – where the respondent placed significant weight on the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community – where the applicant would remain in the Australian community following cancellation of his visa because of the High Court’s decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 – whether the respondent’s exercise of the power in s 501BA was illogical, irrational or legally unreasonable
• Clifford Hallam Healthcare Pty Ltd v IPG Rockhampton [2025] FCA 96015 Aug 2025BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – application under s 588FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to extend time for registration of security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register – security interests not registered due to inadvertence – extension of time granted
• Carbery v Fire Rescue Victoria [2025] FCA 94815 Aug 2025TAXATION – calculation of Reportable Fringe Benefit Amounts – applicant claims declaratory relief that employer incorrectly calculated and reported employee fringe benefits on reimbursed insurance premiums PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – respondent applies to dismiss proceeding for want of justiciable controversy – whether there is a justiciable controversy and therefore a matter within federal jurisdiction where respondent contends after commencement of the proceeding that its interests align with those of applicant – whether the requirement that there be a contradictor is met – held justiciable controversy is identifiable from the whole history of conduct between the parties – change of position by the respondent does not extinguish the controversy – respondent’s application dismissed
• Mansfield, in the matter of Palladium Investments International Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 96915 Aug 2025CORPORATIONS – application for approval of entry into a second deed of variation of a settlement deed pursuant to section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where application is brought in capacity as a liquidator, receiver and manager of trust property and trustee of a bankrupt estate – where settlement deed has already been varied once – where deed of variation which gives rise to obligations over a period of more than three months – whether plaintiffs were justified and acting reasonably in entering into the second variation deed – Held: orders made PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – confidentiality orders sought in respect of a confidential affidavit and the accompanying confidential exhibit supporting the application – whether orders necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – Held: confidentiality orders made
• Frigger v Banning (No 2) [2025] FCA 95514 Aug 2025COSTS – applicants ordered to provide security for costs for respondents’ costs of application for leave to appeal – applicants failed to provide security for costs – respondents seek order dismissing application for leave to appeal with costs pursuant to s 56(4) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – applicants seek leave to withdraw application with no order as to costs – whether Court should depart from usual position that applicant who withdraws application for leave to appeal must pay respondents’ costs – application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs