News

Latest Judgments from the Federal Court

• JGW25 v Attorney-General (Cth) [2026] FCA 32129 Mar 2026ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application for judicial review of decision to refuse to grant licence under s 19AP of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - whether delegate failed to constructively exercise jurisdiction - whether delegate's decision was legally unreasonable - whether delegate erred by relying on erroneous information - whether delegate failed to take into account relevant considerations - application dismissed
• Fourmile on behalf of the Gimuy Walubara Yidinji People v State of Queensland (No 3) [2026] FCA 23127 Mar 2026NATIVE TITLE – Applications for joinder and removal under s 85(5) and s 85(8) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – Whether asserted interests lack a factual foundation – Where some asserted interests are indirect and lacking in substance – Whether the interests of justice favour joinder and removal – Where relevant “dispute” resolved – Where that resolution was resource intensive – Where participation of respondents would be oppressive and cause prejudice to other parties – Where participation of respondents would be contrary to s 37M and s 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – Application for joinder refused – Application for removal granted.
• UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Wollongong Coal Limited (No 4) [2026] FCA 37027 Mar 2026PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request for access to restricted documents by a non-party under r 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – objections by applicant and respondent to the release of documents – principle of open justice – where restricted documents are written submissions relied upon in open court – no basis for refusing leave to inspect restricted documents – request for access to documents granted
• Chief Executive Officer of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency v Chegg, Inc. [2026] FCA 33027 Mar 2026CONSUMER LAW – where respondent admitted contraventions of s 114A(3) of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) – where pecuniary penalty sought by applicant not opposed by respondent – construction of s 114A(3) of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) and associated definitions – consideration of principles governing determination of a civil penalty that is appropriate – quantum of penalty proposed within the range of appropriate penalties – declarations and ancillary orders made in form sought by the parties
• Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 35427 Mar 2026MIGRATION – leave to appeal – student visa refusal – mandatory enrolment criterion – refusal to adjourn hearing – no jurisdictional error – adverse information properly raised under ss 359A, 359AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – no legal unreasonableness – leave to appeal refused – costs fixed
• Reeve v Fair Work Commission [2026] FCA 36827 Mar 2026PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application – recusal – whether actual or apprehended bias demonstrated – whether applicant denied procedural fairness – application dismissed
• Forrest on behalf of Nangaanya-ku Native Title Claim Group (Part B) v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2026] FCA 36727 Mar 2026PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interlocutory applications for summary dismissal - competing native title determination applications - applicant seeks summary dismissal of two later native title determination applications - whether later native title claims are vexatious or abuse of process - each later claim irreconcilable with previous native title determination - each later claim brought when earlier native title proceeding at advanced stage - at least one member from each respective claim group has previously brought competing claims - later claims unjustifiably oppressive and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - each later claim vexatious and abuse of process - summary judgment granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interlocutory application for summary dismissal - competing native title determination applications - one applicant seeking to shut out summary dismissal applications against it - ground of application results from simple error - application dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interlocutory application seeking orders restricting the filing of further native title claims and applications for joinder as respondents to proceeding - whether Court has power to require leave to file an originating application - Court has implied power and power under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to restrain abuses of its own processes - orders sought are appropriate - orders made
• Britten v eBroker.com.au Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 36927 Mar 2026COSTS – where applicants filed interlocutory application seeking interlocutory relief to prevent enforcement action against property – where respondents filed affidavit in response to interlocutory application – where second applicant failed to inform respondents that interlocutory application was not to be pursued – where second applicant claimed to have informed respondents by email – where applicants ordered to pay respondents’ costs of interlocutory application – whether costs should be awarded on party-party or indemnity basis – costs awarded on indemnity basis
• Suksawat v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 35327 Mar 2026MIGRATION – application for extension of time to appeal – short delay – unrepresented applicant – merits of proposed appeal – disagreement with Tribunal’s findings not an appealable error – no evidence of enrolment for student visa – failure to respond to s 359(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) request – Tribunal entitled to proceed without hearing – primary judge correct – extension refused – costs fixed
• Hitachi Rail STS Australia Pty Ltd v Schoof [2026] FCA 34327 Mar 2026EMPLOYMENT - proper construction of enterprise agreement provisions concerning the calculation of penalty and overtime - whether allowances to be included in 'base hourly rate' - whether waiting time penalty provision for delay in payment of 'wages' applies to non-payment of allowances - held that allowances not to be included in base hourly rate and declarations accordingly - declaratory relief as to waiting time penalty refused as a matter of discretion
• Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 34627 Mar 2026MIGRATION – judicial review – application dismissed in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – appeal from primary judge’s decision – refusal of Employer Nomination (subclass 186) visa to applicants – where employer’s nomination was refused – where requirements of cl 186.223 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) were not satisfied
• Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 34827 Mar 2026MIGRATION – judicial review – application dismissed in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – appeal from primary judge’s decision – refusal of Employer Nomination (subclass 186) visa to applicants – where employer’s nomination was refused – where requirements of cl 186.223 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) were not satisfied
• Majak v Barnden [2026] FCA 36327 Mar 2026PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — where applicant is an undischarged bankrupt and has no standing to bring actions — where matters raised in the proceedings canvass the same or similar issues finally determined in separate proceedings before other Courts — where proceedings are brought by the applicant to circumvent orders of another Court preventing the applicant from instituting proceedings in that Court without leave — proceedings summarily dismissed
• Younes v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 3527 Mar 2026MIGRATION – application for extension of time to appeal from a decision of the Federal Court – where appeal relies on grounds not argued before the primary judge – whether leave is granted to raise new grounds of appeal – where the proposed grounds are not reasonably arguable – where it would not be expedient in the interests of justice to grant leave to argue the new grounds – where the delay in meeting appeal time limit is short – where the explanation for the delay is not adequate – where applicant would suffer serious personal consequences if extension not granted – where respondent was denied the opportunity to meet the assertions with evidence before the primary judge – application to extend time to appeal dismissed
• Anderson v Stonnington City Council [2026] FCAFC 3427 Mar 2026BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – appeal from dismissal of application to set aside bankruptcy notice on the basis of a cross demand – where appellants alleged claims in tort against respondent Council relating to grant of heritage overlay over property – claims in tort enunciated on general and speculative level – where primary judge dismissed application on the basis that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie cross demand and it was not just to allow the litigation to proceed before determination of the bankruptcy proceedings – no error in identification of principles – no error in application of principles – appeal dismissed
• The Owners – Strata Plan No 87231 v 3A Composites GmbH (No 10) [2026] FCA 35127 Mar 2026REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – representative proceeding under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – consumer class action – action brought by strata corporation on behalf of entities with a (former) proprietary interest in a building with Alucobond PE or Alucobond Plus cladding. CONSUMER LAW – where product manufactured by foreign corporation and supplied in Australia by Australian distributor – whether Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’) and Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) apply to foreign manufacturer – whether foreign manufacturer engaged in impugned conduct in Australia – whether foreign manufacturer carried on business in Australia CONSUMER LAW – guarantee of acceptable quality in s 54 of the ACL – actions in respect of goods of unmerchantable quality in s 74D of the TPA – whether products supplied in trade or commerce – whether products were goods of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption –whether products were “supplied” to a “consumer” – whether strata corporations derived title to the products “through or under” the developers of the relevant buildings – whether the products were consumer goods – whether product affixed to building by professionals can be a consumer good – consideration of passive use – whether a third party used up or transformed the products – whether products were of acceptable or merchantable quality at time of supply – whether products were capable of being used safely and in compliance with the legislative requirements during the relevant period – relevance of theoretical possibility of use compared with practical likelihood of use in all the circumstances including cost – relevance and role of professionals involved in the acquisition and affixation of products and design and construction of buildings – relevance of knowledge of professional intermediaries – where legislative framework and expert evidence demonstrates safety and compliance of products can only be determined through individual assessment of specific buildings - Where products not inherently defective – claim not established. CONSUMER LAW – false or misleading representations about goods or services contrary to s 29 of the ACL - misleading conduct as to the nature etc. of goods contrary to s 33 of ACL – materially the same as ss 53 and 55 of the TPA – whether marketing material published by one or other of the respondents alleged to have been misleading – whether foreign manufacturer liable for material published by Australian distributor – when task of assessing if conduct was misleading is approached by reference to a class of persons or requires assessment of individual circumstances if monetary damages sought by specific person or persons – where voluminous marketing material relied on which is in materially the same terms – marketing material alleged to have conveyed that products were safe and compliant – allegation of failure to provide warnings – whether representations were as to future matters – where a representation as to an inherent quality of a product cannot be a representation as to a future matter – consideration of context and knowledge of professionals – claim not established. DAMAGES – whether applicant and sub-group representative suffered loss or damage because of non-compliance with statutory guarantee – where issue specific to each applicant and group member – consideration of requirements of s 272(1)(b) of the ACL – whether inferential case of causation sufficient – consideration of proportionality in establishing fact – Necessity of evidence of actual reliance on alleged misleading conduct. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether pleading amendments take effect from date of commencement of proceeding or date of amendments – where amendments to class definition in representative proceeding – where default position is that amendments to group definition in representative action take effect from the time the definition is changed – where additional cause of action added – where amendments do not arise from the same or substantially the same facts as those which had already been pleaded – Amendments take effect from date of amendment. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – issue individual to applicant – ACL s 236(2)– times that causes of action arose – whether requirement for applicant to undertake reasonable inquiries – no requirement to know of specific defect of product – sufficient to have knowledge that consumer guarantee has not been complied with – – applicant’s consumer guarantee claim brought within time – s 273 of the ACL, s 82(2) of the TPA – when link between the physical manifestation and the underlying defect is known or ought to be known – relevant knowledge is as to actual physical defect in the structure, not legal responsibility for the cause of the defect – applicant’s misleading conduct claim time barred.
• Shaw v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2026] FCAFC 3227 Mar 2026BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – administration of bankrupt estate – supervisory jurisdiction of the Federal Court – application for inquiry into trustee’s conduct under Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) ss 90-10 and 90-15 – where broad and generalised allegations of maladministration made – whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion by first considering whether substantial grounds warranting inquiry had been established – whether exercise of discretion to refuse to order inquiry attended by error – no error established. Held: appeal dismissed with costs. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory case management orders – where decisions made in exercise of discretion – whether leave to appeal should be granted – where applicant did not establish House v The King error – where applicant did not establish a real risk of substantial injustice if leave refused. Held: leave to appeal refused with costs. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory case management orders made in proceeding where applicant sought orders pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where applicant discontinued the proceedings with leave on terms as to costs – where respondent sought to pursue an interlocutory application in that proceeding after the proceeding was discontinued – whether interlocutory relief sought precluded in any event – whether error in grant of leave to discontinue – whether interlocutory application can be pursued. Held: appeal dismissed. ESTOPPEL – issue estoppel – res judicata – finality of litigation – supervisory inquiry barred – prior determination of trustee’s authority – refusal of leave to appeal – preclusion of re-litigation. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – apprehended bias – whether the impugned decisions of the primary judges in the two proceedings affected by apprehended bias. Held: appeals dismissed. EVIDENCE – application to adduce further evidence on appeal – whether in interests of justice – where evidence irrelevant or incapable of affecting outcome. Held: application refused.
• Combs v Careerseekers New Australian Internship Program Limited [2026] FCA 34727 Mar 2026PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – amendment to concise statement – timing of application – no expansion of issues – standard discovery pursuant to Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 20.14 – prejudice – balancing exercise – leave to amend granted DISCOVERY – amendment – discovery – Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 20.14 – prejudice – leave to amend
• Commissioner of Taxation v Morton [2026] FCAFC 3127 Mar 2026TAXATION – appeal from decision of primary judge with respect to an appeal under Pt IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) against objection decision – where amended assessments of taxation brought proceeds from the sales of lots on a residential development into account as assessable income – where primary judge held that assessments were excessive – where primary judge held that lots on development were not trading stock for the purposes of Pt 2-25 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) – where primary judge held that property sale was not in the course of carrying on a business of property development, but proceeds from the sales of the allotments were instead capital receipts derived upon the realisation of an asset – where primary judge held that taxpayer embarked upon enterprising means of achieving the best price when realising a capital asset – appeal dismissed
• CPDL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 34227 Mar 2026MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision by the Respondent under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where Respondent’s decision under s 501BA was made over two years after the original decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether Respondent’s decision illogical or irrational by making findings about the risk of reoffending that assumed that the circumstances remained the same as at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, or otherwise without a probative basis – whether Respondent failed to consider the legal consequences of his decision – whether Respondent’s decision not made within a reasonable time – certain findings on risk of re-offending were illogical or irrational – application allowed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time – application for judicial review made 16 months after the Respondent’s decision – no sufficient explanation for delay – proposed grounds of review raise have considerable merit and the effect on the Applicant’s liberty of not granting an extension would be severe – extension of time granted