Business Law Library & Tracker
Selected Business Law Cases
A selective case-law layer for decisions that materially help businesses understand contracts, employment, consumer law, IP and corporate obligations.
Sources last reviewed 2 June 2026
Published law explainers
308
Curated from a much larger legal corpus
Topics
11
Plain-English clusters
Published case explainers
663
Selected from thousands of decisions
Tracked updates
11
New, amended & reviewed
These are plain-English explainers, not legal advice. They are a good starting point, but check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.
Talk to a lawyerAkibou Yacouba v Key Assets The Children's Services Provider (Australia) Limited (No 3)
If your business is defending more than one claim from the same employee or former employee, do not assume the matters will stay separate just because the allegations or remedies are framed differently. If the factual story overlaps, the Court may prefer one combined process with one set of pleadings, one disclosure exercise and one witness timetable. This case also shows the value of disciplined communication. Staff should know not to engage directly about the proceeding unless authorised, and the business should keep a clear record of who is handling court communications. Where the other side is self-represented, consistency and documentation matter even more. Keep affidavits and witness material factual, avoid inflammatory language, and treat every case management hearing as important. Orders made in a party's absence are not easily undone.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the application to set aside the consolidation order. It found the applicant had notice of the earlier hearing, had not provided a reasonable explanation for failing to attend, and had not shown that consolidation was inappropriate. The Court held that the two proceedings involved the same parties, the same former employment and overlapping allegations, including allegations about misconduct, a show cause letter and termination. It maintained that one combined proceeding with one set of pleadings, disclosed documents, witness statements and submissions was the better course. The Court also ordered removal of an affidavit unless paragraphs 27 to 33 were redacted or struck out, restrained direct or indirect communications with persons described in Attachment A, extended time to file a consolidated statement of claim, listed the matter for further case management, and reserved costs.
Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (Costs)
If your business is in court, the result is not the only thing that matters. The way you run the case can change the costs outcome significantly. This judgment shows the court looking closely at whether a party acted consistently with the overarching purpose of civil procedure, meaning disputes should be resolved justly, quickly, inexpensively and efficiently. In practical terms, businesses should test factual denials against their own documents, avoid alleging dishonesty or fabrication without a proper basis, and keep witness evidence tightly aligned with objective records. A claim may be arguable when filed, but that does not justify maintaining every allegation or denial as the evidence develops. Regularly reassessing what can responsibly be contested is part of managing litigation risk. If a hearing becomes longer and more complex because of unsupported positions, indemnity costs may become a real possibility.
Outcome: Abraham J ordered that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis from the commencement of the hearing. The court also ordered that costs be dealt with on a lump sum basis, to be agreed or otherwise determined by a Registrar, and that the costs order be stayed until further order. On the reasoning visible in the judgment, the court considered that the respondents had established special or unusual features in the conduct of the litigation. Those features included adverse credit findings about the applicant’s evidence, broad and largely unsuccessful attacks on the honesty of opposing witnesses, a baseless concoction theory, and requiring the respondents to prove factual matters that ought not to have been in issue. The court also considered a lump sum process appropriate because a detailed taxation after such a long trial would be protracted and expensive.
Albert St Group Pty Ltd v Universal Real Estate Vic North Pty Ltd
If your business is in a multi-party dispute, do not assume that another party dropping or settling with one respondent means you can recover your own extra legal costs. The Court focused on three practical points. First, costs under s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act are discretionary. Second, the overarching purpose provisions in ss 37M and 37N matter, but a party seeking costs still needs evidence of conduct that was actually unreasonable. Third, courts generally avoid deciding who would have won a settled claim, because that would undermine settlement. In this case, the second respondent had not opposed the joinder when it happened, the joinder occurred before pleadings, and there was no evidence of impropriety in the later commercial resolution. The second respondent also continued to maintain a proportionate liability claim against the third respondent, which weakened the idea that the joinder had simply been pointless. Businesses should document why parties are joined, identify any alleged wasted work precisely, and think carefully before launching a separate costs fight that may itself create more costs.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the second respondent's costs application. Bennett J ordered that the proceeding against the third respondent be dismissed, that there be no order as to costs associated with the joinder and dismissal of the proceeding involving the third respondent, and that the second respondent pay the costs of the costs application. The Court found no coherent basis to criticise the timing of the joinder, particularly because it occurred before pleadings and the second respondent had not objected when joinder was sought. The Court also rejected the argument that the applicant's commercial resolution with the third respondent amounted to capitulation, and held that the evidence did not show unreasonable conduct sufficient to justify an adverse costs order.
Albert St Group Pty Ltd v Universal Real Estate Vic North Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business is defending an ACL claim, do not treat the existing parties as fixed. Ask early whether another person should be joined because they made, repeated or helped communicate the disputed representation. This case shows that the Federal Court expects cross-claims to be raised when the defence is due under r 15.04, and a late application under r 15.05 needs a proper explanation. Waiting until after mediation is risky and may be criticised as inconsistent with the court’s case management objectives. Even so, a late cross-claim can still be allowed where it is arguable, closely connected to the main dispute, and can be fitted into the existing timetable without prejudicing the trial. The safest business approach is to preserve records of the communication chain, get advice early on joinder and contribution issues, and avoid assuming that settlement discussions justify procedural delay.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the first respondent leave to file and serve the cross-claim against Mr Darji. Bennett J held that the delay was significant and that the explanation after August 2025 was unsatisfactory, particularly the decision to wait until after mediation and the lack of explanation for the further delay between December 2025 and April 2026. However, the court accepted that the delay was not for tactical or forensic advantage, that no party identified prejudice, that the proposed timetable would preserve the October 2026 trial, that the draft cross-claim disclosed an arguable case and was not deficient on its face, and that it was closely connected to the same factual issues as the main proceeding. Consequential orders were made for filing, service, defence, discovery, evidence, objections and submissions, and costs were reserved.
Allen (Trustee) v Huangfu, in the matter of the bankrupt estate of Zhang
If you have used family or jointly owned property to support business debts, keep careful records of who borrowed, what the money was used for, who benefited, and what consideration was given for any later transfer of ownership. This case did not decide who ultimately owned the sale proceeds, but it shows how quickly a dispute can become procedurally complex when bankruptcy and family law overlap. A related family law case does not automatically mean the insolvency dispute will be moved into the family law court. Courts will look at the stage of each case, likely delay, listing capacity, cost exposure and the trustee’s role. If insolvency risk and relationship breakdown are both in play, coordinated advice early is critical before assets are transferred, proceeds are distributed or positions are taken in separate proceedings.
Outcome: The court dismissed the respondent's application to transfer the proceeding to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. It ordered the respondent to pay the trustee's costs of the application and directed that the matter be listed for further case management. On the published reasons, the judge regarded the factors as finely balanced but gave significant weight to the trustee's role as a statutory officeholder, the risk of imposing additional cost and burden on him through the family law proceeding, the more advanced stage of the bankruptcy case, and the practical ability of the Federal Court to list the matter sooner. The substantive undervalue, exoneration and family law claims remained unresolved.
Allen (Trustee) v Selimi, in the matter of Selimi (Bankrupt)
If you are moving shares in a private company to a family member, spouse, sibling, related entity or other associate, especially when financial pressure exists, assume the transaction may later be examined closely. In this case, the trustee alleged the bankrupt transferred all 120 shares in Brook Fields Pty Ltd to his brother shortly before bankruptcy and that no consideration was paid. The respondent did not defend the case, and the court was satisfied the elements of the Bankruptcy Act claim were properly pleaded and supported. The result was a declaration that the transfer was void as against the trustee, an order requiring the shares to be transferred to the trustee, and a fallback order allowing correction of the company’s register. The practical message is to document consideration, keep the register of members accurate, and get advice before transferring ownership interests when insolvency risk exists.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted default judgment for the trustee. It declared that, under s 120(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, the transfer of 120 ordinary shares in Brook Fields Pty Ltd to the respondent on or about 1 August 2024 was void as against the trustee. The court ordered the respondent to transfer the shares to the trustee. It also ordered that, if the respondent did not comply, then no sooner than 28 days after the orders the company's register of members could be corrected under s 175 of the Corporations Act to show the trustee as the holder of the shares, with the order taking effect nunc pro tunc. The respondent was ordered to pay the trustee's costs of the interlocutory application. The court reached that result because service and default were established and the pleaded elements of the s 120 claim were made out.
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust
Read this case as a document-control warning. If your business reaches a commercial position during negotiations, make sure the final contract states that position clearly and consistently across the schedule, body wording, tables, endorsements and annexures. Do not assume a broker summary, side email or placement advice will rescue you if the executed document is unclear or contradictory. The Court treated phrases such as "for the time being", references to internal agreement, and ongoing reinsurance discussions as signs that the position may still have been provisional. In practice, before signing, compare the final document against the last agreed deal sheet line by line. If a term is still conditional, say so expressly or delay execution until it is resolved. If the term is meant to be final, remove language that suggests it is temporary or subject to later confirmation.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Allianz's application with costs. On the reasons available, Lee J held that Allianz had not shown the convincing proof required for rectification. Although some documents, especially the Marsh presentation and the 31 March placement advice, supported Allianz's argument that a $15 million sexual misconduct figure formed part of the parties' dealings, the broader documentary record also showed qualifications, internal conditions and ongoing reinsurance discussions. The Court considered that this made it difficult to conclude there was a fixed and continuing common intention of the exact kind Allianz alleged. In particular, the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the alleged common intention continued through to execution of the policy on 8 July 2008.
Altrad Australia Pty Ltd v Dropulich (No 3)
For business owners, finance leaders and in-house teams, the practical message is to treat accounting allegations as document-and-transaction disputes, not just disputes about totals. If you say accounts were wrong, be ready to identify the entries, dates, amounts and accounting reason said to make them wrong. If you are on the receiving end, ask whether the pleading tells you only the conclusion or also the path by which that conclusion will be proved. This case also helps explain a common litigation distinction. Material facts are the core facts alleged. Particulars are the extra detail showing how those facts will be proved. A pleading can be good enough to survive an early strike-out challenge but still be too vague later in the case. Businesses should also note the court’s criticism of filing an application without first conferring as ordered. Good process still matters.
Outcome: The court ordered the applicants to provide limited additional particulars by 10 June 2026. For specified paragraphs of the second further amended statement of claim, they had to give Mr Singh a list of each transaction, described by date, nature and amount, alleged to form part of the total understatement of trade creditor liabilities or trade and other payables, and state the basis or reason why those liabilities or payables were said to be understated. Apart from that relief, Mr Singh’s interlocutory application was dismissed. There was no order as to costs, with the court taking into account his failure to comply with earlier case management orders requiring in-person conferral before filing the application.
Amaero Ltd, in the matter of Amaero Ltd [2026] FCA 596
Amaero is best read as a process case, not a final endorsement of the restructure itself. Justice Owens allowed the company to send its scheme booklet and hold meetings because the statutory preconditions appeared to be met and there was no obvious reason the schemes could not later be approved if the required majorities voted in favour. The Court also required amendments to the booklet before approval, which is a reminder that disclosure quality matters. For directors and founders, the practical lesson is that if a transaction changes what investors hold, where the parent company sits, or how rights are exercised, the legal mechanics and communications plan need to be built carefully from the start. You need to identify each affected class, explain the commercial case and the disadvantages, give ASIC the required opportunity to review the material, and make sure dispatch only occurs after ASIC registration of the explanatory statement. This case does not establish that Amaero’s schemes were finally approved or implemented.
Outcome: The Court made the first-hearing orders sought. It ordered Amaero to convene a shareholder scheme meeting and an option holder scheme meeting, approved the scheme booklet as the explanatory statement for the purposes of section 412(1)(a), set detailed directions for virtual meetings, record dates, proxy deadlines and dispatch, and listed a later hearing for any application to approve the schemes. Justice Owens held that the statutory and procedural preconditions had been met, including proper disclosure after amendments to the booklet, ASIC notice and review, and compliance with or dispensation from the relevant procedural rules. The Court also said there was no apparent reason the schemes should not, in due course, receive approval if the necessary voting majorities were obtained. The decision does not establish the result of the later approval hearing or final implementation.
Ambulance Employees Association of Western Australia Incorporated v United Workers’ Union [2026] FCAFC 62
Do not assume an employee association is excluded from federal registration just because most of its members work in one enterprise. This decision shows that the distinction between an enterprise association and an association of employees is technical and depends on the structure of the Act, not just a quick factual impression. The court accepted that AEAWA was an enterprise association and still capable of being registered under s 19(1) on the construction it preferred. For businesses, that means standing and representation disputes should be handled carefully. If a worker body appears in a Fair Work matter, identify whether it is already registered, applying for registration, or relying on some other basis to represent employees. Review the body’s rules and any current proceedings, and get workplace law advice before making strategic decisions based on assumed status.
Outcome: The Full Court granted judicial review relief. It held that the Fair Work Commission had fallen into jurisdictional error because it did not adopt the correct construction of Part 2 of the Act. The court stated that AEAWA was an enterprise association that was capable of being registered under s 19(1). It issued certiorari quashing the Full Bench decision of 6 December 2024 and the Deputy President’s decision of 17 June 2024. It also issued mandamus requiring the Commission to hear and determine according to law UWU’s application for summary dismissal of AEAWA’s registration application. The court did not itself finally register AEAWA. Instead, it remitted the matter for lawful reconsideration.
Anderson v Morgan Crest Pty Ltd trading as Ray White Benalla
Read this case as a procedural warning, not a ruling on consumer law liability. If your business files late, the court may still let you defend the case if you provide a credible explanation and the delay has not made a fair hearing impossible. But that outcome is discretionary, not guaranteed. If the other side files late, do not assume you will get a strike-out or judgment by default. You will usually need to show real prejudice and explain why lesser case management steps are not enough. The case also shows that a timetable decision which effectively refuses an adjournment may not be immediately appealable. In practice, businesses should monitor deadlines closely, act early if a timetable becomes unrealistic, and prepare evidence about both the reason for any delay and the practical effect on the business.
Outcome: Hill J dismissed the application for leave to appeal, with costs. The challenge to the 6 February 2026 orders was held to be incompetent because those orders operated, in substance, as a refusal to adjourn the hearing, and appeals from that kind of decision are barred by s 24(1AA)(b)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). As to the 3 February 2026 refusal to strike out the defence, the Court found no appealable error. The respondent's delay had been explained, the sanction sought was severe, and the primary judge's decision to let the matter proceed was open on the material.
Angelis v CP Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 623
If your business is taking urgent funding to stop a sale, refinance a bank or preserve trading value, document the commercial essentials before or at the time funds move. Identify who the borrower is, who the lender is, what amount is being advanced, what assets are being offered as security, and how repayment and interest are meant to work. Do not assume that uncertainty on some terms will necessarily defeat the existence of a binding arrangement. Courts can infer agreement from conduct and surrounding circumstances, especially where money was advanced for a clear commercial purpose and everyone acted as though a deal existed. If you want a PPSR registration removed, be prepared to prove more than poor paperwork. Preserve emails, court orders, payment records, draft terms and evidence of who approved the transaction. Where advisers, friends, related parties or family entities are involved, separate the roles clearly and get independent advice early.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the amended originating application and ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed. On the reasons presently accessible, the Court did not accept the applicant's case that no agreement had been reached. The judgment emphasises objective contract formation, accepts that a contract may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, and confirms that later conduct can be relevant to whether a contract was formed and when. The Court also rejected key parts of the applicant's attempt to characterise the parties as commercially unsophisticated or detached from the refinancing process. Because the available reasons are truncated, this summary does not go beyond what is clearly supported by the text that can be read.
Annear Holdings Pty Ltd v Farm Projects Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 188
If your company has only a few owners, do not assume trust, history or shared effort will fill gaps in the paperwork. This decision shows that courts will usually start with the company structure the parties chose, the transaction documents, the accounting records and the way money actually moved. If one shareholder is expected to keep funding the business, that should be written down clearly, including amount, timing, trigger points and consequences of non-payment. If a shareholder expects board participation, information rights or a say in strategy, that should also be documented. Shareholder loans need clear repayment rules, especially where the company has limited cash and multiple insider lenders. Directors should also be careful about statements they make about another shareholder's rights or share value. Even if a court rejects broader allegations about exclusion from management or broken informal understandings, persistent misstatements can still justify oppression relief such as a forced buy-back and possible winding up if the order is not met.
Outcome: Annear Holdings succeeded in part. The Federal Court found that Mr McNamee, as director of Farm Projects, had engaged in oppressive and unfairly discriminatory conduct by persisting with wrongful assertions about Annear Holdings' rights as a member and the value of its share. The court ordered a buy-back of Annear Holdings' share for $416,667, subject to adjustment for changes in net assets since 28 February 2024, with an alternative that the share could instead be transferred to Mr McNamee, Norvest, Greenfair or their nominees before the deadline. If the price was not paid, Annear Holdings was given liberty to apply for winding up under section 461(k). The court rejected the quasi-partnership case, rejected the alleged shovel ready commitment, refused immediate repayment of the loan in the way claimed, restrained unequal repayment of shareholder loans, refused leave to amend the cross-claim and dismissed the cross-claim.
AstraZeneca AB v Pharmacor Pty Ltd
If your business is preparing to launch a product that may fall within another party's patent, do not assume that registration, listing readiness or commercial urgency will protect the launch. In this case, the respondent had ARTG entries and expected PBS listing, but the court still intervened urgently before launch. The respondent's main answer was invalidity, not non-infringement, and that was not enough at this stage to avoid interim restraint. The orders also required immediate practical steps with government decision-makers. For business owners, the lesson is to treat legal clearance as part of launch operations. Review patent exposure early, test whether your challenge to the patent is strong enough for interlocutory risk, and prepare a plan for regulator notifications, listing changes and supply commitments if a court order arrives on short notice.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted AstraZeneca's interlocutory injunction application, with minor changes to the proposed orders. Pharmacor was restrained, until final determination, patent expiry or further order, from selling, supplying or otherwise disposing of the relevant dapagliflozin products in Australia, offering to do so, causing PBS listing before expiry or revocation of the patent, and authorising, procuring or inducing related conduct. The court also required Pharmacor to notify the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing and the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing of the injunction and that it could no longer continue to provide the relevant assurance or guarantee of supply, and to take reasonable steps to withdraw PBS listing applications. Costs were reserved.
AstraZeneca AB v Pharmacor Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business needs to change its case late in litigation, be careful about how the explanation is framed. A statement that the company and its lawyers only later appreciated the merits of an argument may sound harmless, but it can put legal consideration and related communications in issue. Once that happens, the other side may be entitled to seek documents to test whether the explanation is accurate, and the court may find an implied waiver of privilege over that topic. This does not mean every privileged document becomes disclosable. It does mean that privilege can be lost for a defined subject area if your evidence makes that subject part of the case. The safest practical approach is to identify key arguments early, understand what your pleadings already admit, and get advice before filing affidavit evidence about timing, legal appreciation, or strategic reconsideration.
Outcome: The court refused to set aside the Notice to Produce. Downes J held that AstraZeneca was entitled to test Pharmacor's explanation for why the patent term extension challenge had not been raised earlier, especially given Pharmacor's existing pleading position accepting expiry at the end of the extended term unless the patent was revoked. The court accepted the use of 20 February 2026 as the relevant date in the notice, rejected the argument that the notice should fail merely because some responsive documents might be privileged, and held that there had been an implied waiver to the extent documents recorded, evidenced or related to communications about whether the extension's validity had been considered before 6 February 2026 and when after that date the challenge was recognised as having sufficient merit to be advanced. AstraZeneca was also to have an opportunity to make further submissions after reviewing produced documents, and it was awarded its costs of the set-aside application.
AstraZeneca AB v Pharmacor Pty Ltd (No 3)
If your business is in a patent dispute, treat pleadings as part of your commercial strategy, not just court paperwork. This case draws a practical line between amendments that are coherent and promptly pursued, and amendments that are speculative or too loosely framed. Pharmacor was allowed to add an obviousness case and a patent term extension challenge because the Court accepted there had been early notice of one and prompt action once the other was recognised as tenable. But the Court refused the best method case because Pharmacor could not clearly say what the alleged best method was and appeared to be waiting for discovery to work that out. The Court also focused closely on whether the proposed case actually matched the asserted patent claims. Businesses should read this as a warning to identify key arguments early, align them carefully to the claims in issue, and be ready to explain any delay with evidence. If an injunction is already in place, late amendments can also affect trial timing, costs and launch plans.
Outcome: The Court allowed Pharmacor to amend its Notice of Cross-Claim, Statement of Cross-Claim, Particulars of Invalidity and Defence substantially in the form identified as allowed in the reasons. In practical terms, that meant the obviousness amendments and the patent term extension challenge under s 70(3)(a) were permitted, along with the other amendments AstraZeneca did not challenge. The Court refused the proposed best method invalidity case. It also refused Pharmacor's later attempt at the resumed hearing to amend its interlocutory application and add further particulars to expand that best method case. Pharmacor was ordered to pay AstraZeneca's costs thrown away by the amendments, and the costs of the amendment application, including the failed application to amend that interlocutory application, were ordered to be AstraZeneca's costs in the cause.
AstraZeneca AB v Pharmacor Pty Ltd (No 4)
If your business is in a patent dispute, do not assume you can obtain a broad sweep of the other side's internal R&D or inventor files. This ruling shows discovery must be tied to a live issue, framed narrowly, and justified against burden, timing and the legal significance of the documents sought. It also reinforces that inventive step is generally assessed objectively, not by reconstructing the inventor's subjective path. If you are seeking discovery, focus on targeted categories and explain why they matter to the legal test the Court must apply. If you are resisting discovery, this case supports arguments based on proportionality, legal uncertainty and timetable risk. Businesses should also keep technical records organised, because narrower discovery may still be ordered, especially where documents have already been produced in related overseas proceedings.
Outcome: The Court declined to make either of the broader discovery orders sought by Pharmacor. Downes J held that the inventors' actual selection steps, comparisons and thought processes were of only secondary relevance or significance to the inventive step issue raised on the application, and was not persuaded that reliance on the Ranbaxy selection principles made those internal processes critical. The Court also found the request was neither targeted nor proportionate and that it threatened the existing trial timetable and dates. Instead, the Court accepted a narrower form of discovery proposed by AstraZeneca, limited to documents already discovered in UK proceedings, with 14 days allowed for retrieval and review. Costs were reserved.
Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Limited [2026] FCA 96
Businesses should read this case as a reminder that climate and environmental statements are judged in context, not by slogans alone. Santos succeeded because the Court was not persuaded that the statements conveyed the misleading impressions ACCR alleged, and because the Court examined the surrounding context and the basis for the long-term targets. The case is not a blanket endorsement of terms like clean energy or zero-emissions. If your business uses those expressions, you should identify the audience, define what the claim is intended to communicate, document the assumptions behind any future target, and keep records of board or management approval. Where a claim depends on carbon capture and storage, offsets, new technology, future demand or regulatory settings, make sure the wording does not outrun what the business can presently support.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the proceeding. Markovic J ordered that ACCR's further amended originating process and further amended concise statement be dismissed, and that ACCR pay Santos' costs of the proceeding, subject to any application to vary the costs order. The catchwords state that the Court was satisfied the representations were not misleading or deceptive in the manner alleged. The result was therefore a significant win for Santos. But the decision should be read narrowly. It turned on the pleaded representations, the context of the publications, the characteristics of the target audience, and the Court's assessment of the evidence supporting Santos' targets, roadmap and product-related statements.
Australian Agrivision Pty Ltd v Wolstenholme (Trial)
If you sign a guarantee, assume a court will start with the written loan, security and guarantee documents, not with what you hoped would happen commercially. This case suggests that broad lender discretion clauses are not unlimited, but they can still be powerful if the lender can show a genuine and reasonable basis for its view that risk has increased. Before signing, check exactly what can trigger default, what evidence of funding you must provide, whether any refinancing support is optional or mandatory, and whether any promise about future finance is written into the contract. If the borrower is a thinly capitalised project company, directors and related parties should treat the guarantee as a real personal liability, not a formality.
Outcome: On the available judgment, the Federal Court entered judgment against Tarah Wolstenholme and Alexander Anderson jointly and severally in the sum of $2,886,842, with costs, and liberty to apply within seven days to correct any calculation error. Stewart J held that although the relevant default clause used broad language and referred to the lender's absolute discretion, the lender still had to actually hold the required opinion and hold it honestly and reasonably. The court found that requirement was satisfied. The respondents' arguments about misrepresentation, invalid default, bad faith, lack of due process and alleged contractual breaches were rejected on the available reasons.
Australian Agrivision Pty Ltd v Wolstenholme (Vacate Trial)
The safest reading of this case is that commercial parties should prepare for the listed hearing in the court they are actually in, rather than assuming related disputes or investigations will buy time. If your business is defending a debt or guarantee claim, identify early what documents you need, what witnesses you need, whether your pleadings need amendment, and whether any overlap with other proceedings creates a real and immediate prejudice. If you are self-represented or changing lawyers, that makes early preparation more important, not less. The judgment also gives a practical roadmap for parties who feel unprepared. Before asking to vacate a trial, consider whether the problem can be addressed in a narrower way: subpoenas, targeted objections to late evidence, a short extension within the hearing, or an application made well before trial with clear evidence of why fairness truly requires it. A last-minute adjournment request based on possibilities and general lack of readiness is risky.
Outcome: The Court dismissed Mr Anderson’s interlocutory application dated 6 February 2026 to vacate the trial dates and ordered him to pay the costs of that application. Stewart J held that there had been plenty of time to prepare for trial and to use the Court’s own processes, including subpoenas, to obtain documents or information. The overlap with Family Court proceedings raised no new issue beyond the earlier unsuccessful stay application. Possible recoveries by the liquidator of the principal debtor were speculative and, if they later reduced the debt, that reduction would benefit the guarantors anyway. Possible evidence emerging from insolvency processes was also not a reason to delay because the Court had its own evidence-gathering mechanisms. Any prejudice from the applicant’s late affidavits could be dealt with during the trial, including by refusing admission if necessary.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 598
If you promote a product using a previous price, the earlier price should reflect a real prior selling position, not just a technically correct price used for a short period before the sale. In this case, Coles argued that the was price was a genuine non-promotional shelf price that followed supplier cost increases or changes to promotional funding. But the Court’s catchwords show that this did not prevent the tickets being misleading where the higher price had only been used for four weeks and the products were relatively stable packaged grocery items. For business owners, the practical point is to test the overall impression of the promotion from the customer’s perspective. Ask how long the higher price was used, whether the product category usually has stable pricing, whether the current sale price is actually lower than the product’s earlier ordinary price, and whether the ad suggests a genuine saving that customers would reasonably treat as meaningful.
Outcome: The Court found the Down Down tickets misleading. The judgment’s catchwords state that the ticket was misleading because the discount represented on the ticket was not genuine where the product had not been sold at the previous price stated on the ticket for a reasonable period. The catchwords further state that the product had been offered for sale at the previous price for only four weeks, in circumstances where prices for manufactured and packaged grocery products were relatively stable over time. The Court did not set out final relief in the material summarised here. Instead, it ordered the parties to submit agreed or competing proposed orders after judgment and listed the matter for further case management.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Emma Sleep GmbH (Penalty) [2026] FCA 493
The practical message is straightforward. Do not treat reference prices and urgency tools as creative devices. A higher strike-through price should reflect a real price at which the product was actually offered or sold, not a benchmark that was rarely or never used. A percentage discount or savings claim should match that real pricing history. A countdown timer or 'last chance' statement should only be used if the offer really ends when the timer expires. If the timer resets, or the same or a similar discount continues immediately afterwards, the promotion may be misleading. This case also shows that offshore involvement does not insulate a business from Australian consumer law. If your Australian campaigns are developed, approved or managed by related entities overseas, you should map who controls pricing, content and approvals, and make sure your compliance process covers every entity involved.
Outcome: The Federal Court imposed total pecuniary penalties of $15 million, with $7.5 million payable by Emma Sleep Southeast Asia Inc and $7.5 million payable by Emma Sleep Pty Ltd within 30 days. No interest was payable during that 30-day period. The Court also made three-year injunctions restraining misleading strike-through pricing, percentage discount and savings discount advertising, and restraining countdown timer and 'ending soon' advertising where the sale was not genuinely time-limited. It further ordered an ACL compliance program within 90 days, corrective notices on websites and Australian social media pages, affidavits verifying compliance, and reserved costs.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 494
Treat this as a warning about consistency. If you sell products using capability language such as off-road, all terrain, heavy duty or commercial grade, check whether the full customer impression matches the product’s actual design limits and warranty terms. Courts can look at the combined effect of names, images, statements and technical features, not just one sentence. This ruling also shows that a defendant may be allowed to rely on expert evidence about how a product performs in practice, even where the regulator argues the case is really about design or warranty wording. That does not reduce the need for careful compliance. The safer approach is to make sure product naming, advertising, specifications, warranty exclusions and sales explanations all point in the same direction before a dispute arises.
Outcome: Justice Bennett dismissed the ACCC’s interlocutory application. The Court declined to make an advance ruling excluding the disputed suitability evidence and also declined to exclude it under section 135(c). The judge held that the relevance question could not appropriately be decided in advance because it depended on the pleadings, agreed facts, warranty wording and the way the evidence would be read and tested at trial. The Court accepted there may be a relationship between design and suitability, even if that relationship later proved slight or irrelevant. The Court also allowed a view of certain RVs during the trial, subject to conditions including that statements made during the view would be submissions only, not evidence, and that the features to be shown had to be identified in advance by an agreed agenda.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd (Suppression No 1) [2026] FCA 431
If your business is heading into litigation, especially against a regulator, treat confidentiality as a document-by-document exercise from the start. This judgment shows that the Court wanted precision, current commercial justification and a clear explanation of necessity. It was prepared to accept some limited suppression where the ACCC had carefully assessed the material and did not oppose protection, including some granular data or analysis with possible ongoing significance. But broader contested claims failed where they were framed by topic rather than by exact passages in exact documents, or where the information appeared commercially stale. Businesses should separate genuinely current trade secrets from older background material, prepare evidence of real present-day harm, and expect the Court to weigh that evidence against open justice and the practical conduct of the trial.
Outcome: The Court refused to determine the suppression applications globally before trial and instead adopted a staged, document-by-document approach. Wigney J held that it was not possible or prudent to decide broad category-based claims in the abstract without knowing exactly what information in what documents would be suppressed, how important that information was to the issues in the case, and how suppression would affect the conduct of the trial in open court. In relation to the highlighted information in the opening submissions and pleadings, the Court held that, apart from information for which the ACCC did not oppose orders, the contested material should not be suppressed because necessity had not been established.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd (Suppression No 2) [2026] FCA 516
If your business is in court, broad confidentiality claims are risky. The Court will usually want to see the exact document, the exact information, how old it is, whether it still has real commercial sensitivity, and whether it actually needs to be revealed in open court. This case shows that historic invoices, pricing summaries and expired proposals may not attract protection, especially where they go to the heart of the dispute. It also shows that a refusal to grant suppression at one stage may be procedural only, not a final rejection of every confidentiality claim. The practical approach is to separate current trade-sensitive material from routine or stale records, gather evidence showing present-day harm, and seek narrow orders directed to specific information rather than sweeping categories.
Outcome: Justice Wigney ordered that no suppression or non-publication orders would be made at that stage in respect of information in documents about which Mr Jennings might be cross-examined before the cross-examination took place. The Court refused to determine the claims in advance or globally. Instead, it said any ruling would only be made if and when particular information had to be disclosed in open court for cross-examination to be conducted fairly and efficiently. In giving reasons, the judge was strongly sceptical about the breadth of the claims, especially over a Commonwealth Bank invoice that was almost seven years old and an ePAL proposal letter that was over eight years old. But the Court did not finally reject all suppression claims and left open the possibility that genuinely sensitive information in other documents could still be considered later.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 93
The commercial lesson is not just about misleading advertising in general. It is about the gap between supply reality and branded presentation. In this matter, the court dealt with branding that conveyed the fuel was Mobil Synergy Fuel and had additive-related benefits, when the fuel at the relevant sites was not Mobil Synergy Fuel, did not contain the advertised additives and was substantially similar to unadditised fuel of the same grade or octane rating. If you operate through distributors, franchisees, resellers or branded sites, review who controls signage, who approves claims, how product substitutions are handled, and how quickly branding can be removed or changed if supply changes. Product claims about composition, additives, quality, fuel economy, emissions or performance should be treated as factual representations that need operational verification, not just marketing language.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the declarations and orders sought by the parties. It declared that Mobil contravened ss 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g) and 33 of the ACL by causing misleading Synergy branding to be displayed at nine retail fuel sites in north and central Queensland over various periods between August 2020 and July 2024. The court ordered Mobil to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $16 million in respect of the contraventions of ss 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g) and 33, publish corrective notices on its website and in The Australian and The Courier Mail, establish and maintain a three-year ACL compliance program, provide affidavits verifying compliance, and pay $250,000 towards the ACCC’s costs.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qteq Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2026] FCA 356
Businesses should read this case as a warning about process, not just outcome. Competition law risk can arise before any final agreement is signed and even if the proposal is rejected. The judgment points to dinners, conversations, texts, draft agreements and tender-related communications as part of the conduct considered. It also shows that personal exposure for senior decision-makers is real. A practical reading is that businesses should treat any discussion with a competitor or likely competitor about bids, customers, market segments, service lines, exclusivity or non-compete restrictions as legally sensitive. This is not a statement that all collaboration is unlawful. It is a reminder that where a proposal could reduce rivalry, the legal risk can be severe and should be assessed carefully and early.
Outcome: The Federal Court imposed total pecuniary penalties of $5,000,000 on Qteq and $1,000,000 on Simon Ashton, with payment required within 60 days. The Court also made a non-indemnification order preventing Mr Ashton from pursuing any claim or accepting any indemnity under an applicable insurance policy for payment or reimbursement of any part of his penalty. The respondents were ordered to pay the ACCC's costs, subject to exclusions stated in the orders. The judgment makes clear that deterrence was central to the Court's approach and that Qteq's later sale of its assets and business did not prevent substantial penalties being imposed.
Australian LinkedIn Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 469
If your company is taking a trade mark matter to the Federal Court, do not assume a director can simply appear because they know the facts best or because the company is short of money. This case shows that the Court looks at the whole picture. That includes the company's finances, the ability of people behind the company to fund the case, the complexity of the proceeding, whether the proposed representative has legal training, whether they can act with the objectivity expected in litigation, and whether they may need to give evidence themselves. The Court was particularly concerned here that the pleading had expanded into judicial review, discrimination allegations and damages claims, which made the matter harder to manage without lawyers. For business owners, the practical reading is clear: keep the proceeding focused on the remedy the legislation actually gives you, gather proper evidence if you need procedural indulgence, and treat representation, pleading and funding as core litigation decisions rather than afterthoughts.
Outcome: The Court refused the application and dismissed paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application with costs. Owens J accepted that the company had no material assets and no income, but held that this did not justify dispensation on its own. A central reason for refusal was the absence of evidence about whether Dr Mahmoud or the other shareholders could fund legal representation for the company. The Court also considered that the proceeding, as framed in the amended notice of appeal, had become significantly more complex than a focused section 35 trade mark matter because it appeared to add judicial review issues, discrimination allegations and damages claims. The judgment further indicates that legal representation would likely narrow and simplify the case, that Dr Mahmoud lacked legal training, that his close involvement raised objectivity concerns, and that he would likely be an important witness if the broader claims remained. Taken together, those matters meant the interests of justice did not favour an exception to the usual rule.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bekier (Liability Judgment) [2026] FCA 196
Business owners should read this case as a warning about systems, escalation and attention. The Court was not deciding governance in the abstract. It looked at specific resolutions, board papers, warning letters, reviews, committee meetings, emails and information requests, then asked what each person knew and whether their response met the standard of care and diligence in s 180(1). A workable board process matters. Important risks need to be identified clearly, escalated early, and revisited when new information arrives. Directors can rely on management and advisers, but not passively. If a process is profitable but legally awkward, if a bank is asking questions, or if law enforcement, media or regulators are raising concerns, the board should expect clear reporting and should ask direct follow-up questions. Businesses should also be careful when one executive wears several hats across legal, risk and governance. Responsibility can expand with the role actually performed.
Outcome: The published liability judgment states that directors and officers were found to have breached s 180(1) of the Corporations Act. The Court’s orders on 5 March 2026 did not finally dispose of the matter. Instead, Lee J ordered that the proceeding be adjourned, part-heard, to a date to be fixed within the next seven days for the making of orders in conformity with the reasons. The judgment also contains broader governance conclusions, including that boards must control the information they receive, directors must take reasonable steps to guide and monitor management, information overload is not an answer, and technology may assist comprehension but cannot displace human judgment.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BPS Financial Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2026] FCA 18
The key lesson is that honest effort does not replace legal compliance. BPS sought specialist advice, spoke with ASIC before launch, used authorisation arrangements and later applied for its own AFSL. That mattered to the Court when considering whether BPS had acted honestly, but it did not stop the Court from imposing a very large penalty and long-running restraints. Businesses should read this case as a warning about two linked risks. First, a product can fall within financial services law even if it is presented as innovative technology or a token ecosystem. Second, website copy, white papers and promotional statements can become central evidence if they overstate exchangeability, merchant uptake, approvals or registration status. If the product structure, licensing position and marketing message are not aligned, the consequences can be severe.
Outcome: The Federal Court refused to relieve BPS from liability for the unlicensed conduct and fixed the appropriate total pecuniary penalty at $14 million. Justice Downes accepted that BPS had acted honestly, noting the absence of deceit or conscious impropriety and BPS's efforts to obtain legal advice, engage with ASIC and use licensing arrangements. But the Court still held BPS should not be excused. The Court permanently restrained BPS from making specified false or misleading written representations about Qoin Wallet holders, exchangeability and approval or registration status, and restrained BPS for 10 years from carrying on a financial services business in Australia without an AFSL except as permitted by the Corporations Act. It also ordered corrective notices to be published on the Qoin website and in the Qoin Wallet app for at least 90 days, and largely awarded costs to ASIC, excluding appeal costs and allowing a limited set-off.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BSF Solutions Pty Ltd (Evidence Rulings)
If your business is defending a regulator case in the Federal Court, do not assume a concise statement works like a tightly confined pleading. The Court said the key question is whether the regulator is trying to depart from the heart of the case already disclosed. If not, additional evidence may still be used at penalty stage. The safest approach is to identify early what facts could later affect penalties or injunctions and, if the initiating case theory is too broad, ask for particulars or other clarification before the liability hearing. This case also highlights an important distinction. Evidence that could increase the statutory maximum penalty raises a more serious fairness issue than evidence relevant only to the Court's discretionary assessment of penalty. Businesses should therefore separate those two categories when planning objections, evidence and case management steps.
Outcome: Jackman J dismissed the respondents' interlocutory application, except to the extent that transcript rulings recorded evidence rejected or limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), or evidence ASIC did not read. The Court held that in proceedings commenced by concise statement, a regulator will generally be prevented from relying on penalty-stage material only if it departs from the heart of the case already disclosed or later narrowed. The respondents had not sought clarification before the contravention hearing, the challenged topics were either already indicated or not central enough to require earlier disclosure, and any assumed breach of procedural fairness would not have been material. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BSF Solutions Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2026] FCA 450
If your business provides consumer finance, facilitates loans, or charges separate fees for application handling, account keeping, repayment administration, schedule changes or defaults, this case is a strong warning against relying on form over substance. The Court accepted that legal advice and model changes were relevant context, but they did not prevent substantial penalties once contraventions had been established. The decision also shows that penalty analysis does not stop at the original breach. The Court looked at the scale of the conduct, the role of senior decision-makers, the history of similar models, and the absence of consumer remediation. In practical terms, businesses should review the whole arrangement together: all contracts, all entities, all fees, all customer communications and all operational steps. If there is a credible compliance issue, remediation planning should start early and be documented carefully.
Outcome: Jackman J ordered BSF Solutions Pty Ltd to pay $3,000,000, Cigno Australia Pty Ltd to pay $3,000,000, Brenton James Harrison to pay $500,000 and Mark Swanepoel to pay $500,000, each within 28 days. The orders state that the penalties were imposed under s 167(2) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). The Court treated deterrence as the central purpose of the civil penalty regime and said penalties must not become an acceptable cost of doing business. The Court considered the respondents' legal advice and model changes as relevant context, but still imposed substantial penalties. The Court also treated the failure to remediate consumers as relevant. Costs were left for further submissions unless agreed, and the final detail of the injunction position should be checked in the complete judgment.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Electro Optic Systems Holdings Limited [2026] FCA 405
If your company is listed and has given revenue or earnings guidance, you need a disciplined process for testing whether that guidance still has a reasonable basis. This case shows that once officers have, or ought reasonably to have, the relevant information in the course of their duties, the company may be treated as aware of it for Listing Rule purposes. If the updated information is not generally available and would be expected to affect price or value, the obligation is to tell ASX immediately. Waiting while management continues internal discussions can be dangerous. The continuing contravention point is especially important. A failure to disclose can keep running each day until the market is informed. Even for businesses that are not listed, the governance lesson is practical: if you have given forecasts to investors, lenders or shareholders, set clear trigger points for reassessing them, correcting them where necessary and recording who knew what and when.
Outcome: Jackman J declared that EOS contravened section 674A(2) of the Corporations Act on 25 July 2022 and, by virtue of section 1317QA, on each subsequent day until 31 October 2022. The declaration records that EOS was aware of the July 2022 Forecast Information, ought to have disclosed it by issuing updated guidance, did not do so during the relevant period, and was negligent as to whether the information would have had a material effect on the price or value of its shares if generally available. The Court ordered EOS to pay a pecuniary penalty of $4,000,000 within 28 days and to pay ASIC's costs. The reasons state that the jointly proposed relief appropriately reflected the seriousness of the conduct while taking account of relevant mitigating factors.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v FIIG Securities Limited [2026] FCA 92
The practical lesson is not that businesses must achieve perfect cyber security. The lesson is that your controls, people, budget and review processes must be adequate for your actual risk profile. If your business stores identity documents, tax information, bank details, investment records or other sensitive customer data, you should be able to show more than a set of written policies. You should be able to show that incident response planning exists and is tested, access rights are reviewed, vulnerabilities are scanned for, penetration testing is done at sensible intervals, patching is disciplined, insecure settings are removed, monitoring is handled by capable people, staff are trained regularly, and the whole control environment is reviewed for effectiveness. For AFSL holders in particular, this case shows that weak cyber governance can be framed as a failure of resources and risk management, not merely a technical lapse.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the declarations and orders sought on the basis of agreed facts, admissions and joint submissions. It declared that between 13 March 2019 and 8 June 2023, FIIG failed to have available adequate resources as required by section 912A(1)(d), failed to have adequate risk management systems as required by section 912A(1)(h), and by reason of those failures and the absence of adequate cyber security measures, failed to do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services covered by its licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly under section 912A(1)(a). The Court ordered FIIG to pay a $2.5 million pecuniary penalty within 30 days, undertake a detailed compliance programme involving an independent expert and remedial actions, and pay ASIC $500,000 towards ASIC's costs.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Green County Pty Ltd (Costs and Adverse Publicity Orders) [2026] FCA 251
If your business lends money, introduces borrowers, or helps structure loans, do not assume that a signed declaration solves the credit law problem. The broader case shows the danger of relying on business purpose paperwork where the real use of funds may be personal, domestic or household, or where reasonable inquiries were not made. Keep records of how loan purpose was assessed, why your business thought the credit regime did or did not apply, and who was responsible for those checks. If you are in a dispute with ASIC or another regulator, this judgment also shows two practical things. First, if a party wants adverse publicity orders, it should be ready with evidence about audience reach, readership, paywalls, cost and likely effectiveness. Second, if you are making or considering a settlement offer, think carefully about whether it should be global or separated by respondent. A global offer may be harder to use later as the basis for indemnity costs if the Court decides the regulator was not unreasonable to reject it when the whole case is considered.
Outcome: The Federal Court refused to make the revised adverse publicity orders sought by ASIC. Although the Court accepted that the proposed notice highlighted important parts of the regulatory scheme and was directed to deterrence, it was not satisfied on the limited evidence that publication in the AFR, The Australian, ifa.com.au and theadviser.com.au would effectively reach the relevant audience, including non-bank small business lenders, or that the regulatory purpose would be achieved. The Court said it should not order publication merely for the sake of doing so. On costs, the Court ordered ASIC to pay Ms Ng's costs on the ordinary basis, but refused indemnity costs after 3 September 2024. It held that ASIC's rejection of the respondents' global settlement offer was not unreasonable when the overall outcome of the proceedings was assessed, particularly because ASIC achieved a more favourable result against the corporate respondents than the offer proposed. The amended statement of claim was otherwise dismissed.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Insurance Australia Limited
If your business needs a sensitive report after a regulator query, pricing concern, compliance issue or possible breach, involve lawyers early and define the legal purpose clearly. This case shows that privilege may still apply even where the report is prepared by a third party such as an actuary or consultant, but only if the evidence shows the report was created as a confidential communication for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice. General labels and broad assertions are not enough. The court also stressed procedural fairness. If you want to rely on surrounding material to prove privilege, you may face real limits if that material is kept from the challenger. In practice, businesses should create a clean evidentiary record at the time of commissioning, keep circulation tight, and separate legal-advice work from ordinary operational or remediation work wherever possible. Because the published reasons available here are truncated before the full later analysis, businesses should treat this page as a practical guide to the key principles and outcome, not as a substitute for reviewing the complete judgment.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed ASIC's interlocutory application and held that the respondents had established that the Technical Paper was protected by legal professional privilege. The formal orders made on 18 February 2026 dismissed ASIC's application for a declaration that the report dated 14 June 2020 with document ID IAG.0003.0180.0194 was not protected by privilege, and ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the cause. In reaching that result, Rofe J first ruled that the court would inspect the Technical Paper itself, but would not inspect the additional privileged contextual materials the respondents sought to hand up without tendering. The judge held that allowing reliance on such materials without giving ASIC the opportunity to review and test them would be unfair, would make proper adversarial testing impossible, and would create practical difficulties for reasons, appeals and efficient case management. After considering the evidence and submissions and inspecting the Technical Paper, the court concluded that the respondents had satisfied their onus of proving that the Technical Paper was a confidential communication prepared for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice. The published reasons available for this page are truncated before the full later reasoning, so the complete judgment should still be checked for the court's full explanation of how the evidence supported that conclusion.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Keystone Asset Management Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) (No 4)
If your business receives, holds or transfers investor money, trust money or project funds, keep a clean documentary trail showing whose money it was, why it moved and where it went. This case shows the Court will not allow a subpoena on a vague tracing theory, but it will support targeted subpoenas where court-appointed receivers have evidence-based reasons to think particular accounts may have received misapplied fund money. It also shows that trust capacity issues matter. The Court amended earlier orders so they expressly referred to Keystone as trustee for the Chiodo Diversified Property Fund, even though the judge considered the receivers were already appointed in relation to that fund. Businesses operating through multiple entities or capacities should make sure account names, contracts, ledgers and approvals clearly match the legal role in which money is held and paid.
Outcome: Moshinsky J dismissed Mr Chiodo's application to partially set aside the subpoenas. The Court rejected the receivers' first rationale, holding that the requested bank statements could not logically shed light on whether CDPF assets had been intermingled with SMF assets because the subpoenaed accounts were not SMF accounts and there was no suggestion of onward transfers to the SMF. However, the Court accepted the second rationale. It held that, where the Court has appointed receivers to identify and secure a company's property, subpoenas may be used in an appropriate case to obtain documents that assist them to perform that role. The Court also amended the August 2024 orders for clarity so Keystone's relevant capacities expressly included its capacity as trustee for the CDPF, and costs were reserved.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macquarie Investment Management Limited [2026] FCA 303
Business owners should read this as a case about execution of governance, not just policy design. Macquarie had a framework that contemplated a watch list and further monitoring action. The admitted problem was that the relevant fund classes should have been put on that watch list and were not. The Court's declarations were made on agreed facts and admissions, not after a contested trial, but that does not reduce the practical lesson. If your business offers or facilitates access to third-party products, your internal review process can define what reasonable conduct requires in practice. A written framework may later be used to show what your business itself recognised as necessary. The safest approach is to make trigger points clear, assign responsibility for escalation, and document when concerns are identified, what extra review was done, and whether the product remained available for a reason that can be explained. The case also shows that a watch list or similar tool should be treated as a working control that changes how a product is monitored, not as a passive compliance document.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the declarations sought by ASIC. It declared that Macquarie ought to have placed the Conservative, Balanced and Growth classes of the Shield Master Fund on a watch list by 1 March 2022 and during the period to 5 June 2023, and that it ought to have done the same for the High Growth class by 6 May 2022 and during the period to 5 June 2023. By reason of those failures, the Court declared that Macquarie contravened section 912A(1)(a) and, consequently, section 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act. Macquarie was ordered to pay ASIC's costs as agreed or taxed. No pecuniary penalty was imposed because ASIC did not seek one, and the reasons record that remediation had already been addressed through an enforceable undertaking and payment program.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (No 20)
If your business handles pooled money for investors, members or clients, this case is a warning about what happens when funds are mixed and records do not allow clean tracing. In that setting, a court may approve a pooled distribution method that is practical rather than perfectly reflective of each person’s strict proprietary rights. If you are dealing with a liquidator, remember that a recovery claim itself can be treated as part of the property being administered, so settlement proceeds may need to go into a common fund rather than be dealt with separately. On confidentiality, do not assume a settlement clause will automatically keep terms private once court approval or directions are needed. Privacy may be protected, but only through the right court process and only to the extent necessary.
Outcome: The Court made orders confirming that the liquidators would be acting properly and would be justified in treating the identified claims, and any proceeds realised from them, as assets and property of the scheme. It also confirmed that those proceeds could be treated as part of the existing fund created under the earlier 2023 orders and distributed in accordance with the same priorities and methodology. On confidentiality, the Court held that it was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice for the affidavit disclosing settlement terms to remain confidential. However, it did not make the broader suppression order sought under the Federal Court of Australia Act. Instead, it made the affidavit confidential under rule 2.32, prohibited inspection until further order, and required a redacted version to be filed.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (No 21)
If your business is involved in court proceedings, treat filed documents as strategically important assets and risks. A later-appointed liquidator, receiver or other interested person may seek access to them, especially if there is follow-on litigation. But the answer is not simply yes or no. The Court will look at the applicant's role, the purpose of the access request, the category of documents involved, and whether other affected people have had notice. Businesses should also understand the difference between inspection and use. Even if someone can inspect documents on the file, they may still need a release from the implied undertaking before using non-public material for another purpose. If your business wants to object to access, act quickly when notice is given. If you are a party wanting to reduce future participation, make a formal application rather than relying on informal correspondence.
Outcome: Feutrill J granted the applicants leave as interested persons to be heard on all issues relating to their appointment. The Court also ordered that they be taken to be a party for the purposes of rule 2.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), giving them a limited right to inspect documents on the Court file as if they were a party. However, because the evidence did not sufficiently show that all affected interested persons had been notified, the Court required service of the orders on specified interested persons and gave those people liberty to apply to vary or set aside the inspection order. The operation of the inspection order was suspended pending that notice and challenge process. The Court made no order as to costs. It also refused to excuse the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants from future active participation on an informal basis, saying any party wanting that relief should apply for specific orders.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Merhi (No 3)
Business owners should read this case as a warning that winding up is not limited to ordinary unpaid debt situations. A court may order winding up where there is a justifiable lack of confidence in how the company is being run. Here, the Court relied on a mix of alleged compliance failures, public risk, concerns raised by the provisional liquidator, possible insolvency, and non-cooperation by those involved with the companies. The Court did not finally decide ASIC's misconduct allegations in this judgment, but it considered them serious enough to support winding up when combined with the other evidence. Directors in regulated industries should treat record-keeping, solvency monitoring, supervision, and prompt cooperation with liquidators and regulators as core governance duties, not administrative extras.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered both companies to be wound up on just and equitable grounds and appointed Renee Sarah Di Carlo as liquidator. It also granted ASIC leave to continue the proceeding against the companies under section 471B. Justice Moshinsky accepted that there was a justifiable lack of confidence in the conduct and management of the companies' affairs, that there were strong grounds to consider the companies may have committed contraventions, that there was a public risk warranting protection, and that the material raised a real concern about insolvency. The Court also relied on ASIC's undertaking not to enforce any money order against the companies without further leave, which reduced prejudice to creditors while allowing the public enforcement case to continue.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Money3 Loans Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2026] FCA 506
Businesses should read this case as a reminder that responsible lending compliance is operational, not just policy-based. Money3 had internal guidance about reviewing bank statements and verifying information, but the court found that the relevant analysts did not do enough with the data already in hand. The judgment also makes an important distinction: the penalty was imposed for failures in inquiry and verification under ss 128 and 130, not because the court found the resulting loans were unsuitable. That means a lender cannot defend weak assessment processes by pointing to the fact that the customer ultimately received a workable loan. If your business receives bank statements or transaction feeds, there should be a clear process for comparing them with declared expenses, escalating discrepancies, asking follow-up questions and recording the basis for the final assessment. Businesses using brokers should be especially careful where application information is not independently checked against reliable transaction data.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Money3 Loans Pty Ltd to pay a pecuniary penalty of $1,550,000 to the Commonwealth within 14 days under s 167(2) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). The court held that the contraventions were serious and that a substantial penalty was required for specific and general deterrence. It accepted that the course of conduct principle applied and agreed that a single penalty should be imposed for each of the five credit contracts, rather than duplicative penalties for overlapping ss 128 and 130 contraventions based on the same conduct. The court refused the compliance order relief sought by ASIC. It also directed the parties to confer about costs, with costs to be determined on the papers if no agreement was reached.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MWL Financial Services Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 199
If your business operates in a regulated area, do not assume that entering administration or liquidation will end a regulator's case. This decision shows the court may allow ASIC to proceed against a company in liquidation where ASIC is pursuing public-interest remedies such as declarations and pecuniary penalties, particularly if the allegations are serious and involve a large group of consumers. It also matters that related parties and individuals may still face involvement allegations alongside the company. For founders, directors and licence holders, the practical reading is to focus early on advice quality, supervision, committee oversight, referral arrangements, conflict management and record keeping. If those systems are weak, financial distress can expose the business to a regulatory case that continues well beyond insolvency.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted ASIC leave to amend its originating process and granted leave under section 500(2) of the Corporations Act to commence and proceed with the proposed proceedings against MWL in liquidation. The court accepted that the ordinary proof-of-debt process was not an adequate substitute because ASIC sought declarations and pecuniary penalties. It also held that the public interest in ASIC's regulatory role, the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the involvement allegations against ICGA and Mr Maikousis, and the number of consumers affected all supported leave. To protect the liquidation process, the court ordered that ASIC must not enforce any pecuniary penalty or costs order against MWL without prior leave of the court.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd (No 6)
Read this case as a procedural warning. If ASIC obtains substantive relief against your company, or if you bring an interlocutory application and lose, a separate costs order is likely unless there is a clear reason to depart from the usual rule. The Court may also postpone final costs questions where receivers are still appointed and asset preservation issues remain active. Importantly, liquidation did not stop the Court making a costs order against the second defendant, although enforcement of that costs order required further leave. For businesses in financial services, fundraising, managed investment or crypto-related activity, the practical lesson is to treat every step of the case as carrying cost risk. Before trying to unwind freezing orders or receivership, get advice on prospects, evidence, timing and the downside if the application fails.
Outcome: Justice Collier ordered the second defendant to pay ASIC’s costs of the proceeding as against that defendant. The Court also ordered the fifth defendant to pay ASIC’s costs of the interlocutory application dated 27 May 2024. Costs otherwise relating to the plaintiff and the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants were reserved pending discharge of the receivers appointed under earlier orders. ASIC must notify Justice Collier’s chambers within 14 days after the receivers are discharged and say whether it seeks costs against those defendants. The judgment also records that ASIC cannot enforce any costs order against the second defendant without leave of the Court because of the earlier leave granted after liquidation.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Nuix Limited, in the matter of Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490
Businesses should read this case as a governance and process decision, not as permission to be relaxed about disclosure. The Court’s reasons, as outlined in the extract, show that a regulator must prove the pleaded case with precision in a civil penalty proceeding. That means the exact representation, omitted information, time period and legal pathway all matter. If your business gives forecasts, keep a clear record of the assumptions behind them, who reviewed them, what internal data was available at each point, and when any deterioration became sufficiently concrete to require a fresh decision on disclosure. If you are listed, make sure management, the board and advisers have a practical escalation process for potentially price-sensitive information. If you are unlisted, the same discipline still helps with investor updates, capital raising materials and lender reporting. Statements about future performance should be supportable at the time they are made and revisited as conditions change.
Outcome: Goodman J held that ASIC had not established any contravention by Nuix. The catchwords record that no misleading or deceptive conduct contravention was established and no continuous disclosure contravention was established. Because the directors’ duty case depended on proving wrongdoing by Nuix, that case also failed. The Court ordered that ASIC’s originating process filed on 28 September 2022 be dismissed. ASIC was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, as agreed or taxed, subject to any party seeking a different costs order within 21 days. The judgment also emphasised that this was a civil penalty proceeding and that the allegations had to be proved with precision on the case as pleaded.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Oztures Trading Pty Ltd trading as Binance Australia Derivatives [2026] FCA 509
The strongest lesson from this case is that systems must do the legal work, not just create the appearance of control. Oztures had warnings, category selection, acknowledgments, document upload requirements, manual review, a policy and training. That still did not stop widespread misclassification. The Court accepted that the failures were serious enough to support a large civil penalty even though the company admitted the breaches, reported the issue, offboarded customers, cancelled its AFSL, stopped trading and compensated affected clients. If your business relies on customer status to decide whether disclosure, complaints handling, licensing or consumer protections apply, test the process against the legislation step by step. Ask what evidence is legally required, who checks it, what happens when documents are incomplete, whether staff can override weak applications, and whether your records show why a person was approved. Deterrence in this case turned on operational reality, not policy wording alone.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the declarations sought by ASIC and Oztures and ordered Oztures to pay an aggregate pecuniary penalty of $10 million plus ASIC's costs fixed at $200,000. The Court declared that Oztures contravened s 1012B(3)(a)(i) during the offer period by failing to give Product Disclosure Statements before offering products to retail clients, contravened s 1012B(3)(a)(iii) during the issue period by failing to give Product Disclosure Statements before issuing products to retail clients, and contravened ss 994B(1) and (2)(a) by failing to make target market determinations before issuing products to retail clients. The Court also declared breaches of s 912A(1)(a), s 912A(1)(b), s 912A(1)(f) and s 912A(1)(g)(i) concerning systems, compliance measures, staff training and competence, and internal dispute resolution. The Court accepted the agreed outcome only after receiving further material explaining how the contraventions had occurred, because that detail was necessary to assess deterrence.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Palmer
Read this case as a warning against treating pleadings as a technical afterthought. If your business is bringing or defending a serious claim that depends on corporate knowledge, awareness, motive or purpose, the court will look for a coherent pleading that identifies the relevant people and explains how their knowledge is said to be attributed to the corporation. The court also made clear that interlocutory appeals face a high threshold. It is not enough to show that another judge might have taken a different view. A party seeking leave must show sufficient doubt about the decision and substantial injustice if leave is refused. In practice, businesses should invest early in getting pleadings, particulars and evidence strategy right, because trying to fix those issues later through appeals can be expensive, slow and unsuccessful.
Outcome: ASIC's application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Anderson J held that the primary judge's refusal to strike out paragraphs 70 and 71, and related parts of the pleading, was not attended by sufficient doubt to justify reconsideration by a Full Court. The court accepted that the pleading had to be read as a whole and concluded that, on that reading, the relevant human actors had been identified, namely Ms Forbes and Mr Stogdale. The court also held that ASIC had not shown substantial injustice if leave were refused, despite its arguments about cost, delay and the burden of contesting the allegations. ASIC was ordered to pay Mr Palmer's costs of the application, to be assessed on a lump sum basis as agreed or fixed by a Registrar.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saad [2026] FCA 110
The practical lesson is that a travel restraint can sometimes be varied, but only through a formal application and only where the Court is satisfied that a limited exception is appropriate after reassessing the relevant risk factors. In this case, the Court focused especially on one changed circumstance: Mr Saad had already been under restraint for more than six months, and by departure would have been restrained for more than eight months. That shift affected the balance, but it did not eliminate the underlying concern that he might leave and not return. The Court still found at least some risk and managed it through conditions. If your business is connected to a person subject to ASIC proceedings, do not assume a genuine reason for travel will be enough on its own. Prepare early, keep the request specific, gather documents, and treat any undertaking to the Court as a strict compliance obligation.
Outcome: The Court granted the carve-out. Mr Saad was permitted to travel from Melbourne to Saudi Arabia via Dubai and return via Dubai between 8 and 20 March 2026, provided he filed and served an affidavit with his tickets and itinerary by 20 February 2026. He was allowed to collect his passport from the Victoria Registry between 1 March and 8 March 2026 and had to return it promptly after 20 March 2026, and no later than 4.00 pm on 23 March 2026. He also gave a personal undertaking in Court to travel in accordance with the itinerary, return to Australia on 20 March 2026, and promptly notify the Court and ASIC of any change and the reason for it. Costs were reserved and liberty to apply remained.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 527
If you hold an AFS licence, this case is a reminder that complaint handling is not just a service issue or an internal policy matter. Once your IDR procedure reflects ASIC’s enforceable standards, failing to follow it can expose the business to contravention findings. You should review how complaints are counted, when the 45 day timeframe applies, when an exception can genuinely be used, and what must appear in both an IDR response and an IDR delay notification. The case also shows that not every defect will necessarily be treated as a separate contravention, but businesses should not rely on that. The safer approach is to make sure complaint files, registers, templates, escalation rules and staffing arrangements are all capable of producing compliant outcomes consistently.
Outcome: The Court found that ASIC’s Internal Dispute Resolution Instrument validly altered the operation of section 912A(1)(g), with the result that financial services licensees were required to comply with their internal dispute resolution procedure. The Court also found Telstra Super had contravened sections 912A(1)(g) and 912A(5A) by failing to comply with that procedure in identified respects, including late complaint responses, unsuccessful reliance on exceptions in certain complaints, and inadequate delay notifications for 83 complaints. However, ASIC did not succeed on all allegations. The Court held that some omissions from IDR responses about AFCA rights and contact details were not a separate contravention as alleged, and ASIC did not establish the alleged resourcing breach or the broader section 912A(1)(a) efficiently, honestly and fairly contravention. The parties were directed to seek to agree consequential orders after judgment.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Walker Stores Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] FCA 665
A business cannot solve consumer credit compliance by calling a product a line of credit, separating the retail sale from the finance component in its internal thinking, or relying on standard form wording that does not match what the billing system actually does. In this case, the Court accepted that Walker Stores priced goods by adding a 10% UWS markup, a 3% operating costs markup, a flat $35 delivery fee and a product-specific profit margin to the acquisition cost, then added GST and flat-rate interest. That structure mattered. So did the mismatch between the contract wording, which referred to daily interest on the outstanding balance, and the admitted practice, which applied interest to the total contract amount for each year of the term. If you offer consumer finance, review the whole model together: sourcing, pricing, fees, disclosures, repayment schedules, ledger logic and related-party arrangements.
Outcome: ASIC succeeded on the principal contraventions clearly reflected in the orders. The Court declared that Walker Stores entered into Contracts A, B and C with an annual cost rate above the maximum 48% cap, contrary to section 32A, and that across 38,562 contracts it calculated and charged interest by applying the rate to the total contract amount rather than the unpaid amount owing, contrary to section 28. Beach J imposed penalties of $1.5 million for the rate cap contraventions and $32 million for the interest calculation contraventions, totalling $33.5 million. The Court also ordered adverse publicity steps in relation to the Snaffle and Aspire42 websites and ordered costs. The final position on the alleged disclosure contraventions is not conclusively confirmed in the material summarised here.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation [2026] FCA 651
Business owners should read this case as a practical warning about legally significant inbound requests. If your website or app lets customers submit notices, complaints, hardship requests, cancellations, privacy requests or other forms that trigger legal duties, you need a process that reliably captures the request, routes it to the right team, tracks the deadline and records the response. The Court accepted that Westpac’s failures were not just isolated missed notices but reflected inadequate systems and inadequate monitoring. The continuing contravention point is especially important. For some earlier hardship notices, the obligation to respond did not simply disappear after the original deadline passed. The Court held that the obligation continued, and each day of non-response counted as a separate contravention. In practical terms, an unresolved workflow failure can keep generating liability. Businesses in licensed or regulated sectors should test every customer-facing form end to end and make sure senior management receives exception reporting before problems become systemic.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared that Westpac contravened s 72(4) of the National Credit Code by failing to give written decision notices in response to customers’ online hardship notices within the required timeframe or at all. It also declared that, for certain customers who submitted notices before 4 September 2017 and did not receive a written decision on or after 13 March 2019, Westpac was under a continuing obligation to respond and committed a separate contravention each day it failed to do so. The Court further declared that from 13 March 2019 to 7 June 2023 Westpac contravened s 47(1)(a) and (4) of the Credit Act by failing to maintain adequate systems, controls and processes and by failing to conduct adequate risk reviews, investigations, monitoring and analysis. Westpac was ordered to pay a $26 million penalty, publish an adverse publicity notice, implement adequate changes within one month, appoint an independent expert to report to ASIC, and pay ASIC’s costs.
Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd v Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd
If your business needs to communicate about whether someone meets your standards, keep the communication anchored to your own requirements, the applicant’s position and the next steps. Avoid unnecessary commentary about competitors, trainers or third parties. If you think another business has harmed you through a statement, test the case realistically before suing. Ask what the words would naturally mean to an ordinary reader in that exact setting, who actually received them, and whether you can prove measurable commercial loss caused by the statement. This case also shows that running several causes of action off the same alleged meaning can be risky. If the court rejects the meaning you say the words carried, defamation and ACL theories may fail together. Finally, do not assume a judge’s tough case management comments show bias. Courts are expected to question weak points early, especially where proportionality and evidence of loss are in issue.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal and ordered ASA to pay the respondents’ costs. It agreed with the primary judge that none of the pleaded defamatory imputations were conveyed by the email when read in context. The email was fairly read as a response to one membership application and a request for further information, not as a broader attack on ASA or its course. The ACL claim failed for substantially the same reason because no sustainable representation arising from the email had been articulated. The Court also noted the primary judge’s accepted finding that ASA had not proved damage caused by the email. On the recusal issue, the Full Court held that the primary judge’s comments and conduct were part of legitimate modern case management and did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Australian Strategic Materials Limited, in the matter of Australian Strategic Materials Limited [2026] FCA 616
Read this case as a process decision, not a final green light for the transaction. The Court allowed Australian Strategic Materials Limited to send out its scheme booklet and hold separate meetings for shareholders and optionholders, but that was only the first hearing stage. The practical lesson for business owners is that transaction documents and meeting mechanics need the same attention as the commercial deal itself. Keep registers current, know which holders are entitled to vote, check how each holder receives communications, and make sure explanatory materials are accurate and complete. If different groups hold different rights, do not assume one approval path covers everyone. Early legal and governance work can reduce the risk of delay, confusion or challenge when a major transaction is on foot.
Outcome: The Court made the convening orders sought. It ordered Australian Strategic Materials Limited to hold separate meetings for shareholders and optionholders on 22 June 2026 in Perth, approved the scheme booklet for distribution subject to specified amendments and completion of annexures, fixed voting record times and quorum requirements, required poll voting, appointed a chairperson and alternate chairperson, and set detailed dispatch arrangements based on each holder's communication election. The Court also allowed ASIC-related amendments for registration and permitted ASX announcements to correct or clarify meeting arrangements where necessary to ensure holders had a reasonable opportunity to participate. The effect of the decision was to allow the proposed schemes to proceed to the voting stage, not to finally approve them.
Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd
Do not treat this case as a blanket approval to implement disputed policy changes during an enterprise agreement dispute. Opal ultimately succeeded on appeal, but the Court said the clause had been misconstrued below and that both sides had put forward incorrect readings. The safer business approach is to review the exact wording of the dispute clause, identify when the dispute was initiated, and document what was actually happening at that time. If the proposed change affects how work is performed, who is selected for a process, site practices, duties, shifts or other working conditions, there is real risk in moving ahead without careful review. This is especially true where a policy has been paused, applied differently in practice, or inherited from a previous owner.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The available reasons show the Court considered the primary judge had misconstrued clause 16.3, but also considered that both the union and Opal had advanced incorrect constructions of the clause. The Court said the subclauses of clause 16.3 each had work to do and that the clause was concerned with preserving the circumstances in which work was undertaken at the initiation of the dispute and preventing changes in working conditions during the process. Even so, Opal's notice of contention was upheld and the appeal failed. Because the visible judgment text is incomplete, the precise final reasoning for why Opal's February 2024 testing did not amount to a contravention cannot be stated with complete confidence here.
B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (No 3)
If your business relies on site-entry rules, treat documentation as part of the policy itself. This case suggests that where footage, notices, correspondence and internal materials exist, they may affect how sharply the issues are defined before trial. A business in B.M.D.'s position is stronger if it can show what the rule was, who communicated it, what happened on each attendance, and what records were preserved. At the same time, businesses should not assume that any site rule overrides statutory entry rights. The safer reading is to keep entry policies legally sound, tied to genuine safety or operational requirements, and applied consistently. If litigation starts, gather the records early and work through the allegations carefully. Pleadings are not a formality. They can materially affect cost, timing and the scope of the dispute.
Outcome: The Court granted B.M.D.'s interlocutory application. Meagher J ordered that the identified paragraphs of the CFMEU's amended defence be struck out under rule 16.21(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on the basis that they were otherwise an abuse of process, and alternatively under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The catchwords and reproduced reasons show that the Court considered other information available to the first respondent would allow it to plead responsively, and that the questions of first-hand knowledge and inquiries were central to the application. Costs were not finally determined in the orders reproduced and were left for written submissions.
Banerjee (Liquidator), in the matter of Coast to Coast Trading Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liq) [2026] FCA 375
Read this case as a procedural roadmap rather than a ruling on who was right in a broader commercial fight. The Court did not decide the merits of any dispute between the Australian company and the Hong Kong company. It dealt with a narrower question: whether a production order already made by a registrar could be served outside Australia. If your business uses offshore companies, warehousing entities, procurement hubs or related parties to hold invoices, shipping records, communications or account information, do not assume those materials are practically unreachable in an Australian liquidation. The safer approach is to keep clear records of ownership, access rights, registered office details and document retention arrangements. If insolvency risk appears, move early to preserve records and work out who can lawfully access them.
Outcome: The Court granted leave to serve the 4 March 2026 production order on Barkley Trading (HK) Limited outside Australia. Perram J accepted that service by international registered post to the company's registered office in Hong Kong, with return receipt, was appropriate given Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention and s 827 of the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance. The Court was also satisfied that comity did not prevent the order and noted authority supporting the extraterritorial operation of analogous liquidator powers. The leave was extended to any later order varying the date for production.
Barnden (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Khattar
If you are a trustee, creditor, director or adviser in a bankruptcy matter, do not assume an examination summons will always proceed simply because the estate is large and creditors need answers. The Court will look at whether the person can actually understand and answer questions in the examination setting that is proposed. Medical evidence needs to do more than identify a diagnosis. It should explain how the condition affects memory, attention, executive function, understanding of legal implications and the ability to participate fairly. If capacity is in doubt, raise it early, consider whether a litigation representative is needed, and think realistically about alternative sources of information such as documents, third-party witnesses and company records. The decision is also a reminder for businesses to avoid concentrating all financial knowledge in one person.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the application. Needham J granted leave to bring the interim application out of time, appointed Mr Khattar’s wife as his litigation representative nunc pro tunc, and discharged the examination summons under r 6.11 of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth). The Court found that Mr Khattar had impaired capacity to give evidence in the examination context. It held that requiring the examination would be inappropriate because it would be inherently inefficient, could operate oppressively by prejudicing the defence of later proceedings, and could adversely affect Mr Khattar’s wellbeing. The trustee was ordered to pay the costs of the interim application.
Bilal v Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd (Discovery) [2026] FCA 591
Businesses should read this decision as a reminder that discovery is an operational exercise, not just a legal formality. If you are ordered to give discovery, map the relevant systems, run defensible searches, preserve native files and metadata where required, and keep a written record of what was searched and why. If more documents are later found, supplement discovery promptly. If a third party manages claims or employment records, check control and access issues early. Also be ready to explain redactions and privilege claims, especially where employee information is sensitive. The court dismissed the application against Ampol, but the dispute itself shows how much time and cost can be spent arguing about document handling if the process is not organised from the start.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application. It did not grant declarations that Ampol had failed to comply with the discovery orders, did not order the broad fresh discovery sought, and did not make the requested orders preventing Ampol from relying on certain documents or defence contentions. Costs of the application were reserved. The court nevertheless directed the parties to confer and propose consent orders about discovery of an unredacted Excel schedule containing details of the applicant's alleged injuries, an extension of time for reply evidence, and the date for filing documents intended to be tendered at trial. The result indicates a targeted case-management response rather than the broader sanctions sought by the applicant.
Bilal v Australian Information Commissioner [2026] FCA 376
Business owners should read this as a process case, not a final ruling on privacy access rights. The Court’s message is that decision-makers must deal with the complaint that was actually made. In practice, your business should keep a clear record of what the individual asked for, what information you hold, whether you hold it for yourself or for another entity, and the exact legal basis for any refusal. If you rely on a contractual or statutory exemption, make sure your explanation matches the request. If a complaint later goes to the OAIC or another body, inaccurate descriptions can become central. This case also shows that procedural fairness can matter in privacy complaint handling. If a regulator or dispute body is considering sending the matter elsewhere, the affected person may need a real chance to respond first.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application. Stewart J set aside the OAIC decision dated 22 August 2025 under s 16(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and referred the complaint back to the Commissioner under s 16(1)(b) for decision according to law. The Court also declared that the respondent's conduct in failing to afford procedural fairness before making the s 41 decision was unlawful and ordered the Commissioner to pay the applicant's costs. The Court refused broader relief that would have prevented the Commissioner from again considering s 41 or forced determination under s 52, and it declined to make a declaration that the complaint was valid because that was not in dispute.
Birch (Administrator), in the matter of Vitrinite Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 435
Business owners should read this case as a warning about complexity in distress, not as a technical insolvency curiosity. The court was willing to extend time because creditors needed better information and because a rushed liquidation could damage sale value, goodwill, licences, contracts and restructuring options. The court was also willing to protect administrators who entered funding deeds needed to keep the administration functioning and preserve the mine. If your business operates through several companies, keep records clear about who owns assets, employs staff, holds licences and owes liabilities. If cashflow pressure is rising, get restructuring advice early. Once administrators and receivers are in place, decisions about timing, funding and stakeholder communication move quickly and can materially affect returns to creditors, employees and owners.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. It extended the convening period for the second creditors' meetings to 20 April 2026 for VMM and Holston and to 30 June 2026 for the remaining companies. It also made a Daisytek order allowing the meetings to be held during, or within five business days after, the end of the extended periods. In relation to the VMM Funding Deed and Holston Funding Deed, the court ordered that the relevant liabilities were to be treated as debts incurred by the administrators in performing their functions, but that the administrators would not be personally liable for any shortfall to the extent their indemnity and lien rights were insufficient. The court also held they were justified in entering into and giving effect to those deeds. Limited confidentiality orders were made over part of the affidavit material.
Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd v Richards (No 2)
The practical message is to check brand ownership history before filing, buying, enforcing or relying on a trade mark. If a founder, collaborator or former business partner helped create the mark, work out whether ownership was joint and document any assignment clearly before an application is lodged. Also separate word marks from logo marks in your risk analysis. A business name that sounds close to another trader's brand does not automatically infringe if the registered mark is a composite logo and the allegedly infringing sign is used differently in the market. Equally, do not assume long use makes a registration safe. This case shows that entitlement at the filing date matters, and that infringement analysis depends on the whole mark, its essential features and the actual commercial context.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. It declared that Mr Richards was not the owner of Australian trade mark number 1172976 within the meaning of section 58 at the priority date and that the registration was invalid at all material times. The Court ordered the mark cancelled or otherwise removed from the Register under section 88(1). It also set aside the first instance declarations and relief that had found Black Star Pastry liable for infringement and dismissed the relevant application. The Court's catchwords state that Mr Richards had no entitlement to apply for the word mark in his sole name, even with the joint owner's consent, and that there was no deceptive similarity because the essential feature of the composite logo was the star graphic, which did not appear in the impugned marks when used in trade. Costs were ordered against Mr Richards, subject to a short stay linked to any special leave application.
Bodum AG v H.A.G Import Corpn (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 238
If your business has a successful product design, this case is a reminder that strong sales, awards and long market presence do not automatically give you ongoing control over the product’s shape once design registration ends. To succeed in passing off, and often to strengthen an ACL case, you need persuasive evidence that the shape itself has come to signify your business in the minds of consumers. If you are the competitor, this case does not say copying is always safe. It says the court will look at the whole market picture, including product markings, packaging, signage, online listings and how goods are displayed in stores. The safer commercial approach is to assess design expiry, trade marks, packaging, product labelling and retail presentation together, rather than treating any one factor as decisive.
Outcome: The application was dismissed. The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed. The published judgment material states that Bodum did not make out its ACL claim for misleading or deceptive conduct arising from the similarities in shape between its products and HAG’s competing products. It also states that Bodum did not make out its passing off claim. The catchwords further record that Bodum did not establish a secondary reputation in the shape and that, despite HAG deliberately copying the shape and design features, the conduct was not misleading or deceptive and did not constitute passing off.
Bolton v Keybridge Capital Limited [2026] FCA 404
If your company thinks an asset or opportunity has been diverted, act early and keep the record straight. A later derivative action can be undermined by delay, inconsistent announcements, or evidence that the dispute is really part of a control battle. Before asking the court for leave, make sure you can explain who owns what in the transaction structure, why the company did not sue earlier, and how the proposed case will benefit the company rather than an individual faction. If you plan to offer a costs indemnity, be ready to prove it is financially meaningful. This case is a reminder that derivative proceedings are tightly controlled. They are not an automatic workaround when the board will not support litigation.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Mr Bolton’s application for leave to appeal. Longbottom J held that the primary judge’s refusal of derivative-action leave was not attended by sufficient doubt to justify reconsideration on appeal, and that substantial injustice had not been shown. The Court left undisturbed the primary judge’s conclusions that Mr Bolton had not established good faith and had not shown that granting leave would be in Keybridge’s best interests. The judgment points in particular to the period of inaction after the return of the $5 million, the difficulty of reconciling later allegations with earlier public statements, and the absence of evidence that Mr Bolton’s offered costs indemnity had value. Mr Bolton was ordered to pay Keybridge’s costs of the leave application.
Bonney v Watarra Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (No 3)
If a dispute is really about a regulator accepting registration documents, the legal focus may need to be on the regulator’s decision rather than the corporation itself. This case also shows that courts will look carefully at how a claim is characterised, especially where a self-represented applicant describes the practical effect of a decision rather than naming the exact administrative act. For founders and boards, the safest approach is to treat registration applications, membership lists and rule books as core governance documents, not paperwork to tidy up later. If there is a disagreement about who should appear as a member on registration, resolve it before lodgement if possible. And if litigation starts, separate the questions of decision-maker, reviewability, standing and remedy early, because each one can change who stays in the case and what relief is realistically available.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted partial summary judgment in favour of Watarra by summarily dismissing Ms Bonney's claim for damages against it. Jackson J held that Ms Bonney had no reasonable prospect of establishing that Watarra had made a reviewable administrative decision under the ADJR Act and that damages were not an available remedy under that Act. However, Watarra's application was otherwise dismissed because Watarra still needed to remain a respondent while the claim against ORIC continued. ORIC's notice of objection to competency was adjourned to the final hearing rather than decided immediately. The claim against Grant Thornton was dismissed by consent at the hearing, and the Court ordered Ms Bonney to pay Grant Thornton's costs and Watarra's costs of the summary judgment application.
Brady v NULIS Nominees (Australia) Limited in its capacity as trustee of the MLC Super Fund
If your business charges fees, commissions, platform costs, referral amounts or bundled service charges, treat three questions separately. First, what clause actually authorises the charge? Secondly, where and how is the charge recorded and disclosed? Thirdly, what governance material supports the decision to impose or continue it? This appeal underlines that disclosure documents may help identify what fees were charged, but they are not always the legal source of power to charge them. It also shows that a court may uphold a decision to preserve an existing arrangement during a transition if the decision was made after real consideration of alternatives and risks. For businesses, the safest approach is to map each fee to a specific operative clause, review legacy pricing after any transfer or migration, and keep clear board or management records explaining the commercial and customer impacts of the decision.
Outcome: The Full Court varied the earlier orders so that the answer to Question 22 expressly stated: "No: the fees referred to were authorised to be charged by NULIS by cl 3.7 of Schedule 1 of the Trust Deed". Apart from that variation, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The Court also stayed the earlier dismissal of the representative proceeding for 14 days to allow any application by a group member to be substituted as representative applicant, or any other application consequential on the death of the representative applicant. In practical terms, the applicant failed overall. The deed-authority challenge did not succeed, and the challenge based on alleged breaches of the statutory trustee covenants also failed. The main significance of the variation was to make the source of authority for the fees explicit in the orders.
Bredenkamp (Liquidator), in the matter of Ultima United Limited (in liq) (No 2) [2026] FCA 471
If your company has overseas directors or key decision-makers, keep their contact details current and assume formal court documents may later be served through the channels they actually use. This case is a reminder that liquidators can seek examination orders requiring attendance and document production, and the Court may support practical service methods where there is a real Australian connection and electronic contact details are likely to work. Businesses should keep governance records organised, preserve important emails and messaging history, and avoid letting critical company information sit only in personal devices or scattered chat threads. Directors should not assume that being offshore, hard to locate or without a known street address will prevent an Australian court process from progressing. If a liquidator or court process starts, get advice early and respond promptly.
Outcome: The Court made the orders sought. It granted leave under r 10.44 for the liquidator to serve the examination summons and related documents on Mr Cheng in Hong Kong in accordance with the Hague Convention and Hong Kong law. It also dispensed with personal service and ordered substituted service by sending the documents to two specified email addresses and by WhatsApp to a specified mobile number. To the extent necessary, it dispensed under r 1.34 with the requirement in r 10.49 that Hague Convention or Hong Kong-law service first be attempted unsuccessfully. The examinations listed for 20 April 2026 and 5 May 2026 were adjourned to dates to be fixed, and suppression orders were made over certain materials.
Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
If your business is affected by a regulator or ministerial decision, do not assume that success on liability will automatically produce large damages. A court will ask what probably would have happened instead in the real commercial and policy environment. That question becomes much harder where the claimed loss depends on later decisions by overseas governments, regulators, customers or counterparties. This case also highlights the evidentiary challenge. The parties did not have access to internal communications between relevant Indonesian officials, so the case had to be built from diplomatic reports, public policy documents, ministerial communications, quota announcements and witness evidence. Businesses in similar disputes should preserve forecasts, customer records, government correspondence, board papers, market data and contemporaneous explanations of lost opportunities. The stronger the documentary record, the better the chance of proving not just that something went wrong, but that it changed the commercial result.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal and ordered Brett Cattle to pay the respondents’ costs. The court was not persuaded that the primary judge’s factual findings on the separate damages question should be disturbed. As a result, the earlier conclusion remained in place. Although it was common ground that an additional 88,000 head would have been exported in 2011 without the disruption caused by the Second Control Order, Brett Cattle did not establish that more cattle would have been exported in 2012 and 2013 under the lawful counterfactual. The practical effect was that the damages case did not expand on the basis of claimed additional exports in those later years.
Britten v eBroker.com.au Pty Ltd
Read this case as a warning about litigation conduct. The Court's focus was not on who was right about the underlying finance dispute. It was on whether the applicants gave clear, direct and timely notice that their urgent interlocutory application would not be pursued. They did not. The emails relied on were either sent before the application was filed, sent to the wrong recipients, or written in a way that continued to assert rights and resist enforcement. That meant the respondents were justified in preparing evidence for an urgent hearing, and the applicants had to pay indemnity costs of that application. If your business files urgent court papers, treat them as an active step with immediate cost consequences. If circumstances change, send a direct written notice identifying the exact application and saying plainly whether it is withdrawn, not pressed or proposed to be dismissed by consent.
Outcome: The Court ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application filed on 2 February 2026 on an indemnity basis. McDonald J held that the respondents had acted reasonably in preparing detailed affidavit evidence and proposed orders because the urgent application might have needed to be heard quickly. The Court rejected the argument that earlier emails had put the respondents on notice that the application would not be pursued. Those emails did not clearly say that, some were sent before the application was filed or accepted for filing, and one was not sent to the respondents at all. The Court found that the applicants acted unreasonably in failing to notify the respondents before the first case management hearing that they would not seek the interlocutory relief, and that unreasonable conduct justified indemnity costs.
Browne v Assistant Commissioner of Police, North West Metro Region [2026] FCA 15
If your business is considering a measure that intrudes on privacy or restricts how people enter, move through, or participate in a space, start with discipline rather than convenience. Identify the exact legal, contractual or policy basis for the measure. Define the risk you are trying to address. Ask whether the measure is actually necessary for that purpose, whether a narrower option would work, and how long it should remain in place. Record those reasons at the time, not later. This case also shows the importance of expressly considering privacy impacts rather than treating them as incidental. In practice, that means documenting what information will be collected, what searches or directions staff may give, who can authorise the measure, where it applies, and when it ends. If the control is event-based or incident-based, keep it tied to that context. Broad, open-ended arrangements are harder to justify. A well-intentioned manager can still expose the business if they rely on a broad safety rationale without applying the actual decision criteria.
Outcome: The applicants succeeded in part. The Federal Court declared that the designated area declaration made on or around 25 November 2025 was affected by jurisdictional error and therefore invalid. It also declared that the declaration was incompatible with human rights within the meaning of s 38(1) of the Charter and therefore unlawful, and unlawful because the decision-maker failed to give proper consideration to the privacy right in s 13 as required by s 38(1). However, the Court rejected the constitutional challenge to s 10KA(1), holding that the face-covering provision did not contravene the implied freedom of political communication. The originating application was otherwise dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
Brydi Pty Ltd atf the Brydi Super Fund v Southern Cross Payments Ltd [2026] FCA 543
Business owners, directors and finance teams should read this as a litigation risk case, not a final misconduct ruling. The court allowed investors to add more allegations about governance representations, internal controls, revenue recognition and audit conduct. The key practical point is that public statements about integrity, controls and risk disclosure may later be tested against what actually happened inside the business. If a company has milestone-based equity, unusual revenue sources, related-party sensitivities or heavy reliance on audit sign-off, those issues can become tightly connected in later claims. The decision also shows that an earlier ASIC case may not stop later private proceedings, especially where the parties, defendants and statutory claims differ. Businesses should make sure board records, disclosure practices, accounting treatment and incentive structures line up in substance as well as form.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the applicant to amend its originating application and statement of claim substantially in the proposed form. O'Callaghan J accepted that the class action involved a substantially similar factual substratum to the earlier ASIC proceeding and that some risk of inconsistent findings existed. However, that was not enough to refuse the amendments. The court emphasised that this was a different proceeding brought by different parties, against ISX and an additional defendant, Grant Thornton, and under different legislative provisions. A significant factor was that the class action could not realistically have been brought or heard at the same time as the ASIC case. The court also ordered the first respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application, while the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by reason of the amendments.
Cali v National Disability Insurance Agency
Read this case as a lesson in precision. The dispute was not whether the child benefited from the Little Learners Program in a broad sense. The real issue was whether 27 hours per week, rather than a lower level, satisfied the statutory tests for value for money and being effective and beneficial. The Tribunal found those two criteria were not met and instead directed 480 hours of early intervention therapy delivered by a Therapy Assistant Level 2, which the Court noted worked out to 12 hours per week over 40 weeks. On appeal, the Federal Court focused on whether the Tribunal had made a legal mistake in its reasoning. Businesses should do the same when planning an appeal. Identify the exact decision under challenge, the exact statutory criteria, and the exact legal error. Do not assume a court will reweigh the evidence because the commercial stakes are high.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs. On the available reasons, Button J held that the Court's function was not to revisit the merits but to determine whether the Tribunal had erred in law. The Court rejected the applicant's central reading of the Tribunal's reasons, saying it was not fair to treat every reference to the Little Learners Program as a reference to the specific 27-hour weekly program. That supported the Tribunal's distinction between the general benefit of the program and the separate question whether 27 hours per week, rather than a smaller quantum, satisfied sections 34(1)(c) and (d). The result was that the Tribunal's decision stood, including the direction for 480 hours of early intervention therapy delivered by a Therapy Assistant Level 2.
Cannan v Dollarama Australia Pty Limited ACN 006 122 676
For business owners, the practical reading is twofold. First, get the employment settings right early. If your workforce includes salaried managers, check whether an award applies, whether an enterprise agreement covers them, and whether salary arrangements lawfully account for hours actually worked. Secondly, if a broad employee claim is brought as a class action, separate an ordinary pleading complaint from a true gateway challenge. A messy pleading can often be fixed. But if the group definition depends on a legal proposition that turns out to be wrong and captures no one, the Court may conclude there was no valid Pt IVA proceeding to begin with. This case also shows that later amendments may not relate back to the original filing date. For a respondent, that can matter strategically. For a claimant, it is a warning that the group definition and legal basis of the claim must be sound from the outset, not repaired after the fact.
Outcome: The Full Court granted the applicant limited leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. It granted the respondent leave to cross-appeal and allowed the cross-appeal in part. The Court set aside the primary judge's order that had made the amendments take effect from 16 June 2025 and substituted an order that the amendments allowed by the primary judge took effect from 15 August 2025, when the amended originating application and amended statement of claim were filed. On the reasoning visible in the extract, the Court did not accept that a valid Pt IVA class action had been commenced in April 2023 once it was accepted that the extant group definition captured no group members.
Cannatrek Ltd, in the matter of Cannatrek Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 657
If your company is running a court-approved transaction, the commercial deal and the process must both stand up. Cannatrek succeeded because it could prove each step. It lodged the relevant orders with ASIC, registered the main scheme booklet, sent materials in the way the Court required, dealt with bounced emails by sending hard copies, obtained supplementary orders when circumstances changed, kept shareholders updated about adjourned hearing dates, and produced certificates showing the conditions precedent had been satisfied apart from court approval. When the TGA matter developed after the scheme meeting, the company did not ignore it. The Court then applied a focused test: would reasonable shareholders, if they had known the new information before voting, have changed position enough to be likely to alter the result? The answer was no on the evidence. For directors and transaction teams, the practical lesson is to maintain a live disclosure assessment until approval is obtained, especially where the consideration includes scrip, earn-out style rights or contingent value instruments that can be affected by liabilities or regulatory action.
Outcome: The Federal Court approved the scheme under s 411(4)(b) and exempted Cannatrek from compliance with s 411(11) under s 411(12). The Court found that the scheme meeting had been properly convened and conducted, the required majorities were comfortably achieved, the scheme booklet and supplementary scheme booklet provided full and fair disclosure, ASIC had issued a no-objection statement, and the conditions precedent had been satisfied apart from court approval. The Court also held that the later TGA development did not justify refusing approval. The investigation and its possible impact on the contingent value shares had already been disclosed, the independent expert's opinion did not change, the directors continued to support the scheme, and even if the contingent value shares were worth very little, the ordinary share component of the consideration still fell within the expert's valuation range.
Cannatrek Ltd, in the matter of Cannatrek Ltd [2026] FCA 246
Read this case as a process map for high-stakes shareholder approvals. Cannatrek succeeded at the first hearing because it came to court with evidence about the deal, the shareholder communications, the verification process and the meeting mechanics. The orders are detailed for a reason. In a scheme, the court wants to know exactly how members will receive materials, who can vote, when proxies are due, what happens if a shareholder attends after appointing a proxy, and how notice of the later approval hearing will be published. Even if your business never uses a court-approved scheme, the lesson is useful. When ownership is changing in a major way, governance discipline matters. Keep your cap table and member register current, verify explanatory documents, and design a voting process that can withstand scrutiny from regulators, shareholders and the court.
Outcome: The Court made the convening orders and related procedural orders sought by Cannatrek. It ordered a scheme meeting for 10 April 2026, approved the dispatch of the final scheme booklet by email or post depending on the shareholder's communication status, set the voting entitlement date and proxy deadline, required voting by poll, appointed the chair, and dealt specifically with the effect of a shareholder attending after appointing a proxy. The Court also dispensed with compliance with certain procedural requirements under the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000, required online publication of notice at least 5 days before any approval hearing, adjourned the proceeding to 21 April 2026 for any approval application, and required an office copy of the orders to be lodged with ASIC. The judgment does not confirm the later approval or implementation outcome.
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd (Costs of Supplementary Common Questions)
Read this case narrowly and practically. It is a Federal Court costs decision about one hearing in a long-running class action. It does not tell you the full story of the underlying consumer allegations, and it should not be used as a substitute for the earlier substantive judgment. The main lesson is procedural. If your business is in major litigation, each substantial hearing can carry its own costs risk. Courts may still award all or most costs to the party that was substantially successful overall, even if that party lost one argument. At the same time, a costs order may not improve short-term cash flow because the Court may keep to the ordinary rule that assessment waits until the end of the case. Businesses should budget hearing by hearing and prepare evidence if they want any special order for immediate costs recovery.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Ford to pay the applicant's costs of the hearing on 30 to 31 October 2025. Justice Perram held that the class had prevailed on all issues except the 'multiple guarantees' aspect of the first issue and was therefore substantially successful overall. That meant there was insufficient justification to depart from the ordinary position that costs follow the event, and the Court rejected Ford's attempt to apportion costs issue by issue. However, the Court refused the applicant's request for costs to be paid forthwith. Although the judge was sympathetic to the fact that the litigation had been running for a decade and class members had not yet received money, the Court was not persuaded that immediate taxation would likely result in funds being paid to class members, particularly given the funded nature of the proceeding and the lack of further information about the funding arrangements.
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd (Supplementary Common Questions and Other Issues) [2026] FCA 38
If your business manufactures, imports, distributes or regularly trades vehicles or other durable goods, this case is a reminder that ACL risk can become more complicated as products move through the second-hand market. The Court was dealing with whether later owners may claim manufacturer damages, how multiple dealer supplies may interact with the acceptable quality guarantee, and how a class action can be organised for later quantification. In practical terms, businesses should keep clear records of each acquisition and disposal, identify whether each transfer was by dealer sale, private sale or business transfer, and preserve VIN-level service, complaint and remediation records. If you are a manufacturer or importer, review how you assess downstream exposure and limitation arguments. If you buy or sell used vehicles, do not assume only the first owner can have rights against the manufacturer. The final position on some issues should be checked against the complete judgment and entered orders.
Outcome: The supplementary judgment confirms that the Court was dealing with post-judgment issues for class members and preparing the matter for a later quantification process using sample group members and a defect matrix. It also confirms that the successor in title issue and the multiple guarantees issue were live and commercially important. The reasons available here show the Court engaging seriously with both the class's broad reading of later-owner entitlement and Ford's textual objections. However, because the text cuts off before the end of the reasoning, the final dispositive outcome on those issues, as well as on time-bar arguments and proposed crystallisation orders, should not be stated conclusively without checking the complete judgment and any entered orders.
Care A2 Plus Pty Ltd v The a2 Milk Company Limited (No 2) [2026] FCA 475
If you want to use a product name that sounds scientific, descriptive or ingredient-based, do not assume that makes it free for everyone to use. The Court’s extract points to a market reality test: how ordinary consumers understand the sign in context, across packaging, websites, promotions and other channels. If customers are likely to see the shared term as connected with an established trader, your branding may create both trade mark and ACL exposure. This case also shows that litigation outcomes are shaped by preparation. The party defending the claim appears to have had a much thinner evidentiary case and its invalidity challenge was narrowed after a security for costs problem. Before launch, run clearance searches, review the whole customer journey, document why you chose the name, and get advice on whether the term is functioning as a brand in the market rather than merely describing the product.
Outcome: The extract indicates that the a2 Milk Company succeeded on the core dispute. The Court found the impugned marks were not substantially identical to the registered marks, but were deceptively similar. The structure of the reasons also indicates that the main invalidity challenges failed, including the argument that the a2 Milk Company's marks were descriptive or incapable of distinguishing. The Court dealt with ACL claims concerning misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations, and the extract points to substantive findings on those issues. The catchwords expressly state that additional damages were awarded because the infringing conduct was flagrant. Final orders as to relief and costs were still to be settled after judgment.
Carrello (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Jones (deceased)
Do not assume a court will approve a sensible clean-up plan just because your structure has become stuck. In this case, the applicants showed that no existing trustee could lawfully realise the SMSF assets and wind up the fund, but the application still failed because the Court was concerned about what was meant to happen to half of the proceeds after sale. If your structure includes an SMSF, a company trustee and trust-held property, review now who can act if a member dies, a trustee becomes bankrupt, or a company goes into liquidation. Check the deed, the title position, death benefit settings and whether any asset is legally owned by one entity but beneficially owned by another. If court orders are needed, the legal basis for every proposed distribution must be explained carefully and completely.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application, but granted liberty to apply again. Jackson J accepted that the structure had become effectively disabled because the surviving trustee of the SMSF was an undischarged bankrupt and the former corporate trustee was in liquidation. However, the Court was not prepared to make the requested orders because an important aspect of the proposal, especially the intended use of half of the funds to be produced by winding up the superannuation trust, had been disclosed only gradually and incompletely. The Court said the disclosure was unsatisfactory and noted doubt about whether creditors of the deceased estate had any claim on that part of the fund.
Cathro v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, in the matter of Cubic Interiors NSW Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
Read this case as a practical warning about document handling in litigation. If your claim depends on a report, provide it early where appropriate. If the other side refers to a report and you do not have it, ask for it promptly and clearly in writing. Here, the Court found that insolvency remained in issue for a time because both sides contributed to the problem. Most defendants did not have the liquidator's solvency report when they first pleaded, but most also did not take the obvious step of directly requesting it after proceedings began. Because the later amendments were treated as the defendants' first informed positions rather than a tactical backdown, the Court refused to make the costs orders the plaintiffs wanted. The practical message is that costs often turn on conduct and cooperation, not just on who formally amended a pleading.
Outcome: Owens J declined to make the costs orders sought by the plaintiffs against the first, third, eighth, fifteenth and eighteenth defendants in relation to amendments admitting insolvency. The Court held that, in the circumstances, it was not appropriate to treat those amendments as a straightforward basis for costs thrown away. For most relevant defendants, the amendments were the first informed positions they could take once they had the solvency report. The Court found that the issue remained live for a time because the plaintiffs did not provide the report earlier and the defendants did not clearly request it sooner. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to characterise events as substantial success on the separate question application. The costs of the plaintiffs' interlocutory application dated 26 September 2025 were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Cayzer v Phoslock Environmental Technologies Ltd (Opt Out and Registration Notice)
Business owners should read this as a procedural warning. A representative proceeding can require your organisation to locate historical records, work with share registries or processors, answer enquiries, publish court materials and support a notice campaign on short deadlines. At the same time, the Court may reject parts of an agreed process if they go beyond power. Here, the Court approved the opt out and registration notice process after the parties removed the impermissible soft class closure component. The practical lesson is to separate what the Court has actually ordered from what parties hope to achieve in settlement discussions. If your business is involved in a class action, treat notice wording, registration deadlines, data handling and proposed consequences of non-response as legally sensitive issues that need close supervision.
Outcome: Stewart J held that the Court did not have power to make the proposed soft class closure orders that had originally been included in the consent package. After amended consent orders were put forward excluding that impermissible feature, the Court was satisfied with the amended orders and made them. The approved orders fixed the opt out and registration deadline, approved the notice, required direct distribution by post or email, required website and registry publication, and set out the registration, opt out and data-handling mechanics. The result was that the notice and registration process could proceed, but the original soft class closure proposal could not.
Chambers v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 28
The key lesson is that defeating the broadest version of an employee's contract case may not protect the business. Here, the court rejected the claim that a four-year oral employment deal had already been concluded in October 2022. But once the employee started work in January 2023, there was still an employment contract, and the court found that for certain pay periods he should have been paid at a much higher rate than payroll actually applied. The court also found the dismissal breached the general protections provisions because it was taken because he had commenced Fair Work Commission proceedings. If your business is settling an earlier dispute and offering re-employment, use a written settlement deed and a separate written employment contract. State clearly whether remuneration is salary, commission, package, or package inclusive of super. If the employee later complains or files a Fair Work claim, make sure any management action is supported by contemporaneous evidence that is genuinely independent of that protected conduct.
Outcome: The Federal Court found that Mr Chambers had not proved the broader oral employment agreement he alleged from the October 2022 discussions, and that there was no employment agreement at all before 9 January 2023. However, the court found that an employment contract did exist from 9 January 2023. Broadway Homes was declared to have breached section 323(1)(a) for the periods 24 to 25 April 2023 and 10 May to 17 May 2023 by paying Mr Chambers at a rate of $52,000 per annum exclusive of superannuation when he was entitled to be paid at a rate of $180,000 per annum inclusive of superannuation for those periods. The court also declared that Broadway Homes breached section 340 by dismissing him on or about 20 June 2023 because he had exercised a workplace right by commencing a Fair Work Commission proceeding. Mr Basso was declared to have been involved in both breaches within section 550. The parties were ordered to confer on the underpayment calculation, and a further case management hearing was to be fixed.
Chan v Moore [2026] FCA 496
If you want a payment to count as a director contribution, shareholder funding, reimbursement or related-party advance made on your behalf, the documents need to say that clearly when the payment happens. In this case, the Court was not prepared to accept that more than $3 million transferred from a related Hong Kong company should be credited to Julia Chan’s director loan account simply because that was the explanation later put forward. The Court preferred contemporaneous records and treated the director’s and her sister’s evidence with caution where it was unsupported, inconsistent or implausible. The practical lesson is to keep separate accounts, document intercompany and family funding arrangements in writing, reconcile director loan accounts against bank statements and invoices, and avoid using company money for personal liabilities unless the legal basis and accounting treatment are clear. In a liquidation, informal understandings may not survive close scrutiny.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Julia Chan's amended originating process. Halley J held that she had not established that the $3,037,101 related-party contribution from INS Hong Kong was a capital contribution provided by her, or on her behalf, to INS Australia. As a result, those amounts were not credited to her director loan account in the way she claimed, and her attempt to be admitted as a creditor in the liquidation failed. The Court also stated that the cross-claimants had established that the amount owing by Julia Chan to INS Australia on the director loan account was $996,085. The published orders then required the parties to confer and provide orders giving effect to the reasons on the cross-claim and costs, or otherwise return to Court with competing orders.
Chen v Netstrata Pty Ltd
Read this case as a procedural warning, not a ruling on the merits of the underlying bankruptcy dispute. The court dismissed the appeal as against Netstrata because Netstrata was not a party to the proceeding below and was not the proper respondent. The court also made clear that the appeal could not move forward unless Strata Plan 94402, the party in whose favour the earlier orders were made, was joined. For business owners, the practical message is to check three things before appealing: who actually won below, who must be named as respondent, and whether the notice of appeal clearly identifies the alleged errors in the earlier judgment. Do not use an appeal to add new grievances, new parties or unrelated allegations. If your business is named in an appeal despite not being involved below, this case shows the court may remove you from the proceeding and award your costs.
Outcome: Kennett J dismissed Mr Chen's interlocutory application and dismissed the appeal as against Netstrata. The court held that Netstrata was not a proper respondent because it had not been a party to the bankruptcy proceeding below and had no identified interest in defending the orders made there. To the extent Mr Chen sought relief against Netstrata, he was in substance trying to invoke the court's original jurisdiction rather than its appellate jurisdiction. The court also said BMW, likewise not a party below, would be entitled to be removed if it sought that outcome. Critically, the court said the appeal could not move forward without Strata Plan 94402 being joined. Mr Chen was ordered to pay Netstrata's costs and to file an amended notice of appeal by 2 June 2026 naming Strata Plan 94402 and concisely identifying the alleged errors in the judgment below.
Chief Executive Officer of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency v Chegg, Inc. [2026] FCA 330
If your business offers user-submitted questions, expert responses, tutoring support or generated content, review the real service flow from upload to output. This case was resolved on agreed facts, not after a contested trial, and the Court accepted orders that Chegg had contravened the TEQSA Act on three occasions involving Monash University assessment tasks and an exam. The penalty and costs figures came from the Court's orders. The practical compliance message is concise: do not rely on disclaimers alone. Test whether your product design, moderation triggers, contractor instructions, escalation rules, publication settings and monitoring systems actually stop prohibited assistance from being created and delivered. Cross-border structures do not remove Australian exposure where the service is supplied to students undertaking Australian courses.
Outcome: The Federal Court accepted the parties' agreed facts, admissions and proposed relief. Chegg admitted three contraventions of s 114A(3) of the TEQSA Act, each relating to Monash University assessment tasks or an exam. The Court declared that the contraventions occurred between approximately 1 November 2021 and 31 May 2022. It ordered Chegg to pay a pecuniary penalty of $500,000 to the Commonwealth within 30 days and to pay TEQSA's costs fixed at $150,000 within 30 days. The catchwords record that the proposed penalty was within the range of appropriate penalties and that declarations and ancillary orders were made in the form sought by the parties.
CIP Group Pty Ltd v So (No 12) [2026] FCA 60
Read this case as a warning about governance, records and litigation resilience. If your business receives funding from a director, founder, family member or related entity, document the amount advanced, interest, repayment triggers, security and approval process clearly at the time. Do not assume that an informal running balance can be reconstructed later without dispute. If the same person is both a director of the borrower and the controller of the lender, conflict management needs to be real, not implied. The case also shows the danger of concentrating legal instructions, factual knowledge and commercial history in one individual. When that person becomes unavailable as a witness, a large case may need to be cut back or rebuilt shortly before trial. Businesses should keep board minutes, signed finance documents, reconciled accounts and clear records of who approved related-party dealings. If a company enters liquidation or receivership during litigation, get immediate advice on whether the proceeding can continue and on what basis.
Outcome: McElwaine J granted leave to amend in part. The applicants were allowed to amend substantially in accordance with their draft amended pleadings, but subject to specified exclusions, and had to file the amended documents by 10 February 2026. The Court dismissed the interlocutory applications by the So parties and the TM parties seeking revocation of derivative leave and dismissal of the proceeding. The judge also corrected an earlier order so that it referred to the ninth respondent rather than the eighth respondent, amended party descriptions to reflect liquidation status, and directed the parties to file consent or competing proposed consequential orders, including on costs and a timetable aimed at a trial commencing on 11 May 2026.
Clark v National Australia Bank Limited
If your business thinks a bank or other counterparty has acted wrongly, do not wait for every internal email, file note or admission before getting advice. This case shows that a court may treat time as running once you know the basic facts needed to frame a claim. It also shows the importance of identifying the correct claimant. If the account, line of credit or property belonged to a company or trustee, the individuals behind the business may not be the right plaintiffs. In practice, build a chronology early, preserve correspondence, map each alleged loss to the entity that suffered it, and check limitation issues before investing heavily in litigation.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicants to pay NAB's costs on an agreed or assessed basis. Raper J was not persuaded that the proposed appeal was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration. On the extract available, the court accepted that summary dismissal may be appropriate where limitation provides a complete answer and rejected the argument that the issue should not have been decided at an interlocutory stage in this case. The judgment also indicates that the court saw no discernible error in the primary judge's approach to whether the Clarks already knew the basic facts essential to their causes of action before 2018, as distinct from later obtaining documents that might assist proof. The extract further records unresolved pleading deficiencies and standing problems affecting parts of the case.
Clean Energy Regulator v Emerging Energy Solutions Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2026] FCA 12
Read this case as a warning about governance, not just carbon market regulation. If your business uses a regulated registry or portal, you need clear rules about who is the authorised representative, who actually has access, how credentials are protected, and what happens if the authorised person is absent, unwell or leaves the business. A power of attorney or internal permission may not solve the problem if the statutory scheme requires access to be limited to identified authorised people. The case also shows that liquidation is not a clean reset. A regulator may still seek declarations and penalties because those remedies serve public enforcement purposes, not just compensation. If your company is under investigation or already in proceedings, get advice early about both compliance and insolvency consequences. Review access controls, notification obligations and any admissions already made in pleadings or correspondence. Those issues can shape whether a regulator pushes ahead and how the Court responds.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the Clean Energy Regulator leave to proceed against Emerging Energy Solutions Group Pty Ltd under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act. The Court also granted leave to file and serve an amended originating application and amended statement of claim reflecting the dismissal of the proceeding against the director and the narrowed allegations against the company. The Court noted the Regulator's undertakings to indemnify the liquidators against adverse costs orders, not to join or seek judgment against them personally, and not to enforce any pecuniary penalties against the company without further leave. Subject to further order, the liquidators were excused from further appearance. The practical result was that the substantive civil penalty case against the company could continue despite the liquidation.
Cleary v Qube Ports Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 628
Business owners should read this as a records, drafting and communications case as much as a workplace conduct case. The Court did not decide whether Qube Ports actually contravened the Fair Work Act. It decided whether the pleaded case was clear enough to proceed. One paragraph was struck out because the applicant said an email terminated a contract for services, but did not plead the material facts showing how that email had that legal effect. Other alternative allegations survived because they could be understood by reading them with the surrounding pleaded discussions and correspondence. In practice, if your business uses contractors, project work, casual arrangements or changing engagement models, keep the legal basis of each arrangement clear. If a complaint is made and you later disable access, stop offering work, or say no roles are available, expect those steps to be examined closely. Your contracts, emails, internal notes and complaint handling process should all line up with the position you may later need to defend.
Outcome: Horan J ordered that paragraph 92 of the statement of claim be struck out under r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with leave for Ms Cleary to amend by 26 June 2026. The Court otherwise dismissed the relevant parts of Qube Ports' interlocutory application. It held that the allegations about Ms Cleary being a worker at the relevant times were sufficiently clear once the particulars and clarifications already given were taken into account. It also held that paragraphs 93 and 94, which pleaded alternative adverse action cases based on refusal to engage or refusal to employ, could stand because they were sufficiently anchored in other pleaded facts. The available text does not show the Court's full final reasoning on the challenged relief in paragraph H.4.
Combs v Careerseekers New Australian Internship Program Limited
Business owners should read this as a case about process, records and litigation realism. It is not authority that anyone breached director duties or that the company acted unlawfully. The court only dealt with whether the applicant could refine his pleaded case before trial. The judge allowed the amendment because it was relatively narrow and did not alter the real controversy, which was the board’s reasoning when it removed the applicant as a director. If your company is making a sensitive governance decision, record the reasons clearly, keep board papers and emails organised, and assume those documents may later be tested against the company’s stated position. If litigation starts, focus on the actual issue the court will need to decide rather than reflexively opposing every procedural step. Courts expect parties to engage with the real factual dispute, especially where the case is narrow and the hearing is approaching.
Outcome: Lee J granted the applicant leave to file and serve an amended concise statement. The court also extended the timetable for the respondent’s amended concise response, the respondent’s proof of evidence and list of documents, standard discovery, verified lists of discoverable documents, the applicant’s reply material and outline of submissions, and the respondent’s outline of submissions. The judge held that the respondent’s complaint about expanded discovery reflected a misunderstanding of standard discovery under r 20.14, which is confined to directly relevant documents found after a reasonable search and falling within specified categories. Most importantly, the court found that the real issue in the case had not changed. It remained the state of mind and reasons of those acting for the respondent at the critical time. Any prejudice to the respondent was considered minimal, and costs were reserved.
Comino v Watson Webb Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 66
If your business collaborates on a product, document four separate things in writing: who owns the product design, who owns each drawing or CAD file, what each party is allowed to do with those materials, and who may file or threaten to enforce registered rights. Do not assume that exclusive distribution, commercial input or payment for development gives you ownership of the underlying design or the drawing used to depict it. This case shows that a drawing can be protected in its own right by copyright and confidence obligations even where the product itself was developed through a shared commercial process. It also shows that using a supplier’s drawing for a design filing can create liability across several legal areas at once. Before filing a design application or sending an infringement letter, check entitlement, permissions, notices on the documents, and whether any co-designer or supplier rights need to be addressed first.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed the appeal in part. In the main appeal, the ground concerning the constructive trust remedy succeeded, and another ground succeeded in part without affecting the orders below. The remaining pressed grounds in the main appeal were rejected. The Court also held that the unjustified threats appeal succeeded, overturning the earlier conclusion on that issue, and it refused leave to appeal from the separate costs judgment. On the material available, the primary judge's core liability findings on co-design entitlement, copyright infringement, breach of confidence and ACL contravention largely remained intact. The final form of orders was to be settled after judgment, and quantification of damages and other pecuniary relief was to be determined separately.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Forrest
Business owners should read this case as a practical warning about trust, access and controls. If someone in your business can see confidential transaction material, they must not trade on it, tip others, or use it to influence publicity around the deal. The Court treated insider trading as serious cheating that threatens confidence in financial markets and requires strong general deterrence. The facts also show that risk can arise through informal access, such as using another person’s office, device or email account, and through informal communications, such as texts, WhatsApp messages or contact with journalists. In practice, businesses should lock down access to sensitive documents, train staff and advisers on confidentiality and trading restrictions, keep records of who has access to market-sensitive information, and get legal advice if they provide investment management or other regulated financial services.
Outcome: The Federal Court confirmed the convictions on the two insider trading charges and sentenced Mr Forrest to a total effective term of six years' imprisonment. The orders imposed five years on count 1 from 23 January 2026 to 22 January 2031 and two years on count 2 from 23 January 2030 to 22 January 2032, producing partial cumulation and a six-year total sentence. The Court ordered parole eligibility on 22 January 2029 after three years' imprisonment. It also ordered payment of $309,571.84 to the Commonwealth under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), reflecting the benefit derived from count 1. The separate financial services licence offence was taken into account on a schedule rather than resulting in a separate conviction on the indictment.
Container Rotation Systems Pty Ltd v Intermodal Solutions (Group) Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business wants to use a term that customers search for, do not assume that calling it descriptive will protect you. In this case, the Court’s orders record findings that statements saying “Rotainer” and “tippler” were interchangeable, and later saying “Rotainer” was generic or descriptive of a type of container, were not true. The orders also show that domain names and search visibility can matter just as much as product copy. Businesses should review brand use across websites, domains, ads and SEO together, and should be careful not to imply that their goods are the same as, affiliated with or approved by another trader. If a dispute reaches court, keep evidence disciplined and clearly connected to live issues. Flooding a case with broad internet-search material can backfire on costs.
Outcome: CRS was substantially successful. The Court declared that ISG infringed the “ROTAINER” trade mark from at least February 2020 and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by making untrue statements that “Rotainer” and “tippler” were interchangeable or equivalent, and that “Rotainer” was generic or descriptive of a type of container. The Court also declared that website conduct involving use of “Rotainer” on specified websites and in paid and organic search results contravened the ACL and constituted passing off. Mr Pinder was found liable through common design and involvement. The Court granted permanent injunctions, ordered transfer of specified domain names within 45 days, and directed an inquiry into damages including additional damages, or alternatively an account of profits. On costs, CRS received its costs generally on a party-party basis, with 50% of the costs associated with certain Gomez affidavits and chronologies payable on an indemnity basis.
Container Rotation Systems Pty Ltd v Intermodal Solutions (Group) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 161
If you are choosing product language, domain names or search strategy, do not treat a competitor's technical-sounding brand as available just because it seems descriptive. The Court found that "rotainer" remained enforceable and rejected the argument that the respondent was only using the word descriptively and in good faith. For business owners, the practical message is to check registrations early, review how terms appear in headings, URLs, metadata, videos, brochures and tenders, and separate genuine product description from branding. If you need to describe compatibility, function or system type, use wording that is accurate and plainly descriptive without presenting the rival's sign as your own identifier. Be especially careful with campaigns designed to capture customers searching for a competitor's brand. In this case, the Court's findings indicate that online conduct and genericity messaging were central to liability, with remedies still to be finalised after the liability judgment.
Outcome: CRS succeeded on liability. The judgment records findings of trade mark infringement, misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off. ISG's attempt to have the registered mark cancelled failed, and the Court rejected the respondent's position that "rotainer" was merely descriptive or generic in the way alleged. The catchwords also record that good faith was not established, that flagrancy was found and that additional damages were awarded. However, the exact final form of relief and the costs outcome were not settled in the orders reproduced with the judgment. Instead, the Court directed the parties to file agreed or competing proposed orders and listed the matter for a further case management hearing.
Cormack, in the matter of K.N.D Associates Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] FCA 674
Read this case as a warning about structure, records and timing rather than as a finding of liability. The company had a short trading life, entered liquidation quickly, and the liquidators identified concerns about an acquisition structure involving offsets, a related entity’s property purchase and substantial payments to related entities. The Court gave them until 15 November 2027 to investigate further and decide whether to bring claims. For business owners, the message is simple: if your business uses multiple entities, offsets liabilities against purchase prices, or moves value around a group, make sure each company’s position can be justified on its own documents and accounting. If insolvency may be in the background, get advice early and keep records that clearly show who benefited, who bore the burden and why the transaction was commercially proper.
Outcome: Justice Sarah Derrington granted the application. The Court ordered that the time for the liquidators to bring proceedings under the Act be extended until 15 November 2027, ordered that the costs of the proceeding be costs in the winding up, and suppressed an annexure containing details of the liquidators' funding agreement. The Court accepted that both the former and current liquidators had taken substantive investigative steps, that the company had almost no funds available for meaningful investigations, and that external funding had only recently been secured after a protracted period. Although the Court did not determine the merits of any future claims, it held that the nature of the identified concerns, the factual basis already available, and the potential prejudice to creditors justified the extension.
Crawford (Administrator), in the matter of Carbon Revolution Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 586
The main takeaway is that this was not a blanket removal of administrator liability. The Court approved a targeted process tied to specific dates, specific classes of agreements, supplier acceptance of particular terms, notice requirements, record-keeping and creditor reporting. Purchase orders issued on or after 27 April 2026 had to contain detailed release and limited recourse wording and be accepted on that basis. Other supply agreements entered on or after 13 April 2026 required suppliers to agree to release the administrators from liabilities incurred during the administration. The administrators also had to notify counterparties, keep a schedule of applicable agreements, update creditors at a creditors' meeting, and give broader notice to creditors and regulators. Businesses should read this case as a lesson in transaction design during insolvency. If ongoing supply is critical, the legal mechanics need to be settled early and communicated clearly to counterparties.
Outcome: The Court made the requested orders. It modified the operation of Pt 5.3A so that, for specified purchase orders issued on or after 27 April 2026 and specified supply agreements entered on or after 13 April 2026, the administrators would not be personally liable in the ordinary way under s 443A, provided the agreements met the conditions set out in the orders. Those conditions included supplier acceptance of release or limited recourse provisions, depending on the agreement type, and notice of the orders to relevant suppliers. The Court also required the administrators to notify counterparties, keep a schedule of applicable agreements, and update creditors about the nature of those agreements and the estimated debts involved. Additional orders dealt with confidentiality, notice to creditors and regulators, costs, and liberty for interested persons to apply to vary or discharge the operative orders.
Credit Suisse AG v Gu (No 3) [2026] FCA 439
Businesses should read this case as a warning against assuming that protective wording equals enforceable security. The Court drew a real distinction between a clause that may support a caveat and a clause that actually creates an equitable charge or other proprietary interest. If you want security, the document must clearly and effectively create it. The case also shows that company money used in a personal acquisition can generate proprietary claims by the company or its liquidator, including tracing into sale proceeds. For lenders, a mortgage may still be vulnerable under bankruptcy law even if money was genuinely advanced, although restitution may remain available for value given. For anyone drafting loan documents, default or higher interest clauses also need care because they may be struck down as penalties. In practice, keep company and personal dealings separate, document advances and security precisely, obtain approvals, and do not rely on improvised clauses where insolvency or priority could later matter.
Outcome: The Court declared that clause 7.2 of the deed of guarantee and indemnity did not create an equitable charge or other equitable proprietary interest in favour of the Hu Parties over the property or its sale proceeds. It declared the Great Lands mortgage void against the trustee in bankruptcy under section 121(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, but also declared that Great Lands was entitled to $2,193,209.62 from the surplus funds under the statutory restitution mechanism. IPPL succeeded in obtaining a declaration of subrogation to former Credit Suisse mortgage rights to the extent of $280,000 and a declaration that it held an equitable proprietary interest in the surplus funds of $1,045,246.14 plus traceable accretions. IPPL did not establish a presently enforceable right of subrogation to Great Lands' former rights. The Court also held that IPPL's interests were not postponed to any interest claimed by the Hu Parties and that the Higher Interest Rate in the Great Lands loan agreement was void and unenforceable as a penalty.
Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SIF v Insurance Australia Limited
If your business starts proceedings in Australia, assume the court may require production of directly relevant documents in a form the other side can actually use. This case shows that confidentiality and secrecy are not the same as privilege, and foreign secrecy laws are not an automatic shield against disclosure. The court gave strong weight to trial fairness, the applicants' decision to sue in Australia, and the fact the documents went to central issues such as knowledge, causation and contributory negligence. In practice, businesses should identify where records are stored, which entity controls them, what foreign laws may apply, and whether redactions are being applied consistently. If overseas secrecy issues exist, get coordinated Australian and foreign advice early and expect the court to ask whether any narrower protective steps can preserve confidentiality without undermining a fair hearing.
Outcome: The court ordered the Credit Suisse funds and specified UBS entities to produce for inspection unredacted copies of the documents within the annexure categories, or duplicates without the relevant redactions, by 12 June 2026. On the reasons available, Thawley J held that production should be ordered as a matter of Australian procedure. Although the risk of breaching Swiss and Luxembourg secrecy laws was relevant to discretion, it did not outweigh the need for a fair trial in this case. The court considered the documents directly relevant to major issues including knowledge, causation, contributory negligence and proportionate liability, and emphasised that the applicants had invoked the Australian court's jurisdiction and were seeking substantial relief under Australian law. Costs of the application were ordered against the Credit Suisse funds and UBS.
Crowley v Worley Limited [2026] FCAFC 78
If your business gives financial guidance, growth statements or investor updates, make sure the statement has a documented and defensible foundation at the time it is made and each time it is repeated. A board-approved budget is helpful, but it is not a complete answer if the underlying assumptions are stretched, not properly risk-adjusted, or are being questioned by management. This case also shows that repeated statements can create fresh exposure if the business has learned more in the meantime. For listed entities, that means close coordination between finance, operations, legal and investor relations when budgets move, downside risks emerge, or analyst expectations drift away from what management really thinks is achievable. For private businesses, the same discipline still matters in dealings with investors, lenders and buyers. Keep clear records of assumptions, known risks, internal warnings and the reasons for any forecast changes.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed Mr Crowley’s appeal and dismissed Worley’s cross-appeal. It varied the remitter judge’s orders so that the answer to the question about inflation was yes, with share price inflation of 5.92%, and the answer to the question about loss was yes, in the amount of $593 plus interest from 4 October 2013. The Court also set aside the remitter judge’s later costs orders and instead ordered Worley to pay Mr Crowley’s costs of the initial and remitted trials, as well as the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. In practical terms, the shareholder succeeded both in preserving liability and in proving some compensable loss.
CSRP Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union
Read this case as a process and timing decision, not as a final ruling that the unions' requests were valid or invalid. If your business receives a written request to bargain for a replacement enterprise agreement, do not assume the notice obligation automatically follows. Check the nominal expiry date of the current agreement, whether less than five years have passed, who sent the request, and whether the proposed agreement appears to cover the same or substantially the same group of employees as the earlier agreement. Keep the correspondence, identify any coverage carve-outs, and respond promptly. At the same time, do not rely on delay as a strategy. A contested request can produce urgent court applications, and the Court may refuse to accelerate the matter if the urgency was avoidable or if a rushed hearing would unfairly limit document production, witness preparation or cross-examination.
Outcome: The Court granted the AWU's service-related interlocutory orders, including shortened time for service and substituted service by email, but otherwise dismissed the application for interlocutory relief. In particular, the Court refused to order an expedited hearing of the separate question. The judge held that the asserted urgency lacked substance because the unions had waited until close to the statutory deadline and were effectively seeking a rapid ruling so they could send fresh requests if they lost. The Court also accepted that there was a real risk of irremediable prejudice to CSRP if the issue were heard too quickly, because CSRP needed a fair opportunity to seek documents, inspect material and prepare cross-examination on arguable issues about the requests.
Cussen, in the matter of Monarch Tower Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Costs)
Business owners should read this as a procedural costs example rather than a case creating a new legal principle. The Court itself noted there was no issue of principle. The main lesson is that if an insolvency appeal fails, the usual position is still that costs follow the event. If security for costs has been paid, that money may be released to the successful respondent. If a liquidator is personally named as an appellant, the Court may leave personal liability in place even without making a harsher indemnity costs order. At the same time, the Court will not automatically award indemnity costs just because the respondent says the litigation was weak or badly started. The focus is on whether the appeal itself was pursued unreasonably. Before filing or defending an appeal, businesses should ask for a realistic assessment of merits, likely adverse costs, and who will actually bear that risk.
Outcome: The Court made separate costs orders for each remaining appeal. In VID 749, the appellants were ordered to pay Zuccubarr Pty Ltd's costs on the standard basis and the $40,000 security for costs, plus accrued interest, was ordered to be released to the respondent. In VID 751, the appellants were ordered to pay Payton Capital Ltd's costs on the standard basis. In VID 752, the Court rejected Timswee Pty Ltd's application for indemnity costs, but ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis and said there was no reason the liquidator should be absolved from personal liability as the first named appellant. In VID 753, because no submissions were made by either side, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Dang, in the matter of JMJ Cosmetic Pty Ltd v Mansfield (Liquidator) [2026] FCA 5
If your company has already been wound up, do not assume you can keep acting as director for litigation purposes. This case shows that the Court may require approval before you cause the company to challenge the winding-up decision, and that approval may come with conditions. The safest course is to seek approval before the company files the review, not afterwards. You should also calculate the review deadline straight away and be ready to ask for an extension if time is about to expire. If you also want a stay of the winding-up order or want to argue the company is solvent, you will need proper evidence and should expect opposition from the liquidator or creditors. The Court may allow the challenge to proceed, but it can require you personally to protect the company against costs.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the urgent procedural relief in substance. Cheeseman J joined the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation as a third defendant, allowed the application to proceed urgently, extended by 7 days the time to institute a review of the Registrar's winding-up decision, and granted approval under s 198G(3)(b) for Ms Dang to commence and proceed with that review on behalf of JMJ Cosmetic. The approval was expressly conditional on Ms Dang indemnifying JMJ Cosmetic for all costs it might incur or be ordered to pay in relation to the review application. The Court did not determine the substantive review and did not decide the requested stay. It also did not finally resolve the conflicting authorities on retrospective approval because that was unnecessary on the way the application had been framed.
Davis v M.G. O'Brien Investments Pty Ltd, in the matter of Davis
Treat a bankruptcy notice as an immediate enforcement event, not as something that will wait while related disputes continue in the background. In this case, the debtors had a pending application to set aside the notice and had already secured an earlier extension, but that did not persuade the Court to grant more time when they returned with weak evidence and a late procedural shift. If you want an extension or adjournment, be ready with the actual documents, a clear explanation for any delay, and evidence showing the next step is real and imminent. The Court was not prepared to act on general statements that an appeal was being prepared. The case also highlights a technical issue about whether the Bankruptcy Act may automatically extend time in some set-off cases, so businesses should get advice on both the statutory position and any existing court orders before assuming a deadline has passed or been preserved.
Outcome: The Federal Court refused the applicants' urgent adjournment application and dismissed their interim application. Collier J held that the request for more time was not supported by credible evidence. There was no notice of appeal against Kelly J's decision in evidence, not even in draft, and the affidavit material did not adequately establish either that an appeal would actually be filed or that it had sufficient merit to justify delaying the bankruptcy notice process. The Court also found no substantial explanation for the delay in preparing an appeal, took into account the applicants' repeated lack of success in earlier proceedings, and considered that the respondents should be entitled to the fruits of their multiple judgments. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interim application.
Dayforce Australia Pty Ltd, in the matter of Dayforce Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 409
The main commercial lesson is that a deed of cross-guarantee arrangement should be treated as an ongoing compliance system, not a one-off corporate housekeeping task. In this case, the Court accepted that the failures were procedural, honest and not prejudicial to outsiders, and that the group had taken remedial steps after the issues were found. That helped the application succeed. But the group still had to investigate years of records, identify which entities were affected, notify ASIC and seek court orders validating documents, extending time and relieving companies and officers from civil liability. A business with subsidiaries should keep a current entity map, check which companies are actually party to each deed, track ASIC certificates and lodgements, confirm required board resolutions and solvency statements are made on time, and review the arrangement whenever there is an acquisition, restructure, deregistration or financial year change.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted relief substantially in the form sought. It declared that the 2019 assumption deed, the 2021 and 2022 revocation deeds, the 2021 and 2022 deeds of cross-guarantee, and a certificate lodged in respect of the 2022 deed were not invalid because of the identified non-compliance with ASIC pro formas or ASIC Corporations (Wholly-owned Companies) Instrument 2016/785. It also extended time for certain directors' resolutions and solvency-related statements to be made, and relieved the relevant companies and their current and former directors, officers and, for some failures, secretaries from civil liability. The Court found the defects were essentially procedural, arose from inadvertence and oversight rather than dishonesty, caused no substantial injustice to third parties, and were met with remedial steps after discovery. ASIC had been served and did not oppose the application.
DC Rd DC Pty Ltd v Zhang (Trial Judgment) [2026] FCA 16
If your business is buying a property, development site or investment opportunity through people you already know, do not let trust replace verification. Before exchange or settlement, confirm the original vendor, the immediate seller, every entity in the acquisition chain and whether anyone in the middle is taking a margin. Ask in writing whether any introducer, accountant or adviser also acts for another party in the deal or has a direct or indirect financial interest in it. If the opportunity is being sold on development potential, value or urgency, obtain independent legal, accounting and valuation advice rather than relying on relationship history or informal assurances. This case also shows that once money moves through related entities, bank accounts and later property purchases, the dispute may no longer be just about compensation. Courts may be asked to trace funds and impose constructive trust or equitable charge remedies over later assets. Early due diligence and clear written disclosure are far cheaper than trying to unwind a hidden structure after settlement.
Outcome: The applicants achieved a substantial result. The Court ordered ACL damages against Tony of $36,866,947.94 plus interest, equitable compensation against Bob in the same amount plus compound interest, and ACL damages against Bob and CATA in the same amount plus interest. It also made multiple account orders against related entities and granted constructive trust and equitable charge relief over identified properties and funds, including the Belrose Property, Turramurra Property, Herbert Street Property, Saiala Property and Clarence Street assets. John was also ordered to pay ACL damages of $5,530,042.19 plus interest and to account for $150,000 plus interest. Further hearings were listed to deal with mortgagees, a caveator and possible sale-related relief.
Deakin University v Macreadie [2026] FCA 481
If your business allows a key person to build a branded team, service line, studio, lab or product identity, document ownership early and manage the assets centrally. This case shows that courts can look past personal attachment to a brand and ask harder commercial questions: who employed the team, who contracted with clients, who paid for development, who controlled operations, and whose business reputation the market was dealing with. A person may honestly believe the brand is theirs and still lose on ownership. Businesses should make sure employment and contractor agreements deal clearly with intellectual property and branding, keep domain names and social handles under the correct entity, ensure trade mark applications are filed in the right owner’s name, and run a careful exit process when a senior person leaves. If there is already tension about who owns a brand, act before a resignation or trade mark filing turns it into litigation.
Outcome: On the published extract, Deakin succeeded on the main ownership and Australian Consumer Law issues. The court held that Deakin was the owner of the goodwill of the Blue Carbon Lab and that Professor Macreadie’s use of the name and marks as an employee for commercial endeavours was Deakin’s use. The applications for injunctions were granted. Deakin also succeeded in rectifying the Trade Marks Register on ownership grounds, with the extract stating that Blue Carbon Lab Pty Ltd was not the owner of the logo trade mark and that Deakin was the first user of the logo as a trade mark. However, Deakin did not succeed on bad faith. The judge found Professor Macreadie subjectively believed he owned the rights to the logo mark, and that a mistaken belief about ownership did not, without more, amount to bad faith. The exact form of final orders was still to be settled after the reasons date.
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Howell, in the matter of Castel Electronics Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 266
Do not treat indemnity clauses, novation deeds, or group-company liability allocations as back-office paperwork. This case shows that once a claim is settled, the next and more expensive fight may be over reimbursement. If your documents shift an indemnity from one entity to another, the Court may enforce that shift and order repayment of the settlement sum with interest. It may also punish unreasonable resistance through indemnity costs, especially where a party maintains weak positions or rejects sensible Calderbank offers. For business owners, the practical steps are to make sure indemnities are clearly allocated, novations are properly documented, and correspondence about who bears risk is consistent with the legal documents. If there is a real dispute, get advice early before locking into a position that could later be described as unmeritorious or unreasonable.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared that Thorn Australia, and not 1stCash, was the indemnifying party under the Deed of Indemnity dated 25 January 2018. It declared that Thorn Australia was liable to indemnify the receivers for their defence costs in the plaintiff's claim, the $900,000 settlement sum, and the superannuation guarantee charge if a demand for payment were made. The Court entered judgment for the receivers against Thorn Australia for $900,000 plus $120,982.19 interest calculated to 13 March 2026. It also ordered Thorn Australia to pay the receivers' defence costs and first cross-claim costs on an indemnity basis, and to pay 1stCash's costs of both cross-claims on an indemnity basis. Costs were to be fixed by a Registrar on a lump sum basis.
Deppeler, in the matter of Clearwater Logging & Transport Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] FCA 576
Read this case as a reminder that insolvency outcomes often turn on how claims are characterised and administered. The court did not decide whether the employee claims were valid, how much they were worth, or whether they ultimately had priority. It decided a narrower procedural question: whether a creditor affected by the proposed approach should be heard, and whether its reasonable costs should be met from the company’s assets. The answer was yes, but only in a controlled way. The creditor identified limited issues, said it would not turn the matter into broad adversarial litigation, and accepted a costs cap. The liquidators were also given protections, including liberty to object to costs outside scope or not reasonably incurred, and liberty to seek recall if circumstances changed. For business owners, the practical message is to keep payroll, overtime and loan records in order, and to get advice early if employee claims and creditor priorities may collide in an insolvency.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the trust leave to be heard at the hearing of the liquidators' application and ordered that the trust be indemnified from the company's assets for its reasonable legal costs, capped at $67,850 including GST. O'Callaghan J held that the costs order was appropriate in the particular circumstances because the trust had confined the issues on which it sought to be heard, only sought indemnity for submissions on those issues, and had indicated it would not treat the matter as broad adversarial litigation. The order also included safeguards. The liquidators had liberty to apply, including to object if claimed costs fell outside the defined scope or were not reasonably incurred, and to seek recall if circumstances later changed. The judgment did not determine the substantive employee claims, their final quantification, or their ultimate priority status.
Dhu v Karlka Nyiyaparli Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (No 2)
Business owners should read this as a case about litigation strategy and evidence management, not as a general rule that hearings will be moved out of courtrooms. The Court approved a very limited proposal: one day of a five-day trial, at a specific location on Nyiyaparli country, for identified witnesses, with cultural reasons and a practical plan behind it. That narrowness mattered. If your organisation is in a dispute involving cultural issues, remote witnesses or a site-specific context, think early about whether the place where evidence is given could materially affect the case. If you want a special arrangement, explain exactly why it is needed, who it applies to, how it will work and why it will remain fair. If you oppose it, put on evidence about actual cost, travel difficulty, intimidation, witness problems or other prejudice. The Court will weigh practical fairness, not just labels or assumptions.
Outcome: The Court allowed the respondent's interlocutory application. It ordered that the evidence of Leonard Stream, Cate Ballantyne and Keith Hall be heard on-country in the Nyiyaparli determination area at Yurlu on Wednesday, 2 September 2026. Lenehan J found there were sound cultural and customary reasons for hearing the evidence of Mr Stream and Mr Hall on-country, and that hearing Ms Ballantyne's evidence at the same time was sensible for convenience and efficiency. Although the applicants' fairness concerns were acknowledged, especially given they were self-represented, the Court concluded that the proposal was limited, practical and did not cause undue prejudice. Costs of the interlocutory application were reserved.
Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v White Ray (Oakleigh) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 497
The main lesson is that public pricing must line up with genuine internal expectations. In this case, the agency admitted that for nine properties it advertised indicative prices below both what it expected the properties would sell for and what they actually sold for. The Court also accepted that the conduct was deliberate. That combination was central to penalty. The judgment is also a reminder that weak systems are not a shield. The agency accepted that it lacked adequate compliance systems at the time. Although later remedial action and cooperation helped the Court assess penalty, they did not remove the need for a large sanction. Business owners should make sure advertising, internal forecasts, client instructions and staff communications are consistent, documented and reviewed before prices go public.
Outcome: The Federal Court accepted the jointly proposed outcome and imposed pecuniary penalties totalling $600,000 on White Ray (Oakleigh) Pty Ltd. Justice Snaden accepted that the agency had contravened section 30(1)(c) of the Australian Consumer Law on nine occasions, one for each of the nine properties, and also accepted the agreed position that the same conduct contravened section 18. The Court ordered $300,000 to be paid within 15 days and the remaining $300,000 within six months, with no order as to costs. In endorsing the penalty, the Court took into account the nature and extent of the conduct, the presumed harm, the profit made, the agency's size and financial position, the deliberate nature of the conduct, its inadequate systems at the time, its remedial steps, its cooperation, and its status as a first-time contravener.
Diversified United Investment Limited, in the matter of Diversified United Investment Limited [2026] FCA 371
If your company is using a scheme of arrangement, the first court hearing is mainly about process and disclosure, not a full merits review. You need a transaction structure that can be explained clearly, evidence that ASIC had the required notice and review opportunity, a scheme booklet that covers the effect of the deal and director interests, and practical meeting arrangements that work. This case also shows the importance of conflict management. Where boards, major shareholders or related entities overlap, an independent committee and careful disclosure may be essential. Business owners should also read this case with one important limit in mind: these reasons deal with the convening stage only. They do not confirm whether shareholders later approved the scheme, whether the court approved it at the second hearing, or whether the transaction was ultimately implemented.
Outcome: The court made the orders sought and convened the scheme meeting. Justice Derrington held that the relevant statutory prerequisites had been satisfied and that it was appropriate to exercise the court's discretion in favour of allowing shareholders to consider the proposal. The orders dealt with the mechanics of the meeting, including timing, hybrid attendance, dispatch of materials, voting by poll, voting eligibility, proxy deadlines and the date for the further hearing. AUI was granted leave to be heard as an interested person without becoming a party. The reasons also record the court's acceptance that the scheme booklet and independent expert report were sufficiently clear and comprehensive for shareholder consideration at this stage. The reasons do not confirm the later shareholder vote, second-hearing result or final implementation.
Dixon (Administrator), in the matter of Demolition Co Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed)
If your company enters voluntary administration and there is still a realistic restructuring path, extra time may be available, but only on evidence. An administrator will need to show more than hope. The court will want to see a concrete reason for the extension, such as time needed to assess a possible DOCA, preserve goodwill through limited trading, or test a going-concern sale. It will also matter whether the extension is short, whether operating costs can be covered during the extra period, and whether creditors are being kept informed. This case also shows how much value can depend on one person in an owner-managed business. Here, the director's licences, expertise and assistance were part of the reason the administrator said the business could keep operating and preserve value. If your business depends heavily on one person's qualifications or relationships, that can affect both the risk of insolvency and the options available in administration.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the administrator's application. It extended the convening period for the second meeting of creditors to midnight on 23 March 2026 and made a section 447A order allowing the meeting to be convened at any time before, or within five business days after, the end of that extended period, subject to the notice requirements in the Insolvency Practice Rules. The court accepted that the business could continue operating as a going concern for the short period, that more time was needed to explore a possible DOCA, and that the extension was modest and would not unduly prejudice creditors because there were sufficient funds to cover operating expenses. No creditor appeared to oppose the application, although the court noted that notice had been short and addressed that by requiring the orders to be sent to ASIC and all creditors and by granting liberty to apply.
Domino v Allen (Liquidator), in the matter of Domino
If a court has made a costs order against you personally, treat it as an urgent debt enforcement issue, not just another step in the underlying dispute. This decision shows that courts will look at what orders actually exist, whether any stay has actually been granted, and whether there has been delay in seeking relief. A pending application for a stay or leave to appeal may buy time only if it succeeds or if the court grants an extension on that basis. Here, once the stay and leave applications were dismissed, the challenge to the bankruptcy notice effectively collapsed. For directors and founders, the key point is to separate company exposure from personal exposure. If you are sued, ordered to pay costs, or named in enforcement documents in your own name, you need immediate advice on deadlines, evidence, and whether any protective orders are already in place.
Outcome: The appeal was dismissed. McEvoy J held that once Richards JA dismissed the appellant's stay application and application for leave to appeal on 20 April 2026, the entire premise of her application to set aside the bankruptcy notice or extend time had fallen away. Even if there had been a procedural fairness problem before the primary judge, it made no difference because the application was now without foundation. The court also refused leave to rely on further affidavit material seeking to raise broader disputes with the liquidators. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' appeal costs, including reserved costs, fixed at $7,254.00. The underlying Supreme Court costs order that had led to the bankruptcy notice was $17,480.
Doyle v Cooper as Liquidator of NQ Minerals PLC (in liq), in the matter of Doyle (No 2) [2026] FCA 117
The practical message is not to treat foreign proceedings, address details or internal approvals as minor administration. Here, the underlying claim concerned an alleged director loan and director remuneration said to lack approval documents. After a default judgment was entered in England and Wales, the liquidators registered it in Queensland and moved into Australian bankruptcy enforcement. Mr Doyle challenged the bankruptcy notice, including on service grounds, but the Federal Court dismissed his application. For business owners, the risk point is clear. If you keep using an Australian mailing address in formal documents, licences or court materials, a court may treat it as your last known address for service. If your business spans jurisdictions, keep director remuneration approvals, loan records and address details current and defensible, and respond early to overseas claims before they harden into enforceable judgments.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Mr Doyle's application, refused the interim and final relief he sought, and ordered him to pay the respondents' costs. On the reasons available, Justice Collier held that the registered UK judgment was a final judgment for the relevant bankruptcy purpose, that the Queensland rules did not require personal service of the notice of registration, and that service by post to the Condon address was valid and lawful because it was Mr Doyle's last known place of business or residence for the purpose of the rules. The court also accepted that only one valid method of service was needed. The full reasoning on every remaining issue is not visible in the available text.
DP World Sydney Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
The main lesson for business owners is to draft workplace process clauses as operating instructions, not slogans. If an enterprise agreement or similar instrument is meant to involve the employer, a union, employees directly, an employee committee, or some combination of them, say that expressly at each critical step. Identify who gets notified, who receives supporting information, who joins discussions, who seeks agreement, who may refer issues onward, who nominates panel members, and who agrees the presiding member. This case also shows the value of checking how one clause interacts with the rest of the process. Here, the court treated the information-sharing step as a strong clue to who the relevant parties were for later discussions and panel formation. Before launching automation or another major operational change, review the whole pathway against your project timetable. A procedural ambiguity can delay the project, increase industrial tension and force court proceedings about process rather than substance.
Outcome: DP World succeeded. Shariff J made declarations that clause 2 of Appendix 4 in each of the four enterprise agreements provided for an Independent Panel of three members consisting of one member nominated by the relevant DP World entity, one member nominated by the union, and one presiding panel head agreed between the relevant applicant and the union. The court rejected the competing construction that employees at each terminal were also a separate collective “party” entitled to nominate one member to the three-member panel. The decision resolved the immediate dispute that had been holding up empanelment of the panel under the automation process in the agreements.
DRA Global Limited v Naude
The safest way to read this case is as a warning about process, not as proof that wrongdoing occurred. The Court expressly said its factual overview was based on allegations because no defence had yet been filed. Even so, the allegations were detailed enough, and the issues complex enough, that most of the proceeding was allowed to continue. Businesses should take that seriously. If a director or executive may benefit from a share issue, funding arrangement, restructure or release of security, the board process needs to be carefully documented. Shareholder materials should accurately describe the real purpose and effect of the transaction. If the group operates across jurisdictions, local company law rules about financial assistance, conflicts, approvals and limitation periods may become central later. A business should also remember that fixing a defective pleading is often possible, so a narrow procedural win may not remove the underlying commercial dispute.
Outcome: Jackson J largely allowed the proceeding to continue. The Court refused summary judgment in favour of the fifth respondent and refused partial summary judgment based on the alleged South African time bars. It also declined to strike out the substituted statement of claim in full, holding that the cross-referencing was not inappropriate given the factual complexity and that the respondents were properly apprised of the case. However, the Court struck out paragraphs 9.3, 10, 42, 54.3, 143, 149, 153, 156.2 and 167.2.3 with leave to replead, and struck out all references to the fifth respondent in paragraphs 161, 163, 167 including the particulars, 168 and 177 to 179, also with leave to replead. The applicants were ordered to provide particulars of paragraph 95.1 and clarify paragraph 180. Costs were reserved and the matter was listed for case management.
Eaton v DePuy International Ltd
If your business uses an independent expert, barrister, assessor or review panel to decide claims, do not assume the process is immune from fairness requirements just because it is contractual and designed to be efficient. This case shows that where a private decision-maker determines a point that materially affects compensation, the parties may need a real opportunity to provide further evidence and submissions on that point. It also shows that the label attached to the decision-maker matters less than the function they are performing. A process that looks like an expert assessment in form may still attract stricter fairness expectations when it decides disputed rights under a settlement framework. In practice, businesses should draft these clauses carefully, define the scope of each referral, record any agreement on category or issues in writing, and include a clear mechanism for supplementary submissions if a new or different issue emerges during the determination.
Outcome: The Full Court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the primary judge’s orders. It declared that Independent Counsel made an error of law by not giving Mr Eaton the opportunity to tender further evidence or make submissions on whether, contrary to the parties’ agreement, he fell within cl 3.1(d)(iii) of the Compensation Protocol. It also declared that Independent Counsel erred in determining the category applicable to Mr Eaton without giving him that opportunity. The 5 October 2023 determination was set aside, and Mr Eaton’s claim for non-economic loss and gratuitous care was referred to a different Independent Counsel for determination according to law. The respondents were ordered to pay costs.
Excel Texel Pty Ltd v Wilson (No 2)
Businesses should read this case as a governance and records case as much as a class action case. The underlying allegations concerned market statements, continuous disclosure and asset values in financial statements. The later fight concerned who had funded overlapping claims, what legal costs were properly recoverable, and whether a proposed funding commission was too high. That means businesses should keep clear records of the factual basis for public statements, forecasts and valuation assumptions, and should make sure approval pathways for high-stakes external communications are disciplined and documented. If major litigation starts, businesses should also map insurance, overlapping claims, settlement structure and cost allocation early. Those issues can shape settlement leverage and the final amount actually reaching claimants.
Outcome: On the available reasons, the Court indicated that there was ultimately little dispute that the Excel Texel settlement itself was fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members, with the contradictor effectively supporting approval. The more contested questions concerned distribution of the settlement fund, including the proper allowance for legal costs and disbursements, the reasonableness of the funding commission sought by Ironbark, and whether LCM as funder in the Davis proceeding had any entitlement to share in the settlement proceeds because of the way overlapping claims had been run. The Court's orders required the parties and interveners to confer and propose orders to give effect to the judgment, and invited any final non-publication applications. Because the available text is incomplete, the exact final distribution outcomes should be confirmed from the complete judgment and operative orders.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Costs) [2026] FCA 126
If your business is defending a Fair Work claim, do not assume that beating the claim will automatically lead to a costs order. This case shows that section 570 creates a narrow path to costs, and the Court will be slow to find that the other side acted unreasonably. A late offer made just before trial, with only a short response window, may carry less weight than an earlier and more fully explained offer. The Court also made clear that the Fair Work Ombudsman’s model litigant obligations do not change the statutory test for costs under section 570. In practice, businesses should make settlement offers early enough to be properly assessed, explain the legal and factual weaknesses they rely on, and keep realistic expectations about recovering legal spend in workplace litigation.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the union’s application for costs. Justice Dowling held that, in all the circumstances, the Ombudsman’s rejection of the settlement offer was not unreasonable for the purposes of section 570(2)(b). The offer was made late, only six days before trial, and gave the Ombudsman only a short period to consider it. Although the union later succeeded in defeating the claims against it, the Court was not satisfied that the Ombudsman’s case against the union was clearly hopeless at the time of the offer. The Court also held that the Ombudsman’s model litigant obligations did not alter the approach or standard to be applied under section 570.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Gill (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Penalty)
Business owners should read this case as a warning about how workplace threats are assessed when they occur in an industrial context. The Court did not treat the incident as mere heated language. It looked closely at the exact words, the purpose behind them, the surrounding crowd behaviour, the time and place, the distress caused, and the need to deter similar conduct by others. The case also shows that one act can engage multiple Fair Work Act provisions at once, even though the Court may impose only one pecuniary penalty for that same conduct. If your business is dealing with picketing, bargaining pressure or conflict between workers over industrial action, respond early and methodically. Preserve CCTV and access records, obtain witness accounts promptly, support the affected worker, and assess both workplace safety and Fair Work Act risk. Do not assume that because the conduct came from an individual rather than the employer, the legal consequences are minor or purely internal.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Mr Jason Gill to pay a pecuniary penalty of $9,324 for his contravention of s 348 of the Fair Work Act, with payment to the Commonwealth within 28 days. The Court held that the same conduct had also contravened ss 343 and 346, but s 556 prevented multiple pecuniary penalties for that same conduct, so only one penalty was imposed. In setting the amount, the Court gave particular weight to the seriousness of the threat, the intimidatory environment in which it was made, the significant distress caused to Mr Copperthwaite, and the need for both specific and general deterrence. Although Mr Gill had no prior industrial law contraventions and there had been no recurrence, the Court still considered a high-end penalty appropriate.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Jats Joint Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 25
If your business uses SCHADS sleepovers, do not assume that a sleepover automatically converts the surrounding roster into a night shift. In this case, the Court preferred an interpretation that treated the sleepover period as distinct from ordinary work, with its own allowance and separate overtime treatment if work is actually performed during the sleepover. The safest operational approach is to keep rosters and payroll records very clear about three separate things: ordinary hours worked before the sleepover, the sleepover period itself, and any work actually done during that overnight period. You should also check whether your payroll system is incorrectly treating all sleepover-adjacent shifts as night shifts, or incorrectly treating sleepover time as ordinary worked time. Because the judgment turned on detailed award wording, businesses should compare their current practices against the current SCHADS Award and get advice on unusual roster patterns.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the better construction of the SCHADS Award was that a sleepover is distinct from work and is not automatically part of a shift for the purpose argued by the Fair Work Ombudsman. The Court relied on the Award’s text, including the separate sleepover allowance, the separate overtime provision for work performed during a sleepover, and the wording of the clauses dealing with work immediately before and or after a sleepover and breaks between rostered work. It also held that the clause stating shifts are to be worked in one continuous block of hours that may include meal breaks and sleepover did not mean a sleepover must always be treated as part of a shift for all purposes. As a result, Ms Richards was not entitled to the 15% night shift loading for the shifts worked immediately before and or after the sleepover in the circumstances before the Court.
Fair Work Ombudsman v New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd (Appeal) [2026] FCA 415
If your business receives a Fair Work compliance notice, treat it as an urgent legal and payroll event. This case shows that failing to comply may expose the business to more than penalties. On the published reasons, the Federal Court held that compensation-style relief under s 545(1) was available in the circumstances because the employee’s loss was linked both to the original underpayments and to the later failure to comply with the notice. The notice in this matter required more than payment. It also required calculations, superannuation action, records and proof of compliance. Businesses should therefore read every notice carefully, identify each required step, preserve payroll records, calculate any shortfall promptly, and get advice quickly if the notice is disputed or unclear. Directors should assume their own conduct may be examined where they knew about the notice and chose not to act. The final entered orders should still be checked before relying on the exact form of relief.
Outcome: On the published reasons, the appeal succeeded on the main point. Wheelahan J granted leave to appeal to the extent necessary and held that the primary judge erred in concluding the court lacked power to make the compensation orders sought by the Fair Work Ombudsman. The Court stated that the contraventions of the applicable Award and National Employment Standards, together with the later failure to comply with the compliance notice, were concurrent causes of the employee's loss, and that had the employer taken the action specified in the notice the employee would have been paid the specified amounts. The reasons say the Fair Work Ombudsman was entitled to relief substantially in the terms sought. However, the published orders also directed the appellant to provide a minute of proposed orders by 17 April 2026, so the final entered orders should be checked for the exact operative relief.
Fair Work Ombudsman v New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd (Extension of Time) [2026] FCA 390
Treat appeal deadlines as a combined filing-and-service task. In this case, the notice of appeal was lodged within 28 days, but the respondents were not personally served until later because they had not appeared in the earlier proceeding and therefore had no address for service in that proceeding. The Court granted an extension because the delay was short, the respondents had fair notice of the appeal and hearing date, the explanation for delay was accepted, and no likely prejudice was shown. A business should not assume the Court will always rescue a missed step. If you are appealing, check early whether personal service is required and organise it immediately. If you are a respondent, keep your registered office details current, monitor mail, and act quickly on any appeal documents because the matter may proceed even if service was initially late.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted an extension of time for service of the notice of appeal to 20 November 2025 nunc pro tunc. That retrospectively regularised the late personal service. The Court dismissed the earlier interlocutory application filed on 10 February 2026, which had sought other service-related orders, and reserved the costs of both interlocutory applications to the hearing of the appeal. The appeal itself was not determined in this judgment and remained fixed for hearing on 10 April 2026. The Court's reasons centred on the short delay, the accepted explanation for it, the respondents' fair notice of the appeal and hearing date, their failure to oppose the application, and the absence of likely prejudice if time were extended.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Super Retail Group Limited (Listing of trial) [2026] FCA 54
Read this case as a warning about court timetable risk, not as a ruling on payroll compliance merits. If your business is defending an underpayment claim, the Court may push the matter to hearing once it sees that the case can be made ready, even if your long-standing Senior Counsel cannot appear on the available dates. The Court accepted that changing counsel can cause inconvenience and extra cost, but that was not enough here to justify a much later hearing. The practical response is to plan for contingencies. Keep pleadings and evidence moving. Identify who in the business will give instructions and evidence. Make sure payroll records and award interpretation material are organised. Ask your lawyers early whether backup counsel may be needed. If the dispute concerns older conduct, assume the Court may place real weight on getting the matter heard rather than preserving a party’s preferred legal team. This is especially relevant where a regulator is involved and the Court has available hearing dates.
Outcome: Shariff J ordered that the proceedings be listed for final hearing on the agreed separate questions from 7 to 18 December 2026. The Court held that although Super Retail Group had a legitimate interest in being represented by its chosen Senior Counsel, that interest was not determinative. The judge considered that the matter could have been listed even earlier, in July 2026, but selected December 2026 to give Super Retail Group more time to brief alternative counsel if needed. Because the alleged underpayments related mainly to 2017 to 2019 and the Court was available to hear the matter, further delay into 2027 was not accepted.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Torrens University Australia Limited [2026] FCAFC 17
Business owners should read this case as a warning against broad, operationally convenient interpretations of award pay categories. The fact that tasks are linked in practice does not mean they are paid under the same award rate. The Court focused on the text, structure and safety-net purpose of the award, not on how one employer organised teaching work. If your staff perform a mix of duties, such as delivery, preparation, marking, consultation or administration, you need to map each duty against the actual award categories and check whether the instrument treats them as separately payable. This is especially important where a rate is described as composite or all-inclusive. If a Fair Work compliance notice is issued, the dispute may turn almost entirely on award construction. Early legal review of the instrument, the payroll assumptions behind it, and the actual work performed is critical before deciding how to respond.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed the Fair Work Ombudsman's appeal. It set aside the declarations and orders made at first instance on 16 June 2025 and ordered, under s 717(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), that the compliance notice issued to Torrens University Australia Limited on 19 March 2024 be confirmed. The Court held that the primary judge's construction gave insufficient weight to the award's text and structure, especially the existence of a separate stand-alone marking rate. On the proper construction, the lecturing rate compensates for one hour of lecture delivery plus a limited body of associated work, while ordinary marking of assessment tasks is generally separately remunerated under the marking rate. The fact that the academic also lectured in the subject did not change the character of the marking work.
Filippini v Keystone Asset Management Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2026] FCAFC 71
If you hold business or family assets through discretionary trusts, this case is a reminder that courts dealing with freezing orders will examine substance as well as form. Legal ownership by a trustee does not automatically end the inquiry. The Court accepted that third-party freezing orders are not confined only to assets beneficially owned by the alleged debtor, and it rejected the argument that there must always be a proven post-judgment enforcement pathway before trust assets can be frozen. What mattered here was the combination of trust powers and evidence of real-world control. For business owners, that means trust structures should be run carefully: trustees should genuinely act as trustees, instructions should be clear, records should show who made decisions, and trust assets should not be treated as a personal pool. If litigation is on foot, get advice before moving or dealing with trust-held assets.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court granted leave to appeal because the case raised questions of wider importance about freezing orders and discretionary trusts, but it dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the appellants' arguments misconstrued rule 7.35 and sought unduly to constrain the Court's broader power under section 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act. On the unchallenged findings about Mr Filippini's powers and practical control over the trusts, the freezing orders could extend to the trust-held properties and vehicles. The appellants were ordered to pay Keystone's costs of and incidental to the leave application and the appeal.
First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd
Read this case as a warning about conduct during a payment dispute, not just the original deal. The Court was influenced by the overall pattern: an acknowledged debt, repeated claims that payment had been sent, documents said to confirm transfers, vague references to compliance issues, later claims that repayment would happen in cash, and then an attempt to reduce the amount payable through a discharge document. That combination was enough, on a preliminary basis, to justify freezing orders. For businesses, the safest approach is to keep repayment communications accurate, consistent and verifiable. Do not send payment confirmations unless they are genuine and complete. Do not overstate your access to funds. If there is a real dispute about the amount owing, raise it clearly and early rather than after repeated promises of payment. If you are trying to recover money and the other side's story keeps changing, preserve the documents and get advice quickly. Delay does not always defeat urgent relief, but the Court may criticise it and require an explanation.
Outcome: The Court granted the freezing orders against Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd, Paragon Finance Group Pty Ltd and Mr Alande Mustafa Safi, subject to the applicant's undertaking as to damages. It also made procedural orders allowing filing, abridging time for service and permitting service by specified phone numbers and email addresses. Shariff J held that, on the untested evidence then before the Court, the applicant had shown a sufficient likelihood of success on a contractual claim against Global Future Holdings and a reasonably arguable misleading and deceptive conduct case against all respondents. The Court also found a real danger that a prospective judgment could go wholly or partly unsatisfied because the surrounding circumstances were highly suspicious, irregular and unusual. Although the Court criticised the applicant's delay, it concluded that the interests of justice favoured preserving the status quo.
First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (ex parte Third Party Freezing Order)
Treat money received under a contract consistently with the purpose stated in that contract, and make sure your records can prove it. If funds are meant to be invested, held, repaid or applied in a particular way, unexplained transfers to family members or other associates can become central evidence in an urgent freezing order application. This case also shows that a freezing order is an interim protective measure, not a final finding that wrongdoing is proved. Even so, the commercial consequences can be serious and immediate. Keep business and personal spending separate, document any related-party transfers before they happen, respond carefully to repayment demands, and get urgent legal advice if subpoenas are issued or if there is any suggestion that assets may be frozen.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the third party freezing orders sought against Ms Najmia Safi. Shariff J was satisfied, at this interlocutory ex parte stage, that the applicant had a good arguable case in the substantive proceeding and that the evidence showed a real risk that a prospective judgment would be wholly unsatisfied. The Court considered the bank records to be concerning because they suggested that money paid under the Investment Agreement had been transferred from Global Future Holdings to Ms Safi and used for personal expenses. The Court held that rule 7.35(5)(b) was engaged because a process such as section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) might ultimately be available to require disgorgement or contribution. The orders were limited to the specified sum and made until further order.
First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (Freezing Orders)
Read this case as a warning about both deal design and litigation conduct. The court did not finally decide whether the investment arrangement was misleading or deceptive, but it did accept there was a good arguable case at least on the contract claim against Global Future and made freezing orders until further order. If your business offers investment returns, make sure the promised returns, timing, project purpose and payment mechanics are commercially supportable and accurately documented. Keep records of who said what, who signed, where funds were sent and why. If proceedings begin, treat every court order as urgent. Asset disclosure orders, affidavit formalities and filing deadlines are not technical side issues. The judgment expressly notes that failure to provide asset disclosure can expose parties to contempt applications. A business trying to resist freezing orders needs prompt, properly sworn evidence and a credible explanation of its asset position.
Outcome: Cheeseman J made freezing orders against Global Future, Paragon and Mr Safi until further order, subject to the applicant giving the usual undertaking as to damages and providing security in support of that undertaking. The court gave leave to apply on three business days' notice about the amount of that security, ordered the respondents to pay $3,500 for the 9 January 2026 hearing, and otherwise made costs costs in the cause. The earlier ex parte orders made on 5 January 2026, as amended on 9 January 2026, were discharged upon entry of the new orders. The extract shows the court was satisfied that First Class had established a good arguable case for final relief, at least including the contract claim against Global Future, but it does not provide the full reasoning on all issues because the published extract is truncated.
First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business needs extra time in court, do not treat the explanation as a casual administrative step. Treat it as evidence that may be tested. In this case, the respondents said they wanted to defend serious claims but could not properly do so until a proposed funding arrangement settled. The court held that the applicant could seek documents going to whether that explanation was true, whether the funding was likely to become available, what had actually been done to retain senior counsel, and what funds were already held by the respondents or their solicitor. The practical lesson is not that businesses should avoid legitimate extension applications. It is that they should avoid unsupported ones. Before relying on funding delays, unpaid invoices, trust shortages or future capital injections, make sure the underlying documents exist and align with the affidavit evidence. If they do not, the procedural application itself can become a credibility contest with costs consequences.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the respondents' application to set aside the notice to produce and ordered them to pay the applicant's costs of that application. Goodman J held that the issues in the proceeding were not confined to the pleaded substantive claims. They also included the issues arising on the extension-of-time application, including the veracity of the reasons put forward for a further extension. The documents sought were clearly relevant to whether funds from Pario were likely to be available, what steps had been taken to retain senior counsel, and what funds were held by the respondents and their solicitor. The court also held that Dr Norman's evidence that the proposed facility was genuine did not prevent the applicant from seeking documents to evaluate that evidence.
First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3)
Read this case as a warning about litigation discipline rather than a ruling on commercial rights. The Court gave the respondents one more short extension, but only as an indulgence and not for the longer period they wanted. The reasons make clear that unexplained delay is dangerous. If your business cannot meet a defence deadline, act early, apply promptly, and support the application with direct evidence from the right people. Explain what work has been done, what remains outstanding, why the earlier dates were missed, and whether funding or access to documents is genuinely preventing progress. Also make sure any witness whose affidavit you rely on is available if the Court permits cross-examination. This judgment contains no substantive findings about the underlying allegations, any contract claim, or any unfair contract terms issue. Its value for businesses lies in showing how quickly procedural non-compliance can escalate into costs exposure and the risk of default judgment.
Outcome: Goodman J granted the first to third respondents a further but limited extension of time, ordering them to file and serve their defences by 5 June 2026 rather than the 15 June 2026 date they had sought. The Court also ordered that if any of those respondents failed to file and serve a defence by 5 June 2026, the applicant would have leave to apply for default judgment. In addition, the first to third respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application filed on 11 May 2026. The judgment contains no substantive commercial findings. Its outcome is confined to case management, delay, costs and the consequences of further non-compliance.
Flinders Street Developments Pty Ltd v Bond Finance No 5 Pty Limited
Read this case as a warning about finance paperwork and litigation strategy. If your business is entering an urgent loan, refinance, variation or forbearance arrangement, check exactly how the lender's legal fees can be charged, deducted, capitalised or added to the debt. Keep the letter of offer, loan deed, variation deed, direction to pay, invoices and any trust authorities together. If the amount being charged changes, make sure the change is clearly disclosed before signing. If a dispute later arises, do not assume the court will remove the other side's lawyers just because their conduct is criticised or they may be witnesses. The court will ask whether restraint is truly necessary to protect the proper administration of justice, and that is a high bar. In most commercial disputes, the stronger path is to build the factual record around the transaction, the billing trail, and the contractual basis for the charges.
Outcome: Both applications were dismissed. In WAD 375 of 2025, the borrowers' interlocutory application filed on 26 February 2026 was dismissed and they were ordered to pay the lenders' costs of that application. In WAD 28 of 2026, Mr Lester's interlocutory application filed on 31 March 2026 was dismissed and he was ordered to pay the lenders' costs of that application. Feutrill J held that the power to restrain legal practitioners is exceptional, must be exercised cautiously, and was not shown to be necessary on the pleaded issues and circumstances before the Court to protect the proper administration of justice.
Forever Winner International Development Australia Pty Ltd v Shenzhen Xinhe Hongshi Investment and Consultancy Co Ltd [2026] FCA 167
Businesses should read this case as a governance and evidence warning. A freezing order is not limited to the company being sued. If there is a recognised legal pathway by which a creditor could later reach assets held by a related company, and there is a real risk the money may disappear first, the Court may freeze those assets now. Here, the Court was influenced by the combination of a large foreign judgment debt, a related Australian company holding sale proceeds, financial records showing a loan payable on demand, and a history of transfers that appeared difficult to explain commercially. The safest approach is to keep related-party loans properly documented, ensure accounts and affidavits are consistent, record consideration and reasons for restructures, and get advice before moving funds after a major asset sale when litigation or enforcement is already underway.
Outcome: Beach J dismissed FWIDA’s application for leave to appeal and ordered FWIDA to pay Shenzhen’s costs of the leave application. His Honour held that FWIDA had not shown sufficient doubt about Stewart J’s freezing-order decision and had not shown real prejudice or substantial injustice if leave were refused. The Court accepted that the freezing-order regime can apply to a third party such as FWIDA where the applicant identifies a recognised future court process, such as garnishee relief or recovery by a liquidator, and where the circumstances support concern that enforcement may otherwise be frustrated. On the evidence, including the recorded related-party debt, the recent sale of FWIDA’s main asset and the history of related-party transfers, the freezing order was allowed to stand.
Forrest v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
The clearest takeaway is that confidential deal information needs to be treated as a controlled risk, not just a sensitive file. In this case, the Court’s account involved a sophisticated market participant, a signed confidentiality arrangement, access to a private office, photographs of a pitch deck, repeated share purchases, encouragement of others to buy, and communications said to form part of a broader strategy. That combination mattered. The appeal result does not soften the seriousness of insider trading. It shows instead that sentencing still has to be done carefully and by reference to proper categories. For businesses, the practical response is to limit access to transaction documents, record who can see them, use clear confidentiality terms, train people on misuse and tipping, and seek legal advice immediately if confidential information may have been accessed or used improperly.
Outcome: The Full Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. It set aside parts of the primary judge's sentencing orders and resentenced Mr Forrest. The new sentence was an aggregate term of five years and three months, made up of four years and six months on count 1 and one year and nine months on count 2, with partial accumulation. The Court fixed a single non-parole period of three years. On the reasoning visible in the published reasons, the appeal succeeded because the sentencing judge used Mr Forrest's denials and failure to produce material as part of the evaluative process for the seriousness of the offending, rather than confining those matters to remorse or the subjective significance of the guilty pleas.
Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann (Stay Application)
Treat a stay application as a separate and urgent task from the appeal itself. The Court will not assume that enforcement should pause just because an appeal has been filed, even if the appeal has already been heard and is awaiting judgment. If your business says payment now will cause liquidation or irreversible damage, you need detailed, credible evidence showing the real financial position of each liable entity, any parent company involvement, and any intercompany arrangements that affect cash flow. This case also shows that delay can be fatal. The applicants had been on notice for months that no stay was in place, and the respondents had already incurred significant enforcement costs. A business in this position should move early, explain the full commercial structure, and support every claim of prejudice with documents the Court can test.
Outcome: Dowling J dismissed both interlocutory stay applications and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' costs of those applications. The Court held that the applicants had not provided sufficient financial material to establish that enforcement would render the appeals nugatory. There was no meaningful financial evidence about FSI, no meaningful financial information about Winter Holdings Inc, and no proper explanation or documentation of the financial relationship between FSA and FSI, including commission remittances. The Court also found that the applicants had delayed seeking a stay despite being on notice that enforcement could continue, and that the respondents had suffered prejudice by incurring about $139,257.75 excluding GST in enforcement costs.
Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd v Wollermann [2026] FCA 290
The key lesson is that there are different kinds of appeal situations, and they matter. An appeal against a judgment debt is not treated the same way as an appeal that, if successful, would create an offsetting claim. Here, the court accepted that Fortrend’s appeal in the principal proceeding could potentially produce an offsetting claim and undo the costs order, which was enough to justify setting aside the statutory demands under section 459J(1)(b). But because the debts were still enforceable and no stay had been sought, the court would not grant unconditional relief. Instead, it required the money to be paid into court, with liberty to seek alternative security. For businesses, that means appeal strategy, stay applications, evidence preparation and cash flow planning all need to be considered together, not one at a time.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Fortrend's review applications and upheld the substance of the Judicial Registrar's approach. Justice O'Bryan held that the pending appeals, particularly the appeal in the Principal Proceeding, did provide an "other reason" under section 459J(1)(b) to set aside the statutory demands. However, that relief was only appropriate on condition that Fortrend pay the demanded amounts into court pending the determination of the appeals. The court rejected Fortrend's arguments for unconditional relief, including its claims about special circumstances, likely reduction of penalties, ulterior purpose, inability to pay, and detriment to employees and clients. The court varied the compliance date to 30 March 2026 and granted liberty to apply to propose an alternative form of payment or security.
Friends of Nyah Vinifera Park Inc v Minister for Environment and Water
If your business is seeking or relying on a Commonwealth environmental approval, this decision is a reminder that the approval file matters as much as the project concept. The Court upheld the approval because the applicant could not show that the Minister’s delegate had fallen into reviewable legal error when dealing with impacts, offsets, the alleged counterfactual, ecologically sustainable development, the precautionary principle, or legal unreasonableness. For proponents, that means your referral, assessment materials, variation documents, expert reports, and proposed conditions should tell a coherent story about impacts and how residual impacts will be managed. For businesses opposing a project, the case shows the limits of judicial review. It is not enough to say the offset is uncertain, another project might have been better, or the policy landscape has changed. You need to identify a legal flaw in the actual decision. Businesses should also distinguish judicial review from merits review. Judicial review tests legality. It does not give the Court a free hand to remake the environmental balance from scratch.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application. Horan J stated that neither of the applicant’s two main contentions was made out and that the applicant had not established any legal error affecting the approval decision. The amended originating application dated 6 March 2025 was dismissed, and the issue of costs was left to be resolved by agreement or, failing that, by written submissions on the papers. The practical result was that the Commonwealth approval for the Nyah Floodplain Restoration Project remained in force. On the published extract, the Court did not accept that the alleged uncertainty in the offset strategy, the asserted failure to consider the alternative counterfactual, the arguments based on ecologically sustainable development and the precautionary principle, or the legal unreasonableness argument were sufficient to invalidate the approval.
Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 9
If your business is in a dispute about an older company, do not assume that a defect in original setup documents will let you treat the company as void from the beginning. Courts place real weight on registration, the certificate of registration and the fact that the company has continued to exist and act as a company over time. That does not make formation documents irrelevant. Signed incorporation records, constitutions, share records and officeholder records still matter and can become central in litigation. But if the real dispute is about ownership, authority, misleading conduct, insolvency consequences or enforcement, those issues may be more productive than trying to erase the company itself. For due diligence, start with the ASIC record and the company's documented history, then investigate any gaps in original paperwork with care.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal and dismissed the appellants' application to adduce further evidence. It held that the grounds of appeal lacked merit and described the primary judge's findings and reasoning as unimpeachable. The effect was to leave in place the primary judge's answers to the separate questions: PSA's registration was not invalid ab initio, the court did not have power on the appellants' application to order ASIC to remove PSA from the register under s 1322(4)(b), and there was no power to grant that relief retrospectively. The appellants were ordered to pay costs, the $15,000 security for costs was to be paid to the respondents once costs were assessed or agreed, and possible vexatious proceedings orders were referred for consideration.
Frisken (Trustee) v E K Recruitment Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of E K Recruitment Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 223
If your business is using a DOCA, a creditors' trust, or any similar restructuring package, do not treat the paperwork as a formality after the commercial deal is agreed. This case shows that the real fight may come later, when a creditor increases its claim, the company re-enters insolvency, or a liquidator argues that trust money should be returned to the company. The Federal Court was able to give the trustee guidance on how to read several defective clauses, including when creditor claims were converted into trust claims, but it did not remake the structure more broadly. The safer course is to make sure the documents are internally consistent from the start. Check the release mechanics, the trust fund definition, payment timing, priority claims, meeting rules, remuneration clauses, and any guarantee support. Make sure the DOCA, trust deed, report to creditors and ASIC lodgements all tell the same story. If they do not, the business may later discover that a key assumption about who is owed what was never properly documented.
Outcome: The Federal Court advised the trustee under section 63 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) that he would be justified in administering the trust on a detailed series of constructions. Those constructions included that the relevant fund was the bank account established under the DOCA, that the administrator had to transfer that account once the amounts in clauses 10.2(a) and 10.2(b) had been received, that the fixed amount in clause 10.2(c) did not need to be paid into the account before transfer, and that creditor claims against the company were discharged and extinguished and converted into claims against the trust fund simultaneously with or immediately after the transfer. The court also advised how to read several defective clauses in the trust deed, including references to meetings, excluded creditors, the fixed amount clause and remuneration provisions. Subject to costs, the amended originating process was otherwise dismissed. The catchwords state that there was no power to vary the trust terms under section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule or section 447A of the Corporations Act because the plaintiff was no longer administrator and the DOCA had already terminated.
Fung, in the matter of VeroGuard Systems Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2026] FCA 539
If a company in administration needs outside funding, do not assume a contract saying the administrators are not personally liable will solve the problem by itself. This case shows the Court may use section 447A to make the statutory position match a limited-recourse funding bargain, including after the borrowing has already happened, but only where the evidence supports that result. The administrators here showed the funding was necessary, that it preserved value, supported continued trading, helped produce a DOCA and sale outcome, and improved creditor returns compared with immediate liquidation. Businesses should document the commercial need for funding, the intended recourse limits, the expected creditor benefit, any related-party links, and the notice given to creditors and ASIC. Relief depended on fairness and the circumstances, not on any automatic entitlement.
Outcome: The application was granted. Anderson J ordered that the former administrators' liability under section 443A for amounts owed under the 16 January 2026 funding deed be limited to the amount for which there was property of VeroGuard Systems available to indemnify them under section 443D. If that indemnity was insufficient, they would not be personally liable for the shortfall. The Court accepted that the funding was necessary to allow the administrators to accept the appointment, continue trading and preserve value, that it helped facilitate a DOCA and asset sale outcome that was better than immediate liquidation, that the terms were fair and reasonable in the distressed circumstances, and that affected parties had been notified without objection. The Court also required notice of the orders to creditors and gave interested persons liberty to apply to vary or discharge them.
Galinovic v Singtel Optus Pty Limited (No 2)
Read this case as a warning against treating a costs order like a negotiable invoice dispute. Once a court has ordered payment, the safest course is to comply in a way that results in actual, verifiable funds being received. The Court rejected attempts to recast the issue as one of contract, estoppel, equity or legal tender based on a posted promissory note and an asserted rule that silence or retention would amount to acceptance. If your business is paying court-ordered costs, confirm the amount, deadline and account details in writing and use an orthodox transfer method unless the order or the other side clearly agrees otherwise. If there is disagreement, seek a formal variation or clarification rather than relying on creative tender arguments. That approach is usually cheaper, faster and easier to prove.
Outcome: The Court granted both applications before it. It granted Ms Galinovic's oral hearing application because the oral hearing and variation applications were heard together. More importantly, it granted the respondents' variation application and amended the earlier order so that Ms Galinovic had to pay the respondents' costs of the application in the amount of $9,364.10 by EFT into Gadens Lawyers' trust account. Meagher J rejected Ms Galinovic's evidentiary objections and rejected her arguments based on contract, legal tender, promissory notes, estoppel, equity, unjust enrichment and alleged unconscionable conduct. The Court held that the obligation arose from a court order, not a contract, and that the purported promissory note did not validly satisfy the order.
Gao v Australian Information Commissioner [2026] FCA 24
The strongest lesson is about evidence and process. If your business collects personal information during sign-up and sends it to a credit reporting body, you should be able to show exactly when the customer moved from enquiry to application, what information was requested, why it was needed, whether a credit check was explained, and how consent was obtained. In this matter, the OAIC considered correspondence, Lumo’s account of the sign-up process, and a call recording before deciding not to investigate further. The Court then dismissed the judicial review challenge to that decision. That does not mean every similar business practice is lawful. It means good records can be decisive when a complaint is assessed. Review your scripts, forms, website notices, welcome packs, SMS and email templates, and call recording practices so they all tell the same story.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Mr Gao’s three interlocutory applications and dismissed his originating application for judicial review. The Court also made costs orders in favour of the respondent, subject to a process for fixing costs on a lump sum basis and allowing the applicant to seek a different costs order by written submission. The practical effect was that the OAIC’s decision not to investigate the complaint further remained in place. The available reasons do not support a broader statement that the Court finally determined all underlying privacy allegations against Lumo or illion on their merits.
Gao v Macquarie Bank Limited
If your business receives an AHRC complaint, review it as if it may later become the blueprint for court proceedings. Check exactly who is named as the respondent, what conduct is alleged, and whether any individuals are merely mentioned in the narrative or formally identified as respondents. Keep the complaint, any amendments, the response, notices, and conciliation correspondence together. If court proceedings are later filed, compare each pleaded allegation against the AHRC material. This case shows that a business may be able to seek strike-out or summary dismissal where the applicant sues people who were not respondents to the AHRC complaint, adds allegations that are not the same as or substantially the same as the complaint, or pleads post-complaint events that fall outside the statutory pathway. It also signals that overlap with Fair Work Act general protections claims needs careful attention. The judgment’s orders show some Fair Work allegations were struck out and some repleading was allowed, so businesses should analyse overlap issues closely rather than assume all parallel claims can run together.
Outcome: The Court largely accepted the respondents’ objections. It summarily dismissed the proceedings against the second, third and fourth respondents because they were not respondents to the AHRC complaint. It struck out parts of the statement of claim, including references identifying those individuals as respondents, paragraphs 18 to 21 concerning an alleged gender-based comment, paragraphs 117 to 120 concerning later events, and several Fair Work pleading paragraphs. The Court allowed paragraph 26 to remain because it was the same in substance as allegations already raised before the AHRC about unwelcome personal invitations. The applicant was granted leave to replead paragraph 6 to reflect that the individuals were not respondents, and was also granted leave to replead a general protections claim in relation to the conduct in paragraphs 117 to 120. Costs were reserved.
Garvey v Australian Information Commissioner [2026] FCA 614
If your business is challenged over records, privacy issues or a cyber incident, do not assume a court will sort out every factual dispute for you. A reviewing court usually asks whether the decision-maker made a legal error, not whether someone strongly believes more documents must exist. The practical response is disciplined record-keeping. Keep a written search trail, identify systems and custodians checked, record reasons for any refusal or redaction, and preserve incident reports and internal assessments. If serious allegations such as fraud, hacking or deliberate concealment are raised, they need evidence. This case also warns against overreaching subpoenas. If documents are sought in court, there must be a genuine connection between the documents requested and the legal issues the court actually has to decide. For business owners, the safest position is a careful process, clear reasons and records that can be defended later.
Outcome: Justice Longbottom dismissed both originating applications. The Court held that the applicant had not established administrative error in either the Tribunal decision or the Information Commissioner decision and that, in substance, the applications impermissibly invited merits review. The Court also held that the proposed subpoenas lacked a legitimate forensic purpose because they were aimed at proving the applicant's factual case rather than addressing legal error in the review proceedings, and to the extent they were said to support fraud allegations they were a fishing expedition. Leave to issue the subpoenas was refused, a stay was refused, and the application for a suppression order by pseudonym was also refused. Costs followed the ordinary rule.
Gastevich (by her litigation representative Tombides) v Starwest Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 281
Do not assume that signing a loan deed and lodging something on the PPSR is enough. This case shows that a registration may be vulnerable if the grantor is a trustee company and the registration does not include the trust-related details required for that grantor. The lender succeeded because there had been a bona fide attempt to register, the defect was treated as inadvertence by the lender’s lawyers, and corrective steps were taken promptly once the issue was discovered. Even then, the court was concerned about possible prejudice to unsecured creditors because the company appeared to be under financial pressure. Businesses should read this as a prompt to audit existing PPSR registrations, especially older ones, and to check trustee capacity, ABN details, and whether the registration matches the security agreement. If a defect is found, act quickly. Delay increases the risk that creditor prejudice and insolvency concerns will complicate any application for relief.
Outcome: The court granted relief and fixed 11 December 2025 as the relevant time for registration of the corrected PPSR registration. It found that the earlier failure to register effectively was due to inadvertence, inferred to be an oversight or misunderstanding by the lawyer responsible for the 2018 registration. The court also accepted that it was reasonably arguable that the original registration was defective or seriously misleading because it did not identify the company as trustee of the White Lion Trust or include the trust ABN. However, the court was not satisfied that there was no risk of prejudice to unsecured creditors, particularly given the company’s financial difficulty. To balance those concerns, the order included a six-month liberty-to-apply condition allowing a person with sufficient interest to seek to set aside or vary the relief if a relevant insolvency event occurred within six months after 11 December 2025. There was no order as to costs.
GGPG Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Golden Eagle Property Group Pty Ltd (No 3)
The practical lesson is that costs procedure can be as commercially important as the merits of the dispute. If your business is in Federal Court litigation, assume that a late settlement or capitulation may still leave a very large costs bill. Keep legal work clearly separated between related matters and entities, because if there is overlap the court may apply broad discounts rather than undertake a perfect reconstruction. If you need to challenge a lump-sum costs claim, the response must suit that procedure. Concise, category-based objections are more likely to be useful than a long affidavit analysing invoices line by line. This decision also shows that courts may accept market-based counsel rates and broad solicitor evidence where it is direct, experienced and grounded in the actual conduct of the case. Businesses should ask their lawyers early how costs are being recorded, what overlap exists with other disputes, and what the likely adverse costs exposure would be if the matter ended now.
Outcome: The court fixed the costs payable by Golden Eagle Property Group Pty Ltd, David Alexander John Whiteman and Marc Andrew Clancy to GGPG Pty Ltd and Park Ridge 180 Pty Ltd at $1,587,994 excluding GST, with joint and several liability. It made no order as to the costs of the lump-sum costs hearing. The judge accepted the applicants' solicitor evidence in substance, rejected key parts of the respondents' costs consultant evidence, refused to receive the respondents' solicitor affidavit, allowed professional fees after a 40% discount and then a further 10% reduction for unidentified overlap with the related proceeding, allowed counsel's fees at market rates, and accepted the claimed disbursements.
Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle
If your business supplies services through an app, website or membership platform, review any eligibility rule that excludes people by reference to sex, gender or appearance before launch and again when complaints arise. This case indicates that direct discrimination can be made out where a person is excluded because of gender-related appearance, even if the decision-maker says they did not know the person’s gender identity in a narrower sense. It also shows that using AI at sign-up does not remove responsibility for later human decisions, especially where a person can override the automated result. In practice, businesses should document who can block or remove users, what criteria can be used, how complaints are escalated, and when legal advice is needed before relying on a women-only, safety-based or values-based service model. Public statements made during a dispute can also affect damages risk, because the Court treated conduct of the proceeding and public commentary as relevant to aggravated damages.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed Giggle and Ms Grover’s appeal and allowed Ms Tickle’s cross-appeal. It set aside the earlier declaration of indirect discrimination and substituted a declaration that Giggle and Ms Grover engaged in unlawful direct discrimination contrary to s 22, read with s 5B(1), by excluding Ms Tickle from the app and refusing to restore access on the basis of her gender-related appearance. The Court also upheld the rejection of the special measures argument under s 7D. Damages were increased to $20,000, made up of $12,000 in general damages and $8,000 in aggravated damages, and capped costs orders were made in Ms Tickle’s favour on both the appeal and cross-appeal.
Gladstone Region Aboriginal & Islander Community Controlled Health Service Limited v National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (No 2)
If your business or organisation starts a Federal Court case, you need more than an arguable claim. You need working systems for discovery, document collection, internal approvals, and lawyer instructions. In this case, the applicants missed a discovery deadline set by consent orders, ignored several warning letters, gave no evidence explaining the default, and appeared at the hearing only through town agents whose instructing solicitors had no instructions. That combination was enough for the Court to dismiss the whole proceeding and order costs. The practical message is clear. Treat every court order as an operational commitment. If compliance becomes difficult, act early. Ask for an extension or variation, explain the problem with evidence, and keep communicating with both your lawyers and the other side. Going silent is often what turns a manageable delay into a dismissal application.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted NACCHO's application for default judgment and dismissed the whole proceeding. Justice Wheatley found that the applicants were plainly in default because they had failed to comply with the 9 December 2025 consent orders requiring standard discovery by 30 January 2026 and had still not provided discovery by the hearing on 24 March 2026. The Court then exercised its discretion to dismiss the case, relying on the continuing seven-week default, the importance of discovery to the existing mediation and trial timetable, the lack of any explanation or remedial step, the applicants' failure to respond to repeated correspondence, and the inference that they did not genuinely wish to progress the matter to trial within a reasonable period. The applicants were also ordered to pay NACCHO's costs, to be fixed on a lump sum basis by a Registrar unless otherwise agreed.
Gleeson (Trustee) v Eades, in the matter of Eades (Bankrupt)
If you hold business or investment property through an SMSF, do not assume the structure will operate smoothly if a trustee becomes bankrupt. This case shows that bankruptcy can leave individual SMSF trustees disqualified from acting, while also raising difficult questions about trust property, the trustee's right of indemnity and who can lawfully control and sell the asset. The Court appointed the bankruptcy trustee as receiver and manager over the commercial property so it could be sold under a supervised process. The sale was expected to satisfy debts, support annulment of the bankruptcies and help preserve the respondents' residential property. The practical message is to review your structure before financial distress hits. Check who the trustees are, whether there is a corporate trustee, whether fund records are current, and whether your business premises could become hard to deal with if insolvency occurs. This is a governance and control problem as much as an asset-protection problem.
Outcome: The application was granted. Justice Stellios appointed Bruce Gleeson as receiver and manager over the Brookvale property held on trust for the Eades Superannuation Fund. The orders authorised him to take control of the property, obtain a valuation, engage agents and lawyers, and sell the property by auction or private treaty. The respondents were required to give vacant possession, hand over keys and access cards, and remove personal effects within 28 days, with a writ of possession available if needed. The Court also set a priority regime for applying sale proceeds. After costs, outgoings and encumbrances were paid, the balance was to be held on trust for Stephen Eades' bankrupt estate, with liberty to use net proceeds to annul the bankruptcies and remit any surplus to the respondents as trustees of the super fund.
Global Uranium and Enrichment Limited, in the matter of Global Uranium and Enrichment Limited (No 2) [2026] FCA 84
If your business is negotiating a sale, merger, recapitalisation or equity restructure, this case is a reminder that execution risk often sits in the detail rather than in the headline commercial terms. Here, the schemes were not in trouble because investors voted them down. They were at risk because one condition had been drafted on an incorrect assumption about Nasdaq procedure. GUE succeeded because it had evidence from the relevant overseas advisers, moved quickly to amend the documents by letter deed, engaged with ASIC on the wording, and could show the revised condition still protected the original objective that the new Snow Lake shares be listed and quoted when issued. Directors and deal teams should test every external approval step early, especially where foreign exchanges or securities exemptions are involved, and make sure the legal documents describe the actual process and timing.
Outcome: The Court approved both the share scheme and the option scheme, each as amended in the annexures to the orders. It was satisfied that the formal requirements had been met, the meetings were properly conducted, the requisite majorities had approved the schemes, the low shareholder turnout did not justify refusal, the schemes were fair and reasonable, there had been full and fair disclosure, and there was no evidence of oppression or public policy concern. The Court accepted the Nasdaq-related amendments under s 411(6) because they were consistent with the original intended outcome and did not recast the schemes. It also exempted GUE from compliance with s 411(11) under s 411(12), noted ASIC’s no-objection letter under s 411(17)(b), and ordered lodgment of the orders with ASIC.
Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd v Ozlift Kranes Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 328
If your company is in the Federal Court, do not assume a director can automatically represent it just because the director knows the facts best or because the business is under financial pressure. The default rule is still that a corporation must proceed by a lawyer. In Goldwind v Ozlift, the Court granted only a conditional dispensation under r 1.34 from the usual rule in r 4.01(2). The sole director could represent the company, but a lawyer had to assist with preparing and filing every document, and a lawyer had to appear at any contested hearing. The Court was influenced by Ozlift’s financial constraints, the relatively narrow dispute, and the fact that legal help was already being used on a task basis. But the Court also found the director did not have the capacity to represent the company adequately on his own. For business owners, the safest reading is that corporate self-representation is exceptional, not routine. If cost is the issue, a staged or limited-scope legal arrangement may be more realistic than trying to proceed entirely without lawyers.
Outcome: The Court granted a conditional dispensation from r 4.01(2). Stewart J ordered that Ozlift did not have to proceed only by a lawyer, provided that Mr Hammerstein represented the company, obtained the assistance of a lawyer for preparing and filing any document in the proceeding, and ensured that a lawyer appeared for Ozlift at any contested hearing. The Court considered that justice was best served by this arrangement because Ozlift was in constrained financial circumstances, the dispute was not particularly complex at that stage, and the matter had already been conducted reasonably with task-based legal assistance. The Court rejected the submission that any assisting lawyer necessarily had to enter an appearance formally. Costs of the interlocutory application were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Gounder v Mansfield as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Gounder (No 2)
Treat each insolvency step as its own legal event. A bankruptcy order, an annulment application, and later orders for vacant possession or sale of property are not all the same fight. This decision shows that if you want to appeal, you need to identify the exact order under challenge, file on time if possible, and make sure your proposed grounds actually address that order. General hardship, dissatisfaction with trustee fees, complaints about the original debt, or a broad claim of unfairness may be real concerns, but they will not necessarily answer the legal question before the court. If your home, investment property or other personally held asset is at risk in bankruptcy, get advice early, keep records of any attempted filing, and make sure medical or caring evidence clearly explains the period of delay you rely on.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for an extension of time and ordered the applicant to pay the trustee's costs, to be assessed if not agreed. The court accepted that the applicant's role as primary carer for her injured mother explained some delay before 3 June 2025, and accepted that her mental health had been adversely affected by her circumstances. But it was not satisfied that the evidence adequately explained why the appeal could not have been instituted within time after that date. More importantly, the court held that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of success because the grounds raised did not address the legal basis of the 2025 property orders and instead sought to revisit earlier bankruptcy issues or make unsupported complaints, including a bare allegation of bias.
Goyal and Conneely (Liquidators), in the matter of FSM Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2026] FCA 557
If your business is compelled to produce documents in a Corporations Act examination, do not assume every dollar spent on lawyers, confidentiality review and negotiations will be recoverable from the party later seeking access. This case suggests the Court may treat different categories of work differently. Search and identification costs may stand in one category. Reviewing documents already identified for confidentiality, negotiating a confidentiality protocol, and related correspondence may stand in another. If you want the best chance of recovering costs, record exactly what work was done, when, and why it was necessary. If you are the party seeking access, explain how your application avoids duplicate proceedings and reduces prejudice to the producing party. That explanation helped Stingray and Zagga resist the costs order sought here. The case is a reminder that costs in examination and production matters are discretionary, fact-specific and heavily influenced by the actual work claimed.
Outcome: The Federal Court made no order as to costs of the amended interlocutory process. Justice Markovic accepted that Ray White Capital and Keyview were not insiders of FSM, but held that this did not justify the costs order sought. The Court found that most of the claimed costs were not costs of searching for material to be produced. Rather, they principally related to reviewing documents already identified and produced to the liquidators for confidentiality, negotiating a confidentiality regime, and corresponding with the parties, the Court and solicitors. The Court also accepted Stingray's explanation that the application was pursued to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and minimise prejudice and cost to Ray White Capital and Keyview. Because no costs order was made, the Court did not need to decide whether a lump sum order would otherwise have been appropriate.
Great Energy WA Pty Ltd v Northern Iron Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 81
If your business hires out equipment, do not assume that title and a rental contract will protect you if the customer collapses. You need to ask at least three separate questions. First, is the arrangement a PPS lease, so that your ownership interest is treated as a security interest? Second, have you registered in time to stop the interest vesting in the customer under the Corporations Act if administrators are appointed? Third, if another secured creditor already has an AllPAP registration, have you registered correctly and early enough to claim PMSI priority? This case shows those are different problems with different consequences. Great Energy WA had some ordinary registrations, but still needed one form of relief for the retained assets to avoid vesting and another form of relief to improve priority against Cargill. Court relief is possible, but it is discretionary, fact specific and expensive compared with getting the PPSR process right at the start.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. It fixed 14 June 2025 as the registration time for the relevant Retained Asset registrations for the purposes of s 588FL(2)(b)(iv) of the Corporations Act, and extended the s 62(3)(b) PPSA period for each PMSI registration so that period expired on 14 June 2025. The Court also declared that Great Energy WA was entitled to the return of, and to retain, the listed assets free of any claim by the respondents. There was no order as to costs. The orders reserved liberty to any later liquidator or deed administrator to apply within 6 months to discharge or vary the relevant orders if Northern Iron later went into winding up or executed a deed of company arrangement.
Grofski v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 124
If your business is defending a workplace or whistleblower claim, do not assume you will recover costs just because the other side’s case is difficult to follow. In this area, the court starts from a protective costs regime. To have any real prospect of a costs order, you need evidence of a specific unreasonable act or omission that caused wasted legal work. That means keeping a careful chronology of correspondence, court orders, versions of pleadings, and the work your lawyers had to redo. This case also shows that a narrow costs application can succeed where a broad one may fail. The respondents did not obtain costs from the date the amendment application was filed. They succeeded only from the later date when the applicant served a further draft in breach of orders. If your business is bringing a claim, the warning is equally clear: costs protection is not a licence to keep changing pleadings, ignore formatting rules or serve moving-target documents after deadlines have passed.
Outcome: The Federal Court made a limited costs order for the respondents. It held that the filing of the interlocutory application on 26 August 2025 was not, by itself, unreasonable within the meaning of section 570 of the Fair Work Act or section 1317AH of the Corporations Act. The Court accepted that, although waiting may have been wiser, the applicant was self-represented and her decision to file was not enough to justify costs. However, the Court found that the applicant acted unreasonably in serving a third draft further amended statement of claim and associated materials on 14 November 2025. That step came after the respondents had already filed submissions on an earlier draft and after an order requiring the final version by 3 October 2025. The applicant was therefore ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application from 14 November 2025 onward, to be assessed on a lump sum basis.
Hall v Hemant Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 122
If your business is asking someone to lend money, invest in a project or rely on a future commercial outcome, be careful about what is promised. Do not state that repayment will occur by a certain date, that a return will be achieved, or that substitute assets will be provided unless there is a real factual basis for saying so at the time. Keep written records showing those reasonable grounds. Also, if your business or one of its directors is sued, engage immediately. File the required documents, respond to service issues promptly and appear at hearings. This case shows that silence can lead to judgment, but it also shows the Court will confine relief to what the pleading properly supports. That is not a safety net. It is a reminder that both commercial communications and litigation conduct need discipline.
Outcome: The Federal Court entered judgment against Gerald Gavi under rule 5.23(2)(d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for misleading and deceptive conduct, with damages to be assessed. The Court also declared, upon admissions he was taken to have made because of his non-compliance with the Rules, that he engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, by representing that the applicants' money would be repaid within 12 months with 20% capitalised interest and that, if repayment did not occur, they would receive an allotment in specified land at Collingwood Park equivalent to the loan and interest. The costs of the interlocutory application were reserved. The published material supports a clear outcome on section 18 misleading conduct, but not a clear final grant of relief on the alternative unconscionability claims.
Hassall Developments Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
The practical lesson is to treat insurance placement communications as legally significant records, not routine paperwork. In this case, the dispute about when cover was bound and whether a 19 July 2022 confirmation meant full cover or only holding or interim cover became important enough that the Court allowed the broker to be joined. For business owners, that means you should keep clear written records of what cover was requested, what was confirmed, when it started, whether any oral arrangement sat behind the written confirmation, and what advice you received about disclosure obligations while cover was being arranged. If an insurer later changes its explanation of what happened, compare that position carefully against earlier correspondence. Where the insurer’s version raises questions about what the broker did or did not communicate, it may be more efficient to deal with both parties in one proceeding. Early legal advice can help preserve documents, identify witnesses and avoid being locked into an incomplete litigation strategy.
Outcome: The Court granted leave to join Arthur J. Gallagher & Co (AUS) Limited to the proceeding and granted leave for Hassall Developments to file and serve amended pleadings. It also ordered QBE to give discovery of the four categories of documents sought in the interlocutory application and to provide a verified list of documents. Justice Jackman held that joinder was desirable because the proposed claims against Gallagher arose from the same transaction or series of transactions as the existing claims against QBE, and because overlapping factual issues would need to be determined in both disputes. Although QBE would suffer some prejudice if the separate question hearing dates had to be vacated and relisted, that prejudice did not outweigh the benefits of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, reducing the risk of inconsistent findings, and allowing Gallagher to participate in the determination of issues affecting its interests.
Hathway, in the matter of Symich Building Pty Ltd (in liq)
If you receive a liquidator's examination summons, treat it as urgent from day one. This case shows that waiting until just before the examination can be fatal to an attempt to have the summons discharged. It also shows that if health issues are relied on, the supporting medical material needs to address the real process the Court is being asked to alter, not just ordinary courtroom cross-examination. The Court accepted that Ms Symon had a medical condition, but that did not establish she was unfit for the particular oral examination proposed. Businesses should also note that the Court saw written questions and affidavit answers as a weaker substitute because oral examination can reveal candour, expose lack of candour, and help a liquidator shape questions for other examinees. In practice, get advice quickly, review the summons and production orders immediately, preserve documents, and assume the Court may expect the examination to proceed unless there is strong and targeted evidence to the contrary.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application. Jackman J held that there was no satisfactory explanation for why an application to discharge the summons had not been brought much earlier, which counted against the request to permanently stay or set aside the summons. The Court also held that the medical certificates, while establishing the nature of Ms Symon's condition, did not show she was unfit for oral examination by the liquidator because they appeared to assume the process would be adversarial cross-examination. The Court further found that confining the liquidator to written questions and affidavit answers would cause real prejudice to the liquidator and the public interest. Ms Symon was ordered to pay the liquidator's costs of the application in a lump sum of $10,000, and access to the documents sought by the liquidator was granted subject to any valid claim of privilege.
Hera Project Pty Ltd v Woolworths Ltd
The main takeaway is that this was a procedure decision, not a merits win on the misleading or deceptive conduct claim. A business should read it as a case about litigation discipline. Hera’s leave application was dismissed because of repeated defaults, failure to comply with directions, inadequate evidence explaining non-compliance, ongoing prejudice to Woolworths and weak prospects on the proposed appeal. If your business is in a dispute, especially one involving alleged conversations or assurances, document events early and assume the court timetable must be met. If funding problems, adviser changes or other obstacles arise, raise them immediately and support any extension request with detailed affidavit evidence and a workable plan. Courts may grant indulgences, but not indefinitely. A claim can effectively be lost because the process was not managed properly.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Hera’s application for leave to appeal. O'Callaghan J held that Hera had failed to comply with the timetabling orders made for the leave application, had not properly prosecuted the matter, and had provided no adequate explanation for its wholesale non-compliance until the eve of the hearing. The Court also considered the proposed appeal very weak in light of the primary judge’s reasons for dismissing the proceeding after Hera failed to provide security for costs. Woolworths was found to be suffering ongoing prejudice through delay, continuing legal costs and the likely deterioration of witness evidence in a case involving alleged oral assurances from 2018 and 2019. Hera was ordered to pay Woolworths’ costs of the application on an indemnity basis, to be determined on a lump sum basis.
Hisense Australia Pty Ltd v Naskovski [2026] FCA 20
Read this case as a technical decision about one Fair Work record-access issue, not as a broader statement that employment contracts do not matter. The Court decided that the obligation in s 535 and reg 3.42 is directed to statutory employee records of the kind prescribed by the regulations, not automatically to the employment contract itself. That distinction helped Hisense on appeal because the employee had asked for his contract, and the Court treated that as different from asking for a statutory employee record. For a business owner, the safest approach is still to keep both categories of documents. Maintain compliant employee records with the prescribed information, and also retain signed contracts, role documents and any written workplace agreements the law specifically requires you to keep. If an employee requests documents, identify exactly what has been requested, whether it is a statutory employee record, a specific written agreement, or another employment document that should still be provided for practical or dispute-management reasons.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. Bennett J held that the primary judge erred in treating the employment contract as a type of record required to be kept under reg 3.32. The Court found that the regulations require employers to make and keep a record containing specified information, but do not generally require that information to be kept in the form of the employment contract itself. Because Mr Naskovski's request was for his employment contract, it was not a request for a statutory employee record within the meaning of reg 3.42 as the Court construed the regime. Order 2 of the primary orders dated 7 August 2025 was set aside, and there was no order as to the costs of the leave application.
Hitachi Rail STS Australia Pty Ltd v Schoof [2026] FCA 343
Business owners should read this case as a lesson in instrument-specific payroll interpretation. Here, the agreement separated ordinary hourly rates in Schedule B from allowances in Schedule C, and that structure drove the result. The Court accepted that the Schedule B rate was the relevant rate for overtime and weekend penalties, while allowances remained separate payments where applicable. It also refused to decide an extra point about a waiting time clause once the real dispute had fallen away. In practice, that means you should not rely on assumptions or labels alone. Review the exact wording of your enterprise agreement, map each allowance type, and check that payroll settings match the legal text. A mistaken setup can continue for years and become expensive to unwind.
Outcome: The Federal Court found for Hitachi on the main construction dispute. It declared that, for clause 4.10 weekend penalties and clause 4.11.2 overtime, the relevant rate was the applicable hourly rate in Schedule B, excluding allowances payable under clause 5.1. That meant Mr Schoof's argument that allowances should be added to the hourly rate before applying overtime or penalty multipliers was rejected. The Court did not grant the further declaration sought about the waiting time clause. Although there had originally been a justiciable controversy, the Court declined relief as a matter of discretion because the issue was no longer live, there was no substantive opposing argument, and no real utility remained once the main allowance argument failed.
Hubexo Australia Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Amendment of Defence)
Read this case as a procedural lesson about timing and preparation. It does not decide whether Hubexo's substantive claims succeed, or whether the respondents' proposed new arguments were ultimately right on the merits. What it shows is that courts expect parties to identify their real case early and plead it clearly. If your business is in litigation, review admissions, dates, contract terms, assignment documents and possible third-party involvement well before trial. Do not assume a point can be added later just because it is framed as a legal issue or clarification. If the other side can show they would have run the case differently, sought more documents or joined more parties, the amendment may be refused. Early document review and a settled litigation strategy are operational necessities, not just legal housekeeping.
Outcome: Needham J refused leave to amend the defence and dismissed the interlocutory application with costs. The court found that the proposed amendments were late, significant and insufficiently explained. It accepted evidence that Hubexo would likely have prepared the case differently if the new points had been raised earlier, including by seeking further discovery, adducing reply evidence, amending its own pleadings, reconsidering damages issues and potentially joining additional parties such as subscribers or BCI Asia. The judge considered that the only realistic way for Hubexo to meet the amendments would be to vacate part of the hearing, or possibly all of it, and that this disruption was unlikely to be adequately cured by a costs order.
Hubexo Australia Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Amendment of Particulars)
If your business is preparing or defending a claim built on customer churn, lost subscriptions, discounts or switching behaviour, do not assume data inconsistencies can be fixed later by calling them a quantum issue. In this case, revised accounting work changed many customer cessation dates, and the Court held those dates were part of the factual basis for the causation case itself. The applicant was allowed to amend, but only on the basis that the revised confidential annexures replaced the originals across the case. The Court would not permit a split approach using old dates for liability and new dates for damages. The practical lesson is to align pleadings, particulars, internal records and expert reports from the outset, and to handle any contested procedural request openly and in accordance with the Court’s practice note.
Outcome: Needham J granted leave to amend the particulars, but only on a replacement basis. The applicant was permitted to rely on Revised Confidential Annexures A, B and C appended to Mr Ross’s report of 19 December 2025 in place of the existing Confidential Annexures. The Court refused to allow the applicant to rely on the original and revised annexures as alternatives, and also refused the later proposal to use the original annexures for liability and the revised annexures for quantum only. The judge held that the customer cessation dates were central to the applicant’s case because they were used to support inferences about causation. Running different dates for different parts of the case would be unfair, incoherent and inconsistent with the overarching purpose of civil practice and case management. The Court also criticised the applicant’s unilateral email to chambers on a contested issue and pointed to the Central Practice Note as the proper guide for communications with the Court.
Hunt, in the matter of Hunt (Bankrupt) [2026] FCA 389
Do not assume a court will let a bankrupt director keep acting just because the company is important to them. In this case, relief was granted only for one company, only for one SMSF structure, and only on tight conditions. The Court focused on the company’s limited purpose, the absence of employees and external creditors, the applicant’s prior conduct, his cooperation with the bankruptcy trustee, and the lack of practical alternatives. If your business or fund depends on a sole director or a corporate trustee, review replacement options early. If bankruptcy or serious creditor action is possible, you may need to notify regulators, creditors and other interested parties, and you may need court orders before statutory time limits expire.
Outcome: The Court granted the application and made both orders sought, but only on strict conditions. Mr Hunt was given leave to manage SB Hunt Super Pty Ltd under the Corporations Act, on the condition that the company engage in no activities other than acting as trustee of the S B Hunt Self Managed Super Fund and doing things reasonably incidental to that role. The Court also ordered under the SIS Act that he not be a disqualified person, on the condition that until discharge from bankruptcy he not be or act as trustee, investment manager or custodian of any superannuation entity other than SB Hunt Super and the fund. The relief was therefore specific, temporary and tightly confined to preserving the existing trustee arrangement.
Hurburgh v Hurburgh, in the matter of Richard Pitt & Sons Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 361
The main lesson is that oppression is about commercial unfairness in the company’s affairs, judged objectively and in context. The Court repeated that the Corporations Act is not a corporate version of no-fault family separation. A broken relationship alone is not enough. What mattered here was that the company’s affairs included disputed treatment of a $2.4 million loan, related-party use of company farmland, no written lease documents, arguments about rent and offsets, and governance complaints, all in a company where the plaintiff was a one-third shareholder but management sat elsewhere. The Court’s chosen remedy is also important. Instead of winding up the company, it indicated that the company should buy out the plaintiff’s shares with a reduction of capital. Businesses should read this as a strong reason to document related-party dealings, keep records current, provide financial information properly and build a workable exit mechanism into shareholder arrangements before relationships collapse.
Outcome: The Court held that the plaintiff had established that certain impugned conduct was contrary to the interests of members of Richard Pitt & Sons Pty Ltd as a whole and oppressive to her. The Court also found that a working relationship between the shareholders was unlikely and that there was a risk of ongoing disputation. Rather than winding up the company, the Court said it would exercise its discretion under section 233 of the Corporations Act to order that the company buy out the plaintiff’s shares with an appropriate reduction of capital. The orders visible in the reasons required the parties to submit minutes of orders to give effect to the reasons. The available text does not include the full valuation process or final implementation mechanics of the buy-out.
I Cook Foods Pty Ltd v City of Whitehorse
Business owners should read this as a case about preparation, records and response speed. A supplier facing a shutdown, recall or closure order needs to know exactly what its contract requires if it cannot keep supplying. If the contract says you must ensure continuity, simply naming a possible backup supplier may not be enough. On the customer side, if you issue a default notice and later terminate, your position will be stronger if the notice clearly identifies the defaults, the contractual basis and what must be remedied. This case also shows that an interlocutory win is not a final win. I Cook Foods only kept its claims alive. The underlying contract and ACL issues remain to be decided at trial. Businesses should therefore focus less on headlines and more on practical risk control: workable continuity plans, documented communications, prompt written responses and evidence that can withstand cross-examination.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the City of Whitehorse’s application for summary judgment. Anderson J held that the affidavit material disclosed substantial factual and legal disputes between the parties, including disputes about the default notice, the alleged compliance and business continuity breaches, the effect of the closure order and its revocation, the operation of the business continuity plan, and the Council’s testing. The Court also held that the unconscionable conduct claim raised serious disputed issues that were unsuitable for summary determination. Because those matters required examination at trial, including cross-examination of witnesses, the Court was not satisfied that I Cook Foods had no reasonable prospect of success. The proceeding therefore continues, and the Council was ordered to pay I Cook Foods’ costs of the application on a lump sum basis to be agreed or assessed.
Income Asset Management Group Limited v Henry
Read this case as a practical freezing-order decision, not as a final statement on director duties or employee liability. If your business uncovers suspicious transfers, the Court may preserve assets quickly, but you need a clear evidentiary trail. That means bank statements, payment instruction forms, signatory records, account ownership evidence and a coherent explanation of why the payments appear unauthorised. The case also shows that a respondent may not succeed in discharging a freezing order merely by pointing to inconvenience, legal cost pressure, governance weaknesses in the applicant’s systems or alleged reconciliation problems. The Court will ask whether there is still a real risk of dissipation and whether the core evidence remains strong. At the same time, if the amount originally frozen is overstated, the Court can vary the order rather than remove it altogether. Businesses should therefore treat early investigation, evidence preservation and accurate loss quantification as central parts of any urgent response.
Outcome: The Court did not discharge the freezing order. Moore J held that the grounds raised by Mr Henry did not justify setting it aside. The Court found there remained a risk of dissipation of assets and considered the prima facie case for protective relief to be strong, particularly given the bank statements showing repeated transfers from Apex-related accounts into a NAB account said to be in Mr Henry’s name and the absence of any legitimate explanation on the material before the Court. The Court also rejected arguments based on proportionality, oppressive operation, the adequacy of IAM’s undertaking as to damages, alleged non-disclosure, balance of convenience and material change in circumstances. However, IAM accepted that the amount said to have been misappropriated should be reduced, and the Court varied the freezing order so the relevant amount became $1,375,509.60 instead of $1,528,621.71. The discharge application was otherwise dismissed, and Mr Henry was ordered to pay IAM’s costs associated with that part of the interlocutory application.
INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd v AkzoNobel NV (No 7)
If your business is running or defending a technical commercial claim, build the evidence plan early and treat it as part of the case strategy, not an afterthought. This ruling shows the Court may refuse a late attempt to re-open a case where a party wants to tender substantial expert report extracts from separate proceedings after evidence has closed and liability submissions are complete. It also shows that production of documents through a notice to produce does not make those documents automatically admissible. If a point matters to liability, contribution, proportionate liability or contributory negligence, make sure your pleadings clearly cover it, your lay and expert evidence actually support it, and the witnesses can be tested in the proceeding where the issue is being decided. Businesses dealing with multiple related disputes should coordinate their positions early, because a report prepared for one case may not fit the evidentiary rules, issues or fairness requirements of another.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed ANIP's interlocutory application filed on 1 July 2025 and reserved costs. On the available judgment text, the Court did not permit ANIP to re-open its case to tender the proposed report extracts. The visible reasons strongly indicate that timing, fairness and evidentiary fit were central. The reports were created for separate proceedings, post-dated the close of evidence, concerned a different technical topic from the one on which the experts had been called in the Federal Court case, and ANIP did not propose to call the authors for cross-examination on the new topic. The available text also records that ANIP had not led supporting insulation evidence at trial despite having pleaded insulation-based arguments earlier.
Insight Water Technologies, Inc v Pure Technologies US Inc
If your business is suing in Australia from overseas, prepare for a security for costs application early. This case shows that the Court may order security under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) where the applicant is outside Australia and has no Australian assets. More importantly, if you argue that security should be limited to the cost of enforcing a future costs order overseas, you need actual evidence of your assets in that overseas jurisdiction and evidence that those assets would be available to satisfy the order. Here, the applicant relied on an estimate that enforcement in California would cost about USD $20,000, plus an undertaking not to resist enforcement, but it did not prove its asset position. That gap was fatal to its attempt to keep security low. The Court ordered AUD $350,000 by 4:00 pm on 4 March 2026, by Australian bank guarantee or payment into court, with a stay if it was not provided. For defendants, the case is a practical reminder to test the claimant’s asset evidence, not just its submissions.
Outcome: Moore J ordered Insight to provide a first tranche of security for Pure’s costs in the amount of AUD $350,000 by 4:00 pm on 4 March 2026, either by an irrevocable bank guarantee issued by an Australian bank in favour of Pure or by payment into court. If security was not provided, the proceedings against Pure were to be stayed until it was. Insight was also ordered to pay Pure’s costs of the interlocutory application. The Court rejected Insight’s primary argument that security should be limited to about USD $20,000 for enforcement in California because there was no evidence that Insight had assets in California or elsewhere sufficient to satisfy a costs order. The Court also rejected Insight’s fallback argument that the first tranche should stop at the completion of its evidence in chief, holding that this would not sensibly protect Pure’s likely costs, especially the costs of preparing evidence in answer.
Insignia Financial Ltd, in the matter of Insignia Financial Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 451
Most private businesses will never use a Federal Court scheme, but the governance lessons travel well. If you are asking owners to approve a sale, merger, restructure or drag-along style transaction, make sure you know exactly who can vote, what documents must be sent, how the vote must be conducted, and what information owners need to make an informed decision. This case also shows the practical importance of ASIC's no-objection statement in a scheme process and the value of having evidence ready to prove that all conditions precedent have been satisfied except court approval. If your cap table includes employee share trusts, nominee holdings or treasury shares, check voting rights early. Those details can become a real issue late in the process.
Outcome: The Federal Court approved the scheme under section 411(4)(b) and exempted Insignia from compliance with section 411(11) under section 411(12). The Court found that the convening orders had been followed, the meeting was properly conducted, the statutory thresholds were met, shareholders had received full and fair disclosure, all conditions precedent had been satisfied other than court approval, and ASIC's written no-objection statement dated 15 April 2026 satisfied section 411(17)(b). The Court also accepted that the scheme was fair and reasonable, relying on the overwhelming shareholder support, the directors' recommendation, the independent expert's opinion, the detailed scheme booklet, the absence of opposition, and the protections against performance risk. The result was that the transaction could proceed under the approved scheme.
Insignia Financial Ltd, in the matter of Insignia Financial Ltd [2026] FCA 160
If your company is using a scheme of arrangement, the first court hearing is mainly about whether the process is legally and practically fit to be put to shareholders. In Insignia, the court was satisfied because the statutory steps had been met, ASIC had enough time to review the materials, the scheme booklet gave shareholders the information they needed, and the transaction structure included accepted protections. Those protections mattered because the buyer was a special purpose vehicle. The court focused on whether shareholders could be forced to transfer shares without being paid, and accepted the structure because the scheme required consideration to be provided before transfer and because the bidder had signed a deed poll in favour of scheme participants. The case also shows that funding detail must be disclosed clearly, even where the scheme itself is not subject to a financing condition. Boards should also plan carefully for meeting logistics, communication preferences, record dates, proxy cut-offs and the treatment of employee equity interests before going to court.
Outcome: Justice Neskovcin made the orders sought and directed that Insignia convene a scheme meeting of its ordinary shareholders on 13 April 2026. The court was satisfied that the statutory preconditions for the first hearing had been met, including that ASIC had been given notice and a reasonable opportunity to examine the scheme and draft explanatory statement and make submissions. The court held that the scheme was fit for shareholder consideration and that members would be properly informed through the scheme booklet and related materials. It accepted that performance risk had been addressed through the scheme mechanics and Daintree BidCo's deed poll, and that the conditional nature of the bidder's funding arrangements did not justify refusing to convene the meeting at the first hearing. The matter was then adjourned to 16 April 2026 for any application to approve the scheme.
Ioakimidis v Lygon Court Travel Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 176
A business should read this case as a reminder that uncertainty is itself a risk. The Court accepted that the admitted breaches arose in a context of ignorance, confusion and lack of appropriate enquiry about whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor. But that did not prevent substantial penalties. The written contracts made the problem worse, not better, because they were titled "Employment Agreement" while also saying the worker was a contractor and not entitled to leave. If your documents send mixed signals, or one worker is handled outside your normal payroll system, that is a sign to stop and review the arrangement. In practice, businesses should make sure the contract matches the real relationship, check award coverage where relevant, issue compliant payslips, keep employee records from the start, and avoid one-off exceptions that leave a worker outside ordinary payroll compliance.
Outcome: The Federal Court made declarations that Lygon Court Travel Pty Ltd had contravened s 45 of the Fair Work Act by failing to pay annual leave loading on termination, s 535(1) by failing to make and keep employee records, and s 536(1) by failing to provide payslips. It imposed penalties of $15,000, $20,000 and $20,000 respectively, totalling $55,000, payable to the applicant within 28 days. The proceeding against the two individual respondents was dismissed by consent, and all other claims against the company were dismissed apart from the admitted contraventions. The Court accepted that the breaches arose in a context of confusion and lack of proper enquiry, but still considered substantial penalties necessary.
JABW Pty Ltd v Estate of the late Williams, in the matter of the late Williams
Read this case as a procedural warning, not a final ruling on who was right about the debt. The Court did not finally determine the review application at this stage. Instead, it decided who should be joined, deferred the extension-of-time question to the review hearing, and refused to stop the administration order operating in the meantime. For business owners, the practical message is clear. First, identify every person and entity whose rights may be directly affected, including beneficiaries, executors and any trustee appointed under the Bankruptcy Act. Secondly, do not treat service and capacity as technical afterthoughts. Thirdly, if you want a stay, you need persuasive evidence on urgency, prejudice and balance of convenience, not just an arguable challenge. Finally, where directors, executors and trust controllers overlap, expect close scrutiny of authority, conflicts and record-keeping.
Outcome: The Court joined the beneficiaries as second respondents, Kelvin Solari and Justin McCarthy as third respondents, and Henry Kazar as fourth respondent in his capacity as Trustee of the Property of the Deceased Estate of the late Winifred Williams. The Court did not finally determine the beneficiaries' application for an extension of time to seek review of Registrar Morgan's 25 September 2025 orders. Instead, it deferred that question until the hearing of the review application. The Court dismissed the application for a stay of the administration order, holding that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay. As a result, the administration order remained in force while the Court set a timetable for evidence, submissions and objections, and listed the review application for hearing on 1 July 2026.
Jahani v Qui, in the matter of Ralan Property Services Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (leave to amend pleadings)
Read this case as a warning about records, entity structure and litigation assumptions. If your business uses multiple companies for different projects, you need clear documents showing which entity contracted with customers, received deposits, held funds, advanced money and bore the relevant liabilities. If deposits are released or recharacterised as loans, the legal basis and accounting treatment need to be consistent across contracts, finance documents and internal records. In litigation, do not assume the pleadings are fixed just because evidence has already been exchanged. Courts may still permit major amendments if they arise from substantially the same factual matrix. Also do not assume a limitation point will be decided early. The court may allow the amendment and leave the timing and limitation consequences to trial. That means businesses should review party structure, evidence and limitation arguments continuously, not only at the start of a case.
Outcome: Cheeseman J granted leave to both parties on terms. The court joined six additional Ralan companies as plaintiffs and granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second further amended originating process and a further amended statement of claim. The court also granted the defendants leave to rely on amendments in their proposed further amended defence, including the limitation plea referred to in the reasons. The court set a timetable for the amended defence, any reply and any further evidence arising from the amendments, referred the matter to a Registrar for case management, and ordered each side to pay the other side's costs thrown away by reason of its own amendments, with the costs of the interlocutory applications reserved. Critically, the court did not finally determine the operative date of the joinder and amended pleadings. That issue was expressly reserved for the final hearing, along with the limitation consequences that may follow.
Janssen v OnePath Custodians Pty Ltd (No 2)
Read this case as a settlement supervision decision, not a final ruling on liability. The Court approved the settlement and distribution scheme, but only after examining the structure of the claims, the administration model, the treatment of late registrants, confidentiality orders, and the deductions to be taken from the settlement fund. A key practical point is that ATE insurance was not allowed in full. So if your business is involved in resolving a class action, focus not only on the headline settlement amount but also on the net outcome for group members after costs and expenses. Build the approval application carefully. Explain the claim categories clearly, justify every deduction with evidence, and be ready for the Court or a contradictor to test whether the proposal is genuinely fair and workable.
Outcome: The Court approved the settlement and the settlement distribution scheme. It authorised the applicants, on behalf of group members, to enter into and give effect to the settlement deed and confirmed that the persons bound included all group members who had not opted out under earlier orders. Slater and Gordon was appointed as Settlement Administrator. The Court approved specified amounts for legal costs, disbursements, uplift, contradictor costs, applicants' payments, and settlement administration fees and expenses, and ordered an additional $195,000 inclusive of GST toward Deloitte costs for omitted group members registration. A notable feature of the decision is that deduction for ATE insurance was allowed only in part. The Court also made limited confidentiality orders and deemed certain late objectors to have registered for settlement purposes.
Johnson v Wilson Security Pty Ltd
If your business is trying to resolve a dispute affecting many workers, customers or contractors, do not focus only on the headline settlement sum. You need a defensible process for identifying who is in the group, checking whether anyone has already received overlapping payments, explaining the assumptions used to value claims, and setting up a distribution process that the Court can supervise. In this case, the Court accepted a practical valuation model, but it would not leave open the possibility that unidentified non-opt-out group members might later appear and claim a share. The Court also approved legal costs at $915,000 inclusive of GST, which was below the $1,143,750 originally sought. For businesses, the practical message is to get records, group definition and settlement mechanics right early, because those issues can affect approval, timing, finality and cost.
Outcome: Colvin J approved the settlement and the settlement distribution scheme. The approval was conditional on the applicant and Wilson Security amending the proceeding so that group membership was confined to the persons listed in Annexure A to the deed of settlement. The Court approved administration costs of $87,530 and approved the applicant's legal costs and disbursements at $915,000 inclusive of GST, with no further deduction to be made for those costs. The Court also appointed Rory Michael Markham of Adero Pty Ltd as administrator of the scheme. Once the scheme is completed and the required certificate is provided, the remaining claims of the applicant and bound group members are to be dismissed and barred, subject to rights to enforce the settlement documents in a new proceeding if necessary.
K & S Freighters Pty Ltd v King
Read this case as a process decision about the order in which issues must be decided. If your business wants to rely on surveillance footage, investigator reports or supplementary expert evidence in a tribunal or court matter, do not assume those materials will automatically be treated as ordinary late evidence. If there is a real privilege claim, that issue may need to be determined first because it can affect confidentiality and disclosure questions. But do not overread the case. The Court did not finally decide that K & S Freighters' material was privileged, and it did not endorse a general tactic of withholding surveillance until cross-examination. The safer approach is to identify early who commissioned the material, for what dominant purpose, how it has been handled, and what the relevant procedural rules require. Delay can still create fairness problems, even where privilege is arguable.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that the Tribunal made material errors of law and failed to accord K & S Freighters procedural fairness because legal professional privilege was the central issue that had to be decided first. The Court set aside the Tribunal's orders and decisions made on 7 and 9 February 2024 refusing the confidentiality application and refusing leave to rely on the surveillance footage, associated materials and supplementary medical reports. The confidentiality application was remitted to the Administrative Review Tribunal for determination according to law. The Court reserved costs. Importantly, the Court did not finally determine whether privilege actually applied to the material. That issue was left for the remitted tribunal process.
Kalium Lakes Potash Pty Ltd (in liq) v Minister for Mines and Petroleum [2026] FCA 355
If your company is in liquidation and holds assets that are expensive to keep or difficult to sell, a disclaimer may be a sensible step at the time. But this case shows that if the commercial picture changes later, for example because a buyer emerges, the court may still assist by vesting the disclaimed property back into the company under section 568F of the Corporations Act. The applicant must show disclaimed property exists, that it has a bona fide claim to an interest in the property or an undischarged liability in respect of it, and that the court has heard from the people it thinks should be heard. In practice, urgency, creditor value, existing encumbrances and the proposed next step for the asset all matter. Businesses should document those points carefully.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the vesting orders sought. Banks-Smith J ordered that the identified KLP and KLI tenements vest in the respective companies immediately before each company applied to the Minister for prior written consent to transfer the tenements to the purchaser. The court held that the companies had a sufficient bona fide claim to an interest in the disclaimed property, and sufficient liability in respect of it, to bring the applications under section 568F(2). The court also held that vesting was appropriate because the disclaimers had been properly made at the time, circumstances later changed when a purchaser emerged, the proposed sale could produce a return for creditors, and no interested party opposed the relief. Importantly, the orders preserved the relevant registered mortgages and caveats over the tenements. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Kanevsky (Administrator), in the matter of MA Services Property Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 17
If your business uses a company as trustee, do not assume an administrator can automatically manage and sell trust assets in the same way as ordinary company assets. The first question is what the trust deed says. A vacation of office clause may mean the company stops being trustee as soon as external administration begins. The company may still keep a right of indemnity from trust assets for trust liabilities, but the administrators may need court orders to preserve and realise that right. This case shows the court can appoint administrators as receivers of trust property under section 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act and give them powers under section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule. In practice, businesses should keep trust deeds accessible, identify which assets are trust assets, and get advice quickly if financial distress arises.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. Justice Snaden appointed the administrators as joint and several receivers, without security, over all assets and undertaking of the property of the MA Services Property Group Trust, including five identified properties in Keilor Park. Under section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule, the court also gave them all the powers of a liquidator under section 477(2) of the Corporations Act in relation to the trust property, including powers to take possession, control and sell it. Costs were reserved, and affected persons were given liberty to apply on seven business days' notice to vary or dismiss the orders.
Kant v Australian Information Commissioner (No 3) [2026] FCA 51
Read this case as a warning against premature narrowing. A complaint can be messy, emotional, over-inclusive or legally confused, but that does not mean you can safely reduce it to one issue and close the file. If your business receives a privacy complaint that mentions multiple incidents, multiple recipients of information, several related entities or a mix of access and complaint issues, map each allegation before deciding whether an exemption, jurisdictional limit or internal policy point applies. If only part of the complaint falls outside your process, say so clearly and deal with the rest separately. Confirm your understanding in writing, ask clarifying questions where needed, and keep a record of the documents you relied on. This case is best understood as a complaint-handling and decision-framing case. It does not resolve the underlying privacy allegations, but it shows how a flawed characterisation can undo the decision that follows.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted relief in part. Justice Snaden held that the Commissioner erred by characterising the complaint or enquiry as pertaining solely to conduct attributable to ASIO, and that this was a jurisdictional error. The court issued certiorari quashing the OAIC decision made on 12 September 2023 and mandamus requiring the Commissioner to determine the complaint or enquiry according to law. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs, with assessment if not agreed. The reasons also state that the other grounds relied on by Mr Kant were not made good. The result was therefore procedural rather than substantive: the refusal decision was set aside, but the underlying privacy allegations were not finally resolved.
Kelly, in the matter of Liberty Bell Bay Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 654
If your business operates under environmental permits, a cashflow crisis is not just a finance issue. This case shows that an environmental notice may not create a whole new set of duties, but it can sharpen and make express obligations that already exist under permits and management plans. That can materially affect whether administrators are willing and able to keep a business running while they pursue a sale. The Court was prepared to help because the administrators had evidence that a going-concern outcome could produce a better return for creditors than an immediate liquidation, and because the relief reduced a personal liability risk that could otherwise derail the administration. In practice, businesses should know which site functions cannot safely stop, what minimum staffing and power supply are needed, what permit conditions continue during reduced operations, and how those costs will be funded if revenue falls away. Early engagement with insolvency, regulatory and restructuring advisers can be critical where environmental compliance and business preservation need to happen together.
Outcome: The Court granted the relief sought. It ordered that liabilities incurred by or imposed on the administrators with respect to obligations arising out of or in connection with the environmental protection notice were to be treated as debts incurred by them in performing their functions, but that the administrators would not be personally liable to repay those debts or satisfy those liabilities to the extent the company's assets were insufficient. The Court also extended the convening period for the second meeting of creditors to 29 July 2026 and modified the meeting timing rules so the meeting could be convened and held during, or within five business days after, the extended period with at least five business days' notice. It also made confidentiality orders over parts of the affidavit material and directed that the orders be sent to creditors, ASIC, the Tasmanian EPA and other relevant stakeholders.
Kent Projects Pty Ltd v Communications Electrical Electronics Energy Information Postal Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2026] FCAFC 74
Read this case as a warning about process discipline, not as a final ruling that any omission will invalidate an enterprise agreement. The Full Court dealt with an interlocutory appeal about pleading sufficiency. It held only that the union had an arguable case based on alleged non-disclosure to the Fair Work Commission. For businesses, the safest approach is to assume that facts bearing on genuine agreement, voting eligibility and the real employment position may later be scrutinised closely. Before lodging approval materials, confirm which entity employs the relevant workers, whether each voter is genuinely employed to perform work, and whether any temporary or transitional arrangements should be explained. Keep records that support those positions. If the bargaining process sits alongside a restructure or transfer of work, get legal review early. The cost of checking the approval pathway is usually far lower than defending a challenge after approval has been granted.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the primary judge did not err in finding that the union had demonstrated a reasonable cause of action with some chance of success for the purposes of resisting strike-out. The result was that the challenged parts of the union's pleading remained on foot and the substantive proceeding could continue. The Court did not finally decide that Kent had engaged in fraud, that the Fair Work Commission approval was invalid, or that the union was entitled to certiorari or mandamus. The decision is best understood as a procedural ruling about pleading sufficiency and the continuation of the underlying challenge.
King (Trustee) v Hockings
Business owners should read this as a practical service case with an insolvency backdrop. The Court did not decide whether the respondent ultimately had to repay the $95,000. It decided how the case could be served and move forward. The key distinction is between deemed service under r 10.23 and substituted service under r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Deemed service needs evidence that the documents were actually brought to the person’s attention. Substituted service needs evidence that personal service is not practicable and that the proposed alternative methods will probably bring the documents to the person’s attention. If you are suing, document every attempt to locate and serve the other side. If you are being sued, treat emails, post, calls and texts about court documents seriously, because they may be enough once the Court authorises substituted service.
Outcome: Stellios J refused the application for deemed service under r 10.23 because the evidence did not support an inference that the 30 September 2025 email had actually brought the originating process to the respondent's attention. However, the Court granted substituted service under r 10.24. Personal service was dispensed with, and the applicant was permitted to serve the originating process, the substituted service orders and the reasons for judgment by email, post to two addresses, a phone call and a text message. Service was deemed effective 10 business days after compliance with the orders, and the same substituted service arrangement was allowed for future documents until the respondent filed a notice of address for service or the Court ordered otherwise.
Kippa-Ring Pharmacy Pty Ltd v Pharmaceutical Services Federal Committee of Inquiry
If your business operates under a government approval, licence or subsidy scheme, do not assume that changing entities, adding a partner, or moving responsibilities between related companies will end scrutiny of earlier conduct. In this case, the Federal Court dismissed challenges to two referrals under the National Health Act and accepted, on the available reasons, that an inquiry could proceed in relation to approved pharmacists, including corporate pharmacists acting through directors, employees and agents. The Court also treated broad claims of possible prejudice from a joint inquiry as insufficient without a concrete legal problem such as an actual hearing rule breach or apprehended bias. For business owners, the practical response is to keep clear records, identify which entity held the approval at each time, preserve documents early, and get advice before assuming a referral can be stopped.
Outcome: Rangiah J dismissed both proceedings and ordered the applicants to pay the Commonwealth's costs. The available reasons expressly show that the first three grounds failed. The Court held that the first ground failed because the relevant entities were approved pharmacists when the first referral was made, and existing authority also supported inquiry into past conduct. The second ground failed because Full Court authority had already rejected the construction argument against multi-party referrals, and a bare possibility of prejudice was insufficient. The third ground failed because a corporate approved pharmacist acts through directors, employees and agents, and the references to associated premises were not impermissibly uncertain. The catchwords and orders show that the remaining grounds were also unsuccessful, although the detailed reasoning on those later grounds is not fully visible in the available text.
Kirk (in his capacity as liquidator of ARG Workforce Pty Ltd (in liq)) v Commissioner of State Revenue, in the matter of ARG Workforce Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a warning that tax arrears and regulator engagement can become part of a later insolvency recovery claim. The companies here made substantial payroll tax payments in the six months before liquidation, and it was common ground those payments were voidable. The real fight was over the creditor defence, and the court rejected it because the evidence did not satisfactorily prove the Commissioner's position. If your business is under pressure, do not assume that paying an old tax debt will end the issue. Get advice early on solvency, group payroll tax exposure and how to deal with payment plans or assessments. If you are a creditor, keep clear contemporaneous records. A later defence depends on what can be proved, not on general statements about standard practice.
Outcome: The Federal Court found for the liquidator. It declared that each payment listed in the schedules was an unfair preference, an insolvent transaction and a voidable transaction. The court ordered the Commissioner to repay $2,474,375.01 to ARG Workforce Pty Ltd (in liq) and $345,791.57 to ARG Payroll Pty Ltd (in liq), together with interest, and to pay the plaintiffs' costs. The court also found that each company had been insolvent from 30 June 2019. The Commissioner's reliance on s 588FG(2) failed because, as the published catchwords state, the witnesses called had no recollection of the salient events and the witness evidence and documents did not provide a satisfactory basis for the court to be satisfied that the defence had been established.
Kirkalocka Gold SPV Pty Ltd v SCL AUS Limited (No 2)
If your business is in a contested property or insolvency-related dispute, do not treat costs as an afterthought. A Calderbank offer will not automatically lead to indemnity costs just because you later win. The court will look at whether the offer was clear and whether rejection was unreasonable at the time, based on what the other side then knew about the case. This judgment also shows that if receivers or similar officeholders want their litigation costs paid from company assets, they need to point to the actual deed, security or other legal source that gives them that right. And while a pleading defect about costs may not stop a successful party getting ordinary costs, it still creates avoidable risk. Clear pleadings, clear offers and clear evidence about entitlement to payment can materially change the commercial result. Businesses should also remember that a joint offer to multiple parties can fail as a costs tool if it does not clearly explain whether each offeree can accept independently.
Outcome: The court ordered that, subject to one qualification, SCL pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding, to be assessed if not agreed. The qualification was that there be no order as to the costs of the parties' submissions about costs, because each side had some success on those issues. The court refused to order indemnity costs against SCL. It held both that SCL's rejection of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable at the time, given the legal position was not straightforward and the plaintiffs' case had not yet been fully articulated, and that the offer itself was not sufficiently clear because it was made jointly to SCL and Tor without clearly allowing separate acceptance or rejection. The court also refused, on the material before it, to order that the receivers be indemnified out of Kirkalocka's assets, but granted liberty to apply if further evidence and submissions were provided.
Knight, in the matter of ANZ Hospitals Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 2) [2026] FCA 589
If your business is in administration, this case shows that a court is more likely to grant extra time when administrators can point to a concrete sale or restructuring process, explain why the original plan changed, and show that creditors are likely to be better off if the process is allowed to continue. If you are a creditor, supplier or landlord, do not assume an extended convening period means the administration has stalled. It may mean the administrators and receivers are trying to complete transactions that could materially affect recoveries, contract continuity and future trading arrangements. Read notices carefully, monitor whether meetings can still be called earlier under a Daisytek style order, and pay close attention to group guarantees and cross-guarantees. In a corporate group, your exposure may depend on more than the company you originally contracted with.
Outcome: The Court allowed the application. It ordered that the convening period for the second creditors' meetings be further extended to 1 June 2027. It also made a Daisytek order so the meetings could be convened at any time before, or within five business days after, that date, provided eligible creditors and persons claiming to be creditors received at least five business days' notice. The administrators were given liberty to apply for any further extension before expiry, and any person with sufficient interest was given liberty to apply to discharge or modify the orders on three business days' written notice. Costs were ordered to be costs of the administrations. The Court considered the extension to be in the best interests of creditors because it would allow the sale process to proceed in an orderly way, maximise value, avoid destabilisation, and permit a more informed report to creditors once the position of the group was clearer.
Kutti Bay Investments Pty Ltd v Rattlejack Innovations Pty Ltd
Read this case as a warning about patent family strategy, not just amendment procedure. The ruling does not say patent amendments are forbidden, and it does not finally determine infringement or validity in the new proceeding. What it does say is that amendments aimed at sidestepping earlier court findings on related patents may be blocked as an abuse of process. For a business owner, the practical message is to review the whole family before suing, amending or threatening enforcement. Check whether earlier judgments have already fixed important points about claim language, the disclosed invention or the technical contribution. If they have, proposed amendments need to be genuinely corrective and carefully justified. A new expert team or new wording will not necessarily free the business from the effect of earlier findings.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the respondents' abuse applications in part. Rofe J declared that Kutti Bay's interlocutory amendment application, insofar as it sought to "overcome" the Court's findings in the earlier 2022 trial decision and 2023 Full Court appeal, was an abuse of process. The respondents' interlocutory applications were successful to that extent. Subject to further order, Kutti Bay was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to those applications, to be taxed if not agreed, and the matter was listed for further case management. On the available text, the ruling was targeted rather than absolute and did not reject amendment in principle.
Lake House Corporation Limited v Timor Resources Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 335
If your company has a constitution and a shareholders deed, treat them as a combined governance framework, not separate documents with separate importance. In this case, one shareholder group tried to rely on the constitution to remove an independent director at a general meeting. The court said the shareholders deed had already set the agreed process for appointing and removing that role, and the deed also required parties to use their voting rights to stop the company taking unauthorised steps. That was enough for the court to intervene. The practical lesson is to review the constitution, shareholders deed, investment documents and any reserved matters schedule before taking board or shareholder action. If a special governance role such as an independent director was commercially negotiated, a court may stop any attempt to bypass that bargain. Businesses should also take costs exposure seriously. An urgent governance move that is plainly inconsistent with the deed can lead not only to an injunction, but also to indemnity costs.
Outcome: The Federal Court found for Lake House. Jackman J declared that an independent director may only be appointed to, and removed from, office pursuant to clauses 2.8 and 2.9 of the shareholders deed. The court also declared that the notice of general meeting dated 18 February 2026 was invalid and of no effect. The company and the Nepean shareholders were restrained from holding or purporting to hold a general meeting to remove Mr Moyes and appoint Dr King as independent director. The judge held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the shareholders deed had modified the constitution because, even if it had not, the deed was still enforceable as a contract governing how the parties exercised their rights and powers in relation to the company. The Nepean shareholders were ordered to pay Lake House’s costs on an indemnity basis, with quantification to follow by lump sum process.
Lesbian Action Group Inc v Australian Human Rights Commission
Business owners should read this case as a warning against oversimplified compliance thinking. The Court did not say that exclusionary public events are automatically allowed, and it did not say they are automatically prohibited in every form. What it said is that the temporary exemption power must be approached on its proper legal footing. The Sex Discrimination Act has a layered structure: broad prohibitions, built-in exceptions, separate exemptions, special measures, and a temporary exemption power. If your organisation is planning a restricted event or service, you need to identify whether you are dealing with members or the public, whether you are acting as a voluntary body, club or ordinary service provider, and which protected attributes are engaged. If you apply for an exemption, frame the application carefully and expect the decision-maker to consider the right legal test. This judgment leaves the final merits question open because the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for redetermination.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the appeal. Moshinsky J held that the Tribunal erred in its construction and application of s 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act by taking too narrow a view of the exemption power. The Court also held that the Tribunal erred in concluding that it was not subject to the duty in s 10A(1)(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act when reviewing the exercise of the s 44 discretion. The Court did not determine the remaining grounds, including the argument about the meaning of “sex” and the legal unreasonableness ground. The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Administrative Review Tribunal for determination according to law. Costs were left for later agreement or written submissions.
Leslie (Trustee) v White (Bankrupt), in the matter of White
If you become bankrupt, you cannot assume you can keep using personally owned business premises while you try to sort out refinancing or negotiate with creditors. This case shows that the Court will look closely at whether a proposed rescue plan is real and properly documented. An unsigned loan document, uncertainty about who can sign for a company, and missing cost assumptions can all undermine a request for more time. The judgment also highlights the trustee's role under the Bankruptcy Act. The trustee must recover and realise estate property for creditors and administer the estate efficiently, while the bankrupt must cooperate. If your business depends on land you own personally, get advice early about bankruptcy, property vesting, company officer issues and finance documents. Waiting until the day before a possession hearing is a high-risk strategy.
Outcome: The Federal Court refused the adjournment application and held that the section 73 proposal was not a bona fide proposal on the material before it. The Court accepted the trustee's concerns about the proposal's sufficiency, including the unexecuted finance document, the apparent absence of company officers for the proposed borrower, the fact that Mr White as an undischarged bankrupt could not be a director, and the failure to account for all likely costs. The Court then held that Mr White remained bankrupt, that the Jimboomba property formed part of the bankrupt estate, and that it had power under sections 30(1)(b) and 77(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act to make possession orders. Mr White was ordered to deliver vacant possession and keys within 56 days, remove personal property not vested in the trustee, and do what was reasonably required to enable the sale. If he did not comply, a writ of possession could issue and the trustee could remove and dispose of remaining personal property. Costs were payable from the estate, with legal costs to be fixed by a Registrar unless agreed.
Leung v Omnia Inclusive Employment Solutions Ltd [2026] FCA 606
A lawful reason for dismissal is not enough if the process is untidy. In this matter, the courts accepted that the employer had decided during probation to terminate the employee, and the appeal did not disturb the finding that the dismissal was not because she exercised workplace rights or because she was temporarily absent from work. But the employer still remained exposed on the basic termination mechanics because the termination letter recorded an earlier date and payment in lieu of notice was delayed. For business owners, the practical lesson is to avoid mixed messages. If a decision has been made, record when it was made, who made it and why. If notice is to be paid in lieu, make sure that happens consistently with the termination process. Do not let workers compensation developments, leave status or disputes about company property blur the dismissal timeline.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the appeal. Halley J granted leave to file a further amended notice of appeal except for proposed ground 5, which concerned an alleged denial of a fair opportunity to plead accessorial liability. The Court rejected the procedural fairness complaints addressed in the accessible reasons, including complaints about excessive judicial intervention. The result left standing the primary judge’s conclusions that Omnia had not contravened sections 340 or 352 of the Fair Work Act. However, the earlier finding that Omnia contravened section 44 by failing to comply with section 117 notice requirements remained undisturbed, along with the $10,000 compensation order. The Court made no order as to costs.
Li v Clear Environmental Pty Limited (deregistered) [2026] FCA 230
The practical lesson is to treat company records as part of your asset protection, not as back-office paperwork. If founders agree on ownership, issue the shares properly and make sure the ASIC record and internal registers match. If a director or shareholder dies, deal with the estate formally and document any transfer of interests. If a company is only a holding vehicle, it still needs annual compliance, accounts and clear records of any transactions. And if a company has been deregistered, do not assume you can simply revive it later to fix a dispute. The Court must be satisfied both that you are a person aggrieved and that reinstatement is just. Where the evidence is confused, the register says something different, or transactions were carried out while the company did not legally exist, the Court may refuse to put the company back on the register.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Mr Li's review application on 9 March 2026. The practical result was that the registrar's earlier refusal stood and Clear Environmental was not reinstated. The available reasons show that the Court applied the statutory test for reinstatement and was not persuaded on the material before it. Key difficulties included the fact that ASIC records did not show Mr Li as a shareholder or director, the confusing and inconsistent contractual material about later transactions, the claim that important dealings occurred while the company was deregistered, and the absence of basic company accounts and returns. The Court also noted possible tax consequences if the company had disposed of interests while it should have existed.
Lighthouse Building Permits Pty Ltd v Site Inspections Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this as an interlocutory procedure case with a practical defamation lesson. The Court did not decide that defamation had been proved. It decided that the pleaded case against the third and fourth respondents was arguable and should continue. On the allegations before the Court, helping create a publication, supplying information for it, agreeing to be interviewed for it, or later endorsing it may be enough to keep you in the case. The decision also shows that procedural shortcuts can backfire. Summary judgment, strike-out applications, early evidence filing and notices to produce all have proper uses, but only when the law and timing support them. If a business presses applications that have no reasonable prospect of success, especially after being warned, the Court may dismiss them and order indemnity costs. Self-representation is not a shield. If your business is involved in a public dispute, control further publication, preserve records, and get advice before taking aggressive procedural steps.
Outcome: Justice Snaden dismissed both the review application and the adjournment application. The Court held that the applicants' statement of claim did disclose an arguable cause of action in defamation against Mr and Mrs Martens, so there was no basis for summary judgment, strike-out relief or their removal as respondents. The Court also held that the application to file and rely on documentary material was premature and that the notice to produce was not a proper notice because it sought documents at large. The registrar's orders dismissing those steps, setting aside the notice, removing certain material from the file, and awarding indemnity costs were affirmed. The separate question of costs for the review and adjournment applications was left to be determined on short written submissions.
Ligon 158 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Binetter
Business owners should read this as a warning about process and document design. A broad release may still be challenged later if a liquidator says company claims were given away in circumstances involving insolvency, insider benefit or creditor prejudice. If your business is settling a dispute while solvency is under pressure, review who is releasing what, who benefits, and whether the company is giving up claims that may later matter to creditors. If a dispute may need to be litigated, do not leave service planning until the last moment, especially where parties are overseas. This case does not mean the applicants will ultimately win on the substance. It means the court was not prepared to shut the case down at this procedural stage. Good records, careful settlement drafting and early legal advice remain the practical safeguards.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed both interlocutory applications. O'Sullivan J refused Mr Binetter's application filed on 5 March 2025 and Ms Kelliher's application filed on 7 March 2025. The court ordered the first and second respondents to pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to those applications, with liberty to apply for a variation to the costs order by 13 February 2026. The judgment shows that, although the respondents had an explanation for their absence because they had not been served, they failed to show a reasonably arguable or prima facie basis to oppose the making of the ex parte orders. The court was also not satisfied that the claim had such insufficient prospects of success that the overseas respondents should be spared the burden of defending it.
Lindsay v Qld Childcare Centres Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 613
If your business runs from land owned by the same people who are fighting about the company, do not assume the property will stay untouched until the company case finishes. In this case, the Federal Court appointed a trustee to sell the co-owned property despite ongoing oppression proceedings, because the right to seek that relief was treated as close to an entitlement unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court also refused to force the trustee to sell the land together with the business, leaving the trustee with discretion to choose the sale method. For business owners, the practical message is to document occupation rights, align company and property arrangements, and build clear buy-sell and deadlock mechanisms before relationships break down.
Outcome: The Court granted the application and appointed David Hambleton of Rodgers Reidy as trustee for sale of 4 Heaton Street, Biloela. The property vested in the trustee for sale. The Court held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction because the property dispute formed part of the same matter as the oppression claim, and that Mr Lindsay’s objections did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying refusal of a trustee-for-sale order. However, the Court rejected the applicants’ attempt to require the trustee to sell the property together with the business. Instead, the trustee was given broad discretion to sell the property with the business by private treaty, or to sell the property alone by private treaty or auction, with detailed orders about co-owner bidding, outgoings, insurance, marketing and trustee remuneration.
LK Law Pty Ltd v Karas (No 5)
Business owners should read this case as a disclosure and governance warning, not just a dispute between former business associates. The Court’s orders show that if a person owing duties to a company secretly negotiates with a third party about a business asset or revenue stream, shares confidential information, and then stays silent while a separation deal is signed, that silence can support serious liability. The case also shows that a third party is not necessarily safe just because it was not the fiduciary itself. If it knowingly assists the wrongdoing, it can face its own substantial exposure. In practice, businesses should treat side negotiations, framework agreements, due diligence sharing and transition promises as matters requiring formal approval and documented disclosure. If you are signing a release deed, do not assume broad wording will automatically wipe away earlier misconduct.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the declarations sought by the applicants, entered judgment for LK Law Pty Ltd against Mr Karas for A$36,458,048.44 inclusive of interest, and entered judgment against the fourth respondent for A$21,399,540.24 inclusive of interest. It held that compound interest was available and appropriate on the equitable awards. The Court also ordered that clauses 8 and 12 of the Separation Agreement were unenforceable under s 237 of the Australian Consumer Law, dismissed the cross-claim, dismissed the claims against the second and third respondents with no order as to costs, and dismissed the applicants' Corporations Act and Australian Consumer Law claims against the fourth respondent. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs on a party-party basis, with lump sum assessment to be dealt with by a Registrar unless agreed.
LK Law Pty Ltd v Karas (No 6)
If your business has a judgment in its favour, plan for the possibility that enforcement may be delayed by a stay application. Test the other side's evidence carefully and focus on whether the proposed security really protects the judgment debt. If your business is seeking a stay, this case shows that broad assertions are not enough. You need concrete evidence about assets, liabilities, likely prejudice and what safeguards you can offer, such as a bank guarantee or undertakings not to deal with assets. The case also shows that recusal arguments are narrow. Earlier adverse findings against a witness do not automatically disqualify the trial judge from hearing a later procedural application, especially where credibility is no longer in issue. Confidentiality requests also need proper support, not assumption.
Outcome: The Federal Court refused the recusal application, holding that there was no logical connection between the earlier adverse credit findings and the issue now to be decided on the stay application, especially after LK Law accepted arguable appeal grounds for that limited purpose and said it would not cross-examine Mr Karas or attack his credit. The court also refused continuing confidentiality orders over documents filed in the stay proceeding. On the stay applications, the court granted a stay in favour of MdR subject to conditions including a bank guarantee for the judgment amount, and granted a stay in favour of Mr Karas subject to conditions. The reasons show that undertakings and asset preservation were important to Mr Karas' stay, but the full final conditions are not visible in the available reasons.
LK Law Pty Ltd v Karas (No 7)
If your business is considering an appeal after an adverse judgment, plan for enforcement risk at the same time. A stay may be available, but it can come with strict and expensive conditions. You may need to find cash quickly, arrange a bank guarantee from a bank the Court will accept, preserve identified assets, and deal with related-party loans in a way that reassures the Court that money will still be available if the appeal succeeds. This case also shows the importance of preparation. If you want more time, explain why with evidence. If your company structure includes loans from owners, family entities or related companies, expect those arrangements to be examined closely. And if confidentiality matters, raise it properly and support it. The practical message is to treat a stay application as a financing, asset-control and evidence exercise, not just an appeal formality.
Outcome: The Court granted conditional stays of enforcement against the first and fourth respondents, except for Orders 5 and 12 in the earlier judgment. Mr Karas had to pay AUD$5 million in two instalments, being AUD$1.5 million within 21 days and AUD$3.5 million within 45 days, and provide an irrevocable AUD$5 million bank guarantee from an Australian bank within 30 days. The fourth respondent had to provide an irrevocable bank guarantee from National Westminster Bank PLC in the sum of AUD$21,399,540.24 within 28 days. The Court rejected the applicants' fastest proposed payment timetable as oppressive, but also rejected Mr Karas' 120 day proposal because he had provided no evidence to justify it. The Court refused a carve-out for AUD$30,000 monthly repayments on the related-party loan, required undertakings preserving assets and the appeal process, and dismissed the confidentiality application because no party advanced submissions supporting confidentiality.
Low (Liquidator) v Hughes (No 2)
Read this case as a remedies decision, not a finding that the accountants were liable or that section 1324 automatically gives a company compensation from advisers. The Court's answer was limited. It said the particular relief sought in paragraphs 5 to 10 was not available in that form, while some section 1324 relief could be available. If your business is using ATO payment arrangements, do not assume that solves solvency issues or changes when liabilities are due and payable unless the arrangement actually does so. Directors should document solvency assessments and cashflow assumptions. Advisers should define the scope of their retainer, record warnings clearly, and avoid giving comfort that a payment arrangement fixes the underlying legal position. Anyone relying on this case should check the full judgment before treating it as authority for the exact scope of section 1324 relief.
Outcome: The Federal Court answered the separate question partly for the plaintiffs and partly against them. Assuming the facts alleged in the further amended statement of claim were established, the plaintiffs could not be granted any of the relief sought against the fifth and sixth defendants in paragraphs 5 to 10 of the amended originating process. However, the Court also held that the plaintiffs could be granted relief under section 1324 of the Corporations Act against those defendants. The decision therefore did not endorse the pleaded relief as framed, but it also did not close off section 1324 entirely. The available court text does not fully set out the exact scope of the section 1324 relief left open.
Lumina BPO Pty Ltd v Cocoon Data Technologies Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 116
If you are supplying services to a group of related companies, decide up front whether you want one contracting entity or several. Then make the proposal, engagement letter, terms of trade, acceptance process and invoicing pattern all line up. In this case, the Court treated the contractual definition of the “Cocoon Data Group” as critical, and that contractual definition was not the same as every use of that phrase in the evidence. The Court also accepted that one entity could be the payroll and administration vehicle without being the only party liable. If you are the customer, read group engagement letters carefully before signing. A CEO or director signing once may be accepting liability for multiple entities if the document is drafted that way and the signatory has authority. Do not assume that because one company pays invoices, only that company is bound.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that each of the corporate respondents, together with Cocoon Data Australia, was a counterparty to the contract. As the contract expressly provided that where there was more than one client each client was jointly and severally liable for Lumina’s professional fees and expenses, the corporate respondents were liable for the unpaid debt. The Court entered judgment against the corporate respondents for $269,865.56 plus pre-judgment interest. The amount reflected Lumina’s invoiced claim less the dividend it had received under the DOCA of Cocoon Data Australia, with interest added. The claim against Mr Telford personally was dismissed when the matter came on for hearing, and the alternative claims for promissory estoppel and misleading or deceptive conduct were not pressed. Costs were left for further short minutes or submissions.
Lye v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Bureau of Meteorology) [2026] FCA 594
Businesses should read this as an interim injunction case, not a final ruling that the dismissal was lawful. The Court did not decide the final merits of the employee's general protections claim. It only decided that urgent reinstatement and related orders should not be granted on the material then before it. What mattered was that the employer had identified the decision-makers, pointed to letters and process documents recording their reasons, and framed those reasons around conduct and workplace impact rather than the fact that complaints had been made. If an employee has raised safety, discrimination, injury management, rehabilitation or bullying issues, employers should be especially careful. Do not criticise the employee for using complaint channels or legal rights. If there is a genuine conduct issue, describe it precisely, document it at the time, preserve the decision-maker's evidence, and keep records showing the distinction between protected activity and unacceptable behaviour. Also remember that delay can affect urgent applications, but it will not end the underlying claim.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Mr Lye's interlocutory application dated 17 April 2026. Snaden J held that Mr Lye had not established a sufficient prima facie case for urgent reinstatement or the related interim orders he sought. The Court also said that delay in pursuing the relief strongly counted against granting it. Although suspension and dismissal were accepted to be adverse action, the Court was not prepared, on the interim evidence, to infer the prohibited reasons or coercive intent alleged. The Bureau's evidence from the relevant decision-makers was described as uncontradicted, internally coherent and at least partly documented. Importantly, the judgment did not finally determine the underlying general protections claims. Those issues were left for trial.
Mallia v Colonial First State Investments Ltd
Read this case as a governance and settlement-approval decision, not as a final ruling that any contract term or pricing arrangement was unlawful. The Court approved a class action settlement on a non-admissions basis and made clear, through its orders, that each deduction from the settlement fund had to be justified. For businesses, the strongest lesson is to keep a clear record when entering related-party arrangements that affect what customers, members or employees pay. If there are comparable alternatives in the market, document the comparison and the reasons for the final choice. If litigation later arises, settlement strategy should also focus on distribution mechanics, objections, administration costs and funding deductions, not only on the gross settlement amount.
Outcome: Bennett J approved the settlement and the settlement distribution scheme. The proceeding resolved for $140 million in full and final settlement on a non-admissions basis and with no order as to costs. The Court approved deductions including a 27.5% funding commission, legal costs and disbursements of $15,717,695.01, reimbursement amounts, stamp duty and specified administration expenses. The Court recorded that the applicant and group members would receive about 57.5% of the settlement sum, or approximately $80.47 million, after deductions. However, the Court refused to authorise payment of $4,488,400 claimed for after the event insurance costs and fees for deeds of indemnity provided by the respondents by way of security for costs. The Court also made confidentiality, opt-out validity and settlement administration orders.
Marie v Trustee for Aspire Residences Unit Trust
Read this case as a warning about settlement follow-through. A deed of release is a binding contract. If your business agrees to pay by a set date, treat that date as operationally critical even if the deed does not say time is of the essence. Here, the late payment did not revive the original employment case, and once payment was made the employee's interlocutory application became pointless for practical enforcement purposes. But the delay still triggered litigation. Businesses should make sure signed deeds are logged immediately, payment responsibility is allocated to a named person, funds are transferred before the deadline, proof of payment is sent straight away, and consent orders are prepared in advance. If there is a delay, communicate early and consider whether a practical resolution can stop the dispute from escalating. Also remember that a later fight about the deed may be treated as a contract matter with ordinary costs exposure.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application. Justice McElwaine held that the application to enforce the compromise was properly lodged when filed because payment had not yet been made, but once the employer paid the $15,000 the application became inutile because no practical enforcement relief remained available through that interlocutory process. The Court held that the deed did not allow the original proceeding to be revived for non-compliance, and that breach of a non-essential time stipulation was not a basis to impeach the compromise in the way sought. Any attempt to set aside the deed for repudiation required a new proceeding. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application from 30 April 2025 because, acting reasonably, she should have withdrawn it after payment was received.
Marlu Transport Solutions Pty Ltd v Bishdun Pty Ltd (No 2)
The main takeaway is that this was a procedural refusal, not a final ruling on the Australian Consumer Law allegations or on whether the related company could ever bring its own claim. The Court accepted that the proposed cross-claim was closely connected to the existing dispute and that the delay had been adequately explained. Even so, leave was refused because the new claim would likely require extensive factual testing and discovery about nearly 500 accounting entries and the purpose of many separate payments. For businesses, the lesson is practical. If related-party funding may become part of your loss case, document it carefully from the start. Record whether each payment is a loan, working capital support, reimbursement or something else. Keep supporting material showing why the payment was made and how it relates to the business operation. If litigation starts, identify all possible claimants and all categories of loss early. Do not assume a court will let you add a new damages case shortly before trial just because it arises from the same commercial background.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed MRG's interlocutory application for leave to pursue the proposed cross-claim and ordered MRG to pay the costs of the first to third cross-claimants in relation to that application. Jackson J accepted that the delay had been adequately explained and that the proposed claim was closely connected to the existing proceeding. However, the Court found that the new claim would open a significant field of forensic dispute, particularly about the purpose of many separate payments and the proof of causation and loss. With trial only a little over four weeks away and no adjournment sought or appropriate, there was insufficient time to allow the discovery, issue narrowing and preparation needed for a fair and orderly trial. The Court also considered that any duplication from a separate later proceeding would not be excessive.
Mashni v The Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd
If your business is involved in Federal Court proceedings, start from the assumption that names and allegations may become public. Do not build your litigation plan around the expectation that the Court will allow pseudonyms or suppression simply because the dispute is politically charged, emotionally difficult or commercially awkward. This case shows that the Court will ask whether the order is necessary on the evidence, and it will test that evidence closely. Subjective fear is not the same as objective proof. If there is a real safety issue, document it carefully and raise it early. If the concern is mainly reputational, media-related or strategic, be realistic about the limits of confidentiality orders. Also remember that temporary interim protection can sometimes be granted for a short period to preserve appeal rights or allow discontinuance, even where the main application fails. That is very different from winning a lasting anonymity order.
Outcome: McEvoy J dismissed the application by the third to sixth applicants for ongoing pseudonym and related non-publication orders. The Court held that the evidence did not establish that the orders were necessary either to protect safety or to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The applicants' concerns were treated as subjective and, on the material before the Court, largely speculative, especially given their existing public association with pro-Palestinian advocacy and the lack of evidence of concrete adverse consequences from that public identification. The Court also rejected the idea that a party can generally obtain suppression by saying they would be deterred from litigating openly. However, the Court made limited interim orders to preserve anonymity briefly for any leave to appeal application and to protect the identity of any relevant applicant who discontinued promptly.
Mastercard Asia/Pacific (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2026] FCAFC 37
Treat affidavits, document review and privilege claims as one coordinated exercise. This case confirms that implied waiver is not confined to situations where a party expressly relies on legal advice or quotes a privileged communication. It can arise where a party opens a broader subject-matter, here Mastercard's purpose in devising and implementing strategic merchant agreements, in a way that is inconsistent with keeping related confidential communications hidden. The Court also confirmed that this issue can arise before trial, at the case management stage, when affidavits have been served and production is being sought. In practice, businesses should review draft affidavits against the privilege log, identify whether the evidence puts internal purpose or reasoning in issue, avoid unnecessary references to internal consultations or papers, and get legal review before filing. A carefully drafted affidavit may still be possible, but it should be prepared with waiver risk in mind from the start.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed Mastercard's appeal. It held that the primary judge was correct to conclude that Mastercard had impliedly waived privilege over confidential communications relevant to a matter it had put in issue through its affidavits. The Court said implied waiver is not limited to assertions about the content of privileged communications themselves. It can arise where a party opens a subject-matter to scrutiny, and here that subject-matter was Mastercard's purpose in devising and implementing the commercial transactions and SMAs. The Court also held that waiver at the pre-trial stage was not dependent on the affidavits being read into evidence at trial. The appellants were ordered to pay the ACCC's costs.
Mazi v Elizabeth Andrews Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a records, classification and payroll process case. The Federal Court did not endorse informal employment practices generally. It decided only that the proposed appeal did not show any arguable error in the earlier liability findings. The employer appears to have succeeded on most issues because the first-instance judge made detailed factual findings that were open on the evidence about the employee’s actual duties, the roster, the payroll events and the availability of workplace documents. That is a reminder that award disputes are often won or lost on evidence, not assumptions. At the same time, the employer still committed two contraventions relating to one late payment and one non-compliant payslip. The later decision not to impose a penalty did not erase those findings. Businesses should therefore check casual engagement terms, award classifications, payment timing, payslip content, roster records and document access systems carefully. Winning the bigger dispute does not protect a business from findings on basic compliance failures.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The Court accepted that the delay had a reasonable explanation and that the respondents had not shown identifiable prejudice, but held that this was not enough because the proposed appeal grounds lacked merit. After reviewing each ground in detail, the Court concluded that the earlier liability judgment was not attended with sufficient doubt to justify reconsideration on appeal. The employee was therefore not permitted to proceed with the appeal. The earlier findings remained in place, including the two contraventions for late payment and a non-compliant pay slip. The later penalty judgment had imposed no penalty because those breaches were treated as honest mistakes and oversights contributed to by the employee, but the contraventions still stood.
McAvoy v Adani Mining Pty Ltd T/A Bravus Mining and Resources
If your business receives a discrimination complaint, treat the Commission stage as legally significant from day one. Preserve the complaint form, every attachment, the covering correspondence, any redacted and unredacted versions, the termination notice and your own responses. In a later court case, those documents may define who can sue and what conduct is actually in issue. This decision also shows the importance of separating two questions. One is the merits question, meaning whether the alleged conduct was unlawful. The other is the scope question, meaning whether the court claim matches the terminated complaint. Businesses should assess both. On the prevention side, review public statements about protesters, critics, Traditional Owners, employees or community groups carefully. Even where a business is defending its position, statements said to target race or ethnic identity may create discrimination risk.
Outcome: The Court granted summary judgment in part. It ordered that the applicant's claim for relief be dismissed to the extent it was brought on behalf of any person other than the applicant and a specified list of named individuals. On the available extract, the Court accepted that the complaint materials before the Commission did not include the broader class of unnamed extended family members later sought to be included in the Federal Court proceeding. The Court also considered that Custodians Ltd could not sensibly operate as a vehicle for including those additional individuals for the pleaded racial discrimination claims, and accepted that the statement of claim extended beyond the temporal limits of the complaint. A separate application to discontinue the proceeding in respect of non-consenting group members was dismissed. The matter was listed for further hearing, so some part of the proceeding remained on foot.
McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Hearing) [2026] FCA 173
If your business produces or commissions screen content, lock down credits early and keep them aligned across the contract, the film itself and every public listing. This case shows that the wording “Directed by” versus “Director” can matter in context, especially where more than one person has contributed to directing work. Do not assume a broad waiver clause solves moral rights issues. Also do not treat IMDb entries, festival submissions or promotional copy as harmless admin. The court found that public-facing representations about directorship could support ACL claims as well as moral rights and contract claims. In practice, businesses should document who holds which role, who approves cuts and edits, who signs off on credits, and who is authorised to make or approve external representations before a project goes public.
Outcome: At the liability stage, the court upheld most of Mr McCallum’s claims. It found that he was the sole principal director of the documentary for the purposes of the Copyright Act, while Mr Ngo was a director but not a principal director. The court held that the clause relied on as a general waiver of moral rights was not enforceable to that extent and did not amount to a general consent to the infringements alleged. Projector Films and Mr Ngo were found to have infringed Mr McCallum’s moral rights. Projector Films was also found to have breached the Director’s Agreement and to have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to certain IMDb, Sundance and MIFF representations. Most cross-claims failed, although one notoriety-related claim succeeded in one respect. Relief and remedies were left for later determination.
McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653
If your business commissions or releases creative work, lock down credit wording, placement, approval rights and who controls public listings before release. This case shows that legal exposure can arise from the combined effect of the work itself, festival materials, online databases and promotional copy. The Court was prepared to restrain representations that one person was the principal director, require a specific directing credit for another person, and set rules about where and how that credit had to appear. It also ordered payment of an unpaid contractual amount. In practice, businesses should treat credits as part of legal compliance. Check the contract, the opening and closing credits, posters, websites, festival submissions, database entries and any credit block in advertising so they all tell the same story about who did what.
Outcome: The Court made declarations that the respondents infringed McCallum's right of attribution and right not to have his role falsely attributed in relation to the Sundance Version and Feature Version of the documentary. It also declared that Projector Films engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the ACL through IMDb changes, Sundance website material, the Sundance Version credits and MIFF promotional material, and that it threatened further misleading conduct in relation to a version prepared for MIFF. The Court declared several contractual breaches by Projector Films, including failure to give the agreed directing credit, failure to obtain agreement to add Ngo as a director in a mutually agreed position, failure to pay $25,000 and failure to provide cuts for approval. It permanently restrained further infringing and misleading conduct, prescribed how McCallum must be credited on copies within the respondents' control and in advertising and promotional material, ordered payment of the $25,000 within 21 days, and set a timetable for remaining relief and costs issues. It refused some broader relief, including the respondents' proposed contractual injunction and, according to the catchwords, an order requiring correction of existing copies.
Medibank Private Limited v McClure
If your business needs an external review after a serious incident, decide early what each piece of work is for. A report intended mainly to help lawyers give legal advice should be scoped, governed and described consistently with that purpose. If you also need a regulator-facing, board-facing, remediation or public-assurance review, consider whether that should be a separate workstream. Do not assume that routing everything through external lawyers or using privilege wording in an engagement letter will settle the issue. Courts can look at ASX announcements, board papers, regulator communications, governance structures and the practical role the report was expected to play. Also be careful with public statements about sharing findings, recommendations or lessons. The extract shows that waiver is a separate question turning on inconsistency with confidentiality, and public messaging may later be tested against that standard. The safest commercial approach is disciplined separation of purposes, careful records and coordinated legal and communications planning.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed Medibank's application for leave to appeal and ordered Medibank to pay the respondents' costs. On the extract available, the Court held that Medibank's proposed grounds were not sufficiently arguable because they were, in substance, an attack on the primary judge's evaluative findings about purpose rather than a demonstration of legal error. The Court said the primary judge had correctly applied the dominant purpose principles and was entitled to assess purpose objectively by reference to the totality of the evidence. That included witness evidence, retainer documents, public ASX statements, APRA's involvement in the review's scope and governance, and board and organisational materials showing broader institutional purposes. The extract also confirms the Court's reminder that waiver depends on inconsistency with confidentiality, not merely on reference to a privileged process.
Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union Pty Limited v Rugby Australia Limited, in the matter of Melbourne Rebels Rugby Union Pty Limited
If your business is suing and there is a real concern you may not be able to pay the other side's costs if you lose, security for costs should be treated as part of case strategy from the start. This case shows two things at once. First, the court may still order a very large amount of security even where it finds problems with the defendant's evidence and thinks the estimates are pitched high. Secondly, the court will not simply accept a headline figure because a defendant says it expects to spend that amount. Cost estimates should be clear, itemised, and supported in proper sworn form. If your case is being backed by a funder, investor or director, assume that arrangement may become relevant in practice. If you are defending a claim, this decision is a reminder to present cost evidence carefully and avoid overreaching, because unsupported or premium assumptions may lead to discounting and adverse costs consequences on the application itself.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Melbourne Rebels to provide a further tranche of security for Rugby Australia's costs in the amount of $2,120,507.52, comprising $1,190,000 for pre-trial costs and $930,507.52 for trial costs. The money had to be paid into court by 4:00 pm on 17 April 2026. The plaintiff also had to provide a copy of the order to its funder, Mr Leigh Clifford, by 10 April 2026. If the plaintiff failed to comply, the proceeding would be stayed until payment was made or further order. Rugby Australia's interlocutory application was otherwise dismissed. Rugby Australia was ordered to pay Melbourne Rebels' costs of the application incurred after 27 March 2026, and otherwise the parties were to bear their own costs of the application, with liberty to apply in respect of those costs orders.
Michales v CharterLaw Legal Pty Limited [2026] FCA 209
If your business has stopped trading in the same way, transferred active operations, or moved work into a new entity, you may still be able to recover debts owed to the original company. In this case, the Court accepted that recovering old legal fees was not the same thing as carrying on unqualified legal practice. The creditor company remained a registered company and could instruct solicitors through its officers. If you are resisting a bankruptcy notice, the lesson is the opposite side of that coin. You need a real and legally relevant ground, not a broad complaint that the creditor has acted badly or no longer operates as it once did. Courts will closely examine whether your alleged counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand actually answers the debt. They will also scrutinise attempts to add new claims after the statutory period has passed. Focus, timing and evidence matter more than volume.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, dismissed the proposed amendment application, dismissed the review application concerning the notice to produce and subpoenas, and dismissed the joinder application. On the reasoning available, Perry J held that CLL remained a registered company capable of instructing solicitors through its officers, and that seeking to recover unpaid legal fees for services provided while it was in legal practice did not amount to unqualified legal practice. The Court also rejected the allegation that CharterLaw Pty Ltd was a phoenix company, found the requested documents had no apparent relevance, and left open a further application by the respondent for indemnity costs.
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd v The Ship: Yangze 22 (No 2)
If your business is involved in an international shipping dispute, do not assume that an Australian arrest or an Australian procedural advantage will keep the case in Australia. The Court will look at the whole controversy, including where the incident occurred, what related proceedings are already on foot, whether you have already engaged with another court, and whether another forum is already handling limitation, arrest and damages issues arising from the same event. This case also shows that a larger potential limitation fund in Australia may not be enough to defeat a stay application. Before filing, businesses should map every existing proceeding, identify all security already provided, compare limitation regimes, and make sure their steps in one country do not undermine their position in another. The available reasons are truncated, so the full judgment should be checked before relying on the case for detailed legal analysis.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted Nebula's application and permanently stayed the Australian proceedings. The Court also ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of the interlocutory application unless varied within seven days, and granted the plaintiffs leave to appeal. The catchwords and available reasons show that the Court concluded Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum. The factors expressly identified include that the collision occurred in Chinese waters, several proceedings involving the same factual foundation were already on foot in the PRC, and the party opposing the stay had submitted to the PRC court's jurisdiction before commencing in Australia. Although the plaintiffs relied on Australian procedural advantages, including the in rem proceeding, the stay was still granted. Because the available reasons are truncated, the full judgment should be checked for any additional reasoning.
Modco Residential Pty Ltd (in liq) v Nextruss Steel Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business is involved in court proceedings, do not treat delay as harmless administration. In this case, the plaintiffs kept their claim alive, but only just, and at a real cost. The Court accepted there had been a failure to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence. It still allowed the matter to continue because dismissal was considered too harsh, particularly where at least some delay appeared to sit with the solicitors rather than the liquidators personally. Even so, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay indemnity costs of the dismissal application. The practical message is clear. Keep the case moving after pleadings close, update address for service details immediately if your solicitor changes firms or email addresses, and respond to warning correspondence. If the other side has gone silent for months, speak with your lawyers about case management options, but do not assume the court will strike the claim out simply because it has stalled.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the second, sixth and ninth defendants' application for summary dismissal. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to pursue the proceeding with due diligence, so the threshold for default relief was met, but dismissal itself would be unduly harsh in the circumstances. The Court instead ordered the matter to proceed under close supervision, including referral to mediation before a registrar and a further case management hearing on 9 April 2026. Despite refusing dismissal, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the application on an indemnity basis, finding that the defendants had little choice but to bring the application and that the plaintiffs' or their solicitors' unreasonable conduct justified that order.
Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd (No 3)
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that employment litigation often becomes a contest about documents before it becomes a contest about witnesses. If you say a role ended because of redundancy, or that a complaint was handled properly, or that a performance process was legitimate, your records need to support that position in a clear and consistent way. At the same time, this decision shows that discovery is not unlimited. The Court will usually focus on documents that are directly relevant to the pleaded claims and resist requests that create collateral disputes, extra cost and delay. The case also underlines that discovery obligations continue after an affidavit is filed. If more documents are later found, they may still need to be produced. In practice, businesses should preserve records early, keep versions of key procedures, maintain coherent HR and operational files, and avoid taking overly technical procedural points that distract from the real issues in dispute.
Outcome: Colvin J ordered some further discovery and refused other categories. The employer was required to produce specified witness statements, an original email referred to in a disclosed document, certain employment and contractor records, versions of a document control procedure, weekly flight manifests to Argyle for Mondays in the stated period, and monthly employee headcount reports. The Court refused broader requests concerning accommodation and belongings, DMIRS and WorkSafe-related material, all performance management policies and forms, safety training records and metadata. The Court also rejected the attempt to strike out the supplementary affidavit of discovery, holding that discovery is an ongoing obligation and that later production of responsive documents can be consistent with proper compliance. Costs of the interlocutory application were reserved.
Mokhtari v Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd (No 4)
Read this as a procedural expert-evidence case, not a ruling on who was right in the underlying employment dispute. The Court did not decide liability, causation or damages. It decided only that the employer could require a psychiatric examination under r 23.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). That rule was introduced in January 2023, and the judgment shows how the Court may use it. If a claimant puts mental health injury at the centre of a substantial damages claim, your business may be able to seek its own examination even if the claimant has already obtained an independent report. The application should be framed around fairness, probative value and the need to defend the claim properly, not around general attacks on the claimant's credibility. Businesses should also expect conditions designed to protect the examined person's interests and should prepare for those conditions from the outset.
Outcome: The Court granted the respondent's application and ordered the applicant to attend an examination by Dr Lawrence Terace for up to two hours and to do all things reasonably requested and answer all questions reasonably asked for the purposes of the examination. The Court held that the examination was clearly in the interests of justice because the applicant's alleged mental health injury was at the heart of the case, the damages claim was very large, the respondent had not been involved in selecting the applicant's expert, there was no medical evidence of material risk of harm from the examination, and fairness required the respondent to be able to obtain and present its own expert evidence. The Court also imposed detailed safeguards about notice, instructions, costs, attendance expenses, service of the report, expert attendance and recording.
Morrell v Sundance Marine Pty Ltd (Substituted Service)
If your business sells goods made overseas, do not assume you can quickly add the manufacturer to an Australian court case by emailing the documents. This judgment shows that actual notice is not enough on its own. The court focused on whether ordinary service under the Hague Convention was truly not practicable, and held that five months of delay was not enough where the process in France was still progressing and the foreign company was not avoiding service. In practice, start overseas service steps early, check your contracts for arbitration and service provisions, consider translation issues upfront, and plan for the possibility that contribution or indemnity claims against overseas counterparties may move much more slowly than the main Australian proceeding.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Sundance’s interlocutory application for substituted service. Hill J held that, despite significant delay, Sundance had not shown that Hague Convention service in France was "not practicable" within rule 10.24. The evidence suggested the delay arose from the time generally taken for service in France, not from any conduct particular to SPBI or Beneteau such as evasion, concealment or inability to locate the recipient. The court also noted that the overseas party had expressly said it would not accept service by email. Hill J said that even if practicability had been established, there were strong discretionary reasons not to order email service because doing so could trigger further disputes about the validity of service and any later judgment. Sundance therefore had to continue with the ordinary overseas service process.
Nafar v BT Funds Management Limited
The main takeaway is that policy-specific certification requirements are not just paperwork. They can be threshold conditions to any entitlement. In Nafar, the Court relied on earlier authority to confirm that where a policy requires certification from a doctor appointed by the insurer or trustee, other medical reports will not necessarily fill the gap. Businesses should read this as a warning against casual descriptions of disability cover. If a worker asks whether they are entitled to a TPD benefit, the safest answer is that entitlement depends on the policy definition, the required medical assessment pathway and the insurer's decision-making process under the contract. Keep employment issues separate from insurance entitlement issues. A worker may be unfit for their role, but that does not automatically mean they satisfy a TPD definition. Clear communications, accurate benefit summaries and disciplined record-keeping are the practical protections.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted summary judgment for BT Funds Management Limited and AIA Australia Limited, dismissed the proceeding and ordered Mr Nafar to pay their costs. Derrington J held that the policy imposed a threshold requirement for certification by a qualified medical practitioner appointed by the insurer, and that requirement had not been met. The Court relied on earlier authority dealing with similar policy wording and concluded that, without the required certification, Mr Nafar had no reasonable prospect of establishing an entitlement to a TPD benefit. The Court also held that the declarations sought against the insurer and trustee had no utility because no entitlement arose under the policy and the trustee had no obligation to pay unless the insurer first paid the trustee.
Nalco Company v Cytec Industries Inc [2026] FCAFC 72
If your business depends on patents, read this case as a drafting and dispute-management lesson. The Full Court left in place the earlier finding that Nalco’s claims, as then framed, lacked support and sufficient disclosure. But it also held that Nalco’s later amendment application should be granted, and it ordered the patent application to proceed to grant in amended form. The practical point is that original claims and amended claims must be kept distinct. Losing on the original claims does not automatically end the application, but amendment is not automatic either. It must satisfy the statutory amendment rules and the court’s discretion. Businesses should make sure the specification supports the full intended claim scope from the start, keep technical evidence organised, and treat amendment strategy as a serious commercial decision during opposition and appeal, not as a last-minute clean-up exercise.
Outcome: The Full Court granted leave to appeal from both the earlier principal decision and the later amendment decision. It dismissed Nalco’s appeal from the principal decision, leaving in place the finding that the claims, as then construed and framed, lacked sufficient disclosure and support. But it allowed Nalco’s appeal from the amendment decision, set aside the orders refusing the amendment application, granted Nalco’s amended interlocutory application dated 23 December 2022, and ordered that Australian patent application no 2012220990 proceed to grant in the amended form annexed to that application. The Court also ordered service on the Commissioner of Patents, imposed a 28-day stay on the grant-related orders, and directed further submissions on costs.
Nanshan (Aust) Golf Resort Pty Ltd v Earth Fill Group Pty Ltd (No 2)
Read this case carefully as a default judgment decision, not as a final trial ruling on disputed facts. The Court did not decide after cross-examination that the fill was asbestos-contaminated, not VENM, or non-compliant with standards. What it decided was that the pleaded case was legally sufficient on its face, and because Mr Mardian defaulted, judgment could be entered against him for damages to be assessed. That distinction is important, but the practical lessons are still strong. If your business makes technical, environmental, testing or compliance statements, make sure you can support them at the time they are made, especially if they concern future matters. If a director or owner-manager personally makes those statements, personal exposure may be alleged as well as company liability. And if court documents arrive, do not leave them unanswered. A weakly managed response can turn allegations into an enforceable judgment before the real factual fight ever happens.
Outcome: The Court entered default judgment in favour of Nanshan against Mr Mardian for damages in a sum to be assessed. Goodman J found that Mr Mardian was in default because he failed to file an address for service, failed to file a defence within 28 days after service, and took no active step in the proceeding. The Court was satisfied that, on the face of the statement of claim and taking the pleaded facts as admitted for default purposes, the applicant was entitled to damages under section 236 of the ACL for alleged contraventions of section 18. The assessment of damages was referred to a Registrar acting as referee, the matter was to return for consideration of the referee's report and any remaining issues, and Mr Mardian was ordered to pay the applicant's interlocutory costs. The proceeding against Earth Fill did not continue because the company had entered liquidation and the case against it was stayed.
Narayan, in the matter of Elexsys Energy Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2026] FCA 536
Read this case as a document-management and asset-control warning. If your business buys goods on supplier terms, borrows against present and after-acquired property, or stores assets with directors, related entities or third parties, your contracts need to line up before a dispute starts. The court was prepared to give awkwardly drafted security clauses a businesslike interpretation where the commercial purpose was clear, so poor drafting did not save the defendants. At the same time, a supplier could not simply rely on saying there was retention of title and expect that to defeat the lender. The judgment’s catchwords show that perfection of a security interest was part of the analysis, which underlines the importance of PPSA registration where required. Businesses should keep signed supply agreements, invoices, delivery records, payment records and PPSR registrations in a form that can actually be proved. If insolvency or enforcement begins, do not move disputed assets or attempt informal transfers without urgent legal advice.
Outcome: The plaintiffs succeeded. The court declared that the eight CATL batteries were owned by Elexsys Energy, were not validly transferred to Mr Holcombe, and were not otherwise owned by Ocean Energy. It further declared that Marketlend was entitled, under section 123 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), to seize the batteries in accordance with its rights. The court restrained Mr Holcombe and Ocean Energy from preventing Marketlend and its officers, employees and agents from seizing the batteries, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs. The judgment also accepted unchallenged evidence of unpaid amounts under the trade credit arrangements supporting enforcement.
Nathan v Burness (Trustee), in the matter of Nathan
If your business is considering another round of litigation after an earlier loss, treat costs risk as a front-end issue, not an afterthought. This case shows that inability to pay is not enough by itself to justify security against a natural person, but it can become decisive when combined with other factors such as repetitive litigation, an unpaid earlier costs order, and a case that is not obviously strong. The court also made clear that this was only a procedural ruling. It did not finally decide the merits of the annulment application. For practical planning, that means two things. First, a second case may be stayed or dismissed before the substantive arguments are heard if security is not provided. Secondly, if you are defending a repeat claim, security for costs may be worth considering where the claimant has no apparent assets and has already left earlier costs unpaid.
Outcome: The court ordered Mr Nathan to provide security for the respondents' costs in the amount of $32,000 by 26 June 2026, either by irrevocable bank guarantee acceptable to a Registrar or by payment into court as a lump sum. The proceeding was stayed until the security was provided. If it was not provided in accordance with the orders, the proceeding was to be dismissed. Mr Nathan was also ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the security application. The court reached that result because there was a real risk he could not satisfy an adverse costs order and, beyond that, there were additional factors justifying security, especially the earlier failed annulment application and the unpaid earlier costs order.
National Disability Insurance Agency v Caterson
Businesses working inside regulated funding systems should separate three questions. First, what does the client or participant actually need? Second, what does the legislation and subordinate framework permit? Third, how is the payable amount calculated in practice? In this case, the participant's need for a particular living arrangement was central, but the appeal focused on whether the tribunal had properly engaged with the NDIA's argument that the SDA Rules and SDA Price Guide capped funding by reference to recognised categories. The Federal Court allowed the appeal and sent the matter back to be decided according to law. For providers and advisers, the practical lesson is to check the Act, rules and pricing guide together, record assumptions in writing, and avoid presenting a non-standard funded outcome as certain unless the framework clearly supports it.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the NDIA's appeal. It set aside the part of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision that included direction (i) in the remittal to the NDIA, being the direction concerning specialist disability accommodation. The matter was remitted to the Administrative Review Tribunal to be decided according to law, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Based on the orders, catchwords and extract, the Court found legal error in the Tribunal's handling of the SDA accommodation issue, but the truncated text means the full judgment should be checked for the precise reasoning on each appeal ground.
Neve v LVMH Perfume & Cosmetics Group Pty Limited (Suppression Order)
If your business is in a Federal Court employment dispute, do not assume that filing proceedings automatically means every pleading will be immediately open for public access. In the right case, the Court may make a temporary suppression and non-publication order over specific documents where publication would prejudice the administration of justice, including by undermining a meaningful mediation. But this case also shows the limits. The Court did not grant blanket secrecy over the whole proceeding and did not accept an open-ended duration tied to an uncertain mediation timetable. The order was document-specific, time-limited and linked to a clear statutory test. In practice, if confidentiality is important, raise it early, identify the exact documents in issue, explain how publication would affect the court process rather than just your reputation, and propose an expiry date that is no wider than necessary. Also diary the end date and any deadline for seeking an extension.
Outcome: Perram J granted suppression and non-publication orders over specific documents, including the original and amended originating applications, the original and amended statements of claim, any defence and reply to be filed, and the respondent's interlocutory application and supporting affidavit. The Court was satisfied that publication of the allegations was likely to cause reputational harm to LVMH and also likely to negatively affect the prospects of a successful mediation, so the orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. However, the Court rejected the respondent's proposed duration as too broad and instead limited the order to the earlier of 30 April 2026 or 7 days after the mediation process was terminated, with liberty to apply for an extension 14 days before expiry.
New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49
The practical lesson is to be specific. A court may be reluctant to protect a sweeping category like every supplier the business has ever used, but much more willing to protect a targeted group of current and reliable suppliers that took time and effort to identify. This case also shows that misuse claims do not always depend on proving classic equitable confidentiality. If a director or officer uses information obtained through their role in an improper way, s 183 may still apply. Businesses should review confidentiality clauses, access controls, messaging-app practices, personal device use, and offboarding steps for staff who hold supplier, customer or pricing contacts. If key commercial relationships live in an employee’s phone, the business should treat that as a governance issue, not just an IT issue.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed New Aim’s appeal. It held that the primary judge erred by not addressing the narrower case concerning the 17 specific suppliers. On that narrower basis, the Court found the information concerning those suppliers was confidential, so New Aim’s breach of confidence claim succeeded. The contract claim also succeeded for equivalent reasons. The Court further held that s 183(1) is not limited to information confidential in equity and that Mr Leung had improperly used information obtained because of his position to gain an advantage for himself and Broers. The dismissal orders were set aside, costs orders were made in New Aim’s favour, and the matter was remitted for further hearing and determination, including the claims against Sun Yee and Broers and questions of relief.
Newman (Trustee) v El-Sheikh Investment Holdings, in the matter of El-Sheikh Investment Holdings (Costs) [2026] FCA 512
If your business is heading into a winding up dispute, do not assume costs will be decided by a simple win or lose tally. The Court looked at the whole proceeding and asked whether the application was necessary and whether the costs were incurred in respect of the winding up. Here, the plaintiff did not get appointed as liquidator, but still recovered his costs because he succeeded on the winding up order and the share register correction order, and the Court accepted that his application had been necessary when filed. The interested party also recovered costs because he succeeded on the identity of the liquidator. For businesses, the practical message is to keep ownership records accurate, identify conflict issues early, and recognise that arguments about the appointee can materially increase cost and complexity.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered that both the plaintiff’s costs and the interested party’s costs in the proceeding be costs in the winding up of the company. The judge held that the plaintiff was successful on the core relief, namely the winding up order and the share register correction order, and that the application had been necessary when it was brought. The plaintiff’s failure to obtain his own appointment as liquidator did not justify depriving him of costs, particularly where he had sought that appointment for cost-effectiveness and efficiency and the issue turned on the potential for conflict. The interested party’s costs were also allowed because he was successful on the question of who should be appointed liquidator and those costs were referable to the winding up.
Nikolic v Twitter International Company
Read this case as a warning about execution rather than doctrine. First, settlement wording controls. If your business wants posts removed, accounts transferred, replies hidden, or future moderation steps taken, those obligations need to be written clearly into the agreement. Second, cross-border service is technical and cannot be fixed by assumption. Sending documents to a law firm that says it has no instructions may not amount to valid service on an overseas respondent. Third, courts are reluctant to reopen missed deadlines where delay is poorly explained and the proposed challenge appears weak anyway. Fourth, allegations about conflicts of interest or confidential information must be proved with evidence showing the prior relationship, the information said to be confidential, and the risk created by the solicitor continuing to act. This judgment is best understood as a case study in procedural discipline. Businesses should not treat it as changing the law, but as showing how service, limitation, settlement releases and evidence can decide a matter before the substantive dispute is heard.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed both the application for leave to appeal and the interlocutory application alleging conflict of interest against the respondent’s solicitors. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of both applications. The Court held that the applicants had shown no error in the primary judge’s refusal to extend time to seek review of the Registrar’s orders. The reasons record that the delay was not adequately explained and that the proposed review lacked sufficient merit, particularly because of the service defect and the apparent effect of the settlement agreement as a complete and effective bar. The Court also rejected the allegations against the solicitors as utterly baseless because the applicants filed no evidence to support them, while the respondent filed affidavit evidence denying any prior retainer or confidential information.
Nimhurchu v QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 59
The practical lesson is to treat examination requests and suspension decisions as part of a tightly structured statutory process. If your business, insurer or claims manager wants a worker to attend a further medical examination, keep a clear record of why it is said to be necessary, especially where earlier opinions differ. Give the worker proper notice, identify the practitioner, address location and support person issues, and respond to objections in writing. If a determination is made under s 57, the next question is usually which review avenue the legislation provides, not whether a court declaration sounds more attractive. This judgment suggests the Federal Court will not readily allow parties to bypass the specialist review pathway. For businesses, disciplined process management can reduce delay, avoid parallel litigation and limit the risk of adverse costs orders.
Outcome: Needham J gave judgment for QBE and Optus and refused the declarations and related orders sought by Ms Nimhurchu. The Court ordered that judgment be entered for the respondents and that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application and the proceedings, as agreed or taxed. The catchwords show that the Court’s primary conclusion was that federal jurisdiction had not been properly invoked. In the alternative, the Court held that it should not exercise its discretion to grant relief. On the available reasons, the case was decided as a forum and process dispute, not as a determination of the underlying workers compensation entitlement.
Norden Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Martens Investments Pty Ltd (Trustee), in the matter of Amazonia IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 10)
If your company is involved in a shareholder or founder dispute, treat security for costs and expert evidence as commercial planning issues from the start. This case shows that earlier security orders are not necessarily the end of the matter. If the proceeding changes materially, for example because a trial is vacated or a separate expert is added, the Court can revisit security and increase it. It also shows that asking for an indulgence may carry immediate costs consequences, even before the final hearing. Businesses should budget for interlocutory costs, think carefully before changing expert arrangements, and understand that an applicant company’s inability to pay an adverse costs order can become a central procedural issue. If security is not provided, the proceeding may be stayed.
Outcome: The Court increased security for costs, but not to the full amounts sought. The applicant had to provide an extra $40,000 for the first and second respondents and $50,000 for the sixth respondent, backed by solicitor undertakings, failing which the proceeding would be stayed. The costs of the security applications were left as costs in the proceeding. The applicant was ordered to pay the first, second and sixth respondents' costs of the November 2025 application and their costs thrown away by reason of the 25 November 2025 orders, both payable forthwith and to be fixed on a lump sum basis by a Registrar, except for costs thrown away from the cancelled mediation. Earlier costs orders in favour of the applicant were also made payable forthwith, and the expert cost orders were amended to reflect the separate expert arrangement.
North v Cool Dynamics Refrigeration Pty Ltd
The practical lesson is to treat a trade mark opposition as an active dispute with deadlines, evidence requirements and communication risks, not as a simple filing exercise. Mr North succeeded in getting extra time, but only because the Court accepted his explanation, saw little prejudice to the other side, and found that parts of his proposed appeal were arguable. That does not mean courts will usually rescue missed deadlines. If your business changes address, email or advisers during an IP Australia matter, update records immediately and confirm where notices will be sent. If a matter is to be decided on the papers, written submissions may be your main chance to explain your position. If you discover an adverse decision late, act promptly, document what happened, and get advice on appeal timing and evidence before more time is lost.
Outcome: The Court granted the extension of time. Derrington J ordered that the period for filing and serving the notice of appeal be extended to 13 March 2026, permitted Mr North to amend his proposed notice of appeal before filing, listed the matter for case management on 31 March 2026, and ordered that costs of the extension application be costs in the appeal. The Court accepted that Mr North had given a sufficient explanation for the delay, despite limited detail about the period between learning of the decision and filing the application, found that Cool Dynamics was unlikely to suffer prejudice and had shown no interest in contesting the matter, and held that while one proposed ground was doubtful, the proposed appeal on deceptive similarity and honest concurrent use was arguable enough to justify allowing the late appeal to proceed.
NTMA Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Beardmore
If your pharmacy business is part of a wider group, do not assume each entity will be treated in isolation during a compliance investigation. This decision shows that where there are shared directors, ownership links, common patients or unusual claiming patterns, a regulator may refer multiple approved pharmacists to the same inquiry. The Court was not persuaded by arguments that this was inherently unfair just because evidence about one entity might also sit alongside evidence about another. For business owners, the safest response is operational rather than theoretical. Keep entity-by-entity records, site-by-site PBS claiming records, and clear documentation showing who made decisions, who supplied medicines, and which premises were involved. If you are considering cancelling an approval, transferring a pharmacy or changing ownership while an inquiry is on foot, get advice early. Structural changes may not remove the underlying compliance questions and may instead become part of the factual story the regulator examines.
Outcome: The Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed the appeal with costs. It held that the appellants' arguments should be rejected essentially for the reasons given by the primary judge. The Court said the text of s 114 contemplates inquiries involving more than one approved pharmacist and rejected the attempt to analogise the inquiry to a criminal trial. It treated the inquiry as an administrative mechanism for protecting the integrity of the PBS, with fairness concerns addressed through the statutory process and ordinary administrative law principles. The available reasons also indicate that the Court rejected the arguments about former approved pharmacists and uncertainty in the referrals.
Nyangumarta Warrarn Aboriginal Corporation v Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation
Business owners, directors and governance teams should read this as a caution against running urgent meeting disputes on broad complaints alone. The Court rejected arguments based on lack of reasons, lack of prior notice to other directors, the existence of a member petition, and speculation about hidden motives. It also noted that the applicant had not clearly explained how a director calling a meeting contravened provisions directed to the holding of a meeting. In practical terms, before seeking an injunction, separate out the possible complaints. Is the issue lack of power to call the meeting, defective notice, improper purpose, unreasonable time or place, procedural irregularity, or breach of director duties? Each path has different legal requirements and evidence needs. If your organisation uses a governance service provider to prepare notices and logistics, document who made the decision, what authority they relied on, and what planning was done to support the meeting arrangements.
Outcome: The Court dismissed NWAC's application for injunctive relief. It adjourned the question of costs and granted liberty to apply on 24 hours' notice. The judgment shows two key reasons for the result. First, the Court identified an unresolved difficulty in NWAC's legal framing because the provisions relied on were directed to the holding of a general meeting, and NWAC had not clearly explained how Ms Tinker's act of calling the meeting contravened them. Secondly, and in any event, the Court was not satisfied on the evidence before it that the meeting would not be held for a proper purpose or that it would not be held at a reasonable time and place. The available text fully supports the Court's reasoning on proper purpose, but only part of the reasoning on time and place is available.
Offshore Employers Association Limited v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union [2026] FCA 134
Treat the dispute resolution clause in your enterprise agreement as more than a procedural formality. This case shows that the Fair Work Commission's arbitral role is tied to the dispute actually referred under the agreement and the Fair Work Act. If the documents say the dispute concerns one employee's entitlement, a later attempt to present a broader construction issue may not make the result enterprise-wide. Businesses should keep careful records of each step in the dispute procedure, identify whether the issue is individual or broader, and check whether any agreed questions for arbitration match the dispute that was notified. If several related employers are affected by the same clause, separate or joined court proceedings may still be needed to obtain broader certainty.
Outcome: Jackson J answered the preliminary question by holding that the Fair Work Commission's arbitral award of 9 June 2025 bound Cyan Vessel Operations Pty Ltd only in so far as it concerned the entitlements of Mr Geoffrey Ammon under clause 39 of the enterprise agreement. The Court therefore rejected the argument that the award bound Cyan across all employees covered by the agreement. The Court also removed Offshore Employers Association Limited as an applicant and joined Bhagwan Marine Limited, Fugro Australia Pty Ltd, GO Offshore Pty Ltd, Jetwave Marine Services Pty Ltd, OSM Australia Pty Ltd, Programmed Offshore Pty Ltd and Solstad Australia Pty Ltd as applicants. On the available reasons, the decision is best understood as a ruling about the scope and legal effect of the arbitral award and the management of related disputes, rather than a final enterprise-wide determination of the clause itself.
Ogbonna v Link Workforce Pty Ltd (No 2)
Business owners should read this as a procedure and risk-management case, not a ruling that Link Workforce did or did not breach workplace law. The Court did not decide the merits of the general protections allegations or the defamation claim. Instead, it decided that the applicant could put the discontinued Fair Work claim back into the same case after the sequestration order was set aside, while preserving the employer’s right to seek strike-out or summary dismissal later. The judgment also shows that courtroom behaviour and communications with the Court matter. If the other side is self-represented and difficult, that does not stop the case moving forward, but it can change how the Court manages it. Businesses should keep records, monitor whether discontinued claims ended for procedural or substantive reasons, prepare for amended pleadings, and use case management opportunities to protect their position early.
Outcome: The Court granted leave for the applicant to amend the originating process and statement of claim so the discontinued general protections claim could be brought back into the proceeding. The judge considered that the earlier discontinuance resulted from the trustee’s election during the period when the sequestration order was in force, that the respondent had known of the general protections allegations from the start, that little substantive progress had occurred since November 2023, and that requiring a fresh proceeding would create unnecessary cost, delay and inefficiency. The Court also ordered the respondent to file an amended defence, but expressly preserved the respondent’s right to apply to strike out or summarily dismiss all or part of the claim. Separately, the Court reserved the costs of the 12 March 2026 hearing and ordered the applicant to show cause why the proceeding should not be stayed unless he gave a signed written undertaking to comply with the Litigants in Person Practice Note and proper standards of conduct.
Ogbonna v Link Workforce Pty Ltd (No 3)
Businesses should read this case as a reminder that courtroom conduct and compliance with directions can materially affect the course of a dispute. If your business is defending a claim, keep careful records of lateness, repeated interruptions, refusal to engage with the issue before the Court, and any resulting delay or extra legal cost. Those facts may support procedural relief if the process becomes unfair. At the same time, this was not a case where the Court stayed the proceeding simply because the applicant wanted time for a High Court application. The applicant did ask for a stay on that basis, but the Court’s stay was made for a different reason: to protect the proper administration of justice unless he gave an undertaking to comply with the Litigants in Person Practice Note. If your business or its officers are self-represented in any matter, respectful conduct, punctuality and disciplined submissions are not optional. They can determine whether the case is allowed to continue.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered that the proceeding be stayed until the applicant provided a signed written undertaking stating that he had read the Litigants in Person Practice Note and, consistently with paragraphs 4.7 to 4.12, would act respectfully and courteously and would not act in an intimidating, threatening or rude manner when dealing with judges, registrars, court staff and lawyers for other parties, or until further order of the Court. The costs of the 6 May 2026 case management hearing were reserved. The Court held that the applicant’s conduct had caused delay, inefficiency and increased expense, created real unfairness and oppression for the respondent, and risked undermining the proper administration of justice. However, the stay was not permanent and could be lifted if the applicant obtained legal representation, gave a suitable undertaking, or otherwise demonstrated he could conduct the proceeding appropriately.
Olsen, in the matter of Babyskin Laser & Cosmetic Clinic Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 622
If your company is under financial pressure, do not assume that administrators or a court can simply create more time later. In this case, the extension was granted because the administrators could point to concrete tasks that still needed to be done and explain how those tasks might lead to a better result than immediate liquidation. The judgment is a reminder to keep governance, records and reporting in order before a crisis develops. Current tax lodgements, clear lease documents, accurate employee entitlement records, a reliable creditor list, and documented director decision-making can all matter once an administration begins. If there is conflict between directors, deal with it early. In Babyskin, the evidence linked management disputes and conflicting directions to staff with operational disruption and lost revenue. For businesses with prepaid customers, leased premises, specialist equipment or valuable intellectual property, those issues can become central to whether a sale, restructure or DOCA remains viable.
Outcome: The Court granted the administrators' application. It extended the convening period for the second creditors' meeting to 12 August 2026 under section 439A(6) and made a section 447A Daisytek order allowing the meeting to be convened at any time before, or within five business days after, the end of that extended period. The Court also ordered prompt notice to creditors and ASIC and gave liberty to any person with sufficient interest to apply to vary or discharge the orders. In reaching that result, the judge found there was clear and cogent evidence of a real prospect that the extension would enhance the prospects of a better return for creditors and members than immediate winding up. The Court accepted that the administrators needed more time to investigate the company's financial position, examine lease and related-party issues, deal with outstanding tax lodgements, identify and assess creditor claims, negotiate a possible sale, and consider any DOCA proposal. The Court also accepted that refusing the extension would likely lead to an adjourned second meeting and unnecessary additional cost.
On Clouds GmbH v Cyclonic, Inc
Do not assume that adding letters to an existing brand stem makes a new mark safe. In this case, the Court found deceptive similarity because CYCLONIC and CYCLON were close in look, close in sound and carried the same basic idea of a cyclone. The Court said that combination created a real, tangible risk that some consumers would wonder whether the marks came from the same source. If you are choosing a brand, assess the whole commercial impression rather than focusing only on the point of difference. Search for earlier Australian registrations and protected international trade marks that extend to Australia. If an opposition is filed, engage with it early and actively. If a court appeal follows, ignoring it can still leave you exposed to refusal of the application and a significant costs order. The cheapest time to solve a naming problem is usually before filing, launch, packaging and stock commitments.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the appeal, set aside the delegate's decision, and refused Cyclonic, Inc's application to register CYCLONIC in Classes 25 and 40. Lenehan J held that deceptive similarity was established because the combined visual similarity, significant aural similarity and shared association with the idea of a cyclone created a real, tangible risk that some consumers would wonder whether the marks originated from the same source. The Court was also satisfied that the respondent had been validly served through its address for service and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal on a lump-sum basis of $125,000.
Origin Net Pty Ltd v Origin Energy Limited
If your business is in Federal Court proceedings, do not assume you can fix a weak discovery strategy later by calling it a review. This case draws a sharp line between a true review of what the registrar decided and a fresh application for different categories of documents. The Court rejected Origin Net's attempt because the new categories were materially different, could have been sought earlier, and would have imposed substantial extra burden close to trial. The practical lesson is to settle your discovery categories carefully the first time, support them with the evidence you already have, and comply with the timetable. If you are resisting discovery, detailed evidence about search effort, cost, duplication and timing can be powerful. Registrar hearings should be treated as substantive steps in the case, not as negotiable placeholders.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Origin Net's interlocutory application and ordered it to pay the respondents' costs of the review application forthwith. Burley J held that the supposed review was procedurally misconceived because Origin Net was not really seeking reconsideration of the same matter decided by the Judicial Registrar. Instead, it wanted a separate adjudication on fresh and broader categories of documents. The Court also refused the additional discovery as a fresh application brought too late. Origin Net had long had the opportunity to frame those categories, had the relevant affidavit material well before the registrar hearing, and gave no adequate explanation for not raising them earlier. Given the substantial discovery already underway and accepted evidence that further production would require considerable extra work, duplication and at least eight weeks, the Court found additional discovery would be oppressive.
Orikan Group Pty Ltd v Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Limited (No 2)
Treat patents as assets that need legal and technical due diligence, not as automatic monopoly rights. This decision indicates that a business can lose an infringement case and still face a successful validity attack against its patent. It also indicates that earlier proceedings may not stop a later court from considering fresh arguments about sufficiency, best method and priority support. Before threatening proceedings, licensing a patent, valuing an IP portfolio or launching a product in a contested space, review the claims, specification, earlier applications and evidence of product development carefully. If confidential technical material will matter, plan early for confidentiality orders and document handling. Businesses should also read this case as an intellectual property decision, not as an Australian Consumer Law authority.
Outcome: On the published judgment material, Orikan succeeded on the main issues. The Court found no infringement. It also held that there was no estoppel preventing the sufficiency challenge and upheld the sufficiency ground of invalidity. The catchwords further record insufficient disclosure in the earlier applications considered for priority purposes and state that the best method ground of invalidity was upheld. The Court did not make all consequential orders finally on the spot. Instead, it directed the parties to submit agreed or competing proposed orders, including on costs and further disposition, and it put in place confidentiality and redaction processes for the reasons and exhibits.
OS ACPM Pty Ltd v Mining and Energy Union
The practical message is that award disputes often turn on exact wording, definitions and the interaction between roster clauses and overtime clauses. If your business uses long shifts, public holiday work, or mixed ordinary-time and overtime components within one rostered shift, do not assume that common practice or bargaining history will decide the legal meaning. Check the award text carefully, including any definition of ordinary hours, rostered hours and overtime. Also check whether a clause applies employee by employee or across the workforce collectively, because that difference can materially change staffing flexibility. This case supports an employer-side construction of the clauses identified by the Court, but the available material is not a complete substitute for the full reasons. Before changing rosters, payroll coding, or bargaining positions, have the current award and the full judgment reviewed in context.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court allowed the appeal. It declared that under clauses 27.5(a) of the 2010 Award and 29.5(a) of the 2020 Award, the employer must nominate two public holidays on which each employee covered by those awards will not perform work, and those public holidays do not need to be the same for every employee. It also declared that under clause 15.1(b) of the 2020 Award, the employer may determine shift length where the ordinary hours of the shift, payable at ordinary rates, do not exceed 10 hours, and that under clause 15.1(c) a shift may be longer than 10 ordinary hours in the circumstances set out in that clause. The declarations expressly state that ordinary hours does not include rostered overtime payable at overtime rates. The complete reasons should still be checked before relying on the case more broadly.
Our Jim & Felicja Superfund Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim & Felicja Superannuation Fund v Lindenfels Pte Ltd [2026] FCA 307
If your business gives the same party several roles at once, such as investor, director nominee, agent, customer, distributor or offtake counterparty, the documents need to work together. This case shows that later complaints may fail if the contract already authorised the conduct, if the alleged duty is really contractual rather than fiduciary, or if shareholders approved the structure on an informed basis. Businesses should make pricing mechanisms, allocation rights, disclosure obligations, conflict procedures and approval pathways explicit. Boards should also keep careful minutes and explanatory materials, especially before a rights issue or any transaction that may dilute minority holders or benefit a related party. If concerns arise, they should be raised promptly and recorded. Silence at the time can matter later.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the further amended originating process and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs. The published judgment material states that no fiduciary duty of the kind alleged was found, no implied term as pleaded was accepted, no oppression was established, and breaches of statutory directors' duties or equitable duties were not established against the nominee director. The visible structure of the reasons suggests the Court concluded that the impugned conduct was permitted by the contractual arrangements, that any residual obligation to provide marketing activities was contractual rather than fiduciary, that some marketing activities were in fact provided, that there were no contemporaneous complaints of the kind later advanced, and that shareholders had provided informed consent to the relevant structure.
Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS835285Y v 15 Currie Crt Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 256
The practical message for business owners is straightforward. Do not treat a statutory demand, court document or registered office mail as routine paperwork. In this case, the company was wound up in its absence after it did not comply with a statutory demand and did not appear when the winding up application was decided. The company later succeeded in having the winding up terminated, but only after the petitioning creditor was paid, unsecured creditors were paid, the liquidator’s fees were covered, tax returns were lodged, the liquidator consented and no one opposed the application. The Court also focused on whether it was reasonable to hand the company back to the directors. If your company acts as trustee, check the trust deed as well, because liquidation can trigger automatic removal as trustee.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application and terminated the winding up with immediate effect. Neskovcin J was satisfied that the evidence provided a sufficient basis to do so. The owners corporation's debt and petitioning creditor costs had been paid, unsecured creditors had been paid except for a related-party debt that would not be pursued, and funds were available in the applicant solicitor's trust account to meet the liquidator's expected fees. The Court accepted the director's explanation for the earlier non-appearance, noted the application had been made promptly, and was satisfied there was an arguable case that the company would be solvent if the winding up ended. The liquidator consented, no notified party opposed the application, and the Court noted proposed governance steps including changing the registered office and seeking reappointment as trustee.
Page v Conneely, in the matter of Shyzi Pty Ltd (Final relief) [2026] FCA 294
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that enforcement rights depend on both the security document and the surrounding records. The court said the 2026 judgment was not a rehearing of the whole dispute. It was a final-relief decision implementing earlier findings from 2025. That distinction matters. The court was prepared to confirm valid appointments for Shyzi and Ohmut while leaving the exact reconciliation of debt, interest, receiver fees, creditor charges, receipts and payments to a supervised accounting process before a Registrar. At the same time, where the Tallywalker appointment was invalid, the court required delivery up of assets and records and rectification of ASIC records. If your business uses related-party advances, trust structures or informal bookkeeping, do not assume those arrangements will survive close scrutiny unless they are clearly documented and supported by reliable records.
Outcome: The court made final orders giving effect to its earlier reasons. It declared that CLAH validly appointed the Shyzi receivers on 11 September 2020 and the Ohmut receivers on 30 July 2020, but that the purported appointment of the Tallywalker receivers on 30 July 2020 was invalid and of no legal effect. For Shyzi and Ohmut, the court ordered the receivers to render accounts and referred the taking of accounts to a Registrar after sale of listed assets and payment of net proceeds into court. The Registrar was empowered to manage the accounting process but was barred from revisiting validity, contractual construction or liability issues already decided. For Tallywalker, the court ordered delivery up of listed property and records, a written account of receipts and payments, and rectification of ASIC’s register. Any compensation claim by Tallywalker was left for separate proceedings.
Palmer v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 3)
If your business, director or manager is facing both ASIC action and criminal exposure, do not assume a separate civil proceeding is the best way to challenge the investigation. In Palmer v ASIC (No 3), the Federal Court held that a civil case attacking the lawfulness of ASIC examinations and the use of transcripts should be paused because those issues overlapped with a pending Queensland criminal prosecution. The key lesson is sequencing. Work out early which arguments belong in the criminal court, including objections about admissibility, derivative use of evidence, abuse of process, delay and disclosure. Keep a clear record of regulator communications, preserve potentially relevant documents, and coordinate advice across regulatory and criminal issues from the start. A fragmented strategy can increase delay, cost and procedural risk.
Outcome: The Court granted ASIC's interlocutory application and ordered a temporary stay. The Federal Court proceeding was stayed pending the hearing and final determination, including any appeals, of the criminal prosecution brought against Mr Palmer by complaint dated 6 February 2020 in the Magistrates' Court of Queensland, or until further order. The parties were ordered to notify the Court when the criminal matter is determined, the proceeding was to return for case management after that point, liberty to apply was granted on 3 days' notice, and Mr Palmer was ordered to pay ASIC's costs of the interlocutory application. In substance, the Court found there was no principled basis for the Federal Court to determine matters that will or are likely to be traversed in the Queensland criminal courts, and no compelling reason to depart from the general principle against fragmenting the criminal process.
Pandey v Dr Tiffany Tam Pty Ltd
If your business is in a post-judgment costs dispute, start by identifying exactly where you are in the Federal Court process. Ask whether the step you want to challenge is final, or whether the rules still give you another chance to object later. In this case, that distinction was decisive. The Court held that an unsuccessful confidential conference did not end the applicant's rights because the taxation process continued and still allowed objections to items in the bill. Also make sure your solicitor has clear instructions well before any conference. The Court placed real weight on the fact that the solicitor attended and could deal with the issues. If illness or another operational problem affects attendance, raise it promptly and support it with evidence, but do not assume that an adjournment must follow. Before launching a separate judicial review application, get advice on whether there is any genuine jurisdictional error. If not, the challenge may fail quickly and add another layer of costs.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted summary judgment for the respondents under section 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Stellios J held that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success because there was no jurisdictional error. The evidence showed the Judicial Registrar had considered the adjournment request and medical certificate before deciding not to vacate the conference. The Court also found no practical unfairness in the conference proceeding without the applicant personally attending, because his solicitor attended, could represent his interests, and the taxation process still allowed the applicant to contest the bill later after the conference failed to resolve the dispute. As a result, there was no basis to require the later objection documents to be accepted for filing. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a party-party basis, with a lump sum costs process ordered.
ParcelTools Pty Ltd v Method Industries Pty Ltd
Read this case as a warning about mixed signals in commercial structuring. The Court did not finally decide that there was a binding joint venture, that ParcelTools owned rights in CubeIQ, or that Method’s platform terms were ineffective. It decided only that there was a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured keeping access in place for the moment. The practical lesson is to settle the commercial architecture early. If two businesses are combining hardware, software, customer channels or branding, they should document whether the arrangement is a joint venture, licence, reseller model or services relationship, and make sure any online terms fit that deal. They should also plan for what happens if the relationship breaks down, especially where one side can switch off customer-facing systems or installations.
Outcome: The Court granted the interlocutory injunction and referred the matter to mediation. Method was temporarily restrained from taking action to terminate, suspend or otherwise prevent ParcelTools having access to the CubeIQ system, and from disabling, altering or transferring any existing CubeIQ customer installation, until the earlier of the seventh business day after mediation, further written agreement, or further order. The Court held there was a serious question to be tried. Although the contract claim appeared relatively weak at that stage, there was a serious question about whether Method owed fiduciary duties to ParcelTools as an actual or potential joint venture participant and whether the threatened termination would breach such a duty. The Court also found a real question about whether ParcelTools had objectively consented to Method's platform terms. The balance of convenience favoured relief because termination could cause customer diversion, reputational harm, customer claims and other detriment that would be difficult to quantify.
Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd
If you are asking the Court to pause steps under a sequestration order, be specific. You need to point to the exact trustee action or proceeding that should be stayed and explain what practical harm will happen before the appeal is heard. Evidence matters. The Court treated the absence of evidence about Mr Patial's financial position as significant, and it also noted there was no evidence that the trustee was about to realise assets. If you are a creditor business, this decision confirms that bankruptcy status begins immediately after the sequestration order and that an appeal does not automatically freeze everything. If you are a director or founder facing personal bankruptcy, do not assume a stay application will preserve your position. Plan early for governance, authority, litigation and dealings with the trustee.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Mr Patial's interlocutory application for a stay and ordered him to pay Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd's costs of the application, as agreed or taxed. The Court was prepared to assume, for the purpose of the application, that some grounds of appeal were sufficiently arguable. Even so, the application failed because the balance of convenience did not support a stay. Mr Patial had not identified any specific proceeding or action to be stayed, had not shown evidence of a real threatened harm that a stay would actually prevent, and had not provided evidence of his current financial position. The Court also held that many of the harms he relied on were simply ordinary consequences of bankruptcy status, which a stay would not undo.
Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2)
The main lesson is to treat appeal procedure as a hard operational process. In this matter, the Court did not decide the merits of the appeal in the published reasons. It dismissed the appeal because the appellant repeatedly failed to do what the Court had ordered and then failed to appear. The respondent still had to prepare for the hearing and even prepared appeal books to preserve the hearing date. For a business owner, that means two things. First, even if you think your appeal has merit, you can still lose it procedurally. Second, informal communications are not a substitute for compliance, attendance or a proper application for more time. If your business is in an appeal, keep a live calendar of every order, confirm who is responsible for each filing, and act early if you cannot meet a deadline or attend a hearing.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed. Goodman J held that the preconditions for dismissal under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) were plainly met because the appellant was absent when the appeal was called on for hearing and the respondent applied for dismissal. The Court exercised its discretion to dismiss because the appellant had failed to file written submissions, was plainly on notice that the appeal remained listed for hearing on 11 May 2026, had failed to attend the case management hearing on 6 May 2026, and had not notified the Court or the respondent that he did not propose to appear.
Pett v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 2)
Business owners should read this case as a document-handling and litigation strategy decision. The Court protected the spreadsheets because of a particular combination of factors: they contained non-public embedded formulae, they also contained highly personal information, they had only limited significance to the issues actually decided on appeal, and they originated in a tribunal process where a confidentiality order was still operating. The practical takeaway is not that you can simply label a document confidential and expect the court to agree. The test is necessity, and open justice remains the starting point. If your business wants protection, you need a clear explanation of what the document contains, why the sensitive parts matter, whether the information is already public, whether a narrower step such as redaction would work, and whether publication would cut across an existing confidentiality regime. If you use internal spreadsheets or calculators in disputes, control the format carefully. Native files can expose formulae and methods that are invisible in a PDF. Keep records showing how the document has been treated internally and in earlier proceedings. If another tribunal, regulator or court has already imposed confidentiality restrictions, make sure that issue is raised directly in any later proceeding.
Outcome: The Court made ongoing suppression and confidentiality orders over the identified spreadsheets in both native.xlsx and PDF form, together with copies or adaptations of them, until further order. Disclosure remained permitted to the Court, the parties and their legal representatives. The Court also directed the Registrar to note the restrictions on the Electronic Court File and to refer any inspection application to a judge. The Court held that suppression was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice because the material originated in a Tribunal process where confidentiality remained in place, the native files contained non-public formulae and methodology, the PDFs were derived from the same protected source and could reveal aspects of the formulae, and the spreadsheets had only a limited role in the appeal. The Court said open justice still applied, but those circumstances justified departure from ordinary public access.
Peymani v Posh N Polished Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 560
Business owners should read this case as a warning about disputed exits, not as a final ruling on the employee’s underlying allegations. If an employee sends a message that could be read as a proposal, a resignation, or both, confirm the position in writing straight away. If the business rejects a proposal, accepts a resignation, shortens a notice period, changes commission, removes access to systems, advertises the role, or tells the employee not to return, each step should be documented clearly and consistently. The Court’s orders also show that claims can be split. Some allegations may survive an extension application even if others do not. Good records, consistent explanations across forums, and early advice can materially affect what proceeds.
Outcome: Bennett J allowed the extension application in part. The Court ordered that time be extended until 20 December 2025 for the commencement of a court application for the claims made under ss 340 and 344 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application was not allowed for the balance of the claims under ss 343 and 351. Costs of the extension application were reserved. The proceeding was referred to a Registrar for a half-day mediation on a date not before 8 May 2026, together with any further procedural orders needed if the matter did not resolve. The judgment did not finally determine liability for the underlying workplace allegations.
Pilato, in the matter of the Scorpion and the Frog Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 98
Read this case as a warning about structure management, not as a final ruling on trust control. If your business uses a corporate trustee, keep an executed trust deed and clear records showing who the appointor, trustee and beneficiaries are, and what happens if the trustee goes into liquidation. If insolvency overlaps with family property issues, do not assume the liquidator's process will automatically run ahead of everything else. A court may prefer coordinated case management and asset preservation while it works out which forum should hear the dispute. This case also shows that a beneficiary with a live claim to become trustee may be allowed to intervene and resist insolvency steps that could effectively shut out that claim. Early advice and clean records can save major cost later.
Outcome: The court granted Ms Collazo leave to intervene. It held that the family law proceedings involved an associated matter because the factual basis of those proceedings substantially overlapped with the facts relevant to the liquidator's application about the trust assets. The court also considered the matter suitable for transfer to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) and said the administration of justice favoured that course, including because Ms Collazo's claim to be appointed trustee had a real prospect of success and should not be shut out by the Federal Court matter proceeding first. However, the court did not make the transfer order at that hearing because the required consultation process between the courts had to occur first. Pending further order, the liquidator was directed to take no further step in the liquidation concerning the trust assets other than what was required to preserve them.
PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd v G.E.T. Engineering Pty Ltd
If your business is in Federal Court proceedings, do not build your litigation strategy on the assumption that the other side must notify you before seeking leave to issue subpoenas. The ordinary position under the Rules is that leave can be sought without notice. If you think a subpoena is defective, too broad, insufficiently particular, or unnecessary because documents should come through discovery, the safer course is usually to challenge that subpoena through the established procedures rather than seek a broad forward-looking order changing how all future subpoenas must be handled. If your business is issuing subpoenas, this case is a practical warning to draft them carefully, keep them tied to the issues in dispute, think about time limits and particularity, and comply with service obligations once the subpoena has been served on the addressee. If there is an obvious error, correct it quickly. Courts are more likely to work within the existing framework than create a custom notice regime unless there is a strong factual basis for doing so.
Outcome: The Court refused the respondent's proposed order. Stellios J held that the circumstances did not justify displacing the ordinary subpoena framework in the Federal Court Rules and the Practice Note. The Court accepted that one drafting error had occurred in eight subpoenas, but noted that the applicant had conceded the error and a consent order had been made to modify the outstanding subpoenas. The Court was not persuaded that there had been any breach of the Rules requiring earlier notice, because there is no requirement to give notice before a subpoena request is filed and the evidence did not clearly establish non-compliance with the obligation to serve copies after service on the addressee. The Court also held that alleged defects in subpoenas should ordinarily be addressed through the existing challenge and objection processes, and that there was no demonstrated pattern of conduct warranting a blanket forward-looking notice rule. The parties were then directed to file short submissions on costs.
PSC AMGI WSC Pty Ltd v J&P Capital Insurance Pty Ltd (No 2)
The strongest lesson from this case is settlement discipline. If your business signs a deed to end a dispute, make sure the deed clearly states each step, the deadline for each step, who must do it, and what happens if a step is late or incomplete. This judgment also shows that legal costs can escalate quickly when parties shift position in correspondence, raise alternative arguments, or introduce new points late. The Court was prepared to fix costs at $50,000 on a lump-sum basis because it considered the successful parties had run the matter efficiently and the amount claimed was a reasonable discounted figure. Businesses should also pay close attention to non-cash obligations such as control of email addresses, phone numbers and domain names. Those assets can be central to customer relationships and business continuity, and they should be identified and transferred with precision.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered that the respondents pay the applicants' costs on a lump-sum basis in the amount of $50,000. Justice Colvin first accepted that the respondents had proper notice of the costs hearing, even though they did not appear, because hearing information and orders had been sent to the relevant email addresses and, earlier, to the solicitors then still on the record. The Court then accepted the applicants' cost material, which had been prepared in accordance with the Court's Costs Practice Note and properly verified. In fixing the amount, the Court placed particular weight on six matters: the $80,000 amount in issue together with related issues about email addresses, telephone numbers and a domain name; the efficient way the PSC parties had pursued the matter after attempts at resolution; the fact that the respondents' alternative arguments had expanded the complexity and cost; the discount applied to actual costs to reflect solicitor and own-client costs; the extra costs of bringing the lump-sum application itself; and the reasonableness of the hourly rates after allowing for the overall discount. The amount sought was allowed in full.
Qi, in the matter of S& Q Group Pty Ltd
Read this case as a warning about two separate but connected issues. First, governance hygiene matters. If a director appointment, resignation or ASIC filing is disputed, the company needs clear records showing who authorised the change, what was signed, and who lodged it. Secondly, litigation discipline matters just as much. The court was not deciding the full merits of every alleged breach of duty in this judgment. It was deciding whether the cross respondents had defaulted badly enough for judgment to be entered against them. The answer was yes. Businesses should make sure ASIC changes are supported by proper resolutions and consents, that core systems like Xero are controlled by the company rather than an individual, and that any court proceeding is actively managed with proper representation, filed pleadings and compliance with every deadline.
Outcome: Kennett J granted default judgment for the cross claimants under r 5.23. The court ordered judgment on the cross claim for damages in a sum to be assessed, referred the damages assessment to a Registrar acting as a referee under r 28.61, and ordered the cross respondents to pay the cross claimants' costs of the cross claim and the interlocutory process. The matter was listed for a later hearing after 15 May 2026 to consider adoption of the referee's report and the disposition of remaining issues. The judge was not persuaded that any further extension would achieve anything other than more delay, given the repeated missed deadlines, lack of proper pleadings, failure to attend mediation, uncertainty about representation and the continuing absence of proper engagement by the corporate cross respondents.
Qi, in the matter of S&Q Group Pty Ltd (No 2)
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that court procedure is not secondary to the real commercial dispute. If your company is sued or faces a cross-claim, you need to monitor deadlines, comply with orders, and keep each company party properly represented. If something goes wrong, act early and support any explanation with specific evidence. General references to cash flow pressure, stress, family issues or dissatisfaction with lawyers may not be enough, especially after repeated extensions. The Court made clear that setting aside a default judgment is a cautious and exceptional step aimed at curing injustice, not a routine second chance. An arguable defence may help, but in this setting it was only a starting point, not a complete answer.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the application to set aside the default judgment and ordered the cross-respondents to pay the cross-claimants' costs of the interlocutory process as agreed or assessed. Kennett J held that the cross-respondents had not shown any injustice requiring the judgment to be reopened. Their explanation for default, based on financial pressure, study, stress and lawyer difficulties, was not compelling on the evidence. Their merits case was also put no higher than an arguable defence, which the Court said was only a starting point in the circumstances. The Court did not identify any error or procedural unfairness in the original default judgment. As a result, the default judgment remained in place.
Qoria Limited, in the matter of Qoria Limited [2026] FCA 676
If your company is pursuing a merger by scheme, treat the first hearing as a disclosure and process milestone, not the final merits decision. You need to be able to show that the transaction fits Part 5.1, that the right people are voting in the right class, that every other security on issue has been analysed carefully, and that the explanatory booklet is accurate, balanced and understandable. Qoria also shows the importance of explaining unusual deal mechanics, such as CDIs, foreign issuer structures, sale facilities for ineligible foreign holders, listing conditions and capital raising dependencies. If an expert report reaches a mixed conclusion such as not fair but reasonable, the court may still let shareholders decide, but only if the report and booklet clearly explain the reasoning. Directors should read this case as a reminder to prepare early, verify every statement and map the treatment of each security before documents are finalised.
Outcome: Jackson J made orders convening the scheme meeting and approved the scheme booklet for distribution for first-hearing purposes, subject to amendments including a clarification that Aura was not listed on any stock exchange. The court was satisfied that the formal and procedural prerequisites had been met, that one class of shareholders was appropriate, that Qoria's other securities were not class creating on the evidence, that the disclosure was sufficient, and that the scheme was bona fide. The court also accepted, at this procedural stage, that the independent expert report adequately explained why the scheme was not fair but was nevertheless reasonable. The proceeding was adjourned to 7 July 2026 for any later application to approve the scheme if the shareholder vote succeeded.
Quach v Registrar of Trade Marks (No 2)
If your business loses a trade mark opposition before the Registrar, check three things straight away: the deadline, the correct appellant, and the actual grounds of appeal. In this case, those issues were decisive. QE Family Pty Ltd was the opponent before the Registrar, but Dr Quach personally sought the extension and proposed appeal. The court held that only the statutory “opponent” could appeal under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), and that being a director or shareholder did not give Dr Quach the company’s standing. The court also rejected his reading of the Rules and found the draft appeal grounds lacked substance. Businesses should treat entity identity, assignments, service and appeal drafting as core risk issues, not administrative details. If there has been any change in ownership or structure, verify the paperwork before taking the next step.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for an extension of time. Derrington J held that Dr Quach had not provided a sufficient explanation for filing outside the 21-day period in r 34.24, and his argument that the rule did not apply to Trade Marks Act appeals was rejected because r 34.21 defines “Commissioner” to include the Registrar for those proceedings. The court also found the proposed appeal had no prospects of success because the draft grounds were not substantively intelligible and, more fundamentally, Dr Quach lacked standing. QE Family Pty Ltd was the opponent before the Registrar and therefore the entity with any right to appeal under s 56. The court also rejected a late challenge to the authority of the Owners Corporation’s representative and ordered Dr Quach to pay the second respondent’s costs of the application.
Quarter Turn Pty Ltd v Reinteractive Pty Ltd (No 5)
If your business may need to sue over a failed project, identify every head of loss early and keep your evidence aligned with it. This case shows that it is not enough to rely on broad language about damages and then later try to use invoices and bank statements for a different theory of loss. Quarter Turn was allowed to tender the documents, but the Court restricted the use of Salesforce and Comet CX invoices and related bank statements for any wasted expenditure claim because Reinteractive had prepared its case on the basis that only a loss of opportunity claim was being run. The practical lesson is to expose your damages case clearly in your originating documents, particulars, correspondence and expert reports. If your theory changes, amend it directly and in time for the other side to respond.
Outcome: Goodman J admitted the documents in MFI 9 into evidence as Exhibit A2, but made a limiting order under section 136 of the Evidence Act. The invoices rendered by Salesforce and Comet CX to Quarter Turn, and the bank statements showing Quarter Turn's payments to those suppliers, could not be used in any wasted expenditure claim in the proceeding. The Court accepted that Reinteractive would be unfairly prejudiced if those documents were used for that purpose because the proceeding had been conducted as a loss of opportunity case and Reinteractive had not prepared evidence to meet a wasted expenditure claim. However, the Court was not satisfied that the same level of prejudice existed for invoices rendered by Reinteractive itself and bank statements showing payment of those invoices, so it did not impose the same restriction on those amounts.
Quarter Turn Pty Ltd v Reinteractive Pty Ltd (No 6)
Business owners should read this as a case about discipline in running a claim, not as a ruling on whether the contract claim itself succeeds. The Court accepted that different damages theories can require different evidence and different defensive steps. If you want to claim wasted expenditure, loss of opportunity, or both, that needs to be identified early and reflected in pleadings, evidence planning and expert strategy. Do not assume the court will let you adjust the theory late in the trial process or cure the prejudice with an adjournment. A late shift can increase cost, delay the hearing, trigger arguments about security for costs and reduce the usefulness of documents you expected to rely on. The safest approach is to settle your damages case early, document it clearly and review it before evidence is filed and tendered.
Outcome: The Court refused Quarter Turn's oral application to vary the order made on 16 February 2026. Goodman J held that it was not in the interests of justice to revisit the earlier ruling. The proposed adjournment had not been advanced at the original hearing, no reason was given for that omission, and the adjournment would add to the length and cost of the trial and likely require at least one witness to be recalled for further cross-examination. The Court also found that the proposal did not remove all prejudice because no further security for costs was offered. The balance of the application was treated as an attempt to re-agitate previously unsuccessful arguments.
Ramoo v Grow Trade Finance Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 286
If you are a director signing company finance documents, this case is a warning to check exactly when you are signing personally, what property you have charged, and how later variations may affect your exposure. Here, the Court held that the director's personal guarantee under the 2019 trade finance agreement, as amended by the 2022 variation, had not been discharged. The Court also declared that the lender could seize her personal property under s 123 of the PPSA using rights conferred by the agreement as construed by the Court and, in any event, by any method permitted by law, including a method authorised by court order. The practical reading is not that every asset can always be taken instantly, but that a broad guarantee, charging clause and PPSR registration can create a serious enforcement pathway against personal assets. Before agreeing to a facility increase, extension or restructure, have the guarantee, security and signing capacity reviewed carefully.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Ms Ramoo's originating application and allowed Grow Trade and the receivers' cross-claim to the extent of the declarations made. The Court declared that Ms Ramoo's personal guarantee under the February 2019 Trade Finance Facility Agreement, as amended by the 26 September 2022 variation, had not been discharged. It also declared that s 123 of the PPSA operated so that Grow Trade, whether directly, by an agent or by a receiver appointed under the agreement, could seize Ms Ramoo's personal property in the exercise of rights conferred by the agreement as construed in the reasons for judgment and, in any event, by any method permitted by law, including a method authorised by court order. The Court identified the presently appointed receivers and gave the parties liberty to apply by 30 June 2026 for orders authorising a method of seizure or related declaratory relief about lawful methods otherwise permitted by law.
Reabel (in substitution for Henry) v Sandlewood Aboriginal Projects Limited
Businesses should read this case as a reminder that litigation run on behalf of a company is a governance process as much as a legal one. If court leave was needed to start the claim, court leave may also be needed to finish it by settlement. The court will not focus only on whether the claim sounds serious. It will also ask whether the case is properly pleaded, whether evidence is ready, what interlocutory disputes remain, who is funding the matter, what adverse costs risks exist, and whether any judgment is likely to be recoverable. A board or member group should keep clear records of authority, document who can instruct lawyers and sign settlement documents, and assess recovery prospects early. If the original representative can no longer act, substitution is possible, but only if the replacement person fits the statutory requirements and is acting in good faith. In practice, disciplined governance and document control can materially affect whether a company claim is worth continuing or should be settled.
Outcome: The Court granted both applications. It ordered that Veronica Reabel be substituted for Beatrice Maud Henry as the first applicant, finding that Ms Reabel was a descendant of one of the Emon ancestors identified in Western Downs’ constitution, was entitled to be registered as a member, had been appointed by members of the Emon group to replace Ms Henry, was acting in good faith, and that substitution was appropriate. The Court also granted leave under s 240 for the parties to settle the proceeding against Ms Davis in the terms of the deed of settlement, subject to a modified execution clause. It required the first, second and fourth applicants, the fifth respondent and the seventh applicant by its current directors to execute the deed by 23 April 2026. Once an affidavit annexing the executed deed was filed, the applicants were given leave to file a notice of discontinuance. The Court ordered that the applicants would not be liable for the other parties’ costs in relation to the discontinued claim and directed the applicants to bring a further application about distribution of money held in Court.
Reiche v Neometals Ltd (No 4)
The practical message is that costs recovery can continue during an appeal unless the court orders otherwise, but the court may pause the step that most directly exposes the losing party to enforcement pressure. Here, the court stayed the referral to the Registrar to fix the lump-sum costs amount, yet still required the applicant to file his costs response so the quantification work could continue while the issues were fresh. Businesses should read this as a reminder that stay applications are evidence-heavy and outcome-specific. The court will ask whether the appeal is arguable, whether there is a real risk of prejudice that cannot later be repaired, and where the balance of convenience lies. It will also consider whether the successful party will actually suffer prejudice from delay. A business that has won at first instance should be ready to explain why it should still get the benefit of its costs order. A business facing a costs order should move quickly, gather objective financial evidence, and frame any stay request carefully, including the possibility of a partial stay rather than an all-or-nothing order.
Outcome: The application was allowed in part. Wheatley J stayed order 4 of the 19 December 2025 costs orders, being the referral to the Registrar to determine the fixed lump-sum amount of costs, until the later of the determination of the appeals in WAD91/2025 and NSD2439/2025. The court did not stay the applicant’s obligation to participate in the costs process. Instead, it extended the time for the applicant to file and serve his costs response to 4:30 pm AWST on 6 February 2026. The costs of the interlocutory stay application were reserved. In reaching that result, the court accepted that the appeals were arguable, accepted the applicant’s documentary-supported evidence of impecuniosity, inferred a real risk of bankruptcy if quantification and enforcement proceeded, found no prejudice to the respondent from delay, and rejected the submission that whistleblower status was relevant to the stay question.
Reiche v Neometals Ltd [2026] FCAFC 53
Businesses should read this case as a process-and-evidence decision, not as a green light to dismiss or restructure after a complaint. The safer approach is to treat serious reports about misconduct, improper circumstances, misuse of information, conflicts or irregular documents as potentially engaging whistleblower protections, even if they arise through ordinary management channels. Keep careful records of the complaint pathway, who received what information, and the commercial basis for any later employment action. Where possible, separate the people handling the disclosure from the people deciding redundancy or termination. This case also highlights the evidential burden in s 1317AD(2B). Once the applicant points to evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility of detriment, the respondent bears the burden of proving the claim is not made out. That makes contemporaneous documents and credible decision-maker evidence especially important.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 4 May 2026. The court held that none of the grounds of appeal was established. On the reasons published, the appellant did not show error in the primary judge's approach to the statutory preconditions for relief or in the factual findings about Neometals' reasons for making his role redundant and terminating his employment. The court's discussion confirms that detriment was admitted, but the claim failed on the belief or suspicion and causation elements. The primary judge's findings, as recounted by the Full Court, included that the February and March 2024 board presentations were understood as raising strategic or commercial risks rather than obviously disclosing misconduct or an improper state of affairs, and that the CEO did not regard one April 2024 concern as whistleblowing because it was raised as part of Mr Reiche's role.
Rix Electrical Contracting Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Aitchison, in the matter of Rix Electrical Contracting Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 566
If you settle a dispute, do not treat the deed as a formality after the commercial deal is struck. The payment date, notice requirements, default wording, interest clause and costs clause can determine what happens if anything goes wrong. In this case, the director had agreed that if he defaulted and failed to remedy the default after notice, the unpaid amount would become a debt due and the company could seek summary judgment. That is exactly what happened. The court did not need to decide the original insolvency allegations to give judgment. For business owners, the practical message is clear: only agree to a settlement payment timetable you can actually meet, calendar the due dates, act immediately if a default notice arrives, and get advice before signing any deed that includes admissions or a summary judgment pathway. If you are enforcing a settlement, clear default drafting can materially improve recovery prospects.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the plaintiffs' application. Justice O'Bryan held that Mr Aitchison had defaulted under the deed by failing to pay the settlement sum by 16 March 2026 and by failing to remedy that default after written notice on 17 March 2026. The court was satisfied that the deed entitled the company to recover the Default Sum and that Mr Aitchison had no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the interlocutory application. The court ordered him to pay the company $70,000 as a debt due, interest at the penalty interest rate from 17 March 2026 to 7 May 2026, and fixed costs of $13,000. The court also made procedural orders removing the resigned liquidator as a party and otherwise dismissed the proceeding.
Rizkalla v CDC Geelong Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 249
Read this case as a procedural warning, not a merits ruling. The court struck out the employee's amended pleading because it did not give fair notice of the case to be met, but it allowed him to try again. That means an employer can succeed on a strike-out application and still remain in the litigation. If your business is facing a general protections claim, focus early on whether the pleading clearly identifies the workplace rights relied on, the adverse action alleged, the legal provisions said to be breached, and the role of any individual managers. If those basics are missing, a procedural application may be worthwhile. At the same time, do not assume a pleading defect means the underlying risk is low. The facts described in the judgment involve safety complaints, fatigue and rostering concerns, union activity, stand down, investigation and dismissal. Those are common trigger points for adverse action allegations. Businesses should keep decision-making records, investigation documents, correspondence and reasons for disciplinary action clear and consistent from the outset.
Outcome: The Federal Court struck out the amended statement of claim dated 11 September 2025 under r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Justice Horan granted the applicant leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim by 24 April 2026. The court also ordered the parties to file written submissions on the costs of the interlocutory application and directed them to attend a case management conference before a Registrar to clarify the issues of fact and law in dispute. The ruling did not determine the substantive allegations about adverse action, industrial activity, discrimination, wages, enterprise agreement breaches or dismissal. It was a procedural decision requiring the applicant to replead the case in a clearer form.
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Suppression Orders)
The practical message is straightforward. If your business needs confidentiality, protect it early and operationally. In this case, the Court accepted that the deed was confidential and that interim suppression orders had been made, but still refused long-term orders because the substance of the deed was already on the internet. That made the requested orders ineffective in any meaningful sense. A confidentiality clause, or even an interim court order, may not save the position once information is already circulating publicly. Businesses should therefore focus on limiting who receives sensitive documents, checking what is attached to affidavits, controlling filing and service processes, and acting quickly if disclosure occurs. If a leak happens, legal options may still exist, but the court will ask whether the order sought can still achieve something real.
Outcome: Perram J dismissed the respondents' amended interlocutory application for 50-year suppression orders and ordered them to pay the appellant's costs of that application. The Court held that the orders should be discharged because the substance of the deed had entered the public domain through online news articles that remained available on the world wide web. In those circumstances, extending the suppression orders would lack utility. The judgment states that where a suppression or non-publication order will not be effective, it will generally not be necessary under section 37AG(1)(a) to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Existing interim orders were continued only briefly to allow time for any special leave step.
Rock Solid Mining Services Pty Ltd, in the matter of Rock Solid Mining Services Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 570
If your company may need voluntary administration, treat the appointment as a formal legal process that must be documented properly from the start. This case shows that the court will look closely at who the directors were at the time, whether the company appointed the administrator in writing, and whether the board minutes record the required insolvency opinion and decision to appoint. It also highlights an important point about s 447C. The court can declare an appointment valid where doubt exists but the statutory requirements were in fact met. That is different from curing an invalid appointment after the event. For directors and shareholders, the practical message is to keep ASIC records current, maintain minute books, and document solvency concerns carefully. For administrators, if allegations about validity threaten the administration timetable, a prompt application for declaratory relief may be the most practical way to remove uncertainty. The court may also order the administrator's costs of that application to be costs in the administration.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared that Alan Lee Walker's appointment as administrator of RSMS on 10 March 2026 was valid. The court found that the statutory preconditions in s 436A were satisfied. It accepted that there was sufficient doubt on a specific ground to justify a s 447C application because questions had been raised about whether the sole director genuinely held the required insolvency opinion. However, after reviewing the instrument of appointment, the ASIC-derived organisation extract and the director's meeting minutes, and noting the absence of contrary evidence or opposing submissions, the court concluded that the doubts lacked substance. The court therefore granted declaratory relief under s 447C and ordered that the administrator's costs of the proceedings be costs in the administration.
Rogers v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2026] FCA 542
Business owners should read this as a warning about off-the-clock work and about the way employment claims can expand. The Court did not find wrongdoing, but it accepted that the first trial should examine the claims of all witnesses giving evidence and should also deal with the serious contravention issue if contraventions were proved. In practical terms, that means a dispute about a few shifts or a few employees can become a test of how work is actually organised across a business. If staff are expected to arrive early, stay late, complete handovers, prepare stores, lock up, or finish tasks outside paid time, the legal risk is not limited to payroll records alone. Businesses should compare rosters, time records, manager instructions and real workplace practice. Franchisees and passive respondents should also note that findings made at an early trial may still bind them as parties, even if they choose not to play an active role.
Outcome: The Court concluded that the initial trial should be a trial of the claims of all those who were coming to give evidence. In the formal orders, the Court provided that the initial trial would determine liability on all claims for relief relating to the sample employees and sample employers listed in Annexure A, and in respect of the first respondent, including claims under ss 557A and 558B of the Fair Work Act, together with common questions to be specified at the next case management hearing. Lee J also held that the serious contravention issue should be dealt with at the initial trial in respect of the pleaded claims of contravention. Further orders set a structured conferral process, required points of claim for four identified deponents, and listed the matter for a further case management hearing on 31 July 2026.
Roohizadegan v Technology One Limited (No 7) [2026] FCA 187
If your business is in a Fair Work dispute, this case is a reminder to manage the litigation as carefully as the underlying employment issue. The Court looked closely at whether the case was kept within reasonable bounds, whether weak points were dropped once evidence emerged, whether quantum assumptions were realistic, and whether a settlement offer should have been accepted at the time it was made. A Calderbank offer can become the trigger for a costs order if it is commercially realistic and the other side presses on without a realistic path to a better result. Businesses should document who made the relevant employment decision, keep contemporaneous records, test damages claims early, narrow issues where possible, and assess offers against the evidence then available rather than against best-case hopes. The judgment also shows that courts may connect earlier unreasonable conduct with later settlement rejection when deciding whether costs should follow from the offer date.
Outcome: The Court made a partial party-and-party costs order against the applicant. McElwaine J ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding from 6 April 2025, with the amount to be determined by a Registrar on a lump sum basis under rule 40.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The judge found that the applicant had run the retrial in an unreasonably expansive way and that, when the respondents made their 6 April 2025 Calderbank offer, the weakness of the applicant's position was objectively clear on the evidence then available. The Court treated the $2.2 million inclusive offer as a genuine commercial compromise and held that the applicant's failure to accept it was unreasonable, especially when considered together with his antecedent conduct in the proceeding.
Rosemont Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Weinberg [2026] FCA 224
If your business is asking for money for a specific purpose, say exactly what that purpose is and make sure the money is used that way. A Quistclose trust is a trust that can arise where money is advanced for a specific and exclusive purpose. In practical terms, that means the recipient may hold the money subject to that purpose instead of being free to spend it as general working capital. This case is a warning not to assume that related entities can share funds freely just because they are in the same group or under common control. If you are using a convertible note, emergency funding request or investor email, document whether the funds are restricted, whether they must be ring-fenced, which entity will receive the benefit, and whether any statement about subsidiaries or ownership is accurate before the money moves.
Outcome: The Federal Court found for Rosemont on the major liability issues identified in the catchwords. It held that the $1 million was subject to a Quistclose trust, found knowing receipt, and found accessorial liability against Mr Weinberg for procuring the breach of trust. The Court also found misleading or deceptive conduct under the pleaded statutory provisions and found deceit. The catchwords further record that contributory negligence and proportionate liability were not applicable to reduce liability on the misleading conduct claims. The published orders accompanying the reasons did not set out final relief. Instead, the parties were directed to provide proposed short minutes dealing with final orders, so the exact entered orders should be checked separately.
RPMGlobal Holdings Limited, in the matter of RPMGlobal Holdings Limited (No 2) [2026] FCA 44
If your company is using a scheme of arrangement, treat the second court hearing as an evidence exercise, not a formality. RPM succeeded because it could show exactly how materials were sent, how undeliverable emails were handled, when the meeting was held, who could vote, how the poll was conducted, what the voting results were, and that ASIC had no objection. The Court also wanted comfort that disclosure had already been tested, that the scheme was fair and reasonable, and that all conditions precedent other than court approval had been dealt with. The exemption from section 411(11) is also a useful reminder that not every approval order needs to be annexed to a constitution forever, especially where the scheme does not alter constitutional rights and the company will become wholly owned. For directors and founders, the broader lesson is simple: document every step and expect the Court to check the details.
Outcome: The Federal Court approved the scheme under section 411(4)(b) and exempted RPM from compliance with section 411(11) under section 411(12). The Court found that the shareholder materials had been dispatched in accordance with the convening orders, the meeting had been properly held and conducted, and the statutory majorities had been achieved. It accepted that there had been full and fair disclosure to members, that all conditions precedent other than court approval had been satisfied, and that ASIC's no-objection statement satisfied section 411(17)(b). The Court also held that the level of turnout did not justify refusing approval, especially given the comparison with RPM's recent AGM participation and the absence of any sign of notice problems or deterrence. No shareholder or other person appeared to oppose the scheme.
SCL AUS Limited v Kirkalocka Gold SPV Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 60
Do not assume that a right to future payment is safe from a counterparty’s DOCA just because no money is yet payable. If the contract already imposed an obligation before the appointment date, the Court may treat the right as a contingent claim that can be bound and compromised under s 444D of the Corporations Act. Also, do not assume that related protections, such as a caveat mechanism or transfer restrictions requiring a buyer to assume the contract, will necessarily survive as standalone rights. This decision suggests the court will look at the whole contractual structure. In practice, businesses should review whether their protections are purely contractual, whether any genuine proprietary interest exists, and what the contract says about transfers, security and insolvency events.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court allowed the appeal only in part. It dismissed SCL’s first ground and held that the obligation to pay future royalties under the Royalty Deed was a contingent claim and therefore a claim within s 444D. That meant the DOCA could bind SCL in relation to those future royalty rights. On the second ground, the Court accepted that the primary judge had mischaracterised the caveat and transfer rights as merely ancillary to a monetary obligation. The Court held instead that those covenants formed part of the claim. But that correction did not change the practical result. The Court set aside the earlier second declaration and replaced it with a declaration that the DOCA dated 22 December 2023, as amended, bound SCL in respect of all claims for breach, future or otherwise, of cl 3, cl 5 and cl 8 of the Royalty Deed, where those obligations were extant as at 2 November 2023.
Scott v Khouri, in the matter of Skycorp Construction Group Pty Ltd (in liq)
Directors should read this case as a warning about both solvency management and litigation response. If a company is under pressure, you need to monitor whether it can pay its debts, document what you know, and get advice early before more debts are incurred. If a liquidator later alleges insolvent trading, silence is dangerous. In this case, the Court did not need a full trial because the director did not appear or file a defence, despite repeated notice. The Court then asked a narrower question: did the pleading, on its face, cover every element of s 588G(2)? It did, so judgment followed. In practice, businesses should have a clear process for checking ASIC-linked addresses, registered office mail, personal service attempts, and messages about hearings. Even if you dispute the claim, you usually need to engage with the proceeding to preserve that dispute.
Outcome: The Federal Court entered default judgment against the second defendant, Joseph Katrib. Justice Jackman held that the procedural history showed he had been afforded ample opportunity to defend the proceeding but had failed to do so despite repeated notice by personal service, post, Express Post and SMS. The Court also held that the statement of claim pleaded each element of the insolvent trading claim with sufficient particularity. Taking those pleaded facts as admitted, the Court found that liability under s 588G(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was established. Judgment was entered in the amount of $96,972.59, together with interest under s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and Mr Katrib was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding against him, including the interlocutory application costs.
Secover Pty Ltd v Graham, in the matter of Graham
If you have personally guaranteed business debts, do not assume a company restructure solves your own insolvency risk. This case shows that a Part X proposal can still be worth pursuing after an initial vote fails, but only if there is a real reason for a second attempt and evidence that creditors may be better off than in bankruptcy. A proposal built on future dividends, family-controlled entities, or sale proceeds can be put forward, but it will attract close scrutiny. You also need to understand the voting thresholds and the timing rules. Majority support in number is not enough if the value threshold is missed. And if you are relying on a stay of a creditor’s petition, check the legislation and current court orders carefully rather than assuming the stay continues for the whole process.
Outcome: The court granted leave under section 188(4), allowing the debtors to give a further authority to Bruce Gleeson under Part X by 17 March 2026. It also stayed Secover’s creditor’s petition until 18 March 2026 and noted that, if the authority became effective on or by 17 March 2026, the proceedings on the petition were stayed pursuant to section 189AAA. In the reasons visible from the published judgment, Burley J said it was appropriate to grant leave because the debtors had moved promptly after the failed November 2025 meeting, the controlling trustee recommended the amended personal insolvency agreement as being in creditors’ best interests, and the changed position after additional proofs of debt suggested the amended proposal may now have practical utility. The available reasons are truncated, so the full judgment should be checked for the complete final analysis.
Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing v Key Promotional Products Pty Ltd
If your business deals with therapeutic goods or medical devices, do not treat approval language as a shorthand sales message. Check whether the product is of a kind included in the ARTG in relation to the relevant person before import and before supply. Make sure any statement about approval, registration or TGA status is exact and supportable. This case also shows that compliance is not just a legal team issue. Procurement, logistics, ecommerce, sales and marketing all need to work from the same verified position. Keep records of the register check, who performed it, what product it covered and whether it applied to your entity. If there is uncertainty, pause importation and customer-facing claims until it is resolved. Individuals who knowingly help the conduct can face personal penalties as well.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted leave for the Secretary to continue the proceeding against Key Promotional despite its liquidation, on condition that money orders could not be enforced against the company without further leave. The Court made declarations that the company contravened s 41MIB(1)(a)(i) by importing 255,000 medical devices, contravened s 41MIB(1)(a)(iii) by supplying 240,720 devices in Australia, and contravened s 41MLA(1) and s 41MLA(2)(a) by making 2,303 false or misleading representations that the devices were of a kind included in the ARTG. The Court also declared that Mr Harding was involved in the import and supply contraventions and in 1,183 of the false or misleading representations. By consent, penalties of $1,750,000 were ordered against the company and $250,000 against Mr Harding, with $70,000 of Mr Harding's penalty suspended on conditions for 10 years, plus costs.
Secretary, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing v AG Therapeutics Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 333
If your business creates, coordinates or publishes marketing for regulated products, do not assume legal responsibility sits only with the product owner. In this case, the Court accepted that a marketing-services company could be in a unique position and that continuing proceedings against it could deter similar conduct and clarify industry obligations. That is a strong signal for agencies, clinics, publishers and founders who rely on campaign partners. The practical response is to tighten campaign governance. Check early whether the product category has special advertising restrictions. Review not only formal ads but also articles, patient-story content, headlines, teaser copy and linked social posts. Make approval chains clear in writing. Keep records showing who drafted the content, who approved claims and what legal review occurred. If a company later enters liquidation, do not assume the regulator’s case disappears. The Court may still allow the proceeding to continue, even if enforcement of any later monetary orders is controlled by further court leave.
Outcome: The Court granted leave to continue the proceeding against the fourth respondent in liquidation. Younan J held that the claims were serious, raised matters of public importance and engaged the protective and deterrent purposes of regulatory enforcement. The Court also accepted that the fourth respondent, as a company providing marketing services, was in a unique position and that proceedings against it could have a direct deterrent effect on others providing advertising and marketing services for therapeutic goods, while also helping clarify their legal obligations. Another significant factor was that the declarations and pecuniary penalties sought by the Secretary could not be dealt with through a proof of debt in the liquidation. Leave was granted on the condition that any future financial or monetary orders against the fourth respondent could not be enforced without further leave of the Court. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Shaw v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
If you are thinking about challenging the conduct of a bankruptcy trustee, this case points to three practical realities. First, you need a focused complaint tied to specific transactions, documents and consequences for the estate. Broad claims that the trustee acted unfairly, negligently or unreasonably may not get you to an inquiry. Second, procedural steps matter. A subpoena issued after evidence has closed, or a late attempt to reopen the case, may face serious resistance even if some documents are later produced another way. Third, finality is real. If a court has already decided issues such as the trustee’s authority to bring proceedings or the validity of instructions to solicitors, you may not be able to revive those points in a different proceeding. For business owners, that means gathering evidence early, choosing the correct legal pathway, and checking whether the issue has already been decided before spending more money on further litigation.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the main appeal concerning the refusal to order an inquiry into the trustee's conduct. It also dismissed the application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory case-management decisions, holding that the applicant had not shown the required error or a real risk of substantial injustice. In the separate appeal arising from the discontinued s 37AO proceeding, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion that the interlocutory application could not continue after discontinuance and was precluded in any event. The Court also refused the application to admit additional evidence, rejected the apprehended bias complaints, and ordered costs against Mr Shaw in each matter.
Shaw v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (No 2)
If your business is in Federal Court proceedings, treat the hearing as the main chance to deal with costs, especially if you need unusual wording in the final orders. This case shows that the Court may correct or clarify an order shortly after judgment, but only in a limited way and only within the strict rule 39.04 timeframe. A post-judgment application is not a substitute for proper preparation. If you are disappointed with the result, repeating old arguments is unlikely to work. If you need a narrow clarification that will avoid later disputes, the Court may consider it, but you should be ready to explain why it was not raised earlier and why the variation is genuinely confined.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed the Official Trustee's application and varied the earlier costs orders in each proceeding. It vacated the original costs orders and replaced them with orders that Mr Shaw pay the Trustee's costs as agreed, or failing agreement, assessed on a lump sum basis, without prejudice to the Trustee's right to claim those costs as a cost of administering Mr Shaw's bankrupt estate. The Court accepted that the Trustee should have raised the issue during the hearing, but held that the omission was not fatal because the proposed variation was confined and orthodox and would avoid unnecessary future disputes. The Court dismissed Mr Shaw's separate interlocutory application, finding that it was really an attempt to reopen and re-argue matters already determined and did not identify any proper basis for review under rule 39.04.
Shepard (Administrator), in the matter of Transtar Linehaul Pty Ltd (Administrators appointed)
If your company is in voluntary administration, the timetable for the second creditors' meeting matters, but the court can adjust it where there is a clear and evidenced commercial reason. This case shows that the court wants proof of progress, diligence and likely benefit. Here, the administrators pointed to an advanced property sale, ongoing asset recoveries, disputed ownership issues still being worked through, and a possible deed of company arrangement that could be influenced by the sale outcome. They also showed what had already been achieved, including discharge of a large secured NAB debt and payment of almost all priority creditor claims. Just as importantly, the court did not extend time for every company in the group. Diesel Consulting Pty Ltd was outside the orders because no extension was sought for it on this application. For creditors, this is a reminder to focus on the evidence: what exactly will the extra time achieve, what has already been done, and is the likely return better than an immediate winding up?
Outcome: The court granted the extension in substance. It varied the earlier orders so that the resumed second meetings of creditors for Transtar Linehaul Pty Ltd, Edgely Pty Ltd and Fleet Repairs & Maintenance Pty Ltd could be held no later than 24 March 2026, with the statutory convening requirements treated as satisfied if the meetings were held by that date and the other applicable rules were complied with. The court did not make equivalent orders for Diesel Consulting Pty Ltd because no such relief was sought. Justice Younan held that the extension promoted the objects of Part 5.3A by allowing the companies to be administered in a way that could produce a better return for creditors and members than immediate winding up. The court also made confidentiality orders over Confidential Exhibit AS-4 until 24 March 2026 or further order.
Sillery Pty Ltd v CHA SMG Australia Holding Pty Ltd
If your company is handling a shareholder exit, do not treat transfer timing and valuation disclosure as separate issues. This case shows they are closely linked. A seller may think it can still rely on rights as a current member to inspect records, but that position can weaken fast if the court sees the transaction as already equitably assigned. Businesses should document exactly when settlement occurs, where funds are held, when they are remitted, and when beneficial ownership is intended to pass. If the price for shares depends on a calculation, provide the supporting information early where appropriate. If you are the seller, identify the documents you need before completion if possible and keep a written record of requests. If you are the company or buyer, unexplained delay in providing information can make a procedural fight more expensive than the underlying issue. This judgment is best read as a warning about process, not as a final ruling on valuation or ownership merits.
Outcome: Lee J did not grant the injunction Sillery had originally sought. After oral evidence suggested funds had been transferred to perfect settlement, the court proceeded on the basis that there had been an equitable assignment of the shares, or at least a series of transactions that would effect one very shortly and then a legal assignment. Because the injunction was premised on Sillery maintaining ownership, Sillery no longer pressed that relief. The court granted leave to file the originating application and leave to amend it by 30 March 2026, with the reasons indicating that the amended application would likely seek preliminary discovery. The court also made a conditional costs order in Sillery's favour for the 26 March hearing if, on the final hearing of the amended application, Sillery became entitled to production of the documents it had sought, subject to further order.
Slater v Ecosol Pty Ltd, in the matter of Ecosol Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 208
The practical lesson is to treat a disputed sale process as one connected controversy from the start. If a shareholder says the board preferred an insider bid, mishandled conflicts, failed to test competing offers, used weak valuation work or gave shareholders slanted information, those complaints should be assessed early alongside any existing or likely court proceedings. A later oppression claim may be vulnerable if the same factual allegations were already raised, or reasonably could have been raised, elsewhere. For boards, the case reinforces the value of documenting recusals, who negotiated for the company, how competing bids were compared, what information was sent to shareholders, and how the approval vote was conducted. For minority shareholders, it is a reminder that delay and fragmented litigation can be fatal even where the underlying grievance is serious. The court did not say oppression claims are generally unavailable after other litigation. It said that, on these facts, the later proceeding crossed the line into abuse of process because of the overlap with the earlier defamation dispute.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered that the originating application be summarily dismissed under rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Justice Charlesworth held that the discretion to dismiss was enlivened on the first ground advanced by the defendants, namely abuse of process arising from the overlap between the oppression allegations and the earlier defamation litigation. The court rejected the separate improper purpose argument and found it unnecessary to decide whether Mr Slater had no reasonable prospects of obtaining the relief sought. On the reasons reviewed here, the result is that the oppression claim did not proceed to a substantive trial. The decision is therefore best read as a case about relitigation and procedural finality, rather than a final ruling on whether the management buyout process was in fact oppressive.
SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc. v Flexirent Capital Pty Ltd (Costs)
If your business is in a serious contract dispute, do not treat mitigation, settlement and costs as separate topics. They interact. This judgment shows that reasonable spending to contain damage or pursue recovery may still justify pre-judgment interest, even if later recoveries are taken into account in the damages calculation. It also shows that timing and formality matter with settlement offers. A pre-litigation offer can still be relevant, but if it does not clearly flag costs consequences it may carry less weight. By contrast, a formal offer of compromise can trigger indemnity costs if the final result is more favourable than the offer. Before making or rejecting an offer, compare the likely judgment, interest, costs already spent, future costs, and any weak parts of the case. A headline settlement number on its own can be misleading.
Outcome: The court entered judgment for SMBC against the respondents in the amounts of AUD14,840,518.56 and USD141,862.10 or the AUD equivalent at the time of payment or execution. It ordered the respondents to pay pre-judgment interest of $4,411,171.35 under s 51A(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), including interest on the amount referable to SMBC's funding of the liquidators. On costs, the court rejected Flexirent's argument that its April 2022 offer justified indemnity costs in its favour. Instead, the court ordered the respondents to pay 70% of SMBC's costs up to 11 am on 25 July 2025 on a party-party basis, and 70% from that time on an indemnity basis because SMBC's July 2025 formal offer had been bettered. The court also ordered that costs be determined in a lump sum if not agreed and set a timetable for that process.
SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc. v Flexirent Capital Pty Ltd (Lump Sum Costs)
If your business is in serious litigation, manage costs with recoverability in mind from the start. This case shows that the Court may prefer a practical lump sum approach over a line-by-line assessment, but it will still examine whether the final figure is a fair approximation of what should be recovered. You should ask your lawyers to separate actual spend from likely recoverable costs, identify when any indemnity costs period starts, and explain whether rates materially exceed court scales or guides. The judgment also shows the value of disciplined records. Settlement letters can affect later costs outcomes, but an inaccurate figure in a Calderbank letter will not automatically cap recovery if the other side was not misled or prejudiced. Practitioner status can matter too. If some legal work is done by people whose registration position may affect recoverability, that issue can reduce the amount later claimed. For directors and founders, the practical step is regular reporting on legal spend, staffing changes, pre-proceeding work, and the assumptions being used about what a court is likely to allow.
Outcome: Thawley J ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs fixed in the lump sum of $3.25 million. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the applicant's earlier Calderbank letter should cap pre-25 July 2025 costs, finding the respondents knew the applicant's costs were likely higher and were not prejudiced by the incorrect figure. The Court accepted that it was not bound to apply the Federal Court scale strictly and allowed market-rate counsel fees, but it made specific reductions. It applied the Scale of Costs item 1.2 rate with a 15% uplift for work done by practitioners not on the High Court Register, reduced indemnity-period solicitor fees by 10%, and used a 22.5% discount for party-party professional fees rather than the applicant's 30% discount. Those changes produced a revised total of $3,250,937.31, which the Court fixed at $3.25 million.
SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc. v Flexirent Capital Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 29
If your business sells receivables, subscriptions, lease payments or other payment rights, read the warranty package as if it were a set of promises you may later have to stand behind in court. This decision shows that a clause saying receivables exist, are enforceable, are free from fraud, or are backed by real assets can expose the seller to substantial expectation damages if those matters are false. It also shows that indemnities for fraud or negligence by agents can be very broad. On the buyer side, clear contractual warranties may be easier to enforce than trying to build a misleading conduct case from scratch. On the seller side, do not rely on assumptions about what an agent has checked. Build verification steps that test whether the customer really signed, the assets really exist, title can really pass, and any red flags are escalated before an offer letter goes out.
Outcome: SMBC succeeded against Flexirent in relation to the 2018 arrangement. The Federal Court held that the warranties in the 2018 MRASA were false and were promissory contractual warranties, so SMBC did not need to prove reliance in order to recover for breach of contract. SMBC also succeeded on the contractual indemnity and on statutory claims under sections 12DA and 12DB(1)(b) of the ASIC Act in relation to the four 2018 offer letters. However, SMBC failed on its wholly statutory claims concerning the later 2020 arrangement entered directly with FEA. The court held that the earlier 2018 representations were not a material cause of the 2020 loss, and that Flexirent did not engage in misleading conduct by silence in relation to 2020. The reasons directed the parties to confer on final orders and costs after judgment.
South32 Aluminium (RAA) Pty Ltd v Siemens Ltd
If your business uses affiliates, seconded staff or cross-border group support, assume from the start of any dispute that project records may need to be produced. Do not rely on corporate structure alone to keep documents outside discovery. Review the actual arrangements: who directed the work, who benefited from it, what the contracts say about inspection rights, and where the records sit. Keep project files, manuals, software records, reports and email archives in a way that can be searched and explained later. If litigation is on foot, record your search process carefully. Courts may expect evidence about custodians, repositories, search terms, unavailable accounts and retrieval efforts. This case is also a reminder that contract labels are not always decisive. If the practical reality is that related-entity staff were doing your company’s work on your behalf, their documents may be treated as yours for discovery purposes. Businesses should also review IP clauses, record-delivery obligations and archive settings before a dispute arises, because those provisions can become central when the Court asks whether documents are within your control.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted South32’s application for further and better discovery. Derrington J ordered Siemens, within 28 days, to discover documents generated by SIT employees in connection with the installation and commissioning of Unit 6, the Installation and Commissioning Manual, the 2014 software upgrade, the 2015 safety inspection, and the Software Flaw or casualty, to the extent they were created for work performed for or on behalf of Siemens. The Court held that the documents were within Siemens’ control because they were produced in the course of agency relationships and, in any event, Siemens had a contractual right to inspect them. The Court also ordered a director’s affidavit explaining the discovery search process and ordered Siemens to pay South32’s costs of the application.
Southernwood v Brambles Limited (No 3) [2026] FCA 418
Businesses should read this case as a warning against presenting stretch targets, recovery plans or hopeful assumptions as if they were reliable forecasts. The Court’s table of contents shows close attention to budget setting, budget stretching, revised reforecasts, sales funnel assumptions, customer loss assumptions, damage rates, direct costs and board-level consideration of whether guidance should be maintained. That means a forecast should be built from evidence that exists at the time, not from aspiration. If management is relying on delayed sales arriving later, cost improvements not yet achieved, or a turnaround plan that is still uncertain, those points need to be tested carefully before any external statement is made. For listed entities, the case also underlines the need for prompt escalation to disclosure decision-makers when internal information materially worsens. For private businesses, the same discipline matters when speaking to investors, lenders or buyers.
Outcome: The judgment confirms that the Federal Court delivered a detailed decision addressing the pleaded misleading conduct, continuous disclosure, causation and relief issues across the August, October and November 2016 allegations and later January and February 2017 disclosure events. However, the text available here is truncated before the end of the reasons, so this page does not state definitively which specific allegations succeeded or failed, or what exact relief was ordered. The safe public reading is that the case is a major Federal Court treatment of earnings guidance, reasonable grounds for future representations and continuous disclosure, but the final allegation-by-allegation result should be checked against the complete judgment.
Sozou (liquidator) v ACN 608 767 942 Pty Ltd, in the matter of SSG NSW Pty Ltd ACN 637 378 333 (in liq) [2026] FCA 531
If your business receives a claim from a liquidator, do not assume the dispute will be a stand-alone case just because your transaction was separate. This decision shows the Federal Court may allow a liquidator to sue many defendants together in one 'mother proceeding', even where the claims are not identical and some are framed differently from others. That can increase the speed and coordination of the litigation. It also means your response should be document-led from the start. Pull together contracts, invoices, proof of supply, correspondence, approvals and any explanation for why the payment was made. The case also highlights an important distinction in claim types. An alleged uncommercial transaction is a statutory insolvency claim. A claim for moneys had and received is a restitutionary claim seeking repayment of money said to have been received without proper basis. This judgment did not decide whether either type of claim was made out. It only allowed the combined proceeding to continue.
Outcome: The Court granted the plaintiffs leave nunc pro tunc to join the second to forty-sixth defendants listed in the schedule to the originating process. The proceeding was referred to the National Operations Registry for allocation to a docket judge. Lee J considered himself bound to follow the existing approach associated with Dudley, rather than holding that rule 9.02 alone clearly authorised the combined proceeding. However, his Honour relied expressly on rules 1.31 and 1.32, as well as rule 9.05, to make the order. A significant reason was that joinder was unlikely to prejudice the proposed defendants, because the future docket judge could still manage the case flexibly, including by ordering separate trials or hearing later applications by individual defendants. The decision therefore allowed the combined proceeding to continue, but did not determine the merits of any underlying claim.
Sozou (Liquidator), in the matter of Comm TC Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 532
Do not assume risk disappears once the ordinary section 588FF deadline is close. This case shows that a liquidator who applies in time can obtain a long extension if the administration is difficult and the investigations are active and genuine. The Court looked closely at whether the liquidators had been diligent, whether there was a real explanation for delay, whether the proposed claims had some apparent substance, and whether anyone would suffer real prejudice from the extension. Here, the application was unopposed by the time it was decided, and the Court found no specific forensic prejudice. If your business has received payments from a distressed company, keep contracts, invoices, timesheets, bank records and explanations for unusual transactions. If you are a director, poor books and records can make investigations longer, more expensive and more dangerous for creditors and counterparties alike.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. Cheeseman J held that the extension application had been brought within time because the originating process was lodged on 10 December 2025 and accepted for filing on 11 December 2025, before the ordinary deadlines for both companies expired. The Court then held it was fair and just to extend time under section 588FF(3)(b). For both Comm TC and Zenith, time was extended to 1 March 2027 for the identified claims and to 29 April 2028 for other possible section 588FF(1) applications. The Court accepted that the liquidators had acted with reasonable diligence and that the delay was substantially caused by inadequate records, limited cooperation and funding uncertainty, not inactivity. It also found no evidence of specific forensic prejudice sufficient to outweigh the prejudice to liquidators and creditors if the extensions were refused. A confidentiality order was also made over the confidential affidavit and exhibit until the winding up concludes.
Sunflower Care Services Pty Ltd v Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (Costs)
If your business is challenging a regulator, this case shows that the usual idea that the winner gets costs is only a starting point. The court focused on the overall result, but also on how each party conducted the case. If a regulator offers undertakings or issues a replacement decision that gives you much of the practical relief you wanted, you need to reassess whether pressing every remaining issue is commercially sensible. Continuing to fight for a full merits ruling can reduce or eliminate your costs recovery if the court thinks the extra hearing time was unnecessary. At the same time, if you do succeed overall, adding marginal grounds can still reduce what you recover. Interlocutory applications also matter. Separate costs orders can be made for injunctions, amendments and re-opening applications. Businesses should keep the case tightly focused, document costs carefully, and review strategy whenever the dispute narrows or changes shape.
Outcome: The court made no order as to Sunflower’s costs of the proceeding. It held that although Sunflower acted reasonably in commencing the case, the merits of its claims were never determined and its conduct after the Commissioner offered undertakings unnecessarily prolonged parts of the litigation. The applicants were ordered to pay the Commissioner’s costs of the interlocutory application filed on 24 June 2024, while the Commissioner was ordered to pay the applicants’ costs of the later re-opening and amendment application. For Mrs Karunarathna, the court held that she was successful overall because she obtained certiorari quashing both the original and amended banning orders. The Commissioner was ordered to pay 80% of her costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs except those dealt with separately. The relevant costs were to be fixed in a lump sum and referred to the Registrar for determination.
Svehla v Svager [2026] FCA 185
Business owners should read this case as a warning to separate the factual complaint from the legal vehicle used to pursue it. If the dispute is about a product supplied by an individual or sole trader, do not assume the Commonwealth version of the ACL automatically gives access to the Federal Court for every claim. Check whether the claim depends on a corporation being involved, whether a specific provision such as section 33 is being relied on, and whether any State or Territory ACL claim may instead be doing most of the work. Also check the remedies being sought. The judgment indicates that personal injury restrictions can affect compensation claims even where a federal ACL claim is enough to get the matter into court. If your business is sued, look closely at whether the pleading actually identifies a coherent cause of action against your entity. If your business is bringing a claim, make sure the pleading clearly states the facts, the legal basis, the remedy sought and the jurisdictional foundation.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that the applicant’s section 33 ACL claim against the first respondent was sufficient to prima facie enliven the court’s jurisdiction. But the court found serious pleading defects. It refused leave to rely on the further amended pleadings filed in June 2024, struck out the original and amended originating process and statements of claim, and entered summary judgment for the Commonwealth and the New South Wales Commissioner for Fair Trading. The first respondent’s summary judgment application was dismissed. The applicant was given one further opportunity to serve fresh draft pleadings against the first respondent, with a further case management process to follow. The decision did not finally determine whether the gas cylinder was defective or whether the first respondent was liable for the alleged injury.
The NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd
If your business wants to enforce a patent, do not start with the assumption that the main question is whether a competitor copied your product. Start by stress-testing your own patent. This case shows three practical pressure points. First, check whether the earlier filing you rely on really discloses the features now being asserted, because priority can decide validity. Second, test whether the claims are vulnerable to an inventive step attack, even if the patent has already been granted. Third, compare the rival product against each claim requirement carefully, including how the product operates in different modes. The manual mode issue in this case is a good example of how a single feature can affect claim scope and infringement. If you are defending a patent claim, this decision shows the value of a focused invalidity cross-claim. A defendant may not need to win every technical argument if one or two strong grounds are enough to defeat the patent case. Businesses should also budget for the real possibility of paying a large share of the other side’s costs if the litigation fails.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed NOCO’s appeal and upheld the primary judge’s reasoning. The result was that the dismissal of NOCO’s infringement claim remained in place, along with the invalidity findings and revocation orders affecting the asserted claims identified by the primary judge. The Full Court upheld the findings on obviousness, upheld the finding that certain claims were not disclosed in the earlier PCT application and were therefore not entitled to the earlier priority date, and upheld the conclusion that a device capable of operating in a manual mode was outside the scope of certain claims. On the notice of contention, the court rejected the ground concerning disclosure of manual operation but upheld the ground that the primary judge had used the wrong date for assessing best method under s 40(2)(aa). NOCO was ordered to pay Brown and Watson’s costs of the appeal, and the earlier costs order was varied so that NOCO pay 85% of Brown and Watson’s costs of the claim and cross-claim on a lump sum basis.
The Owners - Strata Plan No 87231 v 3A Composites GmbH (No 10) [2026] FCA 351
Business owners should read this case as a warning against oversimplified assumptions on both sides of a dispute. If you manufacture, import or distribute technical products, do not market them as broadly safe or compliant without making clear the conditions, assumptions and limits of that statement. Keep records of who published each piece of marketing, what testing or certification existed at the time, and how Australian supply arrangements worked. If you buy, specify or manage buildings, do not assume that a costly remediation program automatically proves a product was legally defective in every use. The Court’s reasoning points to a more detailed inquiry: what building was involved, what professionals knew, what compliance route was used, what representations were actually made, and whether the claim was brought in time.
Outcome: On the published judgment and catchwords, the applicants did not establish their main consumer guarantee and misleading conduct cases. The Court's published reasoning indicates that safety and compliance of the products could only be determined through individual assessment of specific buildings, and that the products were not inherently defective. The misleading conduct case was also not established after the Court considered a large body of marketing material and its context. On limitation, the published findings record that the applicant's consumer guarantee claim was brought within time, but the applicant's misleading conduct claim was time barred. The Court then directed the parties to confer and submit draft orders to give effect to the reasons, with further case management listed.
The Owners - Strata Plan No 87231 v 3A Composites GmbH (No 11)
The practical takeaway is that this is a procedural judgment with real downstream value, not a new statement of substantive Australian Consumer Law doctrine. If your business is in a group proceeding, do not treat post-judgment orders as a housekeeping exercise. The way common findings are framed can influence later claims and negotiations just as much as some headline findings in the main reasons. This case also shows the importance of precision. The Court confined one answer to the only representation it had actually found was made, but it was willing to include other findings where they were grounded in the earlier reasons and could assist later disputes. Businesses should therefore keep careful records of what was said, where it was published, who it was directed to, and what warnings were or were not given. In litigation, pleadings, evidence and draft orders all matter.
Outcome: Justice Anderson resolved the remaining disputes about the draft common question answers and directed the parties to confer and submit revised draft orders by 19 May 2026. The Court confined common question 5 to publication of the Plus Composition Representation, because that was the only representation found to have been made. It accepted the applicants' additional paragraph for common question 20 about the PE core of Alucobond PE. Common question 25 was answered "No" after the applicants withdrew opposition. The Court accepted the applicants' proposed answers to common questions 28, 29 and 30, but rejected the proposed qualification to common question 31.
The Property Mentors Australia Pty Ltd v Touch for Health Pty Ltd as Trustee for Knight Superannuation Fund [2026] FCAFC 21
If your business is raising capital, future-looking statements need reasonable grounds at the time they are made, and the legal documents must actually support the commercial outcome being promoted. In this case, the court upheld findings that an information memorandum misled investors about both the likely investment term and the expected return. A central problem was that the trust deed gave each unit the same entitlement on winding up, which undermined the return model shown to cash investors. The court rejected the idea that an informal intention or assumption about paying investors first could fix that. It also held that the people who wrote, approved and sent the document had themselves engaged in the conduct. Before circulating investor materials, check that the deed, constitution, cap table, unit rights and financial model all say the same thing.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the cross-appeal in part. It left standing the findings that the Information Memorandum contained misleading or deceptive representations that the investment would have a term of 12 to 15 months and that it was to be expected to return more than 20% to the applicants. The court held there was no basis to disturb the primary judge's findings on the expected profit issue and that the appellants had not discharged the evidentiary onus on reasonable grounds for the timeframe representation. It varied the declaration so that the first, second and third respondents were all declared to have engaged in the misleading conduct. The primary judge's orders on damages, interest and costs were otherwise left undisturbed.
TJ & P Pty Ltd as trustee for the Post Family Trust v Agrinova Pty Ltd
If your business is discussing a rescue transaction, acquisition, refinance, settlement or debt clean-up, do not assume that avoiding a final signed contract removes legal risk. Clear written statements that you are ready, willing and able to pay, or that you remain committed to moving forward, may later be treated as a promise for estoppel purposes if the other side acts on them. Equally, if you are relying on another party's assurances, document exactly what was promised, what conditions still exist, and what steps you are taking because of those assurances. This case also suggests that even where estoppel is made out, the court may focus on proven reliance loss rather than awarding the full commercial value of the promised transaction. Businesses should therefore be careful both in making assurances and in proving any loss said to flow from reliance on them.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed both TJ&P's appeal and Agrinova's cross-appeal. The practical effect was that the primary judge's result remained in place. TJ&P did not overturn the rejection of the contract claim and did not obtain the much larger remedy it sought by reference to the value of the alleged promise, said to be in the order of $20 million. Agrinova also failed to overturn the estoppel finding or the award made at first instance. On the published material, the standing judgment was $585,000 for financial detriment suffered through acting on the promise. The appellant was also ordered to pay 60% of the respondent's costs of the proceeding.
Toner v CuDeco Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation)
If your business is negotiating a settlement in a representative proceeding, do not assume that agreement between the parties is enough. The Court may approve the deal but still refuse, defer or narrow the proposed distribution scheme. That risk is higher where only one respondent settles, common costs overlap with the continuing case, and there is a proposal to deduct legal costs or funding commission before the rest of the litigation is resolved. In practice, businesses should expect to justify the fairness of the settlement amount, the administration process, the basis for deductions, and the reason for any interim distribution. Where claims against other parties remain on foot, a holding account may be more realistic than immediate payment out to group members.
Outcome: Bennett J approved the settlement of the applicant’s claims against KPMG. The Court accepted that the claims involved considerable factual and legal complexity, including issues about audit standards, reasonable skill and care, statutory proof requirements, causation and quantum, and concluded that the settlement was fair and reasonable. However, the Court did not initially approve the proposed Settlement Distribution Scheme because the material first filed was insufficient to assess its fairness and reasonableness. After further evidence and submissions, the Court approved the scheme only to the extent that it allowed reimbursement of the funder’s costs and remuneration or commission, with the balance of the KPMG settlement sum to be retained in a holding account until the overall completion of the litigation.
Toro Energy Limited, in the matter of Toro Energy Limited [2026] FCA 643
The practical lesson is that a major transaction cannot be carried by commercial enthusiasm alone. In Toro, the company succeeded at the first hearing because it came to court with a structured record: the scheme implementation deed, affidavits from key people, a draft scheme booklet, evidence of verification, ASIC correspondence, proposed meeting mechanics and disclosure about related transaction features. The Court’s role was supervisory, but that supervision was real. If you are asking owners to approve a sale, merger, restructure or other control transaction, prepare as if every important statement may need to be justified. Make sure the approval materials explain the effect of the deal, disclose differing interests, deal with side arrangements and give people enough information without making the document unreadable. Good governance here is not cosmetic. It is what allows the transaction to proceed to the next step.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the first-hearing orders sought by Toro. It ordered Toro to convene and hold a meeting of eligible shareholders on 9 June 2026 to consider the scheme, approved the scheme booklet, proxy form and opt-in notice for distribution subject to limited corrections and updates, set the voting and dispatch mechanics, granted dispensation from some procedural rules, and adjourned the proceeding to 15 June 2026 for any later application to approve the scheme if the required shareholder vote was obtained. The Court was satisfied that the statutory prerequisites had been met, ASIC had been given the required opportunity to review the proposal, the procedural requirements were complied with or appropriately dispensed with, and the draft disclosure was sufficient for shareholders to consider the scheme.
Trafalgar Group Pty Ltd v Boss Fire & Safety Pty Ltd
If your business depends on a trade mark registration, you need to match your legal rights to your real-world branding. This case shows that use of a registered mark inside a larger product brand may still help, but it is not the same as using the registered mark on its own, and it is not automatically treated as use with minor additions that leave the mark unchanged. It also highlights the difference between a device mark and a word mark. A logo registration may protect the logo as registered, but it may not stop others from using a similar ordinary word unless you also have stronger rights in the word itself. Businesses should keep dated evidence of labels, packaging, brochures, technical data sheets, website pages and distributor materials, and should review older registrations, especially acquired brands, to confirm the exact goods covered and whether current use still supports the registration.
Outcome: Needham J ruled overall for Trafalgar. The court allowed Trafalgar's appeal from the Registrar's 2024 non-use decision and set that decision aside. The court held that the FYRE Device Mark had not been used on its own as a trade mark during the non-use period, but had been used as a "mark within a mark". The court also held that the composite product marks were not merely the registered mark with additions or alterations that did not substantially affect its identity. In the separate cancellation action, the court held that the FYRE Device Mark was inherently adapted to distinguish, that it was intended to be used as a trade mark, and that the application was not made in bad faith. The requested limitation concerning the word FYRE was refused, and the cancellation action was dismissed with costs.
Trafalgar Group Pty Ltd v Boss Fire & Safety Pty Ltd (Costs)
If your business is running or defending a trade mark case, this decision is a reminder that the Court separates overall success from the question of what costs order is fair. Winning the case does not mean you will get indemnity costs, especially if your settlement offer was made too close to the hearing and left the other side too little time to respond. It also shows that a successful party can still recover ordinary costs even if it loses one ground or has to retreat from part of its original position, provided those issues do not materially alter the result and were not run in a way that needlessly increased costs. In practice, businesses should review the scope of goods they can genuinely support with evidence, make settlement decisions earlier than the eve of trial, and treat costs planning as part of the litigation strategy from the start.
Outcome: Needham J ordered Boss Fire to pay Trafalgar Group’s costs of the appeal on the party-party basis, as agreed or taxed. The Court also set aside the delegate’s costs order from 2 July 2024 and ordered Boss Fire to pay Trafalgar Group’s costs before the delegate, to be assessed under Schedule 8 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth). The Court refused Boss Fire’s request for a 10% discount to costs, holding that Trafalgar Group’s late retreat on some goods and Boss Fire’s success on Ground 2 did not justify reducing the successful party’s costs. The Court also refused indemnity costs because the Calderbank offer was open for less than 28 hours and only during the last business day before the hearing, so rejection of it was not unreasonable.
Trangie-Nevertire Co-Operative Limited v Holcim Solutions and Products EMEA
The practical message is to make supplier identity unmistakably clear from the first sales discussion through to warranty and complaint handling. If your business uses multiple related entities, the legal entity on the contract, warranty, invoice, technical material and later correspondence should match, or any difference should be explained clearly. If a dispute arises, preserve all documents showing how the supplier presented itself. For claimants, those records may support an argument that an amendment should relate back to the original filing date. For defendants, they may show the opposite. This case should also be read carefully as a procedural ruling only. It does not establish that the Geogard product failed because of defect, that either respondent supplied it, or that the applicant will succeed on misleading conduct, negligence or warranty claims.
Outcome: The Court answered all five stated questions with the earlier date, 31 July 2024. That meant the applicant's claims against the second respondent, and the identified misleading and deceptive conduct, negligence, compensation order and breach of warranty claims against the first respondent, were treated as having started on the original filing date rather than the later amendment date. Abraham J treated the issue as discretionary and fact specific, and said that if the applicant had been misled by the respondents about the supplier's identity in circumstances where it had no reason to doubt it was dealing with the correct entity, that was a strong factor favouring the earlier date. The ruling did not finally determine limitation defences, supplier identity, defect or liability.
True EV Distribution Pty Ltd v Shenzhen Xiaopeng Motors Supply Chain Management Co Ltd
The key lesson is to separate merits from interim relief. A court may accept that there is a serious question to be tried and still refuse an interlocutory injunction. In this case, the judge was willing to proceed on that basis for parts of the Franchising Code argument and for the reasonableness of XPeng's contractual position, but that did not decide the final merits. The application failed because the practical consequences of granting the injunction weighed against it. Businesses should also note the procedural point. True EV had not sought final injunctive relief in its originating application and said it would only seek to amend if it won interim relief. The court treated that as a real problem. If exclusivity is central to your business model, make sure your contract, compliance record, payment performance, evidence of loss and pleaded final remedies are all in order before the relationship breaks down.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' costs of that application, with costs to be quantified on a lump sum basis. Justice Jackman did not finally determine the substantive claims. Instead, the judge proceeded on the basis that there was a serious question to be tried on some issues, including aspects of the Franchising Code argument and whether XPeng's reasons under article 2.3 were reasonable. The application still failed because the balance of convenience did not favour relief. The court placed principal weight on the insufficiency of True EV's undertaking as to damages, the absence of satisfactory security for that undertaking, the substantial detriment to XPeng if restrained, and the conclusion that assessing damages later would not be unduly difficult. The court also noted that no final injunction had been sought in the originating application.
True EV Distribution Pty Ltd v Shenzhen Xiaopeng Motors Supply Chain Management Co Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] FCA 541
If your business is suing through a company, treat security for costs as an early commercial issue, not a side question for lawyers to handle later. This case shows that once entitlement to security is accepted, the Court may still order the full amount sought if the estimate is supported by cogent solicitor evidence and falls within a reasonable range of likely recoverable costs. The Court may allow payment in tranches, but that does not remove the need to find the money quickly. Missing a payment can stop the proceeding and open the door to a later dismissal application. Directors should also note the costs lesson here: if a concession is inevitable, making it too late can still leave the company paying the other side's costs of the application.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered True EV to pay $1,256,860 into court as security for XPeng's costs of the proceeding. The amount was to be paid in two equal tranches of $628,430 by 31 May 2026 and 31 July 2026. If either tranche was not paid, the proceeding would be stayed until the default was rectified. The Court refused to make an immediate order for automatic dismissal, holding that termination without a hearing on the merits is a serious step and that any dismissal should be sought by formal application if default occurred. XPeng was given leave to file such an application. The Court also ordered that XPeng's costs of the interlocutory application dated 27 April 2026 be paid by True EV, and set a detailed timetable for pleadings, evidence, discovery and trial preparation leading to a hearing commencing on 6 October 2026.
Trueline Kerbing SA Pty Ltd v Administrative Incentivised Management Systems Pty Ltd
Read this as a pleading decision, not a final liability ruling. The Court accepted the applicants’ allegations at face value only for the limited purpose of deciding whether the case could continue. Even so, the judgment is a practical warning. If an external accountant, broker, consultant or manager prepares your financial records, handles payments, or is said to control the business’s accounts, those acts may later be characterised as commercial conduct carrying legal consequences. Businesses should document who has authority, what services are being provided, what records are being produced, and who approves payments. Keep reconciliations, ledger sign-off processes and bank controls tight. If litigation starts, remember that a strike-out application is not about proving the other side wrong on the facts. It is about showing that, even if their pleaded facts were true, the law still would not support the claim.
Outcome: The Court dismissed Mr Simeone’s interlocutory application. O'Sullivan J granted leave to amend the application so it properly relied on rule 16.21(1)(e), and permitted Mr Simeone to advance submissions for Mrs Simeone at that hearing only. On the substance, however, the strike-out application failed in full. The Court held that the amended statement of claim disclosed reasonable causes of action against the second and third respondents. It found that the claim against Mrs Simeone was pleaded, that the alleged conduct was capable of being in trade and commerce, that the alleged management agreement was sufficiently pleaded, that fiduciary obligations were arguable on the pleaded facts, and that the tracing allegations were adequately pleaded. The proceeding therefore continued beyond this interlocutory stage.
Turner v Chandler Macleod Group Limited (Costs) [2026] FCA 458
Businesses should read this as a deed-and-release case as much as a costs case. The Court’s earlier strike-out decision, as described in the costs judgment, turned on the view that the claim against Chandler Macleod concerned matters already settled under the CMG Deed, that Chandler Macleod was protected by the release, and that no proper case had been brought to set the deed aside. Those same findings then drove the costs result. If your business settles a workplace dispute, make sure the deed clearly identifies who is released and what claims are covered. If a later claim is filed anyway, get advice early on whether the claim is merely weak or whether it is barred in a way that may justify strike-out relief and a costs application. If you seek lump-sum costs, put on evidence that lets the Court fix a figure without a separate assessment.
Outcome: The Federal Court awarded costs to Chandler Macleod Group Limited. Needham J found that section 570(2) of the Fair Work Act was engaged on two bases: the proceedings against Chandler Macleod were instituted without reasonable cause, and Mr Turner acted unreasonably in pursuing them. The Court relied on the earlier findings that the claim concerned matters already settled under the CMG Deed, that Chandler Macleod was covered by the deed’s release clause, and that no proper basis had been brought to set the deed aside. The Court then exercised its discretion to award costs and ordered Mr Turner to pay Chandler Macleod’s costs in the fixed amount of $20,000 under rule 40.02(b). The proceedings were otherwise dismissed.
Turner v Chandler Macleod Group Limited [2026] FCA 139
Businesses should read this case as a procedural win built on documents, timing and pleading quality. The court did not decide the underlying employment merits after a full trial. Instead, it found the proceeding should not continue because the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, sought to revisit matters already resolved, were inadequately pleaded, and faced limitation problems. The judgment also shows that suppression and redaction orders can have real practical force. Material filed in court is not automatically safe to publish or repeat if it includes without prejudice discussions or unparticularised allegations of fraud or dishonesty. If your business settles a dispute, keep the deed, the surrounding correspondence, and evidence of legal advice opportunities. If a former worker later files a broad claim involving employment status, underpayments, injury, superannuation or long service leave, get early advice on release wording, limitation periods, pleading defects and whether confidential material should be removed from the file.
Outcome: The court struck out the Originating Application and Statement of Claim against the first respondent, Chandler Macleod Group Limited, under r 16.21(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with no leave to replead. It gave summary judgment for the second to fourth respondents and the fifth respondent under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Statement of Claim was removed from the court file under r 2.28(1)(a) because it contained material that was an abuse of the court's processes. The Originating Application was removed and replaced with a redacted copy under r 2.29(1)(a), deleting paragraphs 8 to 12 under 'Details of Claim'. The court also made interim suppression orders under s 37AF(1) over specified documents and transcript pages until final suppression orders were settled. No costs order was made for the second to fifth respondents at that stage, and the first respondent's costs position was reserved for further submissions.
Twinza Oil Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed), in the matter of Twinza Oil Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (New Scheme) (No 2) [2026] FCA 255
If your business is pursuing a court-approved debt restructure, creditor support is necessary but not enough. You need a disciplined record showing that notices were sent properly, explanatory material was prepared and checked carefully, ASIC had a chance to review the booklet, voting classes were analysed correctly, and implementation conditions were actually satisfied or waived before approval was sought. If the proposal includes releases for directors, officers, lenders or related companies, the releases must be tied closely to the creditor-company relationship and creditors should receive something in return, such as reciprocal releases. The case also shows the value of a credible downside analysis. Evidence about likely returns in a winding up can help explain who really has an economic interest and why a proposed compromise is commercially rational. Even if your business will never use a scheme of arrangement, the same habits apply in any serious restructure: know the capital stack, document stakeholder communications, test the alternative scenario, and draft release clauses with care.
Outcome: The Federal Court approved the scheme under s 411(4)(b) and s 411(6) of the Corporations Act. It also exempted Twinza from compliance with s 411(11) under s 411(12) and ordered Twinza to lodge an office copy of the orders and a copy of the approved scheme with ASIC as soon as practicable. The Court was satisfied that the formal requirements had been met, the creditors had approved the scheme by the requisite majorities, ASIC had a reasonable opportunity to examine the scheme booklet, the conditions precedent had been satisfied or waived, the scheme was proposed in good faith and for intelligible commercial purposes, the scheme creditors formed a single class, and the third-party releases did not create unfairness because there was a sufficient nexus and reciprocal releases.
Twinza Oil Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed), in the matter of Twinza Oil Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (New Scheme) [2026] FCA 104
If your business is planning a court-approved restructure, do not treat the scheme process as a formality after the commercial deal is done. Twinza had to come back with a redesigned proposal after the court refused to approve an earlier scheme. The revised structure addressed the earlier concerns by changing how CRPS holders were dealt with, increasing the equity left with ordinary shareholders, and putting forward updated expert material. The court then allowed the new scheme to go to a creditors' meeting. For directors and investors, the lesson is to map every affected group early, test whether any group may claim an economic interest, and make sure the explanatory booklet clearly explains outcomes, risks, implementation steps and releases. If a previous proposal has failed, a better result may require a different structure, not just stronger submissions.
Outcome: The court made the convening orders sought. It ordered Twinza to convene and hold a meeting of the scheme creditors, approved the scheme booklet for distribution subject to amendments and ASIC review, set the dispatch and proxy timetable, required notice to be given to CRPS holders, shareholders and option holders, restrained further proceedings against Twinza except by leave, and listed a later hearing for any application to approve the scheme. Banks-Smith J was satisfied that the formal requirements had been met, that the scheme booklet adequately explained the proposal and material information, that the proposed lenders could vote as a single class, and that the abridged notice period was appropriate. The judgment does not confirm whether the scheme was later finally approved.
Ugle v South West Aboriginal Medical Service Limited (No 2) [2026] FCA 448
If your business is heading into a contested AGM, board election or member vote, treat the process as a legal risk area in its own right. Do not assume the board can manage communications, proxy rules or meeting procedure in the usual way if there is already court supervision or a serious governance dispute. Keep proxy forms compliant with the Corporations Act, follow the constitution unless a court order changes the position, and remember that a court order can override a director decision under the constitution about proxy requirements. Be careful about sending members late or one-sided updates on sensitive matters, especially where there is live litigation involving a former executive. This case also shows the value of independent supervision. An independent chair or electoral body may be used to protect the integrity of the vote and reduce arguments about fairness.
Outcome: The Federal Court made limited further orders. It refused to allow SWAMS to circulate a pre-AGM statement to members about the former CEO. Instead, it ordered that an agreed statement about the circumstances of the termination could be read at the AGM by the independent chair, and that statement would be the full extent of the response on that topic. The court also restrained SWAMS from releasing to third parties any report, recommendations or annexures about the investigation of Lesley Nelson until further order. On proxies, the court confirmed that the Western Australian Electoral Commission would supervise validity, required proxy appointment documents to be lodged with the Commission, and required them to contain all information required by section 250A(1) of the Corporations Act, including the member’s full address, despite any contrary director decision under the constitution. The court declined to require personal submission of proxies and made no specific orders about alleged employee solicitation because the evidence was insufficient.
Ugle v South West Aboriginal Medical Service Limited [2026] FCA 101
If your organisation is member-based, do not assume the board can manage a contested AGM in the ordinary way once trust has broken down. This case shows that a court may step in where there is a credible allegation that constitutional interpretation, member discipline, nomination filtering or meeting procedure is being used to preserve control. The safer course is to identify constitutional ambiguity early, document decisions carefully, give procedural fairness, and separate disciplinary decisions from election management wherever possible. If a dispute affects who can vote, who can stand, how many vacancies exist, or who controls the meeting, independent oversight may be needed. An independent chair, independent scrutiny of proxies and votes, and a transparent nomination process can reduce litigation risk. Boards should also be cautious about treating loss of membership as automatically ending a directorship, especially where the Corporations Act may say otherwise.
Outcome: The oppression claim was upheld. The catchwords state that orders were to be made convening an annual general meeting, modifying constitutional provisions dealing with appointment of directors and proxy voting, requiring an independent chair, and requiring independent scrutiny of proxy voting. On 17 February 2026, the court made orders listing the matter for final orders on 26 February 2026, setting a timetable for proposed orders, and postponing the AGM that had been scheduled for 26 February 2026. The extract also records that SWAMS accepted that members who appealed expulsion within time remained members, that Ms Lesley Ugle remained a director because of s 203E of the Corporations Act, and that there had been irregularities in the selection committee process. The exact final wording of the substantive orders and the full reasoning should be checked against the complete judgment and any later orders.
UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Wollongong Coal Limited (No 4)
Treat written submissions in Federal Court litigation as potentially public-facing documents if they are going to be relied on in open court. This case draws an important line under rule 2.32. Some court documents can be inspected by a non-party as of right after a certain stage of the case, but written submissions are not in that category. They require leave. However, once those submissions have been read or relied on in open court, the Court is likely to approach access through the lens of open justice, and that can make leave easier to obtain. The practical lesson is not that confidentiality is impossible. It is that businesses need to identify genuinely sensitive material early, consider whether any protective order is available and justified, and avoid including unnecessary confidential detail in submissions where a narrower formulation will do. If you wait until a non-party asks for access, and the material has already been used openly in court, your objections may carry little weight.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted leave to David Dickens of Hall & Wilcox to inspect and copy the requested written submissions. Bennett J held that the documents had all been referred to and relied on in open court during a trial conducted in open court, and that there were no relevant suppression orders. In those circumstances, open justice strongly supported access. The Court rejected UIL's argument that the non-party requester needed to identify an interest sufficient to justify access. It also found that the objections raised by UIL and the respondents did not disclose any reason that would justify non-disclosure. The orders covered the outlines of submissions filed on 10 November 2025, 24 November 2025 and 1 December 2025, as well as both parties' closing submissions filed on 3 February 2026 and reply closings filed on 6 February 2026.
Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd v Industry Innovation and Science Australia (r 4.01(2) application) [2026] FCA 507
If your company is in the Federal Court, do not assume the Court will let a director, shareholder, parent, consultant or technical expert run the case just because the business cannot easily pay lawyers. The discretion exists, but it is not exercised lightly. In this matter, the Court looked beyond the company’s own balance sheet and asked whether those backing the company could fund representation. It also examined the actual draft notice of appeal and found that it strayed into factual merits, earlier history and allegations outside the legal scope of the proceeding. Importantly, the refusal was tied to the current draft notice of appeal and the evidence then before the Court, not expressed as a permanent bar to any future attempt. The company was given one last chance to file an amended draft notice of appeal for later consideration. For businesses, that means procedure, evidence and legal framing can decide whether a case gets traction before the substantive dispute is even reached.
Outcome: Hill J said the Court would not grant the application to permit Mr Mark Nicolau to represent Ultimate Vision to present the arguments contained in the current draft notice of appeal. The Court accepted that Ultimate Vision itself appeared to be in serious financial difficulty and that refusal might stop the proceeding, but those matters did not outweigh other concerns. In particular, there was no evidence about the financial position of those standing behind the company, and the current draft notice of appeal showed serious problems in identifying and confining the legal issues. The Court's refusal was directed to the current draft and the material then before it, not expressed as a blanket refusal in all circumstances. Ultimate Vision was given one last chance to prepare an amended draft notice of appeal for consideration at a further case management hearing.
United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Perth Airport Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 620
If you are promoting a site or commercial opportunity, separate confirmed facts from plans, assumptions and hoped-for outcomes. A statement that a third party "will" relocate, or that traffic "will almost double", is very different from saying there is a plan, a target or a best-endeavours arrangement that still depends on unresolved commercial terms and further steps. If you are the incoming tenant or operator, do not just keep the brochure. Keep the negotiation trail. Record which statements affected your rent position, design brief, capital spend and approval process. This case is especially useful on reliance and loss. United’s case was not simply that it would have walked away. It said it would have pursued a different transaction, with lower rent and a smaller, cheaper build. That is a practical reminder to document your fallback position during negotiations, because those records can become central if the promoted future does not eventuate.
Outcome: The Federal Court entered judgment in favour of United. The judgment shows the Court found the case involved misleading statements in the information brochure and in-person meeting about when Qantas would relocate, and that the relevant representations were with respect to future matters rather than merely statements of expectation or state of mind. The Court also dealt with reliance, causation and an alternative transaction analysis, including excess rent and excess construction costs. However, the orders reproduced with the judgment did not finally quantify damages. Instead, the parties were directed to confer and submit proposed orders to quantify United’s loss and damage, interest and costs.
v2food Pty Ltd v Provectus Algae Pty Ltd
If your business is involved in a patent opposition appeal, focus closely on who carries the evidentiary burden and what evidence is actually before the Federal Court. In this case, v2food succeeded not because the Court positively ruled that its invention was inventive, but because Provectus, as opponent, bore the onus on the opposition ground and had no evidence before the Court to support it. The Court treated the appeal as a fresh hearing, not a simple review of the delegate's earlier decision. That distinction can materially affect strategy, budget and settlement decisions. Businesses should also read the Court's comparison with CSIRO v Urrbrae Foods carefully. If the earlier refusal arose from a gap in the applicant's own evidence, the applicant may still need to fill that gap on appeal even if the opponent does not participate. But where the earlier refusal depended on the opponent's evidence, and that evidence is absent in the Court, the opposition may fail. This is a strong reminder to align patent strategy with litigation procedure, evidence planning and commercial timing.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed v2food's appeal. Perram J set aside the delegate's decision of 23 January 2026, dismissed Provectus Algae's opposition, and ordered that Australian Patent Application No. 2021247417 proceed to grant. There was no order as to costs. The Court held that a s 60(4) appeal is a hearing de novo and that, because the opponent bore the onus of proving the opposition ground, the absence of evidence before the Court was fatal to the opposition. The Court did not decide the detailed merits of v2food's criticisms of the delegate's inventive step reasoning because that was unnecessary once the respondent had failed to discharge its onus. The judgment also made clear that this result did not foreclose later validity challenges.
Verma v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 679
For business owners, this case is not a green light to rely on technical points instead of good people management. It shows that statutory employment claims are tightly structured. A former employee may have multiple overlapping allegations, but some claims can still fail early if the required tribunal process has not been completed or if the court pleading goes beyond the earlier discrimination complaint. The most important practical point is the Fair Work certificate requirement. If a dismissal-related general protections dispute has not gone through the required Fair Work Commission step and no certificate has issued, the Federal Court may have no jurisdiction to hear it. The case also shows that a negligence claim can be struck out for a missing workers compensation step without the court deciding the negligence allegations on their merits. Employers should investigate complaints promptly, document decisions carefully, keep post-dismissal communications accurate, and get advice where Fair Work, discrimination and injury issues overlap.
Outcome: Justice Derrington granted Coles' interlocutory application in part. The court entered judgment for Coles on the pleaded Fair Work claims in [45] and [47] to the extent they related to the matters pleaded in [43(c)], and on the discrimination claims in [50]-[52] and [56]-[58]. The court held that, because no certificate had been issued under s 368(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the relevant general protections claims, and an extension of time could not overcome that problem. The court also concluded there was no error that could support a successful judicial review challenge to the Full Bench decision. The negligence paragraphs [59]-[62] were struck out, not summarily dismissed, because no notice of assessment had been received under s 237 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Mr Verma's interlocutory applications filed on 11 and 12 May 2026 were dismissed and costs were reserved.
Vinall v Bank of Western Australia Limited trading as Bankwest (No 2)
If your business needs confidentiality in Federal Court litigation, treat it as a serious, evidence-based application from the start. This decision shows that the court will not grant a pseudonym or suppression order just because the material is sensitive, embarrassing, medically personal or commercially awkward. The applicant must show that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice under ss 37AF and 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The request also needs to be precise. A blanket attempt to hide the whole file is much harder to justify than a targeted request over specific passages or documents. Process matters too. If the court gives you a deadline and a hearing date, you need to notify the application properly, file supporting material and attend, even remotely if that option is offered. Businesses should also be careful about relying on motives such as keeping a dispute from financiers or parties in other proceedings, because this judgment treated those reasons as weighing against secrecy rather than supporting it.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for a pseudonym and for suppression or non-publication orders. Cheeseman J held that the applicant had not shown that the orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The court found that the material relied on was mainly bare assertion without independent evidence, that the application was framed as an impermissibly broad attempt to suppress the whole court file, and that no part of the earlier reasons had been identified with particularity for protection. The court also considered that some of the applicant's stated motives, including concealing the proceeding from potential financiers and parties in other litigation, weighed against the orders. Interim confidentiality orders were discharged and the earlier reasons in Vinall v Bankwest [2026] FCA 143 were ordered to be published on the court's website.
Vinall v Bank of Western Australia Limited trading as Bankwest [2026] FCA 143
For business owners and lenders, the practical message is twofold. First, if you report hardship information, make sure the reporting can be traced clearly to the governing legislation, the Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code and the actual terms of the hardship or variation arrangement. A clean documentary trail matters, especially where an AFCA determination has directed how reporting should occur. Second, if you want urgent court orders to stop or reverse reporting, incomplete evidence can be fatal. The Court gave weight to missing documents, redactions and uncertainty about the transaction said to be at risk. It was also not persuaded that damages would be inadequate. Businesses should read this as an interlocutory decision only. It did not finally decide whether the reporting was lawful in the substantive proceeding. But it does show that urgent applications need complete, unredacted and commercially specific evidence, together with a persuasive explanation of why the requested orders do not cut across the purpose of the reporting regime.
Outcome: The application for interim injunctive relief was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Court held that the applicant had not shown a prima facie case of sufficient strength to justify the extraordinary relief sought. On the material before the Court, the serviceability arrangement and the varied contract appeared to fall within the statutory concept of financial hardship arrangements, and the reporting appeared to fit the framework in section 6QA of the Privacy Act and the Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code 2025. The Court was also not satisfied that damages would be inadequate if the applicant later succeeded, particularly given the incomplete evidence about the property transaction and the redacted broker email relied on to show urgent commercial harm. Finally, the balance of convenience weighed heavily against relief because the orders would have prevented or obscured hardship information from being seen by prospective financiers, raising public policy concerns within the statutory credit reporting regime. The decision was interlocutory only and did not determine the substantive claims in the proceeding.
Wang v Creation Homes QLD Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 136
Business owners should read this case as a document-driven contract dispute, not as a general statement that delays never create consumer law risk. The court focused on the actual contract wording, the chronology of approvals and finance, the unpaid frame stage claim, and the six-year time limit for ACL damages. If your business works in stages, make sure the contract clearly states when work can start, when each payment falls due, what happens if payment is not made, and whether suspension can be followed by termination. Then follow those steps carefully in practice. The decision also shows that a customer cannot simply relabel a payment dispute as misleading or unconscionable conduct without evidence of actual conduct, representation, silence in circumstances requiring disclosure, and a causal link to loss. Even so, businesses should stay cautious. Accurate communications about timing, approvals and progress still matter, and a full reading of the judgment should be undertaken before treating the case as authority on the detailed damages reasoning.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Ms Wang’s originating application. The court held that any ACL damages claim was brought too late because the relevant damage had been suffered by around mid-2018 at the latest, while the proceeding was not commenced until December 2024. The court also said that, in any event, the ACL case had no substance on the way it was presented, including because there was no evidence of misleading or deceptive conduct beyond assertions. Creation succeeded on its cross-claim. The court ordered Ms Wang to pay $51,800 plus interest at 15 per cent per annum from 6 June 2018, and damages of $114,742.66 plus interest at 15 per cent per annum from 28 January 2020. Ms Wang was also ordered to pay Creation’s costs of the application and the cross-claim, as agreed or assessed.
Weir v Telstra Limited (No 2)
Read this case as a complaint-handling and records case, not an advertising case. If your business tells a customer that a matter has been fully investigated, that no employee was involved, or that there is no basis for further action, those statements may later be tested against your actual records, escalation steps and internal knowledge. You do not need to be alarmist in customer communications, but you should avoid certainty that the facts do not support. Keep a clear audit trail of what was reported, who investigated, what systems were checked, what conclusions were reached, and what remained unresolved. Where staff access to personal information is in issue, treat that as a governance and supervision issue as well as a privacy issue. Also remember that a court may hear all issues together rather than splitting liability from damages, so businesses should prepare for a whole-of-dispute evidentiary picture.
Outcome: The Court dismissed both interlocutory applications. It refused the applicants' request for a jury trial, holding that no sufficient case-specific reason had been shown to depart from the ordinary mode of trial by judge alone. A central reason was that the main issue relied on to justify a jury, the objective element in the sexual harassment definition, was not actually in issue on the way the case stood. The Court also said judges routinely decide reasonableness and normative questions, including in misleading or deceptive conduct matters. The Court further dismissed Telstra's application for a separate hearing on liability and directed that the parties be heard as to costs. The available text does not contain the full detailed reasoning on the separate-question refusal.
Western Chinese Language School Incorporated v Fair Work Ombudsman
Treat a compliance notice as a live enforcement step, not as an invitation to debate payroll issues at leisure. This case suggests that an inspector can form the required reasonable belief by looking at a course of conduct over time, and that a notice can require the employer to identify affected employees, calculate what should have been paid, rectify underpayments and produce evidence of compliance. If you think the wrong award has been applied, the classifications are wrong, or the calculations need correction, raise that promptly and in writing. Preserve all payroll records and regulator correspondence. If there is a genuine basis to challenge the notice or seek review, do it early. Do not leave key arguments until trial. The appeal also underlines the personal risk for officeholders who are involved in a failure to comply.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal. On the published reasons available, the Court rejected the employer's arguments that the compliance notice was invalid because it was based on a course of conduct, because it required the employer to calculate underpayments, or because it lacked sufficient detail. The dismissal left standing the primary judge's findings that the school failed to comply with the notice and that its chairperson was involved in that contravention. It also left in place the remedial orders requiring the school to take the notice steps by 4 September 2025 with interest, and the penalties imposed below. Some finer points of the Court's reasoning should still be checked against the complete judgment text.
White (Liquidator), in the matter of Profounder Turfmaster Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 470
If your business is in serious financial distress, do not assume that a lack of company funds will stop a liquidator from investigating past transactions or possible claims. This case shows that a liquidator can ask the Court to approve a litigation funding agreement and a legal retainer that extend beyond three months, including after the documents have already been signed, if the circumstances justify retrospective approval. The judgment also shows that the Court will look closely at who actually entered the legal retainer. If the liquidator signed in the company’s name or as the company’s representative, approval may be required. If the liquidator contracted personally, the position may be different. For liquidators, the practical message is to document why funding is needed, what alternatives were considered, why creditor consultation was not practical, and to seek approval promptly. For directors and creditors, the message is that poor records and uncertain asset positions can lead to funded examinations and further recovery action rather than bringing the matter to an end.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the application. Banks-Smith J granted approval nunc pro tunc under s 477(2B) for the liquidators to enter into, and cause the company to enter into, the litigation funding agreement. The Court also granted approval, to the extent required, for the liquidators to enter into the Ashurst Australia engagement letter nunc pro tunc. The judge found that the funding agreement’s key terms were clear, that the liquidators would remain responsible for the day-to-day conduct of any proceedings, and that the terms appeared fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The Court accepted the liquidators’ explanation for not consulting creditors and found nothing suggesting bad faith or another reason to refuse approval. It also held that the engagement agreement was entered into by the liquidators as agents for or representatives of Profounder and in the company’s name, so approval was required. Retrospective approval was granted because the application had been made promptly in the circumstances, the need for approval had been recognised as a condition of the funding agreement, and there was nothing in the liquidators’ conduct weighing against relief. The Court further made suppression orders over confidential affidavits, exhibits and submissions until the conclusion of any related litigation, including any appeal.
White Oak Commercial Finance Europe (Non-Levered) Limited v Insurance Australia Limited (No 3)
Do not assume that putting the words "without prejudice" on a communication will protect it later. This case shows that the court may want evidence connecting specific documents to genuine settlement negotiations, not just a broad statement that discussions were happening at the time. Businesses should also understand that without prejudice privilege is different from legal professional privilege. Legal professional privilege usually concerns confidential lawyer-client communications or material created for litigation. Without prejudice privilege concerns communications made in a genuine attempt to settle a dispute. A document can fail one privilege test even if another privilege claim might still be available. In practice, businesses should separate settlement channels from ordinary commercial traffic, record who is authorised to negotiate, keep notes of the dispute being addressed, and make sure any later affidavit evidence can explain why each disputed document belongs in the protected settlement stream.
Outcome: On the available judgment text, the court held that the evidence supporting without prejudice privilege for categories 1 to 3 was insufficient because it was general, conclusionary and not tied to specific documents. The court declined to inspect those documents, saying it was not appropriate to do so where the parties claiming privilege had been put on notice of the deficiencies and had not cured them with better evidence. Orders were made requiring specified Annexure A documents to be reproduced without redactions for without prejudice privilege, while expressly preserving any legal professional privilege claims. The court also ordered the BCC/TM parties to file an affidavit and produce documents concerning the remaining further discovery category. The available text indicates privilege claims were refused in part and upheld in part, but the complete treatment of category 4 should be checked in the full judgment.
Wijaya v Matthews Brothers Engineering Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a pleading decision, not as a broad approval of abrupt probationary dismissals. The Court did not decide that the employer's process was ideal. It decided that the employee's Federal Court claim, as framed, did not identify the legal building blocks of a general protections or discrimination case. The key points are practical. First, a general protections claim under section 340 needs a clearly identified workplace right under section 341. Second, the claim must allege that the adverse action happened because of that right, or to prevent its exercise. Third, a discrimination claim under section 351 must be tied to a protected statutory attribute, not just a criticism such as poor fit or personality. If your business is ending employment, document the actual reason, check whether the employee has recently exercised any workplace rights, and avoid vague language that could be misunderstood. If your business receives a claim, examine whether it truly pleads a workplace right and a causal link before assuming the matter must run to trial.
Outcome: The Court granted a short extension of time and extended the period for filing the review application to 4 September 2025. It then dismissed the review application and confirmed the registrar's summary dismissal order. McElwaine J held that the amended statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The pleading did not identify any workplace right with sufficient particularity, did not plead the required causal connection between any workplace right and the termination, and did not properly plead discrimination under section 351 because personality is not a statutory protected attribute. The Court also held that the claim was hopeless and that there was no prospect of curing it by repleading.
WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd (No 7)
If two or more commercial participants are working together on a new venture, fund or transaction, treat the question of who the lawyer acts for as a core risk issue from day one. This case shows that courts will look past later characterisations and examine what the parties actually said and did at the time. If the communications show a shared process of selecting the lawyer, receiving advice together, approving costs together and jointly instructing the firm, privilege may be shared. Businesses should use clear written engagement terms, identify whether the work is joint or separate, record any limits on who the lawyer represents, and keep separate matters genuinely separate. If one participant needs individual advice, that should be documented as a distinct retainer with separate communications where possible. Administrative records are not minor housekeeping. They can become decisive evidence.
Outcome: Owens J held that joint privilege was established. The Court accepted that AVCE was a client on Ms Commins' side of the arrangement, but rejected the broader contention that AVCE alone retained Thomson Geer for all relevant work connected with establishing the fund. The contemporaneous written communications showed that Ms Commins and Mr Angelis were jointly selecting a lawyer, jointly considering advice, jointly deciding to proceed with Thomson Geer, discussing fees together and then jointly participating in the work. The reasons also indicate that some separate engagements may have existed on discrete topics, but those did not alter the conclusion that the general retainer in issue was joint. The exact final inspection orders should be checked against the final procedural record.
Woodhouse (Liquidator), in the matter of Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2026] FCA 627
Read this case as a practical insolvency administration decision, not as a general rule for every liquidation. The court approved a specific set of modifications because this liquidation involved thousands of former customer claims and the liquidators needed a workable path to finalise distributions. If your business holds customer money, settles customer disputes, or trades across currencies, keep records in a form that can later be matched to individual customers and transactions. If your business receives a notice from a liquidator, do not ignore it because it looks routine. In this case, some creditors were deemed to accept an option if they did nothing, while others would miss out on any distribution if they failed to respond by the deadline. The safest commercial approach is to treat liquidator communications as time-sensitive legal documents and check exactly what non-response means.
Outcome: The court made the orders sought. It extended the timeframe for notice of intention to declare a dividend and extended the timeframe for the liquidators to deal with formal proofs of debt and claims to 21 days. It approved a modified process under which specified email notices and online forms would be treated as complying with the Corporations Regulations, authorised electronic payment of dividends, and relieved the liquidators from taking further action where there was no response to notices sent under the approved process. The court also held that the liquidators were justified in treating amounts under $20 in the client funds account for a particular former customer as company assets for distribution, and justified in using the Reserve Bank of Australia's daily AUD:USD exchange rate to convert USD-denominated amounts when calculating net loss for claims purposes.
Woori International Pty Ltd, in the matter of TJM Holdings Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 2)
If your company is in liquidation and you want to challenge a winding-up order, a liquidator’s conduct, or the next procedural step, you need to act early and use the right process. This case shows that repeated urgent applications can fail where there is no material change in circumstances, no new evidence, and no clear reason the issue cannot be dealt with in the proceeding already on foot. It also shows that courts will look closely at standing and delay. A business owner should read this case as a warning that litigation strategy in insolvency matters needs to be coherent from the start. Waiting until the winding up is nearly complete, then seeking an injunction to pause the final steps, is a difficult position from which to obtain relief.
Outcome: Cheeseman J dismissed the interlocutory application with costs. The Court held that the NSW Supreme Court was not shown to be an inappropriate forum for the liquidators' s 482 and remuneration application, and that the objections Mr Metledge wished to raise could be made there. The Court also found there had been no material change in circumstances since the earlier unsuccessful applications, because Owens J had already contemplated that the liquidators were about to file a s 482 application. Assuming standing for the purpose of the application, the Court was still not satisfied that there was a serious question to be tried, that irreparable harm would occur if relief were refused, or that the balance of convenience favoured intervention. Overall, the interests of justice did not support granting the injunction.
Yang v Wong [2026] FCAFC 39
Business owners should read this case as a warning about structure, records and process. If one entity borrows money and another entity uses that money to repay a director, relative or insider lender, a court may treat each payment step separately. That can change whether an insolvency claim succeeds and against whom. The case does not make informal group funding safe. It shows that legal characterisation matters, and that poor documentation can create uncertainty for everyone. If your business is moving funds between related entities, especially when the company is under pressure or insiders are being repaid, document the arrangement properly, record approvals, keep each entity’s dealings separate and get advice before the money moves.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs. It upheld the conclusion that, on the case advanced, Axis North’s relevant payment was made to Wharf Road, not to Ms Wong, even though Ms Wong ultimately received much of the value after Wharf Road used funds to discharge debt owed to her. The court also rejected procedural grounds based on matters not pleaded in the statement of claim and refused leave to raise a fresh ground on appeal because that would have prejudiced the respondent, who had not had the chance to meet that case at trial.
Yeo (Liquidator) v J & K Cheung Investments Pty Ltd, in the matter of JC & KC Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 397
The main lesson is that timing, price, relationships and paperwork matter enormously when a company is under creditor pressure. A related-party sale is not automatically invalid, but if the company is already facing a statutory demand, winding-up proceedings or likely insolvency, the transaction must be able to withstand close scrutiny. Independent valuation material, clear board records, conflict management, proper sale processes and consistent communications with creditors all matter. This case also shows that a freezing order does not decide final liability. It preserves the position until the Court can hear the substantive claims. If your business is served with a freezing order, read the exact terms immediately, including any carve-outs for ordinary business expenses, and get urgent legal advice. Breach is serious. If you are planning a sale while insolvency issues are in play, get advice before signing, transferring a lease or moving sale proceeds.
Outcome: The Court granted the interlocutory relief. Justice O’Bryan held that the liquidator had satisfied the established requirements for freezing orders and made orders largely in the form sought. JC & KC Investments Pty Ltd was joined as a second applicant. The first respondent was restrained from dealing with Australian assets up to the unencumbered value of $1,217,700 and was required to provide asset information and an affidavit. The second respondent was restrained from dealing with the proceeds of sale of the Siupak Plastic Bags business and other assets used by or sold as part of that business. The orders were made without notice, were temporary pending a return date, and included ordinary-course and bona fide expense exceptions.
Yeo, in the matter of Majestic Services Group Pty Ltd (in liq)
If your business is run by a company as trustee, do not assume liquidation of the company automatically gives the liquidator a clean path to sell trust assets. The trust deed may remove the company as trustee immediately, creating a gap in authority. In this case, the Court made orders because the evidence showed the company acted only as trustee, no replacement trustee had been appointed, and the trust property needed to be preserved and realised for creditors, including employees. The orders were also made before creditors had been notified, but creditors and other interested persons were given liberty to apply to vary them on 3 days' notice. Business owners should read this as a prompt to review trust deeds, trustee replacement mechanisms, asset ownership records and employee arrangements before financial distress arises.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. Downes J appointed Andrew Reginald Yeo, in his capacity as liquidator, as receiver and manager, without security, of the property of the Majestic Unit Trust and any other property held by the company on trust. The Court gave him receiver powers adapted from section 420 of the Corporations Act, including power to sell trust property, enter dealings including leases, determine and pay claims against the trust property, and distribute any surplus to beneficiaries. The Court dispensed with the guarantee requirement, ordered that the application costs be paid from the trust property on an indemnity basis, and required notice of the orders to ASIC and known creditors within 3 business days. Creditors and other persons with sufficient interest were given liberty to apply to vary the orders on 3 days' notice.
Yindjibarndi Ngurra Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v State of Western Australia
Businesses should read this case as a warning not to collapse three different issues into one: getting tenure, negotiating commercial agreements, and managing statutory compensation risk. The Court’s approach indicates that a company cannot assume that because royalty-style benefits are often discussed in right to negotiate settings, those figures will become the legal measure of compensation in court. Instead, the Court used freehold value as the starting point for economic loss, then adjusted for the nature of the native title rights and the degree of impairment caused by each grant. Exclusive native title was treated as equivalent to freehold value, while non-exclusive native title was treated as equivalent to 50% of freehold value before further deductions. Cultural loss remained separate and potentially substantial. The Court also allowed compound interest, which matters because long-running projects and long-running litigation can materially increase exposure over time. For project proponents, grantee parties and investors, the practical message is to map every approval, classify it correctly under the Native Title Act, allocate compensation risk clearly in contracts, and assess cultural impacts as a distinct issue rather than an afterthought.
Outcome: On the published extract, the Court held that the FMG tenements satisfied the similar compensable interest test and that compensation was to be determined under Division 5 of Part 2 of the Native Title Act because s 123(2) of the Mining Act did not provide compensation in the circumstances. The Court rejected YNAC’s royalty-style or exchange value approach and instead assessed economic loss by reference to freehold value on a lot-by-lot basis as at the date of grant. Exclusive native title rights were treated as equivalent to freehold value. Non-exclusive native title rights were treated as equivalent to 50% of freehold value. The Court then applied percentage deductions to reflect the degree of impairment and the non-extinguishment principle. It recognised cultural loss as a separate head of compensation, allowed compound interest on economic loss, rejected a separate compensable head based on the right to negotiate, and held that overlapping tenements could not produce double compensation for the same land.
Young v Accenture Australia Pty Limited (No 2)
Read this case as a procedural illustration, not a final precedent on whether the dismissal was lawful. The Court did not decide that Accenture breached contract, took unlawful adverse action, or that the employee’s allegations were true. It only decided that summary dismissal was not appropriate, while the amended pleading itself could not stand and had to be redrafted. For business owners, the practical message is to keep contracts, policies, complaint handling, investigation steps and termination reasons tightly documented and internally consistent. If an employee raises concerns about payroll, overtime, award compliance, workload or legal risk, assume those communications may later be characterised as workplace complaints or inquiries. If you investigate that employee later, be ready to explain the chronology, the scope of the investigation, who made decisions, and the actual reason for any disciplinary outcome.
Outcome: Goodman J held that summary judgment was not appropriate. However, the amended statement of claim was struck out, and Young was given leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim within 28 days. Accenture's interlocutory application was otherwise dismissed, costs were reserved, and the matter was listed for further case management. The result was that the proceeding continued, but not on the pleading as drafted. The decision should therefore be read as a procedural ruling about pleading adequacy and case management, not as a final determination of whether Accenture breached contract or contravened the Fair Work Act.
Yura Yarta Services Pty Ltd v Jones
If former directors or employees leave and join a competing business, your legal position will usually depend on two separate questions. First, do you have enforceable rights, such as directors' duties, confidentiality obligations or valid restraint clauses? Second, can you prove a real need for urgent interim orders before trial? This case shows that those are different issues. A court may accept that some claims are arguable and still refuse to stop people working in the meantime. Businesses should read the case as a reminder to keep restraints tailored, define confidential information carefully, preserve evidence early, control access to sensitive material, and ask only for interim orders that match the rights likely to be enforceable at final hearing.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the applicants' interlocutory injunction application and discharged the interim undertakings previously given by the respondents. McDonald J said she was prepared to proceed on the basis that there was a serious question to be tried in relation to some, though not all, aspects of the applicants' case. However, that did not justify the urgent orders sought. The Court held that the applicants had not established that the balance of convenience favoured making the interlocutory orders. The judgment also records that the applicants had not established any misuse of confidential information, and that the interlocutory injunctions sought may have extended beyond any valid restraint and may have exceeded the final relief. The substantive claims were left to be determined later without interim restraints remaining in place.
Zaydan v Experian Australia Pty Ltd (No 3)
Read this case as a procedure and confidentiality decision, not as a ruling on whether the underlying discrimination allegations were true. The Court was dealing with what should happen to an earlier interlocutory judgment after the parties had settled. Its answer was that settlement confidentiality did not justify keeping the whole judgment secret. For business owners and legal teams, the main message is to manage publicity risk before, not after, an open court dispute occurs. Be careful about what goes into pleadings, whether a contested application is really necessary, and whether any suppression request can meet the legal test of necessity. Also remember that the Court may treat filed documents differently from reasons for judgment. Documents may sometimes remain suppressed, but reasons explaining the exercise of judicial power are much harder to withhold. If your business is litigating sensitive allegations, plan for the possibility that a redacted judgment may still be published.
Outcome: The Court ordered that the reasons for judgment in Zaydan v Experian Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1614 be published with limited redactions. Paragraphs 7 to 12 inclusive, and certain words in paragraph 13, were to be removed from the published version. The unredacted reasons were to remain confidential until further order under r 2.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Horan J held that the public interest in open justice weighed overwhelmingly in favour of publication because the reasons explained the basis on which judicial power had been exercised on the strike-out application. The parties' confidential settlement and their preference for ongoing confidentiality were not enough to justify suppressing the whole judgment.
Zong v Woodcroft (liquidator), in the matter of Sunshine Contracting Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Costs)
If your business is a creditor, treat the proof-of-debt stage as the point where you need to put forward enough material to support the debt, not as a placeholder before later evidence is gathered. If you later challenge a liquidator and succeed, the Court may still decide the liquidator acted reasonably on the information then available. That can mean your costs are paid only on a party and party basis from company assets, rather than on an indemnity basis or by the liquidator personally. If you are a liquidator or adviser, the case is a reminder that personal costs exposure turns on whether the litigation stance and earlier conduct were unreasonable, unnecessary or dishonest, not simply on whether the liquidator ultimately lost. It also shows that a settlement proposal should be drafted carefully if a party wants to rely on it later in a costs application.
Outcome: The Court refused the creditors' application for indemnity costs and refused to make the liquidator personally liable for costs. It held that the 4 August 2025 letter was not a Calderbank offer because it was made on an open basis, was not expressed to be without prejudice save as to costs, and did not clearly foreshadow indemnity costs if rejected. The Court also found there was nothing showing the defendants had unreasonably rejected it. On personal liability, the Court held the liquidator had not provoked the litigation in the relevant sense, had not dealt with the proofs of debt in a cavalier fashion, and had not acted unreasonably in defending the proceeding. The creditors' costs were ordered on a party and party basis out of company assets, and the liquidator's own costs were ordered on an indemnity basis out of those assets.
Aaron Sansoni Group International Pty Ltd v Manti
The main lesson is operational discipline. If a court orders your business, an employee, or a related person to transfer a domain name, provide access to devices, cancel registrations, or file an affidavit, you need a compliance plan straight away. Identify exactly what the order requires, who controls the relevant account or asset, what steps must be taken with the registrar or provider, and what evidence will prove those steps were taken before the deadline. This case also shows that technical objections need real support. General claims about transfer locks, provider rules or system limitations may fail if they do not match the actual domain system or the actual kind of transfer required. Businesses should keep domain registrations in the correct entity, maintain clear authority over registrar accounts, and avoid informal arrangements where key digital assets sit with one individual. If there is genuine difficulty complying, it needs to be raised promptly and properly, not left to assumption or partial action.
Outcome: The Court reached a mixed result. It held that the charges against Mr Manti relating to the search order and the related affidavit under the objection procedure were not made out. But it found that he breached the 16 December 2024 orders by failing, by 4.00 pm on 19 December 2024, to take all necessary steps to cause transfer of the domain name sansoni.com.au to ASGI and by failing to file and serve the required signed affidavit by that deadline. Those breaches were declared to be contempt. As to Ms Manti, the Court held that the charge alleging failure to take all necessary steps to transfer the domain name was not made out, but that the charge alleging failure to file and serve the required affidavit by 27 December 2024 was made out. Mr Manti was fined $10,000. No penalty was imposed on Ms Manti.
Aaron Sansoni Group International Pty Ltd v Manti (No 3)
If your business is thinking about bringing a contempt application, do not assume that proving some breaches will lead to full cost recovery. This judgment shows the Court may look at the application charge by charge, recognise mixed success, and then use a broad-brush percentage approach rather than trying to separate every item of work. It also shows that indemnity costs are not automatic in contempt matters. The Court may ask whether the application genuinely advanced the main case or was mainly an interlocutory skirmish. Businesses should therefore assess each proposed charge carefully, keep evidence organised early, avoid adjournment risk caused by late material, and budget on the basis that costs may be taxed only at the end of the broader proceeding.
Outcome: The Court ordered that Mr Manti pay ASGI’s costs of the hearing on 28 February 2025 and half of ASGI’s costs of the interlocutory application dated 22 January 2025 to date, excluding the 28 February hearing costs already separately awarded. Those costs were ordered on a party and party basis and were to be taxed if not agreed. The Court refused ASGI’s request for indemnity costs, refused its request for immediate taxation, and refused to make a costs order against Ms Manti. In substance, the Court treated the contempt application as an interlocutory skirmish within the broader proceeding, recognised that ASGI had only mixed success across the charges, and adopted a broad-brush 50% approach because a charge-by-charge taxation would be difficult and impractical.
Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd v Virbac (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business receives a notice to produce, do not assume every request must be met without challenge. The party seeking documents needs to show a legitimate forensic purpose and more than speculation. In this case, the Court applied the same relevance concepts used for subpoenas and held that a broad request for documents about other projects did not have an apparent connection to the issues in the patent revocation case. The Court also drew an important procedural distinction between dispensing with compliance and setting aside the notice. Here, the judge chose to dispense with compliance rather than set the notice aside outright, leaving open the possibility that later evidence might change the position. For businesses, the practical message is to keep consultant engagements and project records organised, review whether a request is tied to a live issue, and act quickly if a broad or late notice seeks confidential technical material. If you are the party issuing the notice, draft it narrowly and be ready to explain exactly how the documents could assist on an identified issue.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered that compliance with the notice to produce dated 21 August 2025 be dispensed with and that Virbac pay Abbey's costs of the interlocutory application. Justice Jackman held that, on the evidence before the Court, he could not see how the requested documents plausibly related to any issue in the proceeding or would cast light on one. There was no reasonable basis for supposing the material would likely add to the relevant evidence, and it was speculative whether the documents would materially assist on any issue. The Court therefore regarded the notice as a fishing expedition. Although Abbey also argued orally that the notice should be set aside, the judge preferred to dispense with compliance rather than set it aside outright, because later evidence might potentially shed further light on the notice's legitimacy.
Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd v Virbac (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3)
If your business is preparing to launch a product that may sit close to a competitor’s patent, do not assume that filing revocation proceedings makes launch safe. In this case, Abbey challenged the patent before launch, obtained no final clearance, launched anyway after an interlocutory injunction was refused, and later faced final findings of infringement for many claims. The Court then restrained future conduct, required stock and related materials to be destroyed or delivered up, and left monetary remedies to be worked out later. The practical reading is to get a careful freedom-to-operate review before launch, compare your product against each relevant claim rather than broad technical themes, and plan for the possibility that only some claims will fall while the rest remain enforceable.
Outcome: The Court declared that Abbey and Abbey Animal Health had infringed claims 1 to 10, 13, 15, 16 and 18 of Virbac’s patent. It also held that claims 19, 20 and 21 were invalid and revoked them. The Court certified that the validity of the surviving claims had been questioned unsuccessfully. Final relief included an injunction from 22 October 2025 restraining manufacture, importation, sale, supply and related conduct involving Levamox Duo in Australia without authority. Abbey was also ordered by that date to destroy or deliver up on oath all Levamox Duo and related advertising, promotional and packaging material in its control in Australia. The Court ordered an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits, with pecuniary remedies to be dealt with later.
Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd v Virbac (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4)
If your business launches a product in the shadow of an existing patent, this case is a warning that post-judgment relief is likely to be narrow. The Court drew an important distinction between keeping stock and engaging in broader infringing conduct. Abbey was allowed to preserve stock on hand because destroying it immediately could create unnecessary loss if the appeal succeeded. But that did not mean Abbey could continue the wider conduct restrained by the injunction. The case also shows the value of carefully framed undertakings. Virbac’s promise to compensate Abbey for loss caused by the operation of the orders, if Abbey later won on appeal, and its promise to take reasonable steps against other potential infringers, weakened Abbey’s argument for a broader stay. Businesses should read this as a reminder to assess patent risk before launch, keep evidence of sales and stock position, and seek targeted relief rather than assuming all orders will be paused pending appeal.
Outcome: The Court granted the stay application only in part. It stayed Order 5, which required destruction or delivery up of Levamox Duo and related material, and stayed Order 4 only to the extent that it applied to Abbey keeping the Levamox Duo product. The Court otherwise dismissed Abbey’s interlocutory application. In particular, it refused to stay the broader restraint on infringement and refused to stay Order 7, which concerned the inquiry into damages or an account of profits. The judge held that Abbey had not discharged its burden of showing that a broader stay was justified, especially given Virbac’s undertakings and the fact that Abbey had launched its product at risk. Abbey was ordered to pay Virbac’s costs of the interlocutory application.
Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd v Virbac (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 5)
Read this case as a costs ruling, not a full patent merits decision. The Court’s reasons are short and focused on three points: whether Abbey’s limited success justified a discount, whether Abbey should recover proof costs after notices to admit, and whether costs assessment should be stayed pending a possible appeal. On all three points, Abbey failed. For business owners, the lesson is that a narrow win may not help on costs if it does not change the practical outcome. It is also risky to assume that a notice to admit will later produce a favourable costs order. If the disputed facts are outside the other side’s knowledge, involve third-party material, or raise foreign law issues, the Court may regard non-admission as reasonable. A contemplated appeal also will not automatically stop costs from being quantified. If you are litigating, plan for the possibility that costs will be assessed quickly and on a lump sum basis.
Outcome: The Court ordered Abbey and the cross-respondents to pay Virbac’s costs of the originating application and the cross-claim. It rejected Abbey’s proposed 17% discount, holding that Abbey’s success on claims 19 to 21 was a pyrrhic victory that had no effect on the overall result and involved issues that were not readily separable or significant. The Court also declined to make a special costs order in Abbey’s favour for proving facts after notices to admit, finding that Virbac had acted reasonably in not admitting matters outside its knowledge before seeing Abbey’s evidence. Finally, the Court refused a stay of the costs assessment. If the parties could not agree the amount within 21 days, the quantum was to be determined by a Registrar on a lump sum basis.
ACN 168 479 614 Pty Ltd (formerly known as Steller Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) (Receivers & Managers appointed) v Smedley, in the matter of ACN 168 479 614 Pty Ltd (No 4)
If your business is thinking about suing on a deed, guarantee or similar commercial document, do not treat adverse costs as an afterthought. A failed claim can leave you paying a substantial share of the other side’s legal costs, and a funder may also be exposed. But this case also shows that courts do not automatically award every category of costs sought by the winner. A party asking for indemnity costs must show more than weakness in the other side’s case. And if a related cross-claim is brought between other parties, the unsuccessful applicant will not necessarily have to pay every cost connected with that side dispute. Before starting proceedings, map the main claim, any likely cross-claims, the documents each issue depends on, and who may ultimately bear the costs if the case fails.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the originating application and ordered Steller Developments to pay Mr Smedley's costs of the principal claim on a party and party basis. Atlas was ordered to be jointly and severally liable with Steller Developments for those costs. The Court also made fixed costs orders in favour of Mr Cirelli and Mr Vines and ordered release of security for costs, subject to a 42-day stay on part of those orders pending appeal. However, the Court refused Mr Smedley's application for indemnity costs and refused to make Steller Developments pay his own costs of defending the cross-claim. The Court held that the principal claim may have been the catalyst for the cross-claim, but that was not enough to shift those costs, especially where the cross-claim depended on separate issues under the Retirement Agreement.
Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd v Nuseed Pty Ltd (Summary Judgment Costs)
The main lesson is to lock down your case theory early and keep it consistent across the pleading, witness evidence, technical documents and any contractual interpretation arguments. In this matter, the court was not persuaded that late changes were mere clarification. It found the amended case was broader than the one previously pleaded and that extra evidence was needed to support it. That was enough to justify a costs order. If your business is preparing a patent, licensing or other document-heavy claim, test the case before filing and again before evidence closes. Ask whether the pleaded theory matches the documents you will rely on, whether your internal technical descriptions are consistent, and whether any alternative contractual construction needs to be pleaded expressly rather than saved for submissions.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Advanta to pay Nuseed's costs of the summary judgment application. Downes J held that Advanta's amendments were not merely clarificatory. They expanded the case previously pleaded by introducing a broader contention about how plant line 48118 was produced and by adding a new construction argument about the licensing agreement. The court also relied on the fact that Advanta now depended on further evidence filed in response to the application as evidence in chief, which suggested the original case had not simply been clarified. The judge was not persuaded that the application would have failed anyway and held that Nuseed had incurred wasted preparation costs beyond the hearing appearance itself.
Aeronautical Resource and Consultancy Pty Ltd trading as ARC Helicopters v CMA-CGM Société Anonyme au Capital de 234 988 330 Euros
Treat international shipping disputes as document-driven and cashflow-sensitive from the start. If delivery timing matters, record the required date clearly and identify whether time is said to be essential. Make sure the carrier, ship’s agent, freight forwarder and any logistics intermediary are separately identified in writing, because later arguments about who made promises or received urgent instructions may turn on the paper trail. Keep the waybill, booking confirmations, shipper instructions, invoices, emails and any mitigation requests together. This case also shows that a company dispute cannot automatically be expanded into a director’s personal claim. A personal claim needs its own proper legal basis, including a tenable duty of care, a workable causation case and compliance with any personal injury legislation that applies. Finally, before starting Federal Court proceedings, think realistically about adverse costs exposure, funding and the possibility of a security for costs application. A case can be delayed or stayed even where some liability is admitted.
Outcome: The court ordered ARC to provide $50,000 security for CMA-CGM's costs by 19 October 2025, either by payment into court or by irrevocable bank guarantee from an Australian authorised deposit-taking institution. The proceeding was stayed until security was provided, with liberty to apply for dismissal on 20 October 2025 if ARC failed to comply. The costs of the security application were made costs in the cause. The court otherwise dismissed CMA-CGM's amended interlocutory application dated 2 May 2025 and dismissed ARC's interlocutory application dated 26 March 2025. In practical terms, ARC failed to join Mr Timothy Chibs as a second plaintiff, and CMA-CGM failed to obtain the separate question or summary judgment relief it sought on the carriage-law issues.
AghaeiRad v Plus500AU Pty Ltd (Stay Application)
Businesses should read this case as drawing a firm line between incorporation and enforceability. A well-built clickwrap process can still incorporate terms, including dispute clauses, into a contract. But if the clause sits in a standard form consumer contract and operates unfairly in practice, it may still fail. Here, the Court found significant imbalance because the clause effectively denied the party realistically likely to sue access to a court, required arbitration where cost would be prohibitive, and prevented class action participation. The Court also found the clause was not reasonably necessary to protect Plus500's legitimate interests, and that enforcing it would be unconscionable. If your business uses mandatory arbitration in consumer-facing terms, especially in financial or app-based services, review the clause carefully before relying on it.
Outcome: The Court dismissed both respondents' stay applications with costs. It held that the arbitration term had been incorporated into the contract through the online acceptance process and that the claims fell within the scope of the clause. It also held that, if arbitrated, the dispute would be a commercial arbitration for the purposes of the NSW legislation, and that the claims were arbitrable. Even so, the Court refused a stay because clause 23.3 was treated as null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. On the reported reasons, that was because the clause was void as an unfair contract term under section 12BF of the ASIC Act and because enforcing it would be unconscionable under section 12CB. The representative proceeding therefore remained in the Federal Court.
AHG WA (2015) Pty Ltd v Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd
If your business is part of a franchise or dealer network, this case is a practical reminder to focus on the agreement before investing heavily in premises, fitout, staff and systems tied to one brand. Renewal and non-renewal rights, pricing control, stock ownership, transition rights and compensation settings can become decisive if the network owner changes the operating model. For franchisors and distributors, the case does not give a free pass to use hard leverage, but it does confirm that exercising a contractual non-renewal right as part of a restructure will not, by itself, prove unconscionability or lack of good faith. For franchisees and dealers, sunk costs, dependence on the brand and commercial pressure are important facts, but they are not enough on their own. If a restructure is proposed, compare the old and new economics carefully, preserve records of what was said and offered, and get advice early rather than after the new model is already in place.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The Court’s orders and catchwords confirm that the dealers failed to overturn the primary judge’s dismissal of their claims. The published judgment record shows that the Court rejected the appeal grounds on unconscionable conduct, the legal principles said to govern that issue, the Franchising Code good faith claim, and the challenged findings of fact. The practical result is that the primary judgment remained in place. The Court also made a temporary suppression order for seven days over the reasons when judgment was delivered, with liberty to apply for variation and a direction for the parties to propose any further suppression order.
Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (Trial Judgment)
If your business, founder or senior professional is the subject of a media investigation, this case is a reminder that a defamation claim is not won simply by showing that allegations were damaging. The court focused on what meanings were actually conveyed, whether some core allegations were substantially true in context, and whether the publishers reasonably believed publication was in the public interest. The case also shows that publication-by-publication analysis matters. The Sneak Peek was treated differently from the broadcast, articles and video. For businesses, the practical message is to preserve contemporaneous records early, manage complaints and responses carefully, and get advice before taking public positions. For publishers and investigators, the case underlines the importance of source handling, verification, interview fairness, document retention and a clearly documented public interest basis for publication.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application. Abraham J held that the denied imputations and the disputed imputations identified in the judgment were not conveyed, and that no pleaded imputations were established as conveyed by the Sneak Peek. However, the Broadcast, the Articles and the Grieve Video each conveyed defamatory imputations. The respondents nevertheless succeeded overall because the court held that the defence of contextual truth under section 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) was established for the publications in which imputations were conveyed, and that the public interest defence under section 29A was also established. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the honest opinion defence.
Alexiou v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Subpoena)
The main lesson is procedural discipline. If a key witness is unavailable, your business should treat that as a live risk from the start of the case, not as a problem to solve just before trial. Record the reasons for non-cooperation, monitor whether circumstances change, and prepare the case on the assumption that the witness may never assist. If the position changes, move quickly. This judgment also shows that being blameless is not enough. ANZ was not criticised for causing the problem, and the court accepted the evidence was relevant. But the late step still failed because it would have required substantial cross-examination preparation and a revisit to voluminous discovery, with a real risk of derailing the hearing. Businesses should therefore ask two questions before taking a late evidentiary step: is this legally available, and will the court think it is too disruptive to permit? A further takeaway is to avoid over-reliance on one person. Where possible, preserve documents, contemporaneous communications and other witness evidence that can prove the same point if a former decision-maker cannot be called.
Outcome: The Federal Court set aside the subpoena to Mr Williams and dismissed ANZ's interlocutory application for leave to rely on his affidavit. Perram J accepted that Mr Williams' evidence was relevant to the proceeding and that ANZ was blameless in the circumstances that led to the late attempt to call him. The court also accepted that ANZ would suffer real prejudice from not being able to use his evidence, particularly because he had been involved in decisions central to the allegations. However, the judge held that the risk to the orderly conduct of the trial was too great. Allowing the witness would require substantial preparation for cross-examination and a revisit to extensive discovery, and there was a significant risk the trial would run over after 14 November 2025. Because the matter might then not resume until the beginning of 2027, the court treated that risk as outweighing the benefit of the evidence.
Allotz.com Limited (in liquidation) v Galbally
If your business is in a Federal Court dispute, do not treat a notice to produce as an automatic shortcut to early evidence. This case shows the Court may refuse early production even where the requested documents appear connected to an important issue, if the pleadings are still developing and ordinary discovery is expected later. Before serving a notice, ask practical questions. Are the issues in dispute already clear? Have defences been filed so you know what is actually contested? Are the categories tightly framed? Is there a real reason the documents are needed now rather than at discovery? Will the same searches have to be done again later? If the request is likely to duplicate later discovery, the Court may see it as inefficient and inconsistent with the overarching purpose in section 37M. If you are resisting a notice, this decision supports arguments based on duplication, unnecessary expense, lack of urgency and the possibility that later pleadings may narrow or remove the issue altogether. It also shows the importance of keeping the procedural fight separate from the underlying patent fight. Winning or losing a document application does not decide ownership, priority, knowledge or the validity of earlier transactions.
Outcome: The Court set aside the applicants' notice to produce dated 14 March 2025 and ordered the applicants to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the interlocutory application, as agreed or taxed. Goodman J held that there was sufficient reason to set the notice aside because requiring production at that stage would be inconsistent with the overarching purpose in section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Court considered that the issues in dispute were yet to be properly defined, that the applicants would seek discovery later, and that requiring searches now and again later would likely be duplicative, inefficient and unnecessarily expensive. The Court also noted that no urgency had been shown and made clear that the reasons did not endorse the width of the categories pressed or the likely relevance of all documents they might capture.
Anthony v Apple Inc
Read this case as a warning that app store commissions are not just a standard cost of doing business. The Court treated the commission question as something that may depend on competition conditions in the underlying market, and not simply on what a platform chooses to charge. At the same time, this judgment does not mean every 30% or 15% fee is unlawful, and it does not yet tell businesses what compensation, if any, will ultimately be payable. The safest practical response is to keep detailed records of developer agreements, policy changes, commission rates, app types, in-app purchase settings and pricing decisions over time. If your business depends on Apple or Google, document whether you had realistic alternatives for distribution or payments and whether platform fees were absorbed by you or passed on to customers. Those records matter both for ordinary commercial planning and for any future dispute about overcharge, pass-through, loss or damage.
Outcome: Beach J said the overcharge issue only arose because liability findings had been made on the same case Epic brought against Apple and Google, and those findings formed part of the foundation for these reasons. On the evidence as a whole, the Court concluded that the counterfactual commission rates would likely have been materially less than the commissions actually charged by Apple and Google during the relevant period. However, the Court did not determine the amount of any overcharge. The judge said he would need to hear further from the parties after they had considered the reasons and was not convinced there should be a single counterfactual figure. The Court also said loss and damage were outside the scope of the initial trial. The further hearing was stood over to a date to be fixed, with costs reserved.
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Light & Wonder, Inc. (No 3)
Business owners should read this as a procedural decision with a practical warning, not as a finding that the pleaded allegations were proved. The Court was dealing with hearing structure only. Still, the dispute shows a familiar risk pattern. A former employee moves to a competitor, works on products in a similar market, and the former employer alleges that confidential know-how, spreadsheets or design materials were used in development. Once that happens, the case may expand well beyond one narrow IP claim. Here, the pleaded causes of action included breach of confidence, copyright infringement, breach of contract, inducement of breach of contract, Corporations Act claims and ACL claims, with remedies that could affect customers and products already in the market. The practical response is disciplined process. Use clean onboarding for hires from competitors. Make it clear that prior employer materials must not be brought in or used. Keep records showing independent development and who created what, when and how. If a new product overlaps with a rival’s offering, get legal advice early and assess not only damages risk, but also the possibility of injunctions, delivery up, customer communications and product changes.
Outcome: Burley J made no order for separate determination under rule 30.01. Instead, the Court directed under s 37P(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that evidence be heard in two tranches. Tranche 1 was to cover all issues other than specified accounting, valuation, financial and royalty matters. Tranche 2 was to be heard after publication of reasons on Tranche 1, with programming to be set at a later case management hearing. The Court also ordered that no final orders would be made until after reasons dealing with Tranche 2 evidence had been published, at which point final orders would be made on all issues. Additional orders dealt with replies, particulars, discovery timing, a provisional Tranche 1 hearing window and a further case management hearing.
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents
If your business is considering patent protection for a software-enabled product, do not assume the answer turns on labels like "software", "AI" or "computer-implemented". This case shows that Australian courts will look closely at what the invention really is when read with the specification as a whole. A claim that reads like a business idea, game rule or abstract logic run on ordinary computing may still be vulnerable. But a claim directed to a machine or system operating in a particular way to produce a useful result may stand differently. The practical lesson is to invest in careful patent drafting early. Make sure the specification explains the technical operation, the interaction of components, and the result produced by the claimed combination. Also review whether patents are the best protection tool for the product, or whether confidentiality, copyright, trade marks and ownership documents should sit alongside or instead of a patent strategy.
Outcome: The appeal was allowed. The Full Court set aside the primary judge’s orders made on 12 April 2024 and also set aside the delegate’s 5 July 2018 decision revoking the listed claims in the four innovation patents. The Court directed the Commissioner of Patents to issue, publish and register certificates of examination for those claims, certified that validity had been questioned in the proceeding, and ordered the Commissioner to pay Aristocrat’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the primary judge. On the extract, the Court held that claim 1 was a manner of manufacture and that the residual claims were also a manner of manufacture by analogy with claim 1.
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Light & Wonder, Inc. (No 2)
Business owners should read this case as a lesson in precision, not as a simple win or loss for either side. If you suspect a competitor has used your confidential information, the court may be willing to recognise a serious issue and restrain further use or disclosure. But that does not mean it will immediately order product withdrawal, licence cancellation or customer notifications, especially where customers are not parties and the practical consequences are uncertain. If you are defending a claim, undertakings can matter. Here, Light & Wonder had already offered undertakings tied to restraints reflected in a related US order, and that appears to have been important to the refusal of broader Australian orders. But undertakings do not end the underlying case. They may only narrow the immediate dispute while the substantive claims continue. In practice, businesses should focus on three things. First, clean hiring and onboarding when bringing in staff from competitors. Second, strong records showing how products were independently developed. Third, customer contracts that clearly deal with software rights, updates, replacement products and operational contingencies. Those steps can materially affect both risk exposure and the kind of interim relief a court may consider appropriate.
Outcome: Burley J refused Aristocrat's interlocutory application. The formal orders state that the application for interlocutory relief was refused, costs were reserved, and the matter was listed for further case management. The catchwords indicate that the Court considered there to be a serious question to be tried in a confidential information context, but concluded that the additional mandatory orders sought were not warranted. The public material also shows that undertakings not to use or disclose the impugned confidential information had already been given, and that concerns about third parties, possible joinder, contractual footing and the balance of convenience were significant. On the available public record, the refusal appears directed to the breadth and practical effect of the extra orders sought, rather than amounting to a final rejection of Aristocrat's substantive claims.
Arrotex Pharmaceuticals Pty Limited v Minister for Health and Aged Care
If your business depends on a statutory formula, do not assume a previous regulatory event blocks a later one unless the legislation clearly says so. Build a timeline of the exact reporting periods, calculation periods and trigger dates used by the statute, because small drafting differences can change the commercial result. If you are considering litigation against a regulator or Minister, assess more than the legal merits. Ask whether the issue could be overtaken by legislative amendment, whether any amendment might operate retrospectively, and what that means for costs risk and commercial strategy. This case also shows that arguments based on internal government intentions can be difficult where legislative development is treated as confidential. In practice, businesses in regulated sectors should run legal analysis and policy monitoring in parallel, and keep reviewing whether the case still serves a useful commercial purpose as the law develops.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs. The court held that the National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Act 2024 (Cth), which commenced on 26 September 2024 with retrospective effect from 1 July 2022, confirmed the Minister's construction of the provisions in issue and rendered the substantive appeal moot. Importantly, the court also rejected the appellants' submission that they would have succeeded on the appeal if the amendment had not intervened, stating that by the end of the hearing it had concluded the primary judge had correctly construed the legislation. The appellants therefore did not obtain the costs orders they sought against the Minister.
Austin Engineering Ltd v Podulova (No 4)
If your business is considering urgent court action after a former employee takes or keeps company files, build your evidence in layers. First, prove what happened: what documents were copied, where they went, how they were accessed and what contractual or confidentiality obligations applied. Secondly, identify the remedy you actually need. If the immediate goal is to stop use of information or secure return of material, injunctions, delivery-up orders and disclosure orders may be the more realistic path. Thirdly, if you want a freezing order, prepare a separate evidentiary case for money relief and enforcement risk. The Court will want more than suspicion, urgency or concern about overseas travel. It will look for evidence of likely loss, profits, statutory damages factors, assets in the jurisdiction, and facts supporting a real danger that a judgment will be unsatisfied. This case also shows that a possible future costs order will usually be a weak basis for a worldwide asset restraint. Businesses should move quickly, but not assume that serious allegations automatically justify the most drastic interim orders.
Outcome: The Court refused to make the freezing order and any ancillary order at that time, but did not dismiss the application. Instead, it adjourned the application to a date to be fixed and reserved costs. Feutrill J held that on the affidavit material before the Court, Austin Engineering had not shown a real or substantial risk that a prospective pecuniary judgment against Ms Podulova would go wholly or partly unsatisfied. Although the Court accepted for present purposes that Austin Engineering had a good arguable claim for breach of confidence, breach of contract and copyright infringement, it was not satisfied that the evidence established an arguable claim for equitable compensation, account of profits or damages beyond possible nominal copyright damages, nor a sufficient evidentiary basis for additional damages under section 115(4). The Court also refused to close the Court, while extending suppression protection for certain confidential exhibits.
Australian Agrivision Pty Ltd v Wolstenholme (Leave to Amend)
If your business is in a finance dispute, work out early whether you only have a defence or whether you also want to bring your own affirmative claims. This case shows the risk of waiting until late in the proceeding to allege breach of contract, misleading conduct or unconscionable conduct. The Court focused on the absence of a proper explanation for delay, the failure to provide the required draft notice of cross-claim, the poor quality of the proposed pleading, and the prejudice that would be caused by vacating the listed hearing and adding new parties. A business owner should read this as a warning to gather the documents, map the chronology, identify the exact representations or conduct relied on, and get the pleading right before the case timetable hardens.
Outcome: Stewart J dismissed Mr Anderson's further amended interlocutory application with costs. The Court refused leave to file the proposed amended concise statement in response because it was defective and difficult to understand. The Court also refused leave to file the proposed cross-claim out of time. The key reasons were the absence of any proper explanation for the delay, the considerable delay of more than eight months after the response was filed, the prejudice to Agrivision because the February 2026 hearing would have to be vacated and new parties added, and the Court's lack of satisfaction that the proposed claims had apparent merit or were pleaded clearly enough. The ruling did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying ACL, ASIC Act or contract allegations.
Australian Communications and Media Authority v V Marketing Australia Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No 4)
If your business uses telemarketing, do not assume the legal risk sits only with the call centre. In this case, V Marketing was penalised for making calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Register, Balaska was declared to have contravened the Act because its arrangement with V Marketing meant it had caused those calls to be made, and V Marketing’s sole director was personally penalised because he directed or authorised the calls while knowing the company lacked reasonably adequate systems. The result also shows that penalty outcomes can turn on evidence about knowledge and reasonableness. Balaska still contravened the Act, but no penalty was imposed because of earlier findings about its sole director’s lack of actual knowledge and his response to compliance warnings. Businesses should read this as a systems and governance case, not just a calling case.
Outcome: The Federal Court restored V Marketing to the register, appointed a liquidator, and imposed total civil pecuniary penalties of $1.5 million on V Marketing, split as $750,000 for the Balaska telemarketing calls and $750,000 for the Your Choice Solar telemarketing calls. It declared that Balaska contravened the Do Not Call Register Act by causing V Marketing to make 553,630 telemarketing calls to numbers on the Register during 1 March to 30 September 2017, but imposed no civil pecuniary penalty on Balaska because of earlier findings about Mr McLennan’s lack of actual knowledge and reasonable conduct. The Court also imposed a $60,000 civil penalty on Mr Michael Vazquez, made a five-year notice order about future telemarketing activity, and ordered him to pay $10,000 towards ACMA’s costs within three months.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Beacon Products Pty Limited (in liq)
Read this case as a warning about systems, records and tone. If your business uses outbound calls, follow-up pressure, repeat ordering or recurring supply, you need clear proof of what the customer actually agreed to. Staff should not imply that a customer is already committed, locked into ongoing supply, unable to cancel, or unable to return goods unless that position is accurate and supportable. Directors should also note that regulators may pursue personal orders where they allege involvement in the conduct. If a company is already in liquidation, that does not mean the matter disappears. Here, the Court let the ACCC proceed because regulatory relief serves public accountability and deterrence, while postponing any enforcement against the companies unless the Court later gives leave.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the ACCC leave, nunc pro tunc, to commence proceedings against Beacon and Zandox, subject to a condition that the ACCC must not enforce any relief against those companies without prior leave of the Court. The Court held that the ACCC's claims were serious, raised a serious question to be tried, and served public regulatory objectives including consumer protection and general deterrence. The Court refused deemed service on Mr Skry because the evidence about the Reddestone property was insufficient, but it ordered substituted service by email, registered post, text message and Facebook Messenger. It also made two-year suppression and non-publication orders protecting identifying details of consumers and businesses named in the confidential statement of claim.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Bupa HI Pty Ltd
A business cannot safely turn a partial entitlement into a blanket no. If a customer is entitled to something, even if only part of a claim, service or benefit is covered, your communications and systems need to reflect that position accurately. This judgment also shows that automation does not reduce responsibility. If an automated process rejects claims incorrectly, the business remains exposed. Risk increases further if management knows a manual check, exception report or review process is needed, but removes it without an adequate substitute. The compliance orders are useful because they show the kinds of controls regulators expect to see in practice: clear ownership of compliance, external input, risk assessment, updated policy settings, complaint handling, whistleblower protections, regular training, committee reporting and independent review. A smaller business may implement those controls in a simpler way, but the underlying expectation is the same.
Outcome: The Federal Court approved the agreed resolution between the ACCC and Bupa. It made declarations that Bupa had, on at least 7,589 occasions between May 2018 and August 2023, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations by representing that members were not entitled to any benefits in certain mixed coverage and uncategorised item situations when they were in fact entitled to benefits for covered treatment. The Court also declared that Bupa engaged in unconscionable conduct on at least 388 occasions between June 2020 and February 2021 in relation to incorrectly automatically assessed hospital mixed coverage claims after failing to generate and manually review the zero benefits report. The Court imposed total penalties of $35 million, granted a five-year injunction, ordered a three-year compliance program, ordered a $250,000 contribution to the ACCC’s costs and made a confidentiality order for one exhibit.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Clorox Australia Pty Limited
Business owners should read this case as a warning about headline green claims. The Court accepted that the dominant front-of-pack wording mattered most. Here, phrases such as "50% OCEAN PLASTIC RECYCLED BAGS" and "50% OCEAN PLASTIC RECYCLED GARBAGE BAGS" conveyed that the products were made from plastic waste collected from the ocean or sea. Smaller references to "ocean bound" plastic did not fix that impression, especially where the larger and more prominent wording still said "50% Ocean Plastic". If you use supplier language in consumer marketing, check what that language actually means. A broad category used in a supply chain may not justify a stronger retail claim. Put another way, if the customer takeaway is more specific than your evidence, the claim is at risk. Build a sign-off process for packaging, website copy, retailer content and social posts before launch, not after a complaint or regulator inquiry.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the relief jointly proposed by the ACCC and Clorox. It declared that Clorox had contravened sections 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g) and 33 of the ACL in relation to the relevant kitchen tidy bag and garbage bag products. The Court ordered Clorox to pay an $8.25 million pecuniary penalty within 30 days, restrained it from making similar representations unless true, required it to establish and maintain an ACL compliance program for three years, and required publication of a corrective notice on its website and corresponding Facebook and Instagram channels. Clorox was also ordered to pay $200,000 towards the ACCC's costs. The Court considered the proposed relief appropriate in all the circumstances.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Emma Sleep GmbH
Businesses should read this case as a warning to check both the substance of their promotions and the reality of their operating model. If you advertise savings, sale prices or limited-time offers, keep records showing the basis for those claims at the time they are published. If another company in your group supplies the people who lead the local team, approve content, steer operations or direct campaign decisions, do not assume only the local seller is exposed. The judgment also shows that group company liability is not automatic. The Court did not simply treat the whole Emma group as one business. Instead, it looked closely at the agreed facts about Country Team Australia, who employed the relevant leaders, who steered Emma Sleep AU’s operations, and whether the conduct could be attributed under s 139B(2). In practice, businesses should map who creates ads, who approves them, who gives instructions, whose employees hold the key roles, and what documents support those arrangements. If the commercial reality differs from the corporate chart, that difference may matter in court.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that Bettzeit Southeast Asia Inc also contravened ss 18 and 29(1)(i) of the Australian Consumer Law in relation to the impugned representations. Hill J found Bettzeit liable both as a principal contravener and through s 139B(2)(b)(i) of the Competition and Consumer Act. By contrast, Emma Sleep GmbH was not found to have contravened the Australian Consumer Law. Emma Sleep AU had already admitted liability for the misleading savings and limited-time sale representations, apart from one representation no longer pressed. The judgment did not determine final relief. Instead, the Court ordered that the matter be listed for a case management hearing so arrangements could be made for a later penalty proceeding.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Emma Sleep GmbH (Non-publication)
If your business is in Federal Court, assume that documents on the court file may later be inspected by non-parties unless there is a strong legal basis to restrict access. This case shows that saying material is internal, confidential or commercially sensitive is usually not enough by itself. The Court wants evidence of a real and specific risk to the proper administration of justice, not just a preference for privacy or a general concern about competitors. Timing also matters. Emma Sleep was trying to protect documents after they had already been filed and relied on in open court, which strengthened the open justice position. Businesses should identify genuinely sensitive material early, think carefully about what is filed, and if protection may be needed, support any application with direct evidence from operational decision-makers who can explain current commercial consequences in concrete terms.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Emma Sleep's interlocutory application for non-publication orders. Hill J accepted that commercial sensitivity can, in principle, justify protection, but held that the evidence in this case did not meet the statutory threshold of necessity. The asserted harms were expressed in broad and general terms, much of the information was more than two years old, and the documents had already been relied on in open court. The Court found that the evidence did not establish that Emma Sleep's business would be seriously compromised or adversely affected by disclosure, or that disclosure would confer a significant commercial and competitive advantage on rivals. The Court also noted that Emma Sleep had not identified an appropriate duration for the proposed orders. There was no order as to costs.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Fewstone Pty Ltd (Penalty)
The clearest lesson from this case is that a retailer cannot assume a supplier or manufacturer has taken care of compliance. If your business supplies products that may be covered by a mandatory safety or information standard, you need a process to identify those products, verify compliance before sale, keep records that let you trace affected stock, and stop sales quickly if a problem is found. This case also shows that partial fixes are not enough. City Beach began remediation, worked with the ACCC and started a voluntary recall, but further sales still occurred because store directions were not always followed and a point-of-sale block was later affected by a software update. Businesses should read this as a reminder to test controls in practice, not just announce them. Buyers, store managers, ecommerce staff and senior management all need clear escalation rules, and supplier or regulator warnings should trigger immediate business-wide review.
Outcome: The Federal Court imposed a pecuniary penalty of $14,000,000 on City Beach and ordered it to pay the ACCC's costs. The Court also made declarations recording admitted contraventions involving 54,819 supplies of products that did not comply with the Safety Standard, 56,974 supplies of products that did not comply with the Information Standard, and offers for supply of 63 and 67 unique non-compliant products respectively. In addition, the Court made three-year injunctive and corrective orders restraining further supply or offer for supply of non-compliant products, requiring annual independent reviews of City Beach's ACL compliance program, and requiring annual educational seminars for employees and directors on compliance with mandatory safety standards. The Court also required commercial social media advertising of the recall of 68 products.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Google Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
The main lesson is to review what your distribution deal actually does in practice, especially during rollover periods. If you pay a partner for preferred placement, default status, preinstallation, referrals or promotion, look closely at whether the arrangement also requires your product to appear across all customer access points or stops the partner from presenting alternatives. Risk increases where old restrictive terms continue while a new deal is being negotiated, particularly if the duration is uncertain and the partner is a major route to market. This case was resolved on agreed facts and admissions rather than a contested trial, but it still resulted in declarations and a $55 million penalty. Businesses should treat temporary holdovers and informal understandings as legally significant, not as harmless commercial housekeeping.
Outcome: The Federal Court made the declarations sought and imposed the jointly proposed total pecuniary penalty of $55 million. The Court declared that Google contravened section 45(1)(a) twice, once in relation to Telstra and once in relation to Optus, by arriving at understandings in about December 2019 that continued the existing revenue-share terms, including the Platform-wide Provisions. The Court accepted that each understanding was likely to make it more difficult to obtain the distribution of general search engine services in Australia during the period from December 2019 until the end of March 2021 and thereby hinder competition. The penalty was split equally at $27.5 million per contravention. Google was also ordered to pay a contribution to the ACCC’s costs, and the reasons note that the ACCC accepted a three-year section 87B undertaking as part of the agreed resolution.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd (No 2)
If your business is dealing with the ACCC or another regulator, do not treat privilege review as a box-ticking exercise. This case shows that courts may protect draft contracts and email passages involving in-house counsel where the dominant purpose is legal advice and confidentiality has been maintained. It also shows that a genuine mistake in a large document production may sometimes be corrected later without waiver. But that outcome turned on the facts and should not be assumed. Businesses should keep legal advice channels clear, document when in-house counsel are acting in a legal capacity, limit circulation of lawyer-worked drafts, and run a careful privilege review before producing documents under compulsory notices or in litigation.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the ACCC's challenge to Mastercard's privilege claims. Justice Halley held that the disputed documents were protected by legal professional privilege and that there had been no express or implied waiver on the facts before the court. After inspecting the documents, the judge was satisfied that the draft agreements would reveal or tend to reveal the content of privileged communications and that privilege attached to the drafts as a whole, not merely to specific lawyer comments or mark-ups. The court also upheld privilege over the redacted email chains. The orders required the ACCC to pay 50% of Mastercard's costs of and incidental to the determination of the relevant paragraph of the interlocutory application.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd (No 3)
If your business is in a dispute, do not treat privilege as something that is protected automatically once lawyers are involved. This case shows that the real risk often comes from your own evidence. Statements about why a strategy was adopted, what concerns were raised internally, what was understood after consultations, or what internal consensus existed can support an argument that related communications should be produced. The risk increases if your privilege log gives only minimal descriptions, because the other side may then seek broader category-based orders. The practical response is disciplined preparation. Before filing affidavits, compare the draft evidence against the privilege log, discovered documents and any legal advice already disclosed. Decide whether the witness can prove the point without referring, directly or indirectly, to confidential communications. If production is ordered, the scope may still be limited and unrelated privileged content may remain redacted, but it is far better to manage the issue before evidence is filed.
Outcome: The Court ordered Mastercard to produce, within 28 days, unredacted copies of documents created between August 2017 and November 2020 that recorded communications involving Mr Koh or Mr Molu and that referred to defined waived subject matters. For Mr Koh, the subject matter was the strategy or purpose of offering, negotiating, approving or entering SMAs. For Mr Molu, it was that subject matter and or the likely effect of the SMAs. The Court expressly allowed redactions for privileged parts of documents that did not refer to those subject matters. It otherwise dismissed parts of the ACCC's interlocutory application and reserved costs. The Court also rejected the argument that the ACCC's waiver challenge necessarily failed because it was framed by categories rather than by specific documents.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) (No 4)
The practical takeaway is to read this as a pleading decision, not a liability ruling. The Court was deciding whether the ACCC had pleaded an arguable case, not whether the allegations are true. Even so, the reasoning is a warning for businesses involved in digital advertising. If your systems publish or help distribute ads at scale, you should be able to explain what safeguards exist, what high-risk categories get extra scrutiny, how complaints are tracked, and what happens when recurring scam patterns appear. Businesses should not assume that automation, scale or the absence of a human reviewing every ad removes legal exposure. The stronger your records, escalation pathways and ad governance, the better placed you are if a regulator later examines your conduct.
Outcome: Meta’s strike-out application was dismissed. The Court granted the applicants leave to file the further amended statement of claim and amended originating application, and ordered Meta to pay the applicants’ costs. Justice Abraham held that the ACCC’s revised pleading was sufficiently clear and arguable to proceed. The Court rejected Meta’s challenges to the safeguards allegations, the claimed lack of connection to the Annexure A advertisements, the accessorial liability pleading, and the complaint that certain paragraphs were vague and embarrassing. The judgment did not determine whether Meta contravened the Australian Consumer Law or the ASIC Act. Those substantive issues remain for the later hearing of the case.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Optus Mobile Pty Limited
If your business sells to consumers, this case is a practical warning to review the whole sales pathway, not just scripts and disclosures. You need to know whether customers actually understand what they are buying, what they will pay over time, whether the product is suitable, and whether it will work in their circumstances. Internal controls also matter. If staff can bypass credit checks, add products after approval, oversell accessories, or keep pursuing debts when a sale may have been improper, your legal risk rises sharply. Businesses should also pay close attention to vulnerability. Where customers may have language barriers, limited financial literacy, disability, financial hardship, or live in remote areas, the sales process needs extra safeguards, clearer records, and escalation pathways. Complaints, internal investigations and repeated patterns should be treated as system warnings, not isolated incidents.
Outcome: The Federal Court made orders in the terms sought by the parties. It declared by consent that Optus engaged in 24 instances of unconscionable conduct in relation to the 24 consumers, and that the Mount Isa and Darwin conduct also contravened section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law as part of a pattern of unconscionable conduct. It further declared that Optus made false or misleading representations to 4 consumers about price in contravention of sections 18 and 29(1)(i). The Court ordered Optus to pay a $100 million pecuniary penalty within 30 days, publish corrective notices across its website, social media, retail stores and specified publications, and pay the ACCC's costs fixed at $1.5 million. The Court also noted the accepted section 87B undertaking.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) (in administration) (No 6)
The practical reading is not limited to education providers. Any business that relies on third-party sellers or high-volume onboarding should review whether its controls are genuinely independent and effective. If a safeguard exists because management knows customers may be misled, pressured or signed up without understanding the product, removing that safeguard is dangerous. Courts will look at what the business knew, why the process changed, whether the change increased risk, who approved it, and whether the business profited from the result. Written policies will not help much if the workflow, incentives and verification steps push customers through regardless of suitability or informed consent. Senior decision-makers should assume that approving or maintaining a risky system can create personal penalty and disqualification exposure, not just corporate liability. The penalty amounts and disqualification period discussed on this page come from the Court’s official orders, not from media reporting.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared that Captain Cook College engaged in unconscionable conduct in contravention of section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law by implementing and maintaining enrolment process changes during 7 September 2015 to 18 December 2015 that increased the known risk of unwitting or unsuitable students being enrolled, and by claiming and retaining VFH course fees in respect of those students to increase enrolments and revenue. The Court also declared that Blake Wills was knowingly concerned in that contravention and that Site Group International Ltd was knowingly concerned through him. Under the official orders dated 27 May 2025, the College was penalised $20 million for the systemic section 21 contravention and a further $750,000 for earlier ACL contraventions, Site was penalised $10 million, and Mr Wills was penalised $400,000 and disqualified from managing corporations for three years.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qteq Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a warning about competitor contact. The legal risk point is not limited to a completed cartel agreement. If your team proposes that another operator take certain customers, stay out of a tender, avoid a service line, or only supply in concert with your business, that can trigger cartel issues even at the proposal stage. The Court materials show that labels such as NDA, collaboration or commercial discussion do not control the outcome. Substance matters. So does the competitive relationship between the parties, including whether they are likely competitors rather than current head-to-head rivals. In practice, businesses should train senior staff not to discuss customer splits, bid coordination, market sharing or restraint clauses with competitors without legal review. Tender-related communications, draft documents and informal conversations should all be treated as potentially high risk.
Outcome: The published catchwords state that five of the six attempts alleged by the ACCC were established, with respect to both Qteq and Simon Ashton. The orders show that the Court did not finally determine relief at the same time. Instead, the parties were directed to confer on draft declarations of contravention, an order extending the appeal timetable until after judgment on relief, and procedural orders for the relief phase, including evidence and submissions. The safest public reading is that the ACCC substantially succeeded on liability, while declarations, penalties and any later appeal position needed to be dealt with separately.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Limited (No 2)
If your business changes what customers receive, whether by moving them to a different tier, altering features, changing service levels or reframing the value of a plan, your customer-facing explanation must match the real outcome. This case also shows that penalty questions are highly practical. Courts look at how many customers were affected, how long the effects lasted, whether the conduct was deliberate, what commercial benefit was sought, who inside the business was involved, what remediation was offered, whether the business self-reported, and what compliance measures were put in place afterwards. Early remediation and cooperation can matter, but they do not erase liability. Before rolling out a mass customer change, businesses should test the wording, scripts, notices and FAQs against the actual customer experience, not just the intended internal process.
Outcome: The Court made only part of the jointly proposed relief. It ordered Telstra to pay a pecuniary penalty of $18 million to the Commonwealth within 30 days and to pay the ACCC's costs in the agreed sum of $300,000. The Court also noted that Telstra had provided a section 87B undertaking concerning efforts to rectify the impact of some conduct found to contravene sections 18 and 29(1)(g) of the ACL. However, the Court refused to make the proposed declarations. Snaden J held that, in the circumstances of this case, declarations would have no practical utility beyond the liability reasons and the significant pecuniary penalty. By contrast, the Court accepted the agreed penalty without hesitation as being within the range it would independently have been minded to impose.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Good Guys Discount Warehouses (Australia) Pty Ltd
If you advertise a promotion that gives customers a later credit or wallet-style benefit, make the conditions that affect entitlement and value clear in the ad itself. In this case, the admitted problems were not obscure technicalities. They went to whether the customer would receive the benefit at all, and how long they had to use it. A short expiry period or a requirement to stay subscribed to marketing can significantly change the real value of the offer. The case also shows that fulfilment promises need operational backing. If your promotion says the benefit will be sent by a certain date, your systems need to deliver on that promise at scale. Businesses should review the whole promotion journey together: ad copy, links to terms, checkout flows, consent logic, dispatch timing, wallet or voucher settings, and customer communications. If the benefit works like stored value or a non-cash payment facility, get advice early on whether the ASIC Act may apply.
Outcome: The Federal Court made declarations that The Good Guys had engaged in three categories of contravening conduct. It declared that advertisements for 38 Store Credit promotions were misleading because they did not disclose, or adequately disclose, that consumers would only receive Store Credit if they remained opted in to marketing communications until the dispatch date. It also declared that advertisements for the Store Credit and StoreCash promotions were misleading because they did not disclose, or adequately disclose, that the benefits had to be used within specified timeframes ranging from 7 to 92 days. Separately, it declared that The Good Guys contravened section 32(2) of the ACL by failing to provide Store Credit to about 21,500 consumers within the time specified. The Court ordered total penalties of $13.5 million, a consumer redress regime, reporting obligations, a suppression order over the confidential consumer notice annexure, $200,000 in costs, and otherwise dismissed the proceeding.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Webjet Marketing Pty Ltd
Business owners should treat this case as a systems and messaging case, not just an advertising case. The Court accepted that the relevant question was the representation made to consumers. For pricing, that means looking at the overall impression created by the promoted figure across every channel, including social posts and promotional emails. If the customer cannot buy at that figure without paying an unavoidable extra fee, there is real ACL risk. For confirmations, the lesson is to map exactly when your system tells a customer an order, booking or subscription is confirmed. If supplier acceptance, stock allocation, fare availability or another approval step is still pending, your wording should reflect that. Legal review should cover the whole customer journey, not only the checkout page.
Outcome: The Federal Court accepted the jointly proposed outcome and made declarations that Webjet contravened sections 18 and 29(1)(i) of the Australian Consumer Law. It imposed penalties totalling $9 million, comprising $8.5 million for the pricing conduct and $500,000 for the booking confirmation conduct. The Court also ordered Webjet to publish a corrective notice on its website homepage and mobile application within 14 days, maintain that notice in the required form for 60 days, review and amend its ACL compliance program as required, continue implementing that program for three years after amendment, and pay $100,000 towards the ACCC's costs. The proceeding was otherwise dismissed.
Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Isentia Pty Limited
If your business supplies copying, monitoring, indexing, reporting or access services to government clients, do not assume the same copyright rules apply as they would for a private customer. This case indicates that written government authorisation under s 183(1) can materially change the legal position. If you own content, check whether the user is acting for a Commonwealth or State entity under written authority before treating the conduct as straightforward infringement. If you are a contractor, do not rely on a client’s public-sector status alone. You should confirm the authority exists, understand what acts it covers, and make sure your contract deals with compensation, risk allocation and operational limits. Because the published reasons were subject to access restrictions when this page was prepared, businesses should be cautious about treating the available extract as a complete account of every issue argued on appeal.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal with costs. On the published extract, the Court held that the primary judge was correct to conclude that, by reason of s 183(1), Isentia did not infringe Australian News Channel’s copyright when providing the relevant media monitoring services to government clients acting under written authority. The extract shows the Court rejected the appellant’s narrow construction of the phrase "for the services of the Commonwealth or State" and relied heavily on legislative history and analogous patent authorities in concluding that the provision supports a broad permission for government use of copyright material, subject to compensation.
Australian Property Scout Holdings Pty Ltd v Titus (No 2)
For business owners, the case is a reminder that urgent injunctions are won on precision, evidence and drafting. If you want immediate protection, it helps to identify the exact documents or information said to be at risk, show how that material was treated as confidential, and point to contract terms that are workable and reasonably framed. This decision also shows that copyright claims can sit alongside confidentiality and restraint claims where internal documents are copied or used. But not every commercially useful idea or market insight will attract immediate interim protection. If a staff member leaves and starts competing, move quickly to preserve evidence, review contracts, limit access, and consider whether you need narrow, practical orders that a court can confidently make before trial.
Outcome: The Court made a mixed interlocutory ruling. It granted interim orders requiring the respondents to keep accounts, restraining both respondents from using or disclosing identified APS documents, and restraining copyright infringement in those documents. It also granted restraint of trade relief against Mr Titus on amended terms and made confidentiality and sealing orders over certain court material. However, the Court refused the broader interlocutory confidentiality relief sought in relation to the Confidential Operating Areas. On the published reasons, that refusal should be understood as an interim result at the interlocutory stage, where the Court was not persuaded to grant the broader confidentiality injunction then sought. The practical effect was that APS obtained substantial temporary protection over specific documents, copyright and targeted competitive conduct, but not the full wider confidential-information restraint it wanted. The orders were expressed to continue until judgment or earlier determination of the proceeding, with liberty to apply, so they remain provisional and subject to change as the case progresses.
Australian Retirement Trust Pty Ltd ATF Australian Retirement Trust v Buckland
Read this case as a contract administration warning. Start with the exact words that fix the trigger. Here, the decisive wording referred to the date on which a medical practitioner certifies in writing that the insured person is permanently unable to work again. The court treated the act of certification as central to the entitlement date, not just as evidence of an earlier state of affairs. It also stressed there was no evidence that any doctor could or would have issued the required certificate earlier. For business owners, the practical lesson is to map trigger points in every important contract and claims process. Ask what event must occur, who must do it, in what form, and when. Keep the first document that actually satisfies the wording. Do not assume a later report, retrospective opinion or fairness-based argument will always repair a missing or delayed contractual step.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the appeal. Derrington J held that the policy wording referred to the date on which the medical practitioner actually made the written certification, not an earlier date later identified with hindsight. The court also held that section 54 could not be used to circumvent that requirement. The reasons state that the occurrence of medical certification was an essential element of the TPD cover and of the date from which the benefit was payable. The court further said there was no evidence that any medical practitioner could or would have issued the required certificate earlier. AFCA's determination of 26 March 2025 was set aside, and there was no order as to costs.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Retail Cases Omnibus)
The commercial lesson from this case is that customer promises, compliance obligations and operational controls have to line up. ANZ’s admitted conduct was spread across three separate matters, but the pattern was similar in each one: frontline channels did not reliably trigger the right response, product settings and monitoring did not reliably deliver promoted benefits, and sensitive customer processes were not backed by adequate documented guidance, training or reporting. The Court’s orders show that regulators and courts will look past the wording of a promotion or policy and ask whether the business had reasonable grounds and functioning systems at the time. For a growing business, that means reviewing marketing, onboarding, customer support, product configuration, exception reporting and remediation together. If a benefit depends on eligibility criteria, your systems should identify those customers automatically or through a controlled manual process. If a request must be handled within a timeframe, staff need a clear intake path, escalation rules and monitoring. Known issues should be investigated and fixed promptly, not left sitting while the same representation continues to be used.
Outcome: Justice Beach made declarations against ANZ in all three proceedings and imposed the jointly proposed total penalties of $115 million. The hardship matter attracted $15 million for the Credit Act contravention relating to inadequate processes and $25 million for the response-notice contraventions under the Credit Code. The bonus-interest and rate matter attracted $30 million for contraventions of s 12DB(1)(e) of the ASIC Act, broken into $25 million for the bonus-interest conduct and $5 million for the rate-promotion conduct, plus $10 million for the Corporations Act efficiently, honestly and fairly contravention. The deceased-estates matter attracted $35 million for contraventions of the Corporations Act and Credit Act. ANZ was also ordered to publish court-ordered notices for at least 90 days and to pay ASIC’s costs.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Treasury Bonds Case)
Business owners should read this as a case about conduct matching representations. ANZ had represented that it would be transparent with the AOFM, yet the court declared that it failed to disclose trading intentions, pre-hedging progress and its intention to engage in significant hedging up to and during the pricing call, while also making misleading post-transaction representations. Separately, repeated inaccuracies in turnover data and an annual attestation became their own contraventions, followed by a failure to lodge a reportable situation report. The practical lesson is to treat important customer reports and attestations as compliance documents, not routine admin. If your business manages a conflict, controls the timing of a key step, or supplies data that others rely on, you need clear disclosure rules, verification processes, training, supervision and a documented escalation path when something looks wrong.
Outcome: The Federal Court made declarations that ANZ contravened section 12CB(1) and section 12DB(1)(a) of the ASIC Act, and sections 1041H(1), 912DAA and 912A of the Corporations Act. The court ordered ANZ to pay total pecuniary penalties of $135 million, comprising $80 million, $40 million, $2 million, $5 million and $8 million across the different contraventions, plus ASIC’s costs fixed at $1 million. The court also ordered a compliance program requiring a self-assessment, an ASIC-approved independent expert review, and implementation of reasonable recommendations concerning systems, controls, policies, procedures, training, monitoring, supervision and governance in ANZ Institutional Bank.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BPS Financial Pty Ltd
If your business is launching a payment or wallet product under someone else's AFSL, do not assume the structure works just because there is an authorised representative agreement in place. This case suggests the Court will test the substance of the arrangement. It will matter who built the product, whose name appears throughout the white paper, PDS, FSG and terms of use, who charges fees, who handles user data, who can change the product terms, and whether the customer relationship is really with your business rather than the licensee. If the product is commercially and legally presented as yours, the authorised representative model may fail. Before launch, make sure the documents, governance and day-to-day operation match the licensing position you are relying on.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court allowed ASIC's appeal. It held that the exemption in s 911A(2) applies when an authorised representative provides financial services as representative of the AFSL holder, and that the answer is fact dependent. On the facts referred to in the judgment, BPS was not acting as representative of PNI when issuing the Qoin product and providing financial services in relation to it. The Court set aside the relevant first instance order and substituted a declaration that, between 5 November 2020 and 30 August 2021, BPS carried on a financial services business in Australia in contravention of s 911A(1) by dealing in the Qoin Wallet and providing financial product advice about it without an AFSL covering those services. The Court made no order as to appeal costs, other than that ASIC pay the costs of the amicus curiae.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Darranda Pty Ltd (Penalty)
The main lesson is to test the legal substance of your customer arrangement, not just its label. If a customer gets goods now and pays over time, your document may be a credit contract even if you call it a rental agreement. If that is right, disclosure rules, pricing caps and licensing obligations can apply. This case also shows that compliance is operational, not just legal drafting. You need systems that keep templates aligned with legal advice, trained compliance oversight, supervision of representatives, marketing that matches the contract, and proper licence governance. A business using standard-form consumer paperwork at scale should review both the contract and the way the business actually sells and administers it. It should also remember that stopping a product later does not remove exposure for past conduct, and that related entities involved in the model may face their own penalties.
Outcome: The Federal Court made declarations against Darranda and Rent4Keeps and imposed substantial pecuniary penalties. Darranda was ordered to pay $2,000,000 for the s 24(1)(a) contraventions, $400,000 for the disclosure contraventions under ss 17(3), 17(4)(a), 17(5) and 17(6), and $1,000,000 for the s 47(1)(a) contravention. Rent4Keeps was ordered to pay $1,000,000 for involvement in the s 24(1)(a) contraventions and $3,000,000 for involvement in the s 47(1)(a) contravention. The penalties were payable within 30 days. The respondents were also ordered to pay ASIC's costs, subject to a limited exception. ASIC did not seek injunctive relief.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v DOD Bookkeeping Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of DOD Bookkeeping Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)
If your business gives personal financial advice, read this as a systems and governance case. The Court’s orders show that an AFSL holder can be penalised where its representatives repeatedly recommend a similar strategy, here involving establishment of an SMSF, borrowing by the SMSF trustee and purchase of real property, and that advice is found not to be in the client’s best interests or not appropriate. The remuneration side is just as important. Bonuses of $750 to $1,500 were still treated as conflicted remuneration contraventions when repeated across many occasions. In practice, business owners should review advice templates, fact finds, Statements of Advice, supervision records and remuneration settings together. A compliant-looking advice document will not solve the problem if the business model or incentive structure is pushing advisers toward a preferred outcome.
Outcome: The Federal Court made declarations for 24 Division 2 contraventions and 272 Division 4 contraventions. For the 12 client matters, the Court declared that DOD Bookkeeping contravened s 961K(2) as the responsible licensee for representatives who failed to act in clients' best interests and gave advice that was not appropriate. The Court also made declarations for many separate conflicted remuneration contraventions involving advisers accepting bonuses and the company giving those bonuses. It imposed penalties of between $300,000 and $395,000 for each Division 2 declaration, and grouped Division 4 penalties of $220,000, $220,000, $200,000, $200,000, $130,000, $130,000, $450,000, $450,000, $360,000 and $360,000. ASIC's interlocutory application was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay ASIC's costs except for the costs of that unsuccessful application.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Green County Pty Ltd (Penalty)
If your business provides consumer loans, vendor finance or credit assistance, this case is a strong reminder to check the legal character of what you are doing before you sign contracts or help customers enter them. The Court recorded contraventions for entering into regulated credit contracts without the required licence authorisation, for providing credit services without the required licence authorisation, and for using contracts that omitted key pricing information. It also made an order requiring Green County to pay Consumer 1 an amount calculated to prevent Green County profiting from the contravening conduct. A practical reading for business owners is this: confirm whether your product is regulated consumer credit, confirm who is the credit provider and who is providing credit services, verify licensing or authorised status, and review contract templates for required disclosures and pricing limits. Do not assume a small-scale, private or bespoke arrangement falls outside the regime.
Outcome: The Court made declarations of contravention and imposed pecuniary penalties on both corporate respondents. Green County was ordered to pay total penalties of $405,000. Max Funding was ordered in the formal orders, and in the reasons, to pay total penalties of $110,000, although the catchwords refer to $105,000. The Court also ordered Green County to pay Consumer 1 $4,155.45 under section 180(1)(c) to prevent Green County from profiting from its contravening conduct. ASIC's proposed adverse publicity orders were not made in the form sought, but ASIC was given leave to seek revised orders by short supplementary submissions. Costs were left for further submissions if not agreed.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HCF Life Insurance Company Pty Limited (Penalty)
For businesses, the main lesson is to test customer-facing wording against the law that actually governs the product, not just against the text of the contract. If an exclusion, limitation or condition is affected by legislation, your documents should not describe it in a way that makes the customer’s position look worse than it really is. This case also shows that external legal review helps but is not a complete answer. The Court noted that legal advice had been obtained, but the weight given to that depends on the circumstances, including what advice was sought and how clearly it addressed the real issue. Businesses should also treat post-issue remediation as part of compliance, not an afterthought. If a regulator raises a concern or a court makes findings, old documents left online and slow corrective messaging can continue to matter.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered HCF Life to pay a pecuniary penalty of $750,000. It also ordered HCF Life to publish a corrective notice within 14 days on the relevant website through a prominent click-through banner in the top third of the page, visible without scrolling, and to keep that banner in place for at least 180 days. The corrective notice, or otherwise the banner, also had to appear on each webpage where the relevant PDSs were published for so long as policyholders could still make claims under those policies. HCF Life was also ordered to pay 50% of ASIC’s costs incurred up to 28 October 2024 and ASIC’s costs incurred after that date.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v iSignthis Limited (Costs)
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that costs are a major part of litigation exposure. If a regulator or other claimant succeeds on the main case, the court may still order you to pay most or all of their costs even if you defeat some allegations, narrow some findings, or persuade the court to impose a lower penalty than the claimant wanted. The court treated issue-by-issue cost cutting as exceptional, not routine, and focused on whether the unsuccessful issues were truly separate and distinct. Where evidence and arguments overlap, the court may see apportionment as artificial or overly nit-picking. This is not just an ASIC point. The same costs logic can matter in many Federal Court and superior court disputes. For directors and management teams, the commercial lesson is to manage disclosure, governance and litigation strategy early. Weak internal processes can create overlapping factual disputes that are expensive to defend. Once the other side wins overall, it may be too late to argue that some isolated wins should substantially reduce the costs consequences.
Outcome: The court ordered that, subject to one exception, the defendants pay ASIC's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed. It rejected the defendants' attempt to apportion costs by reference to issues on which ASIC had not succeeded, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The court accepted that the unsuccessful issues were not clearly separate and distinct from the successful parts of ASIC's case and that ASIC had not acted unreasonably in running them. The exception was the defendants' interlocutory application concerning without prejudice letters, for which the court made no order as to costs. ASIC's request for a lump sum costs order was refused.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v iSignthis Limited (Penalty)
The main lesson is that listed-company disclosure problems often arise from delay, incomplete explanations and overconfidence that an issue can be managed privately. This case involved both non-disclosure and problematic communications with the ASX. The Court treated the conduct as serious enough to justify both deterrent penalties and a lengthy management disqualification. For directors and executives, that means personal accountability is real. A practical response is to create clear escalation triggers for market-sensitive events, require legal and governance review of draft ASX communications, and keep records showing when management and the board became aware of key facts. If a major customer, scheme partner, platform or payment network makes a decision that affects revenue, operations or the company’s standing, that should trigger immediate disclosure analysis. External legal advice can assist, but it does not replace the need for directors and officers to exercise their own judgment and ensure the market is not misled.
Outcome: The Court ordered Mr Nickolas John Karantzis to be disqualified from managing corporations for six years. It also ordered him to pay a pecuniary penalty of $1 million within 30 days for contraventions of ss 180(1), 674(2A) and 1309(2) and (12) identified in the earlier orders dated 26 July 2024. Southern Cross Payments Ltd, formerly iSignthis Ltd, was ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty of $10 million within 30 days for contraventions of s 674(2). ASIC had sought a ten-year disqualification, a $1.5 million penalty against Mr Karantzis and a $12.5 million penalty against the company, so the Court imposed lower sanctions than ASIC requested, but still very substantial ones. The Court emphasised the serious, deliberate and continuing nature of the contraventions, their serious impact on the market, and the need for deterrence and public protection.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v M101 Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 8)
If your business offers an investment-style product, do not treat licensing, disclosure and marketing as separate workstreams. This case shows that ASIC may challenge both the legal structure of the product and the claims used to sell it. Labels such as note, bond, loan or credit facility do not decide the issue. Nor does a business avoid risk by relying on isolated disclaimers if the overall message suggests bank-like safety, assured repayment, low default risk or strong security. Businesses should review product design, investor communications, redemption practices, related-party funding flows and security claims together before launch and again whenever conditions change. Directors and controllers should also assume that their own role, knowledge and association with the conduct may be examined if ASIC seeks personal relief.
Outcome: Button J delivered judgment on 9 July 2025 and ordered the parties to make any further submissions on relief within 21 days. The judgment structure shows that the Court dealt in detail with ASIC's AFSL allegations, multiple categories of alleged misleading conduct, and the basis for personal relief against Mr Mawhinney. However, the available text is truncated and does not reproduce the full concluding analysis or any later final relief orders. As a result, this page does not state a definitive final list of contraventions established, against which parties they were established, or what final orders were ultimately made after the further submissions on relief.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macrolend Pty Ltd (No 3)
A business cannot avoid financial services regulation by describing an investment as a loan or promissory note if, in substance, the arrangement is a debenture, a security or another financial product. This case also shows that investor materials are judged by what they actually convey, not by the promoter's optimism. Here, the Court accepted declarations about unlicensed financial services conduct, an unregistered foreign company carrying on business in Australia, and misleading statements about asset values, use of funds and IPO timing. The director was not only restrained from unlicensed conduct but also disqualified from managing corporations for five years. If your business is fundraising, you should test the legal character of the instrument, confirm whether an AFSL is needed, verify every valuation and balance sheet statement against current records, and avoid forward-looking claims unless you have reasonable grounds documented at the time.
Outcome: The Federal Court made declarations in ASIC's favour across all three arrangements. It declared that the Kradle arrangement involved financial products, including a facility and rights or interests in shares, and that Macrolend dealt in those products without an AFSL. It declared that Macrolend's loan agreements and promissory notes, and Great Southland's promissory notes, were debentures and therefore securities and financial products. Great Southland was also declared to have carried on business in Australia without registration. The Court further declared that Macrolend and Mr Hodgson engaged in misleading conduct about Kradle's intangible asset value, the use of investor funds and proposed listing plans. Macrolend, Great Southland and Mr Hodgson were restrained from unlicensed financial services conduct, Great Southland was restrained from carrying on business in Australia unless registered, Mr Hodgson was disqualified from managing corporations for five years, Macrolend had to publish a website notice for 90 days, and the defendants were ordered to pay ASIC's costs.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Money3 Loans Pty Ltd (No 3)
The practical message for business owners is that responsible lending compliance is built file by file. If your business lends to consumers, the court's attention was on what information was collected, what was checked, how the customer's financial position was assessed, and whether the business could show that its representatives were trained and supervised to meet the law. This case also warns against over-reliance on broad assumptions about what a prudent lender would do unless those assumptions are tied to the legislation and the evidence. For broker-based models, internal product criteria and knockout rules are only part of the answer. You also need records showing how those rules were applied in real transactions, how declared expenses were treated, and how exceptions or warning signs were handled. If a dispute arises, the documents and conduct around the loan decision may matter more than the existence of a compliance manual.
Outcome: ASIC succeeded at least in part. The clearest indication is the order requiring ASIC to file a draft document setting out the declaratory relief it sought, consistent with the contraventions as established. But the matter was not finally concluded on 5 September 2025. The further hearing was adjourned to a date to be fixed, ASIC was ordered to file proposed declaratory relief by 10 October 2025, and a further case management hearing was listed for 30 October 2025. The published material also shows the court engaged critically with ASIC's pleading, the scale of the case, and the need for clear particularisation in civil penalty proceedings. The exact allegation-by-allegation result, and any final declarations, injunctions, compliance orders or pecuniary penalties, should be confirmed from the full reasons and later orders.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Open4Sale Global Ltd (No 2)
If your company is offering shares in Australia, do not assume fundraising compliance can be fixed later. This case involved admitted breaches of section 727(6) through offers and application forms being used without a lodged disclosure document, or without the form being included in or accompanied by the required document. The directors asked to be excused, but the Court was not satisfied they had acted honestly and noted they continued after receiving legal advice. The safest approach is to decide before launch whether the offer needs disclosure, whether an exception clearly applies, what disclosure document is permitted, whether it has been lodged with ASIC, and whether every application form is properly packaged with that document. Keep complete records of offers, investor communications and money received. Poor records and informal fundraising practices can make a bad compliance position much worse.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared that Open4Sale Global Ltd, Mr La Barrie and Mr Hafer each contravened section 727(6) on 101 occasions. It refused the directors' applications for relief from liability under sections 1317S and 1318 because it was not satisfied they had acted honestly. Mr La Barrie was disqualified from managing a corporation for 12 years and ordered to pay a $2,000,000 pecuniary penalty. Mr Hafer was disqualified for eight years and, according to the formal orders, ordered to pay an $800,000 pecuniary penalty, although one paragraph of the reasons refers to $600,000. The Court also granted injunctions restraining future non-compliant fundraising and requiring evidence to ASIC on request. No pecuniary penalty was imposed on the company itself.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v RAMS Financial Group Pty Ltd
Read this case as a warning about both procedure and compliance. On procedure, a business affected by a regulator case may still be shut out if it cannot show the kind of legal interest or practical assistance the Court requires. Commercial overlap with your own lawsuit is not enough by itself. On compliance, the more significant story is ASIC’s focus on RAMS as the Australian credit licensee. The allegations were not confined to isolated misconduct by individuals. They were framed as failures in controls, audits, file reviews, conflict management, training, supervision and responses to warning signs. If you run a networked business, your policies need to work in practice, not just on paper. If you are a franchisee or representative, keep detailed records of training, instructions, audits, escalations and responses to allegations, because those records may matter in later disputes even if you cannot participate in the regulator’s case.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Top Ryde's interlocutory application. It refused leave to intervene and also refused the alternative requests to be appointed as a contradictor or amicus curiae, or to stay the civil penalty proceedings pending the class action. The Court ordered Top Ryde to pay the costs incurred by ASIC and RAMS in responding to the application, as agreed or taxed. It also made a suppression order for 10 years over certain identifying information relating to RAMS franchises, franchise principals and loan writers referred to in specified parts of the agreed facts material. On the published reasons available here, the Court was not persuaded that Top Ryde's interests were sufficiently affected by declarations in the civil penalty case, despite the asserted overlap with the separate representative proceeding.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v RAMS Financial Group Pty Ltd (Penalty)
Business owners should read this case as a governance and operating-model decision, not just a referral-law decision. RAMS had a franchise-based credit distribution model and the Court focused on whether the licensed entity had actually built and supervised that model in a way that met the Credit Act. If your business relies on representatives, franchisees, contractors or introducers, the licence holder remains exposed where the network accepts leads from people who are not allowed to do more than a limited referral, or where internal controls around conflicts, privacy and compliance are inadequate. The judgment also shows that cooperation, remediation and self-initiated investigations matter, but they do not remove the need for a substantial deterrent penalty where the failures are serious and systemic.
Outcome: The Federal Court was satisfied that the agreed facts established contraventions and that the agreed aggregate penalty of $20 million was within the permissible range, with some exceptions in relation to the declarations sought. The Court ordered RAMS to pay the Commonwealth an aggregate pecuniary penalty of $20 million within 30 days in respect of conduct found to have contravened ss 31(1), 47(1)(a), 47(1)(b), 47(1)(e) and 47(4) of the Credit Act, and to pay ASIC's costs. It also directed the parties to provide short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons in relation to declarations of contravention. In addition, the Court made suppression and non-publication orders for 10 years over specified identifying information and temporarily suppressed linked materials pending redaction. The reasons stressed deterrence despite RAMS' cooperation, reviews, audits and remediation.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v TerraCom Limited (No 2)
If your business, directors or senior staff are defending a regulator claim, do not assume that winning means the other side will reimburse most of your legal costs on an indemnity basis from day one. This case shows that the Court may be highly critical of the losing party’s case and still stop short of whole-of-proceeding indemnity costs. A practical costs strategy matters. Consider formal offers of compromise, keep clear records of costs, and think carefully about whether to send written correspondence identifying fatal defects in the other side’s pleading or evidence. The Court said there is no general rule that regulators get special treatment on indemnity costs, but it also warned against hindsight. The stronger your contemporaneous record, the better your position if costs become contested.
Outcome: The Court ordered ASIC to pay the second to fifth defendants’ costs on a party-party basis up to 19 June 2025 and on an indemnity basis after that date. It refused to award indemnity costs for the whole proceeding, holding that the issue was finely balanced but the demanding test for earlier indemnity costs was not met. A material factor was that the defendants had not sent correspondence specifically driving home the weaknesses in ASIC’s case before 19 June 2025. The Court also rejected the argument that the 24 April 2025 mediation justified earlier indemnity costs, because mediation communications were privileged, and it rejected a claim for interest on costs. Final lump-sum costs were fixed at $1,340,998.28 for the second defendant, $1,398,908.18 for the third and fourth defendants, and $1,082,422.01 for the fifth defendant.
Australian Steel Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Selection Steel Trading Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this as a contract management case as much as an insolvency case. If you want your standard terms to govern future trading, make that clear at onboarding and keep a clean acceptance trail. Do not assume a purchase order automatically overrides a signed credit application, or that a signed credit application automatically wipes away earlier communications. If you are thinking about serving a statutory demand, first test whether there is any arguable dispute about the governing terms, delivery obligations, payment timing, defects, delay or set-off. If you receive a demand, act immediately. The court can set a demand aside where there is a genuine dispute or offsetting claim, but the response must be made within the statutory process and supported by evidence.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed Australian Steel's review application, set aside key orders made by the Judicial Registrar, and ordered under s 459H that Selection Steel's statutory demand dated 5 June 2024 be set aside. The court also ordered Selection Steel to pay 70% of Australian Steel's costs. O'Bryan J confirmed that the review was by way of hearing de novo, so the matter was considered afresh on the evidence and law at the time of review. The result shows that the demand could not stand as an insolvency mechanism on the material before the court. Because the available reasons are incomplete, the full judgment should be checked for the court's complete reasoning on whether the decisive basis was a genuine dispute, an offsetting claim, or both.
AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC (No 3)
If your business is in litigation, do not assume a settlement deed can clean up the court file after the event. This case shows the court may permit documents to be removed from the file, sealed and replaced with redacted versions, but only where the interference with open justice is limited and justified. It also shows that the status of a document matters. Material read in court engages open justice more directly than material merely filed and never read. In practice, businesses should identify privileged and confidential material early, keep affidavits and annexures as tight as possible, and be ready to explain each proposed redaction with precision. If settlement depends on confidentiality orders, that dependency should be managed carefully because the court may approve a narrower outcome than the parties first want.
Outcome: The court granted the relief in a narrowed form. In NSD 134 of 2025, two affidavits of Jack Pembroke-Birss dated 4 February 2025 and 12 February 2025 were removed from the file, sealed and stored by the New South Wales District Registrar, and replaced with redacted versions. In NSD 189 of 2025, the statement of claim filed on 11 February 2025 and an affidavit of Jack Pembroke-Birss dated 26 February 2025 were removed from the file and sealed, with the statement of claim replaced by a redacted version. CABC was granted leave to discontinue the general protections proceeding with no order as to costs and to file a notice of discontinuance within seven days. Bromwich J held that, after further debate and refinement of the redactions, the infringement on open justice was sufficiently confined relative to securing settlement and advancing the administration of justice.
Bain v International Capital Markets Pty Ltd (No 3)
Business owners should read this as a document-readiness case. The court did not decide whether ICM or Mr Budzinski were liable on the substantive claims. Instead, it decided what documents had to be produced so the case could move forward fairly and efficiently. The annexed categories show the kinds of records that can become important in a regulated dispute: onboarding and suitability processes, target market materials, disclosure documents, pricing and margin settings, complaints handling, compliance reviews, board oversight, financial reporting and communications with ASIC, the ACCC, FOS and AFCA. If your systems are disorganised, if key decisions are made on scattered channels, or if governance records are incomplete, discovery can become expensive and strategically damaging. Good retention, clear ownership of records and disciplined internal communications materially reduce that risk.
Outcome: The court ordered discovery against both respondents. ICM was required to give discovery of category 25 board documents by 9 July 2025, then a first tranche of the remaining Annexure A categories by 6 October 2025, and a second and final tranche by 8 December 2025. The order required discovery of documents of which, after a reasonable search, ICM was aware and that were or had been within its control. Mr Budzinski was ordered to give standard discovery by 6 October 2025. Both respondents had to serve verified lists of documents and produce documents electronically, excluding privileged material. The costs of the interlocutory application were made costs in the cause. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claims.
Bain v International Capital Markets Pty Ltd (No 4)
Business owners should read this as a data minimisation case as much as a privacy case. The Court did not decide the merits of the underlying class action. It decided a procedural question about what information was necessary for an opt out notice and whether the applicants' lawyers should receive the customer list. The answer turned on whether the extra data was needed now, for this notice, and whether disclosure was proportionate given the privacy, confidentiality and security concerns. The Court accepted that names, email addresses and client IDs were enough for the notice's purpose. It was not persuaded that adding account numbers, balances, deposits and withdrawals was necessary, and it was concerned there was no evidence about the applicants' security controls if the list were handed over. If your business handles customer data in disputes, match the data used to the exact purpose, keep the notice focused, and document security measures before sharing any list externally.
Outcome: The Court rejected the applicants' request for a highly personalised opt out notice and refused, on the material before it, to require that the potential group member list be provided to the applicants. Justice Neskovcin held that the more limited information proposed by the respondents was sufficient to ensure potential group members were accurately informed of their right to opt out and could make an informed decision. The Court accepted that the additional account and transaction details sought by the applicants were private, confidential and sensitive, and it was not persuaded that including them would materially reduce the risk of the email being treated as a scam. The Court also relied on the absence of evidence about the applicants' security measures if the list were disclosed. The parties were directed to confer about the covering email and subject heading and to submit proposed orders by 5 September 2025, with orders to be substantially in the form sought by the respondents.
Bakers Delight Holdings Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman
For business owners, the plain English point is this: missing payroll records can change who has to prove what in court. Under s 557C, if an employer was required to keep records or give pay slips about a matter and failed to do so, the employer bears the burden of disproving the allegation. The Full Court said that mechanism can still be used when the regulator is trying to establish the franchisee employer's contravention as the first element of a franchisor claim under s 558B. Franchisees should treat time, pay, leave and pay slip records as core compliance documents. Franchisors should review training, monitoring, complaint pathways and franchise arrangements so they can better show they took reasonable steps to prevent similar contraventions.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. It held that s 558B should be approached no differently to the accessorial liability provision in s 550 for this purpose. The Court concluded that the Fair Work Ombudsman can rely on s 557C against the employer franchisee and, if the contravention is established by that process, that is capable of satisfying s 558B(1)(a). The Court therefore upheld the primary judge's approach in substance. On the material reviewed, the judgment resolves the proof mechanism issue but does not itself finally determine all alleged underpayments, all liability questions or any penalties in the underlying proceeding.
BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Amendment and Strikeout)
The practical message is that pleadings, particulars and expert evidence must work together from an early stage. A business cannot safely assume that an expert report can later expand the claim into a new damages theory, particularly where the issue had been raised before but was not included in the operative pleading. The Court was willing to let BCI update some particulars and file a consolidated particulars document, but not to add a substantial new loss of value case late in the proceeding. The judgment also reinforces a basic but important drafting rule: material facts belong in the pleading, while particulars explain and support that pleaded case. If your dispute depends on an inferential chain, the foundational facts may need to be pleaded expressly. On the defence side, the case confirms that denials and non-admissions are not easily struck out where they are legitimately framed, especially on issues involving third-party knowledge.
Outcome: Needham J granted BCI only limited leave to amend. BCI was allowed to serve a further amended statement of claim and file a consolidated particulars document and Confidential Annexure D, but only after removing the proposed loss of value of business case. The Court held that this was not a mere alignment of pleadings with expert evidence, but a substantial new case raised late in the proceeding. The Court also required parts of paragraph 43 to be re-pleaded as material facts in the body of the pleading rather than left in particulars, and ordered the corresponding particulars to be omitted from the consolidated particulars document. BCI's separate strikeout application against parts of the defence was dismissed. The Court held that the denials were not untenable and that the non-admissions were not untenable where they concerned issues of third-party knowledge. Costs were awarded against BCI on both interlocutory applications, an earlier costs order was vacated, and BCI was also ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application to vacate the hearing.
BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Review of Registrar’s Decision)
If your business is in a court dispute, this case is a reminder to get the pleading right early. You need to state the material facts clearly enough to give fair notice, but you do not usually have to set out every piece of proof. If you want further particulars from the other side, you need to show more than curiosity or tactical advantage. You need to show the existing pleading is inadequate and that you cannot properly conduct your case without more detail. The decision also shows the value of good records. In a dispute about customer loss, discounts, sales presentations or competitor comparisons, your CRM records, internal emails, sales instructions and access logs may become central. Businesses using comparative sales material or competitor-derived information should get legal advice early, because those practices can lead to claims well beyond simple marketing disputes.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the respondents' application to review the registrar's decision. Needham J held that the review was a hearing de novo, but the respondents still bore the onus of showing that the current particulars were inadequate and that they could not conduct their case without further particulars. On the reasons available, the court was not persuaded that BCI was running an unpleaded inferential case in paragraphs 43(v) and 43(vi). The formal orders included dismissal of the review application and an order that the respondents pay BCI's costs of that application. The orders also left open a possible special costs application and raised confidentiality issues about publication of the reasons.
BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Strikeout)
The practical lesson is procedural discipline. This was a strikeout fight in a long-running case, not a final ruling on copyright infringement. The respondents argued that BCI still had not identified enough detail about alleged gaps in Cordell Connect and how LeadManager information was used to fill them, and they also challenged a parent-company profit allegation. The court dismissed the application with costs. On the available reasons, timing was a major problem for the respondents because similar allegations had been on foot for a long time, prior orders had set a timetable for pleading applications, and the respondents had already pleaded to the allegations and filed evidence addressing them. Businesses should take two points from that. First, if you want to attack a pleading, do it early and precisely. Second, if your systems, emails and project records may later be used to support inferences about product development conduct, assume those records will matter and manage them carefully from the start.
Outcome: Needham J dismissed the respondents’ interlocutory application with costs. On the available reasons, the court considered the application should have been brought earlier, particularly in light of orders requiring pleading applications to be filed by July 2025, the fact that materially similar allegations had long been on foot, and the respondents’ own decision to plead to those allegations and file evidence addressing them. The judgment and catchwords also indicate that paragraph 43 was treated as a proper inferential pleading because it identified foundational facts and the inference to be drawn. The decision does not determine the underlying copyright merits.
BDR21 v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3)
Read this case as a warning against casual reuse of litigation documents. The Court did not give a general right to repurpose discovered material. It granted a narrow, purpose-specific release for identified documents and two verification affidavits so the first applicant could attempt in good faith to make a public interest disclosure. The decision also makes an important timing point. PID Act immunity attaches to making a valid disclosure, not necessarily to the earlier work of gathering information from discovered documents. If your business is in a dispute, treat discovered material as locked to that case unless a court order, statute or clear legal advice says otherwise. If someone wants to use those documents for a whistleblower report, regulator complaint, internal integrity process or another proceeding, the safest course is to seek advice on whether court leave is needed and how tightly any proposed use must be confined.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the first applicant a limited release from the Hearne v Street obligation for the documents identified in Schedule 1 to the orders, including specified Tranche 01 and Tranche 02 discovery documents and two verification affidavits. The release was confined to the purpose of attempting in good faith to make a public interest disclosure under the PID Act. The Court otherwise dismissed the remaining parts of the amended interlocutory application dealing with the Hearne v Street issue and made no order as to costs on that aspect. The reasoning was that the PID Act immunity was not yet engaged before a valid disclosure had been made, and that special circumstances justified a tightly tailored release.
BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Mining and Energy Union
If your business relies on labour hire or mixed service models, this case is a warning not to rely on drafting alone. The Court's orders show that the challenge failed where the Commission had treated the statutory question as an evaluative one focused on the real purpose, object or function of the work performed. The available reasons indicate that the Commission looked closely at who determined mine and maintenance plans, who set priorities, whose systems and equipment were used, how workers were monitored, and whether the provider was delivering a genuinely separate service or mainly supplying labour into the host's business. Businesses should review both documents and day-to-day conduct. If provider personnel are embedded in your operations and work much like your own employees, there may be real exposure under the labour hire order regime.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. On the available judgment text, the Court was not satisfied that the applicants had established the asserted errors and held that no jurisdictional error had been shown. As a result, the Fair Work Commission's regulated labour hire arrangement orders remained in place. The Court also made suppression and non-publication orders for ten years over specified confidential material in the court record. Because the publicly available text is truncated, the full detail of the Court's reasoning on each ground is not completely visible, but the result and operative orders are clear.
Bickford’s Australia Pty Ltd v Trink Tank Pty Ltd
Treat court selection, timing and claim structure as part of your substantive brand strategy, not as an afterthought. In this case, the real commercial fight about the SPRITZ trade mark was overshadowed by a procedural contest over which court should hear overlapping disputes. The Federal Court transferred the unjustified threats case into itself because there was already another Federal Court case about the same mark and a real risk of inconsistent outcomes. But it dismissed Bickford’s own later Federal Court infringement proceeding because an associated matter was already pending in the FCFCoA, so the statutory bar applied. The practical lesson is to map all related proceedings before filing, consider whether your claim should be brought as a cross-claim instead of a fresh proceeding, and assume that tactical pre-emptive filings can produce adverse costs consequences even if they are technically open to you.
Outcome: The Federal Court transferred the FCFCoA proceeding to the Federal Court and dismissed Bickford’s separate Federal Court proceeding. O'Sullivan J held that the Noot Drinks proceeding was an associated matter because it concerned alleged infringement of the same SPRITZ trade mark, operated in what appeared to be a niche market, and raised validity issues that could materially affect the Trink Tank dispute. That justified transfer of the FCFCoA matter under s 32AC, particularly given the risk of inconsistent findings across two courts. The judge also held that Bickford’s later Federal Court proceeding had been instituted in the face of the statutory bar in s 32AA(1) and should therefore be dismissed. However, because the merits had not been determined, Bickford’s could still pursue its substantive claim by cross-claim in the transferred proceeding if advised. Trink Tank was ordered to pay Bickford’s interlocutory costs, and if Bickford’s filed a cross-claim, Trink Tank was also to pay the thrown-away costs on an indemnity basis.
Bilal v Ampol Limited
Business owners should read this as a procedure-heavy but very practical case. It does not say whistleblower claims are weak. It says they must be pleaded and defended with precision. If an employee has raised concerns about misconduct, improper conduct or compliance issues, and later alleges detriment, your business should immediately map the timeline: what was disclosed, to whom, when each manager learned of it, what decisions were made, and why. If dismissal is involved, check whether there is already a Fair Work general protections case, because that may affect what can be claimed elsewhere. If workers compensation or insurer communications are also in the mix, treat them as part of the same risk picture. A defective claim may be struck out, but that often means the dispute continues in amended form. The safest approach is disciplined process, consistent reasons, and early legal review across all overlapping proceedings.
Outcome: The respondents succeeded in part. The Court summarily dismissed the parts of the proceeding that sought relief in relation to Mr Bilal's dismissal where those claims were barred by the Fair Work Act's multiple-actions provisions. It also summarily dismissed claims for relief based on detriment allegedly caused by conduct that occurred before the relevant disclosure or proposed disclosure was made. The Court then struck out the statement of claim in its entirety because it was defective in form and substance. However, the proceeding was not finally ended. Mr Bilal was ordered to serve a proposed amended statement of claim, with a timetable for the respondents to consent or oppose and for further case management if amendment was contested.
Bilal v EML NSW Limited
If your business is sued over whistleblower protections, workplace rights representations or alleged personal involvement by managers, start with two separate questions. First, does the pleading clearly identify the disclosure, representation, decision-maker and facts said to satisfy each legal element? Second, even if the pleading is poor, is the claim truly incapable of succeeding, or does it still raise factual issues that need a trial? This case shows that courts may strike out a defective pleading but still allow the claimant to try again. Businesses should therefore preserve documents, map the chronology, identify who knew what and when, and avoid assuming that a pleading victory ends the dispute. If considering an interlocutory application, be precise about whether you seek strike-out, summary dismissal, or both, and make sure the application does not depend on contested factual findings that are better left for trial.
Outcome: Shariff J ordered that the statement of claim filed on 23 April 2025 be struck out in its entirety. The Court then set a timetable for Mr Bilal to serve a proposed amended statement of claim, for the respondents to state whether they consented to that amendment, and for any application for leave to amend if consent was withheld. A further case management hearing was listed for 20 November 2025. The Court accepted that the pleading was defective, including in relation to the whistleblower claims, the section 345 Fair Work claims and the accessorial liability allegations against the individual respondents. However, the Court was not satisfied that the claims should be summarily dismissed in whole or in part, because aspects of the respondents' arguments would have required contested factual issues to be determined on an interlocutory application.
BlueScope Steel Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Businesses should read this case as a warning about pricing communications that go beyond announcing your own prices and move into trying to shape how others price in the market. The appeal focused heavily on the difference between a completed understanding and an attempt to induce one. The court dismissed arguments that the ACCC had to prove a sought commitment, assurance or quid pro quo before an attempt could be made out. In practical terms, that means risk can arise earlier than many managers expect. If your team is encouraging distributors, importers or suppliers to use your list prices as a floor, benchmark or market reference point, especially where those parties compete with each other, you should assume competition law issues may arise and get advice before those communications occur.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed both appeals. BlueScope's appeal was dismissed with costs, and Mr Ellis' appeal was also dismissed with costs. The court upheld the challenged findings arising from the ACCC proceedings, including findings that BlueScope and Mr Ellis had attempted to induce seven distributors, one joint venture importer and one overseas flat steel mill to arrive at understandings containing cartel provisions. The court also dealt with penalty-related issues, including a limitation argument and a non-indemnification issue, but the overall result remained that the appeals failed. For practical purposes, the primary findings of attempted inducement stood.
Bowcher (liquidator), in the matter of Blacktrans Express Pty Ltd (in liq) v Black
If your company enters liquidation, do not treat company books, passwords, keys, vehicles, trailers, plant or records as if they remain yours to hold back, sort out later or move elsewhere. This case shows that where liquidators make repeated requests and the evidence suggests assets or books are being withheld, concealed or moved, the Court may authorise a search and seizure warrant without first notifying the director. The orders can go beyond the search itself. Here, the Court also made confidentiality orders to avoid tipping off the defendant, required the liquidators to report back on what was seized, and ordered the defendant to later file an affidavit identifying the whereabouts of outstanding vehicles and keys and the basis for any ownership dispute. For business owners, the safest approach is clear asset registers, proper separation of personal and company property, prompt written cooperation with liquidators, and early legal advice if there is a genuine dispute about ownership or access.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the liquidators' application. Derrington J allowed the matter to proceed ex parte, ordered the District Registrar to issue a section 530C warrant, and authorised the liquidators, with reasonably necessary assistance including police assistance, to search for and seize the listed vehicles and company books in the defendant's possession, custody or control at the Rand property. The Court also made confidentiality orders over the application materials until after execution reporting, required the liquidators to file an affidavit reporting on execution and listing what had been seized, and ordered later service of the court documents on the defendant. In addition, the Court made a section 597A order requiring the defendant, after service, to file an affidavit identifying the whereabouts of any outstanding vehicles and keys, possible holders of them, and the basis with supporting documents for any claim that they were not company property.
Butler v Total Tools Holdings Pty Ltd
If your business wants to reward a director, executive or adviser with equity on a future sale or IPO, use a full written incentive agreement and make the corporate approvals match it. This case shows that a resolution saying the board is authorised to issue an equity-based instrument is not the same as a promise that the company must issue shares. It also shows that resignation before the trigger event can be decisive unless the documents clearly preserve the entitlement. Businesses should spell out the exact instrument, the trigger event, whether the board has discretion, what happens on resignation or removal, and whether the right survives a delayed, restructured or staged transaction. If the commercial intention is mandatory vesting, say so directly. If the intention is only to permit the board to act later, say that just as clearly. Do not assume the constitution or a shareholder resolution will give the recipient a clean enforcement path.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Butler's proceeding. The published catchwords state that the shareholders' resolution did not require Total Tools to issue shares to Butler upon completion of the trade sale in circumstances where he had resigned before successful financial close. The court also held that Butler was not entitled to sue upon the company's constitution or the shareholders' resolution. The formal orders made on 9 October 2025 dismissed the proceeding and required Butler to pay Total Tools' costs, to be assessed if not agreed. In practical terms, Butler did not obtain the shares or other relief he sought.
Byrnes (Administrator), in the matter of Salads of Australia Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed)
If your business is facing a distressed sale, do not assume the standard administration timetable will suit the transaction. This case shows that an extension can be granted, but only where there is clear evidence that extra time is likely to improve outcomes for creditors and support a sensible sale process. The Court balanced the usual expectation of speed against the risk that rushing the process would prejudice creditors. It was important that the receivers explained the proposed multi-stage sale, the expected 7 to 8 month timeframe, the practical difficulty of launching in December, the likely effect of the new merger control regime, the absence of creditor opposition, and the prospect that liquidation would be worse for creditors. Businesses should read this as a planning case. Map the group structure, identify where value sits, work out who controls records and the sale process, assess whether competition approval may affect signing or completion, and document stakeholder support. Extra time is possible, but it is not automatic.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the extension. It ordered that the period within which the administrators had to convene the second meetings of creditors be extended to 11.59 pm on 22 October 2026. It also ordered that the meetings could be convened and held during the extended period and up to five business days after it ended, provided at least five business days' notice was given to creditors and persons claiming to be creditors. The Court held that the prospects of a better outcome for creditors through a longer administration outweighed the general expectation of a prompt resolution. It relied on the size and complexity of the underlying business, the need for additional time to execute the sale process, the likelihood that liquidation would prejudice creditors, the absence of creditor opposition, the views of the experienced administrators and receivers, and the explained timing uncertainty created by the new merger regime. The Court also made a limited confidentiality order over parts of a shareholder dispute notice until the sale was completed or abandoned.
Caporaso Pty Ltd v Mercato Centrale Australia Pty Ltd (No 3)
If your business is thinking about suing for trade mark infringement, do not only ask whether the other side's branding looks too similar. Also ask whether your own registration is vulnerable on validity, ownership or registrability grounds. This case shows that even where an applicant had some success on deceptive similarity, the overall result can still go against it if the registration is cancelled. It also shows that costs are heavily influenced by litigation discipline. Adding ACL, passing off or personal claims may increase pressure early, but if those claims are dropped late the Court may treat the resulting work as wasted and order you to pay for it. Keep the case focused, test your evidence early, and assume a defendant may counterattack by challenging the registration itself.
Outcome: The Court ordered Caporaso to pay 80% of Mercato Centrale Australia's costs of and incidental to the originating application and the cross-claim, to be taxed if not agreed. It also ordered Caporaso to pay Mr Muto's costs of the originating application on a party-party basis, to be taxed if not agreed. The Court accepted that Mercato Centrale had failed on some significant and discrete issues, so full recovery of its costs was not appropriate. But it also found that Caporaso's late abandonment of substantial claims had caused wasted costs. That was why the Court rejected Caporaso's proposed 50% apportionment and fixed the figure at 80% instead.
Cathro, in the matter of Stormon Industries Pty Ltd (in liq)
If your business trades through a corporate trustee, do not assume insolvency will be administered in the same way as an ordinary company with assets in its own name. This case shows that an insolvency-triggered removal clause in the trust deed can leave the company as only a bare trustee, which may stop liquidators from dealing with trust assets unless the Court steps in. Owners should understand their trust deed before financial distress arises, especially any clause that removes the trustee on liquidation and any mechanism for appointing a replacement trustee. Creditors and advisers should identify early whether the company traded only as trustee, whether trust assets are central to recoveries, and whether a court application may be needed before those assets can be realised and distributed.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. Acting Chief Justice Collier appointed the liquidators as joint and several receivers and managers of the property of the D & G Stormon Family Discretionary Trust and any other property held by the company on trust. The Court gave them powers equivalent to receivers’ powers under section 420 of the Corporations Act, with specified exclusions, including power to sell trust property, determine and pay claims, distribute proceeds to creditors in accordance with section 556 priorities, and distribute any surplus to beneficiaries. The Court also made directions under section 90-15 of Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act about treatment of the trust assets and liabilities, ordered payment of costs and remuneration from trust property, and allowed creditors or other interested persons to apply to vary the orders.
CCMSM Commercial Pty Ltd as Trustee for the CCMSM Commercial Trust v Registrar of Trade Marks
Do not assume that an acronym-based mark becomes safe just because you add a family name, model name or descriptive wording. This case shows that if the earlier mark still stands out within your proposed mark, the extra wording may not solve the problem. Businesses should clear both visual similarity and spoken similarity before filing, and should review the full goods description of earlier registrations, not just the exact products they currently sell. The case also shows that evidence about careful purchasers and industry shorthand has limits. Even where buyers research expensive products and even where part of a mark may have some descriptive flavour in the market, the Court can still find a real likelihood that some buyers would wonder about common trade origin. If you use layered branding such as house brand plus range plus model, each layer needs checking.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the appeal. Bennett J stated that, in the circumstances confronting the notional buyer of class 12 goods, the applicant marks were deceptively similar to the CR-V mark under section 44 of the Trade Marks Act. The refusal to register CRV GLADIATOR FAMILY and CRV FAMILIA therefore stood. The Court also ordered a timetable for written submissions and any evidence on costs, with costs to be decided on the papers, and extended the time for filing any appeal to 28 February 2026. The available text shows the Court accepted some of the applicant’s market evidence, but those points did not prevent the finding of deceptive similarity.
CIP Group Pty Ltd v So (No 10)
If your company is bringing a major claim and has limited assets, do not assume that once security for costs is ordered the issue is finished. The Court may increase security later if the case becomes bigger, more complex or longer. Independent costs evidence can carry real weight, and a general argument that security should be heavily discounted may fail if the accepted figures already represent estimated recoverable party-and-party costs. If you are defending a claim, this case shows that you can seek extra protection where existing security no longer matches the likely recoverable costs through trial. If you want to resist an increase, evidence matters. In this case, the applicants did not show that they could not provide the extra security or that the proceeding would be stultified. The Court also gave limited value to a personal undertaking from Mr Clancy because earlier doubts about its worth had not been dispelled. Commercially, the lesson is to treat security for costs as a live budgeting issue throughout the life of a case, especially after major amendments, added parties or a longer hearing estimate.
Outcome: The Court granted both applications. It ordered the applicants to provide additional security of $251,000 for the first and fourteenth to twentieth respondents and $916,000 for the twenty-second and twenty-third respondents by 31 October 2025. It also varied an earlier order so that the existing $175,000, with accretions, would be held as security for the costs of each of the twenty-second and twenty-third respondents. The Court rejected the applicants’ argument for a broad discount to the accepted party-and-party cost estimates, although it applied a modest 5% discount to the TM parties’ assessed quantum because of delay. It further held that, if a material change in circumstances were required, that requirement was satisfied by the longer trial estimate and the considerable expansion of the claims.
CleanFin Pty Ltd v Forest Carbon Methodology Pty Ltd (No 2)
Read this case as a warning about governance, profit flows and litigation readiness. If directors are involved in multiple entities, keep clear records showing which company owned the opportunity, what conflicts were disclosed, and how any profits were approved and distributed. If profits move through holding companies, nominee companies, trustees or superannuation structures, those pathways may become central if a dispute later arises. In litigation, do not assume the case is fixed by the original pleading. If later documents reveal new recipients of alleged profits, the Court may permit joinder and amendment, especially where the timing is explained. Businesses should also treat discovery and security for costs as strategic issues, not side matters. They can shape whether a case proceeds smoothly, becomes more expensive, or is stayed until security is provided.
Outcome: The Court granted CleanFin leave to bring proceedings on behalf of FCM against Bundaleer Nominees Pty Ltd, Shirley Tyndall as trustee of the Tyndall Family Superannuation Fund, and Mirriyindi Super Pty Ltd. In the substantive proceeding, those parties were joined as the fifth, sixth and seventh defendants. The Court granted leave to file a further amended originating process and a further amended statement of claim, but excluded proposed paragraph 71 and required additional particulars for some allegations. The Court also ordered further and better discovery and discovery of additional categories of documents. It ordered further security for costs in the form proposed by the plaintiff, while keeping earlier sums already paid into court in place. If that security was not provided, the proceeding would be stayed.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v Urrbrae Foods Pty Ltd
If your business wants broad patent protection, make sure the specification does more than describe a promising example. It should disclose a workable technical approach that can fairly support the full width of the claims. This case shows that a patent application may survive a support attack where accepted expert evidence demonstrates that the invention can reasonably be performed across the claim range, even if not every embodiment was actually made before filing. But it also shows the risk of leaving that work until opposition or appeal. Keep detailed R&D records, identify the principle said to apply across variants, and consider whether your examples really justify claims that extend beyond the tested material. If there is a challenge, the hearing may turn on whether the skilled person is being taught an invention or merely being sent off to try their luck. Broad claims can be valuable, but only if the technical foundation is there.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the appeal. Beach J set aside the delegate's 14 April 2025 decision, ordered that Australian patent application no 2017292900 proceed to grant, and made no order as to costs. The Court accepted Professor Peter Sharp's evidence that, by using the breeding and selection program described in the patent application, a skilled person could produce grain with the claimed phenotype in any variety of bread wheat, including EGA Hume. The Court also accepted his explanation that the failure in Example 4 likely related to the small scale of that experiment. On that basis, the Court held that the claims were supported across their scope.
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Endeavour Energy Network Management Pty Ltd
Do not assume your overtime settings are safe just because they have been used for years without challenge. In this case, the employer’s long-standing daily method survived, but the Court treated the wording as imperfect and worked through the whole agreement to reach that result. Businesses should review how ordinary hours, roster cycles, overtime triggers, weekend rates, public holiday rates and continuous overtime provisions fit together. If employees work under a nine-day fortnight or any averaging arrangement, check whether the agreement clearly says when double time starts and whether overtime is assessed by day, week or some other period. Payroll teams should not rely on labels like ordinary weekly hours in isolation. The safer approach is to test the clause against real roster examples and fix unclear drafting during bargaining rather than after an underpayment claim starts.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the originating application. On the reasoning visible in the judgment, Kennett J held that Endeavour’s construction was the more natural reading of the overtime table when the enterprise agreements were read as a whole. The Court considered that a weekly aggregation approach created structural problems, including making the continuous overtime row redundant and reducing the independent work done by other rows. The Court also noted that the phrase ordinary weekly hours was not straightforward in an agreement where hours were averaged over a two week roster cycle. The result was that Endeavour’s daily or particular-occasion approach to the first two overtime hours prevailed, although the Court said that conclusion could only be stated with modest confidence.
Cussen, in the matter of Monarch Tower Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
Treat service and notice as critical parts of an insolvency claim, not administrative clean-up. If you are bringing a voidable transaction proceeding, filing within time is only one step. You also need to serve promptly and comply with the specific court rules, especially where the limitation period has already expired and you are relying on an extension order. If you are on the receiving end of a claim, check exactly when the proceeding was filed, whether your entity was covered by any extension order, whether you had notice of any earlier extension application, and whether service happened when the rules required. This case also shows that a successful appeal on a procedural fairness point may only send the matter back for re-hearing. It does not necessarily decide the substantive claim in anyone’s favour.
Outcome: The Full Court granted the necessary extensions of time and leave to appeal in all six matters, but dismissed five of the six appeals. It found no merit, save for one appeal, in the challenges to the primary judge’s refusal to extend time for service and the consequential summary dismissal of the proceedings. The exception was the separate Sinoace BVI appeal, VID 754/2024. In that matter, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the relevant orders, and remitted the application to extend time under s 588FF(1), in relation to voidable transactions involving Monarch and Sinoace BVI, to a different judge for determination. That was a procedural remittal, not a final merits win.
Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd
A business owner should read this case as a warning against treating patent risk as a last-minute legal issue. The Court dealt with four patents, multiple validity grounds, infringement allegations, and a separate unjustified threats claim. Dyno Nobel had raised many invalidity arguments, but the judge recorded that several were abandoned by the close of trial and that some closing submissions went beyond the pleaded case. In a complex technical dispute, that matters. Courts expect parties to identify their case properly and give the other side fair notice. The practical lesson is to prepare early. Before launch, import, supply or customer rollout, check the patent landscape, map your product features against relevant claims, preserve design and testing documents, and get advice before sending aggressive letters to a competitor. If a dispute starts, keep your technical theory, evidence and pleadings aligned from the outset.
Outcome: According to the Court's synopsis, Orica achieved almost complete success in its infringement case in relation to the 079, 165 and 943 patents, but did not succeed in its infringement case in relation to the 873 patent. The judge also said Dyno Nobel's validity attacks on the patents failed completely, and that its unjustified threats claim failed. The hearing was on liability only. On 14 July 2025, the Court made confidentiality-related orders, directed the parties to identify proposed redactions, and required draft orders giving effect to the reasons by 21 July 2025. The broad liability result is clear, but the final entered orders and any later appeal activity should be checked before relying on the precise relief granted.
EIS Gmbh v LELO Oceania Pty Ltd (Costs)
If your business is in a patent dispute, this case is a reminder to run a disciplined case, not the widest possible case. The Court accepted that the respondents were the successful parties overall, but still cut their recoverable costs by 40% because several arguments and evidentiary attacks failed and added materially to the burden of the litigation. The Court expressly said parties in patent litigation should be encouraged to pursue their best points only, not all arguable points. It also refused indemnity costs based on a settlement offer because, when the offer was made, important evidence had not yet been filed and it was not unreasonable for EIS to keep fighting. Commercially, that means businesses should test each pleaded issue, each expert, each experiment and each settlement position against likely cost consequences. A technical win can still become a weaker commercial result if the case was overrun.
Outcome: The Federal Court made a global costs order in each proceeding and ordered EIS to pay 60% of the respondents' costs of the originating application and the notice of cross-claim, as taxed if not agreed. The Court rejected EIS's push for separate costs orders because the infringement case and revocation cross-claim shared a common substratum of fact and separating them would add unnecessary complexity and expense on taxation. It also rejected the respondents' claim to full costs, holding that a 40% discount was appropriate because several invalidity grounds, claims about statements made by EIS, and attacks on experiments failed, and because the involvement of a second expert expanded the case. The Court refused indemnity costs based on the 19 September 2024 settlement offer because it was not unreasonable for EIS to reject the offer at that stage of the evidence.
Electra Cables (Aust.) Pty Limited v Minister for Industry and Innovation
If your business imports from a related overseas supplier, do not assume the transfer price on the invoice will control the anti-dumping analysis. The regulator may instead work from your Australian resale price and deduct only those amounts the statute allows. Keep clear records of resale prices, post-export costs, profit calculations and exchange-rate methodology. If you are considering a challenge, identify every report or recommendation that had legal effect, not just the final ministerial notice. Also be careful about relying on this case for the final answer on the substantive calculation issues, because the available reasons do not show the completed relief outcome.
Outcome: The clearest confirmed outcome in the available reasons is that Lee J held both the Anti-Dumping Review Panel's report and the Commissioner's report were amenable to judicial review because they operated as conditions precedent to the Minister's impugned decision. The available reasons also indicate that, on Ground One, the court accepted the respondents' submissions concerning the interpretation of 'costs, charges or expenses' in s 269TAB(2)(b). However, the available reasons are incomplete and stop before the full analysis of all grounds and before final relief was determined. The orders made on 24 December 2025 required further evidence and submissions on relief and adjourned the proceeding part-heard for a further hearing in February 2026.
Elks, in the matter of Moreton Resources Limited (Receivers Appointed)
If your business is thinking about seeking public examinations, treat the application as a serious forensic step, not an information-gathering shortcut. Be precise about who falls under s 596A and who must instead be pursued under s 596B. If you rely on the discretionary route, expect the court to examine purpose, scope, fairness and whether the process is being used to rerun old fights. If the application is made ex parte, disclose the full litigation history and any facts that may tell against the orders you want. If your business receives an examination summons or production order, do not assume it must simply comply without question. Check the statutory basis, the breadth of the document categories, whether the material really relates to examinable affairs, and whether the application omitted important context. This decision shows that overreach, material non-disclosure and attempts to revisit decided issues can justify setting orders aside.
Outcome: The court allowed the challenge in part. Wheatley J extended time for the applicants to seek review or discharge of the Registrar's January 2025 orders. The court then set aside the Registrar's order requiring the identified s 596B examinees, other than Brent van Staden, to attend for examination, and discharged the s 596B summonses issued to the listed individuals. The court also set aside all production orders made on 9 January 2025, including orders directed to proper officers of several firms and companies. However, the court did not wholly undo the s 596A examinations. Instead, it directed under s 596F(1)(a) that the examinations of Mr Kirk, Mr Joiner, Mr Orr and Mr Sparks must not include matters already considered and determined in the earlier Queensland Supreme Court decisions. Costs were reserved.
Epic Games, Inc v Google LLC
Business owners should read this case as a warning about cumulative competition risk. A single rule may look commercially sensible on its own, such as a security requirement, a compatibility standard or a payment process. But when that rule sits alongside default placement, restrictions on rival distribution, anti-steering terms, non-negotiable contracts and incentive payments, the overall arrangement may attract close scrutiny. If your business operates a platform or ecosystem, review whether your terms are genuinely directed to security, quality or interoperability, and whether they go further than necessary. If your business depends on a larger platform, keep records of warnings, technical barriers, pre-installation conditions, payment restrictions, negotiations and any limits on customer communication. In competition disputes, those practical details often matter as much as the written contract.
Outcome: The public orders confirm that Beach J delivered judgment on 12 August 2025, stood over the further hearing to a date to be fixed, reserved costs, and imposed a disclosure and publication restriction over the written reasons apart from the oral summary and republication of that summary. The public reasons clearly show the dispute's scope, the contractual arrangements in issue and the competition law framework. However, the publicly available text is truncated before the concluding analysis, so this page does not state the final disposition of each pleaded claim, the market definitions ultimately accepted, or any final relief. Those points need confirmation before the case can be treated as a concluded public authority note.
Ergon Energy Queensland Pty Ltd v Australian Energy Regulator
Read this case as a warning against relying on narrow legal arguments to avoid an investigation notice. If money can continue to arrive through an automated payment mechanism after a customer relationship ends, your business should be able to detect that quickly, work out whether the customer still owes anything, stop the payment stream where possible, notify affected customers where required, and refund or otherwise deal with the money under the applicable rules. You should also be able to show your regulator what policies, systems, procedures, audits and remediation steps were in place. The Court accepted that the notice could stand because the circumstances described may amount to a contravention. It did not finally determine liability. So the real lesson is operational: build systems that prevent closed accounts from continuing to receive payments unnoticed, and keep records that show how your business monitors and fixes issues when they arise.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Ergon's application and held that the notice was valid. Moore J did not accept Ergon's argument that the relevant people were outside the concept of 'customer' in rule 31 merely because they were no longer current customers when the payments were received. The Court also did not accept Ergon's construction of 'overcharged'. The judgment states that circumstances falling within the scope of the notice may amount to a contravention of rule 31, which was enough to support the validity of the notice. Importantly, the Court also said that whether Ergon's conduct in fact gave rise to an overcharge remained to be seen. Ergon was ordered to pay the AER's costs.
ETO Group Pty Ltd v ETO Gruppe Technologies GmbH
If your trade mark is challenged for non-use, keep the focus on both evidence and procedure. You should be able to produce dated examples showing the registered mark being used in Australia for the registered goods or services, not just a broader brand concept or a different logo version. This case also shows that on a section 104 appeal the Court hears the matter afresh, and the non-use applicant remains the moving party in substance even if the trade mark owner is the appellant. Here, that was important because the removal applicant did not continue to prosecute the case. Businesses should read this as a reminder to maintain a practical brand evidence file, review whether the exact registered mark is being used, and not assume that an adverse Trade Marks Office decision is necessarily the end of the dispute.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed ETO Group's appeal. Justice Markovic set aside the delegate's 11 February 2025 decision and dismissed the non-use application filed by ETO Gruppe Technologies on 29 August 2023. The Court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to reverse the delegate's decision without determining the merits through a full contested hearing. That was because the respondent remained the moving party but no longer wished to prosecute the non-use application, the Registrar did not seek to intervene, the delegate's earlier finding of non-use was not itself a barrier to allowing the appeal, and there was evidence of use of the trade mark in Australia during the relevant period that had been explained by ETO Group. Costs were reserved for later submissions if the parties could not agree.
EV20 Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Paperless Warehousing Pty Ltd
The practical message is twofold. On the substance, software support work can create copyright, confidentiality and licence risk, especially where former employees move to a new provider and continue servicing customers using software developed by their old employer. On the procedure, default judgment is not automatic, but it is very real. If your lawyers stop acting, you need to file a new address for service quickly and keep responding to directions. If you are seeking default judgment, you still need a properly pleaded case and relief that matches the pleadings and evidence. Broad requests for declarations, injunctions or other final relief may be cut back. Businesses should read this case as a warning to keep software ownership documents, customer licence terms, employment restraints and confidentiality arrangements in order before a dispute starts, and to maintain active case management once proceedings begin.
Outcome: Burley J dismissed EV20's claim under r 5.23(1) and ordered EV20 to pay the costs of that claim. The Court refused Paperless' request for indemnity costs because no basis for that order had been put forward. On the cross-claim, the Court granted default judgment only in part. The reasons state that judgment should be entered against EV20 and Mr Symons in respect of copyright infringement and breach of confidential information, with appropriate orders to be made under r 5.23(2)(c) and (d). The Court said it would make no orders in relation to Mr McKerrell or Mr Pearce. The reasons also show a cautious approach to declarations, injunctions and other relief, tied to the specificity of the pleadings and the evidence. The exact final orders should be checked.
EV20 Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Paperless Warehousing Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business develops, resells, customises or supports software, do not assume the risk sits only with the company that signs the customer contract. This case shows that individuals can be drawn into liability where the pleaded case says they approved, directed, controlled or knew about the conduct, and those allegations stand unanswered. It also shows that confidential technical material is broader than source code alone. It can include passwords and licence-control mechanisms. In practice, keep software ownership and licence scope clear, restrict access to source code and credentials, document who is authorised to make technical and customer-facing decisions, and act quickly if litigation starts. A default judgment can produce injunctions, destruction orders, damages inquiries and costs without a full merits contest.
Outcome: The Court varied the earlier default judgment decision. It confirmed that Paperless was entitled to default judgment against Mr Symons for authorising copyright infringement and misuse of confidential information, but on a corrected reasoning basis. It also changed the earlier result for Mr Pearce and held that Paperless was entitled to default judgment against him for authorising copyright infringement. EV20's own claim against Paperless was dismissed. The Court made permanent injunctions restraining reproduction, communication and authorisation of the identified software works, and restraining EV20 and Mr Symons from using the identified confidential information. It also ordered an inquiry into damages, including additional or exemplary damages, or an account of profits at Paperless's election, delivery up or destruction of relevant material, and costs. The orders carried a penal notice warning of serious consequences for disobedience.
EV20 Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Paperless Warehousing Pty Ltd (No 3)
The practical lesson is to make authority to instruct lawyers clear, current and documented. If a director wants a senior manager, consultant, investor or operational lead to deal with the lawyers day to day, record that authority in writing. Keep ASIC records up to date and revisit authority when directors change, invoices go unpaid, or someone new says they have taken over the business. This case shows that a court may infer implied actual authority from the surrounding conduct, especially where the director knew the lawyers were acting and allowed senior people to run the matter. But relying on inference is risky and expensive. A short written confirmation, sole director resolution or board resolution can avoid a later argument about whether the lawyers were properly retained. Businesses should also remember that a later ratification may help, but it is safer to confirm authority before major litigation steps are taken.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Paperless' interlocutory application. Burley J held that Gillis Delaney was authorised to act for EV20 and rejected all three authority challenges. The court found that authority at the start of the case could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, including the roles of the people instructing the firm, the executed costs agreement, payment of funds, the sole director's knowledge and involvement, and the conduct of the litigation over time. The court also accepted that Rod Peters could take over giving instructions after confirmation from authorised individuals, and said that the February 2024 email from Zoran Markovic would in any event have been sufficient ratification if ratification had been needed. The unreasonable conduct allegation was also dismissed. Paperless was ordered to pay Gillis Delaney's costs of the application.
Fanca Technologies Pty Ltd v CFH Airtechnic Australia Pty Ltd
If your business sells modular or configurable equipment, do not assume patent risk disappears because the customer performs the final assembly step. This case shows that a claimant may be allowed to allege, in the alternative, that a supplier either delivered an infringing configuration itself or enabled, authorised or anticipated the customer doing so. The Court accepted that manuals, optional parts, project tender requirements and product photographs may be enough to let those allegations proceed to trial. That is not the same as a finding of infringement. It is a warning about litigation risk and pleading exposure. Businesses should review how products are described, what combinations are offered, whether accessories are sold separately, what installation pathways are contemplated, and what records exist showing who assembled which configuration for which customer.
Outcome: Perram J granted the applicants leave to amend their amended originating application and most of their amended statement of claim. The Court rejected the respondents' challenges to the authorisation case and the joint tortfeasor case, holding that the alternative customer-assembly scenario was pleaded with sufficient clarity. The Court also allowed most of the s 117 case to proceed, including reliance on manuals and tender documents as capable of supporting the pleaded inferences at this stage. The broader pleading of a class of potentially infringing products was also allowed to stand, although the Court indicated that more specific particularisation may be required after discovery. The one substantive exception was proposed particular (ii) to paragraph 23, which was not permitted. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs thrown away, if any, with other costs to be costs in the cause.
Ford Kinter & Associates Pty Ltd, in the matter of Reliance Franchise Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) v Reliance Franchise Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)
If your business is owed money by a company in liquidation, this case shows that funding a liquidator can sometimes improve your position, but only where the facts justify it. You do not get priority merely because you spent money. The Court will look closely at whether your funding actually enabled a recovery, how much risk you assumed, whether anyone else could realistically have funded the work, and what effect priority would have on the rest of the creditor pool. Ford Kinter succeeded because it was effectively the only plausible unrelated creditor, funded the process before any recovery was assured, continued funding after only "properly arguable" advice, and the funded action produced a substantial settlement. Businesses should read this as a strategic option in the right insolvency, not a routine debt collection step. Before funding, ask what claim is being pursued, what the prospects are, what security or top-up obligations may arise, how repayment is proposed, and whether a later s 564 application is realistically supportable.
Outcome: The Court granted the orders sought by Ford Kinter. Anderson J held that the requirements of s 564(a) were met because Ford Kinter's funding under the original funding agreement and the deed of variation, together with the recoveries under the settlement deed, brought the case within the section. The Court then exercised its discretion in Ford Kinter's favour. It emphasised the substantial risk Ford Kinter took, the fact it was the only plausible creditor willing to fund the liquidators, the evidence that there likely would have been no recoveries without that funding, the full recovery achieved in the Fopar proceeding, and the relatively limited practical impact on other unsecured creditors. The Court ordered that, after payment of any remaining claims under s 556(1), Ford Kinter be paid $1,552,289.56 in priority to other unsecured creditors, with any balance then distributed pari passu. Ford Kinter's costs of the application were also given the same priority.
Fortescue Limited v Element Zero Pty Limited (No 3)
If your business is in a hard-fought commercial dispute, document management can become as important as the underlying claim. This case shows that search orders are not a shortcut around ordinary discovery. A party asking to inspect seized material after discovery has already been given needs a strong factual basis for saying more relevant documents probably exist. On the other side, a business that can show a disciplined discovery process is in a much better position. In practice, that means knowing where key records are stored, preserving them early, separating business and personal data where possible, and keeping a clear record of search steps taken. If technical development, confidential information or patent-related work is involved, consistent record keeping and version control can make a real difference when the Court assesses whether your discovery has been adequate.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Fortescue's application for leave to inspect the seized material. Markovic J was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for being fairly certain that other relevant documents had not been discovered, particularly given the comprehensive discovery processes already undertaken. The Court also refused leave for Fortescue to rely on Dr Jacobsen's late affidavit evidence, finding significant prejudice would result if leave were granted and that the evidence would be of little, if any, assistance on the application. Fortescue was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the inspection application and certain abandoned parts of the amended interlocutory application.
FSM Development Pty Ltd, in the matter of FSM Development Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
If your company, a related entity, or a major customer enters liquidation, this case is a reminder to focus on value preservation rather than assumptions. A near-complete development, unfinished project, or recoverable asset pool may justify structured funding so a liquidator can finish key steps and improve returns. But the process matters. Where a liquidator wants to enter a contract that will operate for more than three months, court approval under s 477(2B) may be required unless approval is obtained through another permitted route. This case also shows that the Court can approve the arrangement nunc pro tunc and can make confidentiality orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act where disclosure would expose funding limits, strategy or other commercially sensitive material in a way that would prejudice the liquidation. Creditors should also note the procedural safeguards here: notice to creditors and liberty to apply to vary or set aside the orders.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. Moore J approved, nunc pro tunc, the liquidators entering into the Liquidation Funding Agreement on behalf of each of the second to sixth plaintiffs. The Court accepted evidence that without further funding the liquidators would be unable to continue realising assets, discharge their obligations under the Corporations Act, or take other confidential steps, and that this would likely reduce asset value, reduce or eliminate creditor returns, and delay the liquidations. The Court also found the agreement was the best available source of funding, was in creditors' interests, and that its key commercial terms appeared reasonable and did not appear to confer any unusual advantage on the funder. The Court separately made confidentiality orders over specified material under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act, required notice to creditors, and allowed liberty to apply within 14 days to modify or set aside the orders.
Galinovic v Singtel Optus Pty Limited
Read this case as a practical warning about service continuity and contract discipline. The Court did not finally decide all underlying allegations. It decided only that urgent interim relief should be refused. The applicant's arguments about bills of exchange, discounts, unconscionable conduct and other complaints did not establish a serious question to be tried on the termination issue in the way required for an interlocutory injunction. For businesses, the safest approach is to assume that a provider may rely on a valid termination clause unless and until a court says otherwise. If you receive a termination notice, do not spend all your time arguing the merits while ignoring migration. Start porting and replacement planning immediately. Keep written records of any discounts or account changes, use payment methods the contract actually permits, and avoid tying your main business identity to a provider-specific email address if you can use your own domain instead. If urgent relief is needed, move quickly and be ready with evidence on both legal merit and practical harm.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the interlocutory application and ordered Ms Galinovic to pay the costs of that application. Meagher J held that she had failed to establish a prima facie case or serious question to be tried. The Court said that any offer of a discount for a period did not mean the Consumer Terms ceased to apply, and that Optus had given notice in accordance with those terms. The Court also held there was no reason to preserve the status quo, and that the application in substance sought to deprive Optus of its contractual right to terminate. On the balance of convenience, the Court accepted evidence that there was still time to transfer the mobile number and internet service, and that extra time had been offered to deal with the email transition. If wrongful termination were later proved, damages were considered the appropriate remedy.
Global Uranium and Enrichment Limited, in the matter of Global Uranium and Enrichment Limited
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that first-stage court approval in a scheme of arrangement is only permission to put the proposal to affected holders. It is not the Court’s final approval of the deal. The company still needs the required votes at the meetings and then a later court approval hearing. The judgment also shows how much detail sits behind that first step. The Court looked at the scheme booklet, ASIC engagement, independent expert material, deed polls, meeting logistics, proxy deadlines and the treatment of different categories of holders, including foreign holders and holders receiving documents electronically or by post. If your business is planning a major transaction, governance and execution matter as much as headline price. A signed implementation deed does not remove the need for disciplined disclosure and process.
Outcome: The Court made the convening orders. It ordered GUE to hold a share scheme meeting and an option scheme meeting on 27 January 2026, set the voting record time, quorum and poll voting requirements, appointed independent chair arrangements, approved the scheme booklet, proxy forms and opt-in notice for distribution subject to limited amendments, and directed how materials were to be dispatched to different categories of holders in Australia and overseas. The Court also set proxy deadlines, required an ASX announcement after the meetings, dispensed with compliance with certain Rules requirements, adjourned the proceeding to 3 February 2026 for any later approval application, and required the orders to be lodged with ASIC. The decision was procedural only. It allowed the schemes to be put to holders but did not finally approve the transaction.
Harrold v Exactech Australia Pty Ltd
If your business issues a subpoena, budget for the possibility that you will have to pay the non-party's reasonable loss or expense of compliance. Do not assume the cost will be limited to copying or clerical work. The Court accepted that real compliance costs may include specialist staff time, operating-cost based charges for report production, and legal advice about lawful production and privilege issues. If your business receives a subpoena, respond early, estimate the likely cost in writing, explain what work is actually required, and keep records showing why the time and expense were necessary. If the request is too broad, invite the issuing party to narrow it. This case also shows the value of documented internal pricing, release-of-information policies and data governance processes. They can help prove that a claimed amount reflects actual cost rather than profit. Finally, keep any dispute proportionate. The Court was plainly concerned where the fight over compliance costs itself became expensive, and it linked that concern to the overarching purpose provisions in the Federal Court of Australia Act.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered the issuing party, Mr Harrold, to pay the Australian Orthopaedic Association $112,262.84 as its reasonable loss and expense of complying with the subpoena. Justice Jackman accepted the Association's capped claim for report-production costs, even though the number of reports produced would have justified a much higher amount at its standard rate. The Court held that the Association's board-approved per-report charge was a reasonable measure of expense because it reflected operating costs and no profit margin. It also accepted the reasonableness of the staff time and review process required to comply with the Commonwealth Qualified Privilege Scheme, rejected the unsupported attempt to discount the claim for material said to be outside scope, and allowed legal costs including the costs of the application itself.
INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd v AkzoNobel NV (No 6)
If your business is in a technical court dispute, do not treat a referee's report as automatically final. Read it closely for terminology, assumptions and calculations that could materially affect the result. This case shows that a targeted request for clarification may be available even where the alleged problem is framed as a possible misconception or uncertainty rather than an obvious error on the face of the report. The stronger approach is to identify a discrete issue, explain why it matters to the reasoning process, and show why the referee is best placed to clarify it efficiently. At the same time, this decision does not mean every disagreement justifies remittal. Courts will not ordinarily reopen minor factual disputes or revisit findings simply because one side prefers a different view of the evidence.
Outcome: The Court ordered that the referee provide an explanation by way of a further report responding to the parties' proposed questions about the discount-rate issue. Justice Banks-Smith held that clear or apparent error was not a mandatory threshold for remittal. It was enough that there be an ambiguity, uncertainty or possible misapprehension of sufficient importance to the reasoning process such that remittal would likely facilitate the just and efficient determination of the issue. The Court did not decide whether the referee had actually made the alleged error. It chose a proportionate procedural response by seeking clarification before deciding whether to adopt the report. Costs were otherwise reserved, and the parties were initially jointly and severally liable for the referee's fees for the further report.
Intalo Group Pty Ltd v James Cook University
If your business is in a copyright or contract dispute, this case is a reminder to be disciplined about both drafting and litigation strategy. First, make sure your contracts clearly deal with ownership, use rights, termination and any continuing rights to supply, teach, market or tender using jointly developed material. Second, if litigation starts, tie every discovery request to a pleaded issue that is still genuinely disputed. The court will not usually allow broad fishing through commercially sensitive documents just because they might reveal something useful. Third, admissions matter. A deliberate admission can narrow the case and may cut off the other side’s ability to obtain documents aimed at proving the admitted point. Finally, pay attention to timing. Where liability and quantum are heard separately, the court may ask whether the documents are actually needed for the liability stage now, rather than for a later damages debate.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the discovery application in relation to Category 4. Derrington J held that, although Intalo's argument had some prima facie force, the factual matters relied on to support Category 4 in relation to paragraph 75(b) had been expressly admitted by JCU. Because those matters were no longer in dispute, the documents said to support them were no longer relevant to a live issue on the pleadings. The court also held that Category 4 was not objectively directly relevant to the factual matters pleaded in paragraph 75(a) about flagrancy. In addition, the category was framed broadly enough to capture agreements extending well beyond the particular use of the allegedly infringing material. Other agreed discovery categories were still to be provided, costs were reserved, and the application was adjourned to the next case management hearing for further steps.
Integrity Life Australia Limited, in the matter of Integrity Life Australia Limited
If your business holds life cover connected to owners, directors, key staff, debt protection or succession planning, treat an insurer transfer as a real contract and operations event. Do not assume the policy remains commercially identical just because cover continues. This case shows that a court may approve a transfer even where some policy owners face higher premiums or reduced benefits, if the evidence shows the alternative is worse and the transfer improves financial security overall. Check which insurer now issues the policy, whether your policy terms stayed the same or were replaced, how pre-transfer claims are assessed, who handles complaints and remediation, and whether payment authorities continue automatically. Keep both old and replacement policy documents and review whether the new arrangement still fits your business risk settings.
Outcome: The Court confirmed the scheme without modification. The orders state that, pursuant to section 194 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Cth), the scheme for the transfer of part of Integrity Life Australia Limited’s life insurance business to AIA Australia Limited was confirmed and took effect from 12:01 am (AEST) on 1 March 2025. The applicants were ordered to pay APRA’s costs as agreed or assessed, with liberty to apply. On the published catchwords, the Court accepted that the scheme’s adverse impact on some policy owners was not a bar to confirmation and did not constrain the exercise of discretion. The Court treated the transfer as justified because its primary purpose was to provide ongoing cover and improve financial security, the product transfer rules sought to minimise detriment, APRA supported the scheme, and policy owners would be worse off if the scheme did not proceed.
Isuzu Australia Ltd v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd
If your business is involved in a dispute with several players, this case shows that the Court will look beyond simple overlap and ask practical questions about timing, fairness and manageability. A later proceeding may survive even if the claimant could have joined you earlier, particularly where the earlier case was already large and advanced, and the later case turns on your own knowledge or conduct. But staged litigation still creates risk. If you delay suing someone, keep a clear record of when you had enough information to plead a case and why you did not join them earlier. If you are defending a later case, focus on concrete prejudice, witness problems, duplication and inconsistency risks, not just the fact of overlap. Courts may prefer narrower pleadings, limited evidence, targeted cross-examination and other case management tools before granting the serious remedy of a permanent stay.
Outcome: The Full Court refused leave to appeal from the primary judge’s interlocutory orders refusing a permanent stay or dismissal of the 2020 proceeding. On the published judgment record, the Court accepted that Directed could have joined Isuzu to the earlier proceeding, but was not persuaded there was enough material to conclude that Directed should have done so. The Court accepted that the primary judge had balanced competing private rights and public interests, including the risks of duplication, oppression and inconsistent findings, and was entitled to conclude that those risks could be addressed through case management rather than by permanently stopping the case. The Court also rejected the argument that the leave application itself was an abuse of process. Isuzu was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the leave application.
Janssen Pharmaceutica NV v Juno Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd
If your business is preparing to launch a product into a market where another party has registered IP rights, launch readiness is not the end of the legal analysis. This case shows that a court may intervene before trial where the rights holder can show a sufficiently strong case and where the commercial consequences of launch may be difficult to unwind. That is especially important in regulated markets, including pharmaceuticals, where listing decisions, pricing frameworks and supply commitments can have immediate knock-on effects. This was only an interim decision, not a final determination that the patent is valid or infringed. But the commercial impact of an interim restraint can still be significant. Businesses should assess infringement risk early, test any invalidity arguments carefully, and understand whether their own conduct could be characterised as authorising or participating in infringing acts.
Outcome: Burley J granted the interlocutory application. The judgment expressly states that the Court was satisfied that the grant of the interlocutory relief sought was appropriate, and the catchwords record that the application was granted. The published structure of the reasons indicates that the Court found a strong prima facie case that the Juno products would infringe, while also recognising a prima facie case that the asserted claims may be invalid. Even with that validity challenge in play, the balance of convenience favoured restraint. The published orders required the parties to confer on draft short minutes and confidentiality markings. Because the available public text is truncated and confidentiality orders were made, the exact final operative terms of the injunction should be checked against the final published judgment and orders.
Jonsson (Liquidator), in the matter of National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation Transport and Community Service (in liq)
The practical point is not that the Court found misappropriation or voidable transactions had occurred. It did not. This was an investigation-stage ruling. The Court accepted that the liquidators had a satisfactory explanation for delay because NATSIC’s records were said to be deficient, funding for a public examination took a long time to obtain, and the people with the best knowledge still needed to be examined. The Court also accepted there was enough preliminary merit to justify more time, without requiring the liquidators to prove a final case before the investigation was complete. For business owners, the message is straightforward. Keep proper records, maintain real internal controls, separate personal and company expenditure, and respond quickly if insolvency practitioners request information. If you receive court documents by email after failed personal service, do not assume you can ignore them. Procedural orders can preserve claims and move an investigation forward even before any final liability is decided.
Outcome: The Court granted the liquidators the orders they sought. It ordered that Mr James Golden-Brown be taken to have been served on 13 February 2025, required a sealed copy of the order to be emailed to him, and gave him 14 days to apply to vary or set it aside. It extended the time for commencing proceedings under section 588FF(1) by 12 months to 25 March 2026. It also relieved the liquidators from the consequences of an earlier suppression order for the limited purpose of providing Schedule A of prior orders to Mr Ian Mye, and required Mr Mye to file and serve the contemplated affidavit by 28 March 2025. Costs were ordered to be costs in the liquidation. The practical effect was to preserve the liquidators’ ability to continue investigating and, if appropriate later, bring voidable transaction claims.
Kluck v Carpendale Agri Pty Ltd
If your business acquires another business and retains the former owner in a management role, make sure the sale documents, employment agreement, incentive arrangements and property-use arrangements all fit together. In this case, the dispute involved termination, notice, payment in lieu, company vehicles, occupation of a homestead, and a claimed preference share or earn-out style entitlement. The Court did not finally decide who was right on those underlying issues. It only decided that urgent interlocutory relief should be refused. The key practical point is that courts look separately at whether there is an arguable case and whether urgent orders are actually justified. Delay, the possibility of compensation later, and the practical effect of granting relief that looks close to final relief can all matter. Businesses should treat termination planning, record keeping and contract drafting as part of risk management, not just HR administration.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application. Wheatley J held that Mr Kluck had established a prima facie case, but the balance of convenience did not favour granting the interim orders sought, particularly reinstatement. The catchwords and reasons extract indicate that relevant considerations included delay in bringing the urgent application, the availability of compensatory damages in lieu of reinstatement, and the fact that the applicant's undertaking as to damages was of no value. Costs were reserved and the matter was listed for case management. The judgment did not finally determine the underlying Fair Work, contractual or share-related claims.
Latitude Finance Australia v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
For business owners, the safest approach is to test the advertisement against the real customer journey. Ask what the customer must actually do to get the promoted deal, what account or contract they must enter, and what they will really pay over time. If the customer must apply for a credit card, be approved for a continuing credit contract, or pay establishment or monthly account fees, those matters may be central to the offer rather than minor conditions. This case also shows that businesses should not assume consumers will be sceptical, suspicious or alert to hidden catches. The Court rejected the idea that ordinary consumers would simply assume the offer was too good to be true. If a condition changes the nature, price or financial commitment of the deal, the advertising needs to reflect that clearly in the overall message.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeals. It held that there was no error in the primary judge’s assessment of the advertisements and agreed that the proposed grounds lacked merit. The Court rejected the applicants’ argument that ordinary and reasonable consumers would know the offer was incomplete, too good to be true, or mere puffery. Instead, it held there was no reason for consumers to doubt or second-guess the simple terms of the advertised offer. The declaratory findings of contravention under the ASIC Act therefore remained in place. The Court also ordered a timetable for written submissions on costs and stated that, following dismissal of the appeals, the timetable for the further hearing on relief in the principal proceeding was reinstated.
Lift Shop Pty Ltd v Next Level Elevators Pty Ltd
The safest business reading of this case is that intellectual property protection is not one single bucket. Copyright can protect original expression such as website text or marketing content, but confidential information claims usually need something more specific: clearly identified information, secrecy, and misuse in circumstances importing confidence. If information is on a public website, a confidence claim may be difficult. The case also shows that additional damages are not automatic just because infringement occurred. Courts will look at the statutory factors and may decide the entitlement issue before any damages amount is assessed. If you are in litigation, be careful about agreeing to split liability from quantum and about the positions you take in submissions. A party that asked the trial judge to decide an issue early may struggle to complain about that same approach on appeal.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. It upheld the primary judge's approach of determining entitlement to additional damages as part of the separate liability hearing, noting that this is not uncommon in intellectual property cases, although it is preferable for the separate determination order to say so expressly. The court also noted that Lift Shop's appeal position was inconsistent with the position it had taken at trial, where it had urged that liability to additional damages be determined first and quantification later. The Full Court also upheld the rejection of the breach of confidence claim and left undisturbed the challenged procedural ruling concerning website-derived documents. Lift Shop was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.
Lindrum v T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd
If your business wants to use a family name, historic venue name or acquired legacy brand, do not assume the issue is solved just because you bought the property or hold a related trade mark. You still need to consider whether your marketing could imply a personal or family endorsement that is not real. At the same time, if someone threatens urgent court action against your branding, this case shows that the Court will look closely at the evidence. Who has actual reputation? What documents support the current use? Is the public likely to be misled? Is the complaint properly pleaded against the right entities? For a business owner, the safest approach is to check the acquisition documents, any old coexistence or settlement arrangements, the history of use at the site, and the exact impression created by your advertising. If a dispute starts, gather evidence early and keep public messaging accurate and restrained.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Dr Lindrum's application for interlocutory injunctive relief and also dismissed her informal application to join Time & Place Development Pty Ltd and Kapitol Group Pty Ltd as respondents. Subject to any later written submissions seeking a different result, the applicant was ordered to pay T&P's costs of the interlocutory application, with no order as to costs on the joinder application. The reasons show that, at this urgent stage, the Court was not persuaded that the applicant had put forward sufficiently detailed evidence to support the claimed reputation, public association and likely confusion needed to justify immediate restraint.
LK Law Pty Ltd v Karas (No 4)
If someone in your business is a director, partner, trustee, agent or de facto controller of a business stream, they should not privately position that stream for their own benefit while still acting for the business. If a founder split is underway, require full disclosure of any buyer approaches, merger discussions, framework agreements, side letters and draft terms before signing a separation agreement. If your business operates across Australia and overseas, document who owns the goodwill, revenue stream, client relationships and strategic opportunities in each office. Do not assume that a broad release clause will clean up unknown misconduct. For advisers and counterparties, the practical lesson is to ask hard questions when dealing with one founder or principal in a contested separation. If the structure is unclear, or if the person says they can deliver an office or business unit without the knowledge of the company or co-owner, that is a risk signal that should be documented and escalated.
Outcome: The applicants succeeded on the central issues. The Court found that the relevant relationships were permissible under the Hong Kong regulatory regime and that an express trust was established, with agency and overarching partnership also established in the alternative. It found that Mr Karas breached fiduciary duties owed to LK Law and Mr Lipman, breached ss 181, 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act, breached an equitable duty of confidence, and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by silence under s 18 of the ACL. The Court also found knowing assistance against Mischon de Reya, although statutory accessorial liability under the Corporations Act and ACL was not established. The release clauses in the Separation Agreement did not extend to undisclosed fiduciary breaches and were unenforceable under s 237 of the ACL. Rescission was refused because unwinding the parties’ dealings after four years was practically impossible, but declarations and monetary relief were available.
Macpherson v Warringah Bowling Club Ltd, in the matter of Warringah Bowling Club Ltd (No 2)
If your company is in voluntary administration and there is a real proposal to pay creditors in full and return the business to solvent trading, do not rely on informal conversations. Put the funding proposal in writing, explain why creditors are no worse off if the administration ends, and ask directly for the second creditors' meeting to be convened. Keep a careful record of what information is requested and when. In this case, the court was critical because the administrators did not clearly and early ask for the specific loan terms they later said were necessary, and instead continued investigating side issues that were not material to the immediate solvency question. The judgment also warns administrators that they must maintain essential neutrality in court. If their unreasonable conduct causes the application, they may have to pay the other side's costs personally and bear their own costs without recourse to company assets.
Outcome: Justice Stewart held that, until counsel appeared at the final hearing and raised a focused point about the repayment terms of the FOWB loan, the administrators' conduct had been unreasonable and inconsistent with essential neutrality. They had long known the club's assets vastly exceeded its liabilities, did not promptly seek the specific funding information they later said was necessary, and instead continued investigating legacy issues that were not material to the immediate solvency question. The court concluded that the proceeding was necessary only because of that unreasonable conduct. The administrators were therefore ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs personally, without recourse to the club's assets, and to bear their own costs without recourse to those assets.
Marasol Pty Ltd v Philips
Read this case as a warning about litigation strategy, not as a final statement on liability. If your dispute is relatively modest in dollar terms, the Federal Court expects a focused and economical pathway. That usually means identifying the real issues through pleadings and then trying mediation before spending heavily on affidavits, extensive particulars fights or trial preparation. The judgment is also useful where one side holds most of the financial information. In a claim about a diverted business opportunity or misuse of confidential information, the claimant may not know the defendant’s actual gain at the outset. A business should therefore be realistic about what can be particularised early, and cautious about using information gaps as a tactical pressure point. Ask your lawyers to justify each procedural step by reference to cost, timing and proportionality.
Outcome: Justice Derrington rejected the defendant's proposed procedural course as inappropriate and inconsistent with the Federal Court Act's overarching purpose. The Court accepted the plaintiff's approach of exchanging pleadings and then moving promptly to mediation. Orders were made requiring the defendant to file and serve a defence by 15 August 2025, permitting the plaintiff to file and serve a reply by 22 August 2025, and referring the matter to mediation before a Registrar with attendance requirements for the parties and legal representatives. If mediation had not succeeded by 12 September 2025, the matter was to return for a further case management hearing on 19 September 2025. Costs of the hearing were ordered to be each party's costs in the cause.
Marsh Limited v Greensill Bank AG
If your contracts nominate a foreign court, do not assume that filing there first will necessarily stop Australian litigation. This case shows the Federal Court may intervene where a foreign anti-suit case has a tendency to interfere with claims already brought, or likely to be brought, in Australia. The court looked beyond Marsh's description of the English case as simple enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction clauses and relied on findings that Marsh started the English proceedings after being told joinder in Australia was coming and wanted to prevent those Australian claims. For business owners, the practical steps are to review jurisdiction clauses early, confirm exactly which entity is bound, assess whether Australian statutory claims may still be pursued locally, and get advice before using overseas proceedings as a blocking tactic. A forum strategy that appears commercially sharp can become an expensive side dispute about injunctions and court process.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed Marsh's application for leave to appeal and ordered Marsh to pay the respondents' costs of that application. The court held there was no error in the primary judge's conclusion that the English proceedings had a tendency to interfere with the determination of claims regularly brought against Marsh in the Australian Greensill Bank AG proceedings. The Full Court relied on unchallenged findings that Marsh commenced the English proceedings after being told joinder in Australia was likely and did so to prevent future claims against it in Australia. The court also held that it was neither necessary nor appropriate, on an interlocutory application and incomplete facts, to decide whether the Australian misleading or deceptive conduct provisions were mandatory laws of the forum.
Mayfield Development Corporation Pty Ltd v NSW Ports Operations Hold Co Pty Ltd
If your business is dealing with a State government, a privatised asset, or a counterparty whose rights come from a government transaction, do not assume the usual competition analysis is the whole story. This decision shows that a court may first ask whether the Competition and Consumer Act applies at all to the conduct in question. It also shows that a failed ACCC case on similar facts may strongly shape later private litigation, even if it does not automatically prevent a private claimant from suing. Businesses should review transaction documents, releases and dispute history carefully, and get advice early on major exclusivity, access or infrastructure arrangements. The available court text supports only a careful general reading of the case, not a final view on every factual detail of the underlying deeds.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal. It held that Mayfield’s intervention in the earlier ACCC appeal did not give rise to issue estoppel, that abuse of process was not established, and that the Settlement Deed did not bar the claim. However, those findings did not assist Mayfield because the court upheld the Crown immunity-based construction point. The accessible reasons state that the relevant conduct of the State of New South Wales was not conduct in carrying on a business and that the Competition and Consumer Act did not apply to the conduct that was the subject of Mayfield’s claim. The court ordered Mayfield to pay 60% of the respondents’ appeal costs.
McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd
Businesses should read this case as a strong reminder to settle attribution early and document it clearly. If more than one person may claim a lead creative role, do not leave credits, bylines or promotional wording to the final week before release. Make sure contracts, internal production records and public-facing materials tell the same story. Review the whole communications package together, including websites, festival entries, trailers, invitations, social posts and event copy. In industries where wording and name order signal seniority, those details need active approval. This decision was only an interim ruling, not a final finding on who was right. But it shows that a court may still intervene quickly if disputed credits are about to be published or screened and damages may not be enough to repair the harm.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted interlocutory relief on 6 August 2025. Until final determination of the proceedings or further order, the respondents were restrained in Australia from causing or authorising the documentary to be seen and heard in public or communicated to the public unless it contained the credit "Directed by Stephen McCallum" and did not contain the credit "Directed by" for David Ngo. The same approach applied to promotion where the promotion contained credits. Costs were reserved and the orders were made on the usual undertaking as to damages. The judge said she had initially been inclined to order a statement that the directing credits were disputed and the subject of court proceedings, but granted McCallum's primary relief after considering the respondents' position.
Mining and Energy Union v OS MCAP Pty Ltd (No 3)
The practical lesson is to separate operational planning from legal compliance. You can run a business on public holidays and you can roster staff for those days, but the Fair Work Act still requires a real request process before employees are lawfully required to work. This judgment, read with the Full Court reasoning quoted in it, highlights the difference between a request and a requirement. A contract can foreshadow that public holiday work may be needed, and a roster can include public holidays, but employees must still be given a genuine opportunity to accept or refuse and the statutory reasonableness framework must be respected. Above-award salaries do not cure a defective process. Businesses should review contracts, roster communications, leave handling, manager training and recordkeeping before the next public holiday period.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered OS MCAP Pty Ltd to pay compensation to each employee named in the schedule to the orders, in the corresponding amount listed for that person, within 28 days. The scheduled amounts ranged from $800 to $2,400. The court also ordered OS to pay a pecuniary penalty of $15,000 to the union within 28 days. The judgment records that the employees had been unlawfully required to work on public holidays and had not been given the opportunity to reasonably refuse. Although the employees' remuneration exceeded the amount payable under the relevant award and no economic loss was demonstrated, the court still awarded compensation for non-economic loss. The catchwords also record that the course of conduct principle was applied and that the contravention resulted from a genuine and reasonable mistake.
Minister for the Environment and Water v GE Grid Australia Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this as a systems case, not just a deadline case. The Court accepted agreed facts and agreed penalties, so the issue was not whether the reports were required. It was whether the admitted failures justified the proposed declarations, penalties and costs, and the Court said yes. The reporting obligation was triggered repeatedly because the imported quantities were above the threshold and no exemption applied. The later correction process also mattered. Reports lodged after the deadline first said there had been no imports, then misstated the number of units, before compliant reports were finally submitted. If your business discovers a missed report, act quickly, but do not guess. Check the product classification, quantities, units and reporting format before lodging a correction. Inaccurate remediation can prolong the problem and strengthen the case for enforcement.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that GE Grid had contravened s 46(2C) of the Ozone Act for each of the eight reporting periods between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2022 by failing to give the required reports on time. Perry J made eight declarations recording those contraventions. By consent, the Court also ordered GE Grid to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $400,000, being $50,000 per contravention, and to pay the Minister's costs fixed at $50,000. The reasons state that the Court was satisfied the agreed penalty was appropriate in all the circumstances, with general and specific deterrence given central importance.
Najjar (liquidator), in the matter of Zoya Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Rana
The main lesson is to document substance, not just form. If your company transfers property to related entities, family members or companies controlled by the same people, keep clear evidence of what the company received in return. That includes non-cash consideration such as debt assumption, debt discharge, guarantees being called on, or sale proceeds being applied to secured liabilities. Make sure your balance sheets, asset registers, loan accounts and settlement records line up with legal title and actual money flows. If you need urgent court orders without notice, prepare the application on the basis that the judge must be told the difficult facts as well as the helpful ones. If your business is on the receiving end of a freezing order, review whether the applicant omitted material facts, but do not assume any omission will be enough to have the order set aside. The court will look at materiality and discretion, not just error.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the defendants’ application to discharge the freezing order and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of that application. The plaintiffs accepted that one material fact should have been disclosed, namely that during public examinations the former directors had indicated some form of consideration had been given for the transfer of the Blackall and Gladstone properties. They also accepted that part of the liquidator’s affidavit about Zoya’s books and records was incorrect. Even so, Markovic J was not satisfied that the plaintiffs had failed to disclose additional material facts beyond what was conceded, and was not satisfied that the conceded non-disclosure was sufficient to warrant discharging the order. The interim asset-preservation order therefore remained in place.
NCL Corporation Ltd v Norwegian Brand Ltd
If you file a trade mark in Australia, make sure the filing reflects a real Australian plan, not just a future possibility. You do not need immediate trading, but you should be able to show a present, positive and definite intention to use the mark here, or to authorise use by the right entity. Keep records that explain why you filed, what goods or services you genuinely planned to offer, and who in the group would use the mark. If you are opposing someone else’s application, this case shows that public statements about tentative expansion, long periods with no Australian activity, and uncertainty about who would actually use the mark can help build a prima facie case.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed NCL's appeal. It set aside the delegate's decision extending protection in Australia to Norwegian Brand's two international registrations and ordered that protection not be extended to Australia, with registration refused. The Court found that NCL had established the opposition ground under s 59(a). Although filing the applications was prima facie evidence of intention to use, the surrounding evidence showed only tentative and speculative Australian plans rather than a present, positive and definite intention to use or authorise use of the marks in Australia. Norwegian Brand's failure to participate in the appeal left that prima facie case unanswered. The Court also ordered Norwegian Brand to pay NCL's appeal costs, set aside the delegate's costs order, and made no further order about costs before the delegate.
New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4)
If supplier information is central to your business, do not assume the law will protect a broad category like "our suppliers". You should identify exactly what is confidential and separate basic supplier identity and contact details from deeper information such as negotiated pricing, product development history, compliance work, fault-rate data, factory assessments and sourcing strategy. Limit access, document who can use the information, and make sure employment and contractor agreements match how the business actually operates. This case also highlights the risk of informal communications tools. If supplier contacts sit in personal phones or messaging apps without clear controls, it becomes harder to show the business treated them as protected information. A former employee may be restrained from using truly confidential material, but they are generally free to use their own know-how and experience. The line between those categories needs to be managed before a dispute starts.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the proceeding against the first, fourth and fifth respondents. The extract states that New Aim failed to establish that the alleged confidential information possessed the necessary quality of confidence. That finding defeated the breach of confidence claim. The contract claim also failed because breach of the second employment agreement, which was the basis of the pleaded contractual case, was not established. The Court further held there was no breach of s 183 of the Corporations Act where no breach of confidence was established on the case before it. The Court then ordered written costs submissions and listed a further hearing to deal with consequential issues, including costs.
Newron Pharmaceuticals S.p.A v Arrotex Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (Access Regime and Costs)
If your business is thinking about preliminary discovery, treat it as a special and expensive procedural step, not just an early version of ordinary litigation. This case shows three things clearly. First, the Court may let overseas external advisers inspect confidential documents if the existing undertaking already limits use, includes submission to the Court's jurisdiction, and no concrete misuse risk is identified. Secondly, the party seeking the benefit of preliminary discovery should expect to pay the respondent's reasonable production costs. Thirdly, the legal costs of the application itself may be deferred or left for each side to bear, especially where no substantive proceeding is later filed. If you want extra confidentiality restrictions, be specific. Explain the actual enforcement problem or misuse risk. If you need access for advisers outside Australia, be ready to show why the standard undertaking and court supervision are enough. And if you obtain preliminary discovery, set an internal timetable for deciding quickly whether to commence the main infringement proceeding.
Outcome: The Court allowed the two overseas external IP advisers, Ms Ampollini and Ms Bertuccio, to access the preliminary discovery documents under the existing confidentiality undertaking and refused to impose the additional restrictions sought by Arrotex. Needham J held that there was no need for a different regime merely because the advisers were overseas, particularly as no specific risk had been identified, the undertaking included an express submission to the Court's jurisdiction, and the advisers had previously been granted access to confidential material in redacted form. On costs, the Court ordered the prospective applicants to pay Arrotex's reasonable costs of collating, reviewing and providing the documents. For the legal costs of the application itself, the Court made a contingent order: if infringement proceedings were commenced by 31 January 2026, those costs would be costs in the cause of that later proceeding; if not, there would be no order as to costs. Costs relating to the deferred samples issue were reserved.
Newron Pharmaceuticals S.p.A v Arrotex Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (Application for Preliminary Discovery)
If your business is entering a market with a product that may sit close to an existing patent, do not assume the patent owner must wait until after launch, or until it has full proof, before coming to court. This case indicates the Court may allow preliminary discovery where there is a reasonable basis to think there may be a claim for actual or threatened infringement and the applicant lacks enough information to make a responsible decision about proceedings. For a generic supplier, public product information, ARTG approval as a generic, and reliance on originator clinical material may all become part of the picture. For a patent owner, preliminary discovery can be a disciplined alternative to suing first and investigating later. In either position, keep clear records about product composition, manufacturing route, regulatory assumptions, and who can safely receive confidential material if disclosure is ordered.
Outcome: The available orders show that Needham J made confidentiality orders, required the parties to provide draft orders for preliminary discovery in accordance with the reasons by 31 October 2025, and listed the matter for further case management. That indicates the applicants succeeded in obtaining preliminary discovery in principle. However, the public reasons available here are incomplete. They do not set out the final form of the discovery orders, the exact categories of documents to be produced, or the final confidentiality regime. The case should therefore be read as an apparent success on the preliminary discovery application, not as a complete public record of the final operative orders or any finding of infringement.
Norden Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Martens Investments Pty Ltd (Trustee), in the matter of Amazonia IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 4)
If your business starts Federal Court litigation through a company and cannot meet an adverse costs order, security for costs should be treated as part of the case budget from the outset. This judgment shows that the court can order further security even after an earlier order has already been made, and even where the applicant has had some procedural success along the way. A win on an earlier separate question did not remove the issue here. The case also shows two practical points for defendants. First, ask promptly. Delay can reduce the amount ordered. Second, prove the amount properly. The court will not simply adopt a large estimate because it is asserted in an affidavit. It will look at whether the estimate is high-level, whether it is framed on a solicitor-client basis rather than the usual party-party basis, and whether the amount sought is fair for the stage the case has reached. For claimants, evidence about funding capacity and whether a large order would effectively stifle the proceeding can matter. For controllers behind the claimant company, the court may look at your position if you stand to benefit from the litigation and are effectively directing it.
Outcome: Wheatley J ordered further security for costs. Norden had to provide $20,000 for the first, second, fourth and fifth respondents up to and including the second mediation, and $30,000 for the sixth respondent up to and including the mediation. The money was to be paid into the trust account of Tusk Lawyers by 4 July 2025, and Norden’s solicitor had to give undertakings to hold and not release the funds except in accordance with court orders. If the security and undertakings were not provided, the proceedings against all respondents were to be stayed until compliance. The costs of the security applications were ordered to be costs in the proceeding. In reaching that result, the Court relied on the applicant’s inability to pay, but reduced the amounts sought because of delay and the broad, solicitor-client nature of the respondents’ costs estimates.
Norden Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Martens Investments Pty Ltd (Trustee), in the matter of Amazonia IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 5)
If your business is already in court, do not treat amended pleadings as a chance to repackage an issue that has already been decided. This case shows that the Federal Court may strike out that material as an abuse of process and order indemnity costs against the parties responsible. Before filing a concise statement, amended pleading or response, compare each allegation with every earlier judgment and order in the case. Ask whether the point was already finally determined, whether the new allegation would invite an inconsistent finding, and who should properly bear the cost of the dispute. In shareholder litigation, the Court may look closely at whether company funds are being used in what is really a contest between shareholders.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered that the First and Second Respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the strike-out application on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed. Wheatley J held that the applicant was the successful party and that the strike-out application was a sufficiently self-contained and detached aspect of the litigation to justify an immediate costs order. The Court rejected the respondents' arguments that costs should be reserved, made costs in the proceedings, or limited to the ordinary basis. Indemnity costs were justified because the respondents had sought to relitigate matters already finally determined, invited inconsistent findings, and advanced a position that any properly advised litigant would have understood had no chance of success.
Norden Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Martens Investments Pty Ltd (Trustee), in the matter of Amazonia IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 7)
Treat court-ordered document production as a managed compliance task with named responsibility, deadlines and verification. This case was not about a party simply losing an argument. It was about the Court finding ongoing non-compliance, a denial of that non-compliance that later had to be softened, unsupported submissions said to rest on authority, and a large number of objections that mostly went nowhere. Those features led to indemnity costs. If your business cannot comply fully, do not maintain a position that everything has been done if the records say otherwise. Get clear instructions from staff, check what has actually been produced, and apply to vary orders with evidence if more time or a different process is needed. Directors of closely held companies should assume the Court may look directly at who controlled compliance and who should bear the cost consequences.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered that the first and second respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the earlier document application on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed. The Court found the applicant had been almost completely successful on that application. It held that indemnity costs were justified by four features: non-compliance with earlier orders, a groundless written denial of that non-compliance before later acceptance of at least some non-compliance, unsupported submissions said to be based on authorities the respondents could not properly identify, and numerous affidavit objections that were largely withdrawn, not pressed or unsuccessful but still consumed significant hearing time. The Court also rejected the argument that the companies should share the costs burden, emphasising the second respondent's role as director and controlling mind and the shareholder-dispute context.
Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner (Vexatious Proceedings Orders)
Read this case as a litigation-discipline decision. It does not appear, on the material available, to decide any substantive copyright or IP issue even though the judgment page lists the Copyright Act among the legislation. The real message is that the Federal Court can step in when proceedings are repeatedly brought or run in a way that is abusive, without merit, or causes delay and detriment. If your business is considering another claim, appeal or interlocutory application, check overlap with earlier matters, confirm there are reasonable grounds, and think carefully about costs exposure. If your business is on the receiving end of repeated weak claims, keep a clear record of the pattern, the orders made, and the costs caused. That material may matter if procedural controls are later sought.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed Dr Ogawa's disqualification application for apprehended bias. It held that the matters relied on, framed as alleged errors in the earlier judgment, were not enough to establish apprehended bias. The Court also made vexatious proceedings orders. It stayed all current proceedings instituted by Dr Ogawa in the Federal Court, prohibited her from continuing current proceedings without leave, and prohibited her from instituting proceedings without first applying for leave in accordance with the Act. In addition, it required payment of $200 to the Registry as security for costs when filing any application for leave or other application. The Court also directed that the respondents' earlier costs awards be fixed by a registrar in a lump sum if not agreed, under a timetable ending with determination on the papers.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd
The practical message is not that formulation patents are worthless. It is that a valid formulation patent and a valid patent term extension are different things. Otsuka appears to have persuaded the Full Court that the relevant claims were not invalid for lack of clarity or failure to define the invention, but that did not save the commercially critical extension. Businesses should read this case as a warning against assuming that a granted extension, an ARTG listing, or a technically defensible claim will automatically secure extra monopoly time. If your product strategy depends on an extended expiry date, review the patent claims, the product relied on for the extension request, and the statutory category the invention must fit. That review should happen early, before launch planning, licensing, valuation and competitor enforcement positions harden around an expiry date that may later be challenged.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed Otsuka’s appeal. It held that Sun Pharma’s notice of contention succeeded because the formulations relied on for the extension were not “pharmaceutical substances” for the purposes of section 70(2) of the Patents Act. As a result, the patent term extension was invalid and the patent expired on 18 October 2024, its ordinary expiry date. The Court also said that, although the claims were limited by result, they would not be invalid for failure to define the invention or for lack of clarity. That meant Otsuka improved its position on some claim validity issues, but still lost the commercially decisive extension issue. The orders also show that confidentiality and final short minutes of order were still being managed after judgment.
Oxford Nanopore Technologies Plc v MGI Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business is considering a patent claim but still needs samples, documents or technical material to decide whether to sue, preliminary discovery can be a useful first step. But this case shows it should stay focused on that information-gathering purpose. If circumstances change and the applicant gets enough material elsewhere, the Court may pause or end the preliminary discovery process and leave costs to be sorted out later. Businesses should read this as a warning to cooperate sensibly where possible, keep careful records of requests and responses, and avoid turning an early procedural application into a full dress rehearsal for trial. If you resist providing material, that resistance may later be raised on costs. If you bring the application, changing course does not necessarily mean you will immediately have to pay the other side's wasted costs. The Court may want to assess the whole course of conduct first.
Outcome: The Court stayed the preliminary discovery proceeding for three months from 4 July 2025. It ordered that if ONT commenced a substantive proceeding against MGI within that period, ONT would have leave to discontinue the preliminary discovery proceeding and the costs of that application, including any costs thrown away by the vacation of the 24 July 2025 hearing, would be determined by the judge hearing the later proceeding. Otherwise, the question of costs claimed by MGI to have been thrown away by the vacated hearing was reserved. Justice Jackman held that an immediate wasted-costs order was premature because the hearing had been vacated under a sensible agreement in changed circumstances and because ONT's arguments about MGI's conduct might be relevant when costs were later considered in full context.
Paco Nominees Pty Ltd v Ella Secret Australia Pty Ltd (Default Judgment)
Business owners should read this as a trade mark enforcement case about counterfeit goods and default judgment. If you sell branded products, you need a supply chain you can explain and records you can produce. Tags and visual similarity are not enough if the goods are not genuine. The judgment also shows that failing to engage with a claim can make the position much worse. The Court still checks the pleadings and relief carefully, but a non-appearing respondent loses the chance to challenge the allegations, evidence and orders sought. Directors should pay close attention as well. Where a director is alleged to be the sole director, shareholder and controlling mind, personal orders may follow. If you receive a cease and desist letter, an originating application or hearing dates, act quickly. If you are a brand owner, the case shows the value of trap purchases, evidence about authenticity features, and evidence of brand reputation when pursuing counterfeit sellers.
Outcome: The Court granted default judgment. It declared that Ella Secret Australia Pty Ltd had infringed the Geedup trade marks by offering for sale, selling and supplying counterfeit goods, and declared that Ali Matar Briman had procured or been a party to that infringement. The Court permanently restrained the company from offering for sale, selling and supplying counterfeit goods, and permanently restrained the individual respondent from procuring, being knowingly concerned in, or being a party to that kind of infringement by the company. The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay Paco Nominees Pty Ltd $20,000 in damages and to pay the applicants’ costs of $33,025.15 on a party-party basis. The available reasons then discuss additional damages, but the public text used here is truncated before that discussion concludes, so this page does not state any further final award beyond the orders clearly shown.
Palmer v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
If your company, director or officer is under investigation and criminal charges later follow, do not assume a separate civil proceeding is the best place to attack the regulator’s conduct. This case shows the court will look at substance, not labels. If the civil relief would affect the formulation of charges, the use of evidence, or the conduct of the prosecution, a stay may be ordered so the issues are dealt with in the criminal forum first. The decision is a reminder to plan early. Preserve notices, transcripts and correspondence, record any privilege claims carefully, and think about forum and timing before launching parallel proceedings. The case is procedural rather than a final ruling on ASIC’s powers, but it is still important because it shows how quickly strategy can shape the outcome.
Outcome: The Full Court granted an extension of time and granted leave to appeal, but dismissed the appeal with costs. The temporary stay ordered by the primary judge therefore remained in place. On the available judgment text, the court accepted that the case raised important points of principle about the interface between civil and criminal proceedings, but concluded that the applicants' own pleading showed a close link between the civil case and the criminal prosecutions. The court said the proceeding was not accurately characterised as only a challenge to the lawfulness of the s 19 examination, because the alleged unlawfulness was being used as the basis for attacking the formulation of charges, the summary of facts and the future use of the transcripts. That was enough to support the temporary stay to avoid fragmentation.
Perry v NetRatings Australia Pty Limited
The practical lesson is to separate suspicion, investigation and disciplinary action. If your business suspects that a staff member has moved sensitive files outside approved systems or has not returned devices needed for a forensic review, preserve the evidence, define the allegation clearly, and document each step. Give workable directions and realistic response times, especially if serious misconduct is being considered. Be precise about the actual reason for any stand down or termination. If an employee asks for time to obtain legal advice, the timing of your next step may later be scrutinised, even if the employee ultimately fails to obtain urgent reinstatement. This case also shows that an employee seeking interim reinstatement must do more than show an arguable claim. They need evidence that the balance of convenience favours immediate return to work. For employers, good process can matter just as much as the underlying allegation.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the urgent interim application for reinstatement. Justice Raper held that there was a serious question to be tried, but the case as then articulated was not a strong one. The court said final views could not be reached without pleadings, fuller affidavit evidence and cross-examination. On the balance of convenience, the court favoured Nielsen. The reasons specifically show that the court was not persuaded by reliance on the supposed strength of the case and was not satisfied, on the evidence then available, that Ms Perry's financial position weighed in favour of urgent reinstatement. The orders also provided that there be no order as to costs.
Preston, in the matter of Grays.Com Pty Ltd (Administrators appointed)
If your company is approaching administration, this case is a reminder that rescue funding needs to be structured for insolvency reality, not just ordinary commercial lending. A shareholder, related entity or secured creditor may be willing to fund wages, suppliers and administration costs, but administrators may still need court relief before they can safely use that money. The case also shows that notice mechanics matter in large administrations. Courts can approve practical communication arrangements, including email and website publication, where that is workable and fair. For owners and financiers, the key point is timing: if the business only has days or weeks of cash left, funding terms, drawdown timing, creditor notice arrangements and any court application need to be organised immediately. For creditors, the case is a prompt to keep email and postal details current and to monitor both direct communications and published notices during an administration.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. It ordered that Part 5.3A operate as if liabilities arising out of, or in connection with, the 3 October 2025 funding agreement were debts incurred by the administrators in performing their functions, but that the administrators would not be personally liable to repay those debts or satisfy those liabilities to the extent the companies' property was insufficient. The Court also approved a modified notice process allowing email to creditors where an email address was available, post where it was not or where delivery failed, and publication on the ASIC insolvency notices website and the administrators' website in relevant cases. The administrators were required to notify creditors and ASIC of the orders within two business days. Liberty to apply was preserved for interested persons, costs were made costs in the administration, and the orders were entered forthwith.
Prezzee Pty Ltd v Epay Australia Pty Ltd
If you are launching in Australia, clear every brand element that customers will see, not just the main product name. This case suggests that a phrase like “Powered by...” can still create serious exposure if it is alleged to function as a trade mark or to connect your product with another trader’s registered brand area. Do not assume that smaller text, a different house brand, or a successful overseas product story will protect you. Also treat warning letters seriously. The court record shows Prezzee had objected to use of “Prezzy” in Australia before the urgent hearing, yet cards and promotional material remained in circulation. Once stock is in stores, the cost of a dispute rises sharply. You may need to contact retailers, pull packaging, disable transactions, update websites and social posts, and explain the issue to commercial partners. Build launch processes that cover trade mark clearance, packaging review, retailer communications and contingency planning.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted interlocutory relief in Prezzee's favour. Epay was restrained, pending the hearing and determination of the proceeding or further order, from supplying, selling, offering, advertising or promoting relevant goods or services under or by reference to “Prezzy”, “Prezzy Card” or “Powered by Prezzy Card”. The court also ordered practical removal steps: retailer emails by 12 December 2025, disablement of activation processing for affected cards by 15 December 2025 to the extent technically feasible, and physical retrieval of cards bearing “Powered by Prezzy Card” from retailers by 30 January 2026. A director had to provide a compliance affidavit, costs were reserved, and Epay had limited liberty to apply about technical feasibility. Prezzee gave the usual undertaking as to damages.
Progressive Green Pty Ltd v Flo Energy Pty Ltd
The practical lesson is that trade mark strategy has to cover the whole life of the brand, not just the filing stage. On the Court’s stated conclusions, Progressive Green proved infringement against FLO ENERGY, yet still lost its own FLOW POWER registrations. The Court treated FLOW POWER as only faintly adapted to distinguish and was not satisfied the evidence established the required capacity to distinguish at the relevant time. The older FLOWSMART mark also stayed on the register because the Court found relevant use during a short four-day period and rejected the separate cancellation argument based on likely deception or confusion from Flow Power’s reputation. For businesses, that means at least four things. First, clear a proposed brand properly before launch, especially if it uses ordinary sector language. Second, keep records showing how the mark was actually used and intended to be used around filing and launch. Third, do not assume a registration will survive a counterattack in litigation. Fourth, if you acquire or license an older mark, the details of use, control and timing may become central.
Outcome: The Court reached a split result. FLOWSMART remained on the register because the Court found relevant use during the non-use period and was not satisfied that the evidence established the reputation-based cancellation ground relied on by Progressive Green. The Court found that FLO ENERGY was deceptively similar to the registered FLOW POWER marks, so the first respondent’s use was infringing. But the Court also concluded that the FLOW POWER registrations should be cancelled because they were only faintly adapted to distinguish and the evidence did not establish the required capacity to distinguish, and because they were deceptively similar to the earlier FLOWSMART mark. Progressive Green could rely on a statutory defence for past conduct based on its registrations, but that defence would cease when orders were made giving effect to the reasons. Final orders and costs were left for later submissions.
Quach v Registrar of Trade Marks
Read this case as a procedural warning, not a ruling on the strength of the brand. If your business is involved in a trade mark opposition, check early who the legal opponent is, who currently owns the application, whether any assignment has been documented, and whether the Court documents name the right applicant and respondent. A Registrar decision in your favour does not mean the matter is over. If an appeal is started, the party who stands to lose the benefit of that decision will usually need to be before the Court. This is especially important where branding sits across multiple entities, such as an operating company, trustee, property owner or strata body. Keep assignment records, opposition documents and ownership evidence organised so you can respond quickly if the dispute moves from IP Australia to the Federal Court.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the joinder application and ordered that the Proprietors of Strata Plan 48462 be joined as a respondent. Derrington J held that they were the parties in whose favour the Registrar’s decision had been made because the decision allowed the application to proceed to registration. If the appeal succeeded, they would lose the benefit of that result. The Court considered them directly affected by the proceeding and held that the issues could not be finally determined without them. The Registrar indicated that, after joinder, it would file a submitting appearance and otherwise not take an active role. The Court did not decide the merits of the trade mark opposition and did not resolve the separate procedural difficulties identified with the attempted appeal.
Bain v International Capital Markets Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business is hit with multiple class actions over the same underlying conduct, do not assume the court will let all of them run in parallel or simply choose one without conditions. This case shows the Court may prefer a managed consolidation with safeguards designed to protect respondents from duplicated cost and inefficiency. The orders are especially important because they go beyond forum choice. They deal with who is on the record, how the lawyers must work together, who provides security for costs, who meets adverse costs orders, and how duplication will be monitored. For business owners, in-house teams and insurers, the message is to assess overlap early, map the competing proceedings carefully, and be ready to make or respond to applications about consolidation, stays, transfer, funding arrangements and cost controls. Procedural decisions at this stage can shape the commercial pressure of the whole dispute.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Nathan Vingrys' interlocutory applications seeking transfer of the Bain and Wyer proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria or, alternatively, permanent stays of those proceedings. O'Bryan J instead ordered that the Bain and Wyer proceedings be consolidated into a single Federal Court proceeding continuing under the Bain file number. The Court also made detailed management orders: Echo Law was to be on the record, Piper Alderman was to act as agent, a single counsel team was required, interlocutory work and expert evidence were to be handled jointly, and a consolidated statement of claim was to be filed. To address duplication and proportionality, the Court ordered the appointment of an independent costs referee to report every six months and directed that certain duplicated work caused by having two firms would not be recoverable against the respondents. The decision did not determine the substantive allegations against ICM or Mr Budzinski.
Caporaso Pty Ltd v Mercato Centrale Australia Pty Ltd
Treat trade mark evidence as legal evidence, not branding narrative. If IP Australia asks for evidence or representations about prior use, check every date, business name, owner and example of use against records before filing anything. This case also shows that enforcement strategy should start with a review of your own registration. Before sending a demand or starting proceedings, check whether the applicant was the true owner at filing, whether any earlier user may affect the scope of the registration, and whether anything said to the examiner could later be challenged as inaccurate. On the infringement side, do not assume that adding another word will avoid risk. If your proposed brand keeps the core registered element, you may still face a deceptive similarity argument.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed Caporaso’s appeal and allowed Mercato Centrale’s cross-appeal. It set aside parts of the primary judge’s orders, allowed the cross-claim, and ordered rectification of the Register by cancelling Trade Mark No 1760112 for the word MERCATO. The court held that the s 62(b) ground can be established even where the false evidence or representations were not relevant to a proper assessment of registrability, provided the required causal link with acceptance exists. The court also held that, if not cancelled, the MERCATO mark would have been infringed by MERCATO CENTRALE, while neither of the other Caporaso marks was infringed by any of Mercato Centrale’s marks.
Copyright Agency Limited v Department of Education (Queensland) [2025] ACopyT 2
The strongest takeaway is procedural discipline. If your business operates under a statutory licence, industry code, collective arrangement or long-term sector agreement, do not assume a tribunal will keep a matter on foot indefinitely just in case negotiations later break down. This case shows that a filed proceeding still needs present utility. It also shows that last-minute requests for coercive orders are risky if they have not been properly foreshadowed and supported. In practice, keep a clear chronology, separate negotiation issues from decision issues, and only seek formal intervention when you can point to a concrete dispute the tribunal or court can actually decide. If an undertaking will solve the immediate problem, that may be enough without a contested order.
Outcome: The Tribunal refused the applicant's attempted late coercive orders. It said the applicant's conduct was unsatisfactory because the proposed orders were not foreshadowed by any application and were not accompanied by submissions or supporting evidence. The Tribunal stated that applications for coercive orders affecting another party should be made on reasonable notice and, if opposed, supported by evidence and outline submissions. It accepted an undertaking from Catholic Schools NSW Limited to use reasonable endeavours to notify the applicant by 12 September 2025 of the schools and times for the applicant's pilots, which removed the immediate need for the order sought. Although the Tribunal expressed strong reservations about the utility of the proceeding and questioned whether it was being used merely as a backstop to negotiations, it did not dismiss the matter. Instead, it ordered that any future application for further orders be made on at least 14 days' notice with supporting material as appropriate, listed the proceeding for case management on 21 August 2026, and required the applicant to notify the Tribunal promptly if the matter resolved.
CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd v Apple Pty Limited (No 2)
If your business is considering patent litigation, this case is a reminder that costs can be carved up issue by issue. Losing the infringement claim does not automatically mean you lose every costs argument, and defending an invalidity attack can still have value if the issues are genuinely separable. But the case also warns that broad invalidity challenges, shifting case theories and late reframing of arguments can affect how the Court views costs. If you are using litigation funding, or if a related company stands to benefit from the case, do not assume those entities are safely outside the costs risk. Funding documents, control arrangements, technical disclosure protocols and settlement strategy should all be reviewed early and as the case evolves.
Outcome: Burley J ordered costs separately for the infringement claim and the invalidity cross-claim. CPC was ordered to pay all of Apple's costs of the infringement claim, including pre-trial case management hearings and construction issues. Apple was ordered to pay 85% of CPC's costs of the cross-claim, reflecting CPC's substantial success in resisting most of the invalidity attack but allowing for Apple's success in invalidating three asserted claims. The Court rejected Apple's claim for indemnity costs based on its offer of compromise, directed that costs be assessed on a lump-sum basis, found each of the four third parties jointly and severally liable for the costs orders against CPC, and made suppression orders in the form sought by Apple.
Crawford, in the matter of Pro-Pac Packaging Limited (administrators appointed)
Read this case as a practical administration and group-structure decision. The Court did not rewrite lease law. What it did was support administrators trying to preserve value in a large cross-border group by allowing continued trading and giving them procedural and funding protection. The property angle matters because the administrators' early investigations suggested some dormant entities still sat on leases that had not been formally moved to the active trading company. For business owners, that is the real warning. If your group has shifted operations over time, do not assume the legal documents followed the business. Check leases, guarantees, finance documents, customer contracts and inter-company arrangements entity by entity. For landlords, do not rely only on who occupies the site or pays the rent. Confirm who the legal tenant is and whether any assignment or novation was properly completed. In distress, those details become central.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the relief sought. Beach J extended the period for convening the second meetings of creditors to 20 May 2026 and allowed the meetings to be held during that period or within five business days after it, provided at least five business days' notice was given. The Court ordered that liabilities incurred under the identified funding deeds be treated as debts incurred by the administrators in performing their functions, while limiting the administrators' personal liability where their indemnity from company assets was insufficient. The Court also directed that the administrators were justified and acting reasonably in causing most of the Pro-Pac companies to enter into and perform the funding deeds, restricted payments from the administration account to specified purposes, and extended the time for responding to creditor requests from five to ten business days with portal-based publication allowed.
Culleton v Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd
If your business has a judgment debt and is enforcing it, this case shows the value of a disciplined record: the contract history, the judgment, appeal outcomes, service evidence and prior court findings all mattered. When those foundations are clear, the Court may be willing to shut down later proceedings that try to reopen settled issues. If you are resisting enforcement, the lesson is to raise genuine objections early, through the proper channels, and with evidence. A new proceeding is not a reset button. The judgment also shows that bankruptcy status can affect more than creditor recovery. If a person connected with your business is making declarations to regulators, government bodies or election authorities, accuracy about insolvency status is critical because the consequences may extend beyond civil enforcement.
Outcome: The Court gave summary judgment for the respondents under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act, dismissed the applicant's interlocutory application for leave to re-open, and corrected the name of the third respondent to the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. Horan J held, in substance, that the proceeding was an abuse of process and had no reasonable prospect of success because the issues raised had already been unsuccessfully litigated in earlier proceedings. The judgment also records that although Balwyn Nominees sought a vexatious proceedings order, that application was not determined in this judgment and was to be dealt with later.
Delta Building Automation Pty Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Read this case as a tender-contact case, not just a general competition law case. The accepted facts were that a managing director met a competitor, referred to a payment so the competitor would not waste its time, said there would only be two tenderers, and said he was confident of winning. The competitor rejected the proposal. On appeal, the appellants did not challenge those factual findings. They argued only that the conduct was too preparatory and that the intention finding was legally wrong. The Full Court rejected those arguments. For your business, the practical rule is simple: during a live or expected tender, do not discuss with competitors who should win, whether someone should step back, or whether money or some other benefit will be offered in return for a softer or absent bid.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay the ACCC's costs, as agreed or taxed. The court said none of the appeal grounds had been established. As a result, the primary judge's findings remained in place. Those findings were that Delta had attempted to make, and that Delta and Mr Davis had attempted to induce, an arrangement or understanding proscribed by s 45AJ in connection with the NGA tender. The published text does not reproduce the full reasons in complete form, so the safest summary is that the court rejected the arguments that the conduct was only preparatory and that the intention finding was legally flawed.
Demery v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this as a case about litigation structure, not a final ruling on consumer law liability. The Court accepted a practical arrangement because the ACCC proceeding and the class action raised materially the same liability issues. That reduced duplication and postponed the immediate fight about security for costs. But the underlying allegations still matter. The ACCC alleged that products were temporarily increased in price and then promoted as 'Down Down' at prices that were the same as, or higher than, earlier ordinary selling prices. If a court later accepts allegations of that kind, the exposure can extend beyond regulator action to compensation claims by customers. Businesses should make sure any advertised saving is supported by a genuine pricing history, clear records and a defensible comparison basis.
Outcome: The Court made orders largely in line with the parties' revised proposal. It ordered that the initial trial on liability issues in the representative proceeding be heard together with the initial trial on liability issues in the ACCC proceeding, and that the evidence in the ACCC proceeding be evidence in the representative proceeding. The applicant was ordered to take no step in either proceeding, including at the joint liability trial, unless leave was granted on reasonable notice. Coles' security for costs application was adjourned indefinitely, with liberty to re-enliven it if the applicant later sought leave to take a step before judgment. The Court also put in place document access, transcript access and opt-out notice arrangements. Importantly, these were procedural orders supported by undertakings, not a final determination of liability.
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Howell, in the matter of Castel Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business has employees, secured finance and insolvency risk, this case is a warning to map priorities before money is distributed. The Court had already held that the relevant proceeds were circulating assets, which meant the Commonwealth had priority after making Fair Entitlements Guarantee payments to former employees. The later dispute shows that indemnity wording alone may not settle who bears the loss. A later novation, the parties' communications, and pressure not to seek court directions all mattered. Businesses and lenders should read this as a reminder to review indemnities and novations together, keep clear written instructions, and treat qualified legal advice as a sign to slow down rather than a green light. Where the asset characterisation is uncertain and the stakes are high, a directions application may be safer than distributing funds and arguing later.
Outcome: The Court held that Thorn Australia was the indemnifying party. It also held that the contractual exclusions in the indemnity were engaged. However, Thorn Australia was estopped from relying on those exclusions, so the receivers succeeded on the indemnity route despite the exclusions applying on their terms. Because that resolved the practical dispute, the Court said it was unnecessary to determine the alternative claims in mistake, restitution or constructive trust. The orders delivered with the reasons were not yet the final perfected orders on interest and costs, with the parties directed to file agreed minutes or short submissions by 2 February 2026.
Director, Professional Services Review v Yoong
If your practice receives a Professional Services Review notice, do not assume it is invalid just because it asks for a complete patient file rather than only records created during the review period. In Director, Professional Services Review v Yoong, the Full Court held that complete clinical records for named patients could be relevant to the review where those patients received services during the review period. The Court also accepted that the notice was sufficiently clear even though it did not spell out every factual step behind the patient selection process. In practical terms, a clinic should treat this kind of notice as a serious compliance event. Confirm the statutory basis, identify all responsive records, work out what is held by the practice and what may be held elsewhere, preserve the files, and get legal advice quickly if there is any question about scope, timing or validity. This case is about health regulation and administrative law, not intellectual property or patent law.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed the Director's appeal. It held that complete clinical records for identified patients to whom Dr Yoong provided services during the review period were relevant to the review within the meaning of s 89B(1), properly construed. The Court said it could not be said that those documents had no conceivable relevance or no bearing whatever on the review, and that they were likely to assist the Director's investigative functions under Part VAA. The Court also held that the form and content of the notice were sufficient because the documents sought were identified with enough clarity for Dr Yoong to understand what had to be produced and to show that the Director had authority to require them. The orders below were set aside and the judicial review application was dismissed.
Dunn, in the matter of Centrex Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement)
If your company is being restructured through a DOCA, do not assume existing shares will survive. This case shows that the court can approve a compulsory transfer of all shares for nil consideration where the evidence supports three core points: the shares have no residual value, liquidation is the realistic alternative if the deal fails, and shareholders have been given full and accurate notice of what is proposed. For business owners, directors and investors, the practical message is to focus on evidence and process. A rescue proposal should be backed by a credible market process, clear financial records, realistic alternative scenarios, and independent valuation material. For buyers, it is not enough that the deal is commercially attractive. The court will want to see why full ownership is needed and why existing shareholders are not being unfairly stripped of real value. For shareholders, the case is a reminder that once a company is insolvent, equity sits behind secured creditors, employees and unsecured creditors in the recovery waterfall.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. Moshinsky J held that the proposed transfer of all Centrex shares for no consideration would not unfairly prejudice the interests of members. The Court accepted independent expert evidence that there was no residual value in the shares that would be lost by existing shareholders. It also accepted that if the s 444GA order were not made, PRL was expected to terminate the DOCA and Centrex and Agriflex would move into voluntary winding up, with no return to shareholders. The Court also made ancillary orders under s 447A of the Corporations Act and s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule allowing the deed administrators to execute transfer documents and update the share register.
EIS Gmbh v LELO Oceania Pty Ltd (Liability Trial)
The practical message is to treat patent enforcement as a technical evidence exercise, not just a commercial complaint. Before accusing a competitor, check what the claims actually require, whether your product comparison and testing are reliable, and whether the patent is vulnerable to invalidity attacks such as lack of clarity, lack of definition, insufficiency, lack of support, novelty, inventive step, best method or utility. If you are on the receiving end of a patent demand, do not assume registration equals enforceability. Review the patent, the allegedly infringing product, and the wording of any threats or marketplace complaints. This case also shows that online platform notices and public statements can become part of the litigation record. Businesses should make sure legal, technical and commercial teams are aligned before any enforcement step is taken.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared Australian Standard Patent No. 2018200317 invalid and ordered that it be revoked in both proceedings. EIS’s infringement claims were dismissed. The orders also stated that the cross-claim otherwise be dismissed, and set a timetable for costs submissions if the parties could not agree on costs. The substantive orders were stayed for 28 days, or, if a notice of appeal was filed within that period, until the appeal was heard and determined. The published catchwords indicate that the Court found the patent contained insufficient information to enable the skilled person to achieve the claimed stimulating pressure field, which was a key part of the invalidity result.
Emerald No 2 (SA) Pty Ltd v Matthews, in the matter of Sapphire (SA) Pty Ltd
If your company is already in liquidation, that does not automatically mean every restructuring option is closed. In some cases, the Court may allow a move back into voluntary administration so creditors can consider a deed proposal. But the Court will not do that just because a director wants another chance. You need a practical reason for the change, evidence that creditors may do better than they would in liquidation, a suitable and independent appointee, and a process that avoids wasting money repeating work already done. This case also shows that strained relationships with an incumbent liquidator can matter, but only where replacement is just and beneficial overall and tied to a real proposal. Most importantly, the Court generally leaves the commercial decision to creditors, provided there is no obvious impropriety in putting the proposal to a vote.
Outcome: The Court granted the application. It removed the incumbent liquidator and appointed Mr Richard Trygve Rohrt as liquidator. It then granted leave for Mr Rohrt to be appointed as voluntary administrator of Sapphire (SA) Pty Ltd. The Court also made truncated administration orders so the administration could proceed without repeating steps that had little utility after an 11-year external administration, including dispensing with a first creditors’ meeting and certain investigation and reporting requirements. The winding up was stayed from the time of Mr Rohrt’s appointment as administrator, and the Court ordered that the winding up be terminated once a deed of company arrangement substantially in the identified form had been fully effectuated and notice given to ASIC. There was no order as to costs.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (Ironside Case)
Business owners should read this case as a site-control and compliance decision, not as a statement that union entry rights can be ignored. The Court dealt with admitted contraventions, so the key lesson is what kinds of conduct can attract civil penalties once the facts are established. A permit holder exercising an OHS right must comply with a reasonable request by the occupier to comply with an OHS requirement applying to the premises. A permit holder must also not intentionally hinder or obstruct a person, or otherwise act in an improper manner, while exercising right-of-entry rights. The union itself was penalised because it was knowingly concerned in, or party to, the officials' conduct and was therefore taken to have contravened the Act as well. In practice, businesses should have clear site access protocols, identify construction zones properly, train managers on how to make lawful requests, and preserve evidence immediately after any incident.
Outcome: Dowling J made declarations that Mr Simpson, Mr Harris, Mr Mahy and Mr Tzimas had contravened sections 499 and or 500 of the Fair Work Act in the ways set out in the orders. The Court also declared that the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union had contravened sections 499 and 500 because it was directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the officials' conduct and was therefore involved in those contraventions under section 550. The Court imposed pecuniary penalties on both the union and the individuals. The union was ordered to pay six penalties totalling $144,000. Separate penalties were imposed on each individual respondent, and all penalties were payable to the Commonwealth within 28 days.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Woolworths Group Limited; Fair Work Ombudsman v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd; Baker v Woolworths Group Limited; Pabalan v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a warning against treating an annual salary as a complete compliance solution for award-covered staff. The Court’s summary conclusion was that the relevant set-off clauses only worked within a single pay period, not across a broader 26-week period. That point goes directly to how many salary contracts are drafted and administered. The judgment also shows that courts may resist answering broad, hypothetical payroll questions if they are not tied to real employees, real shifts and real award triggers. In practice, that means employers need contracts that match the actual pay cycle, records that capture hours and relevant award events, and a reconciliation process that tests each pay period against minimum entitlements. If a dispute arises, evidence about actual work patterns will matter more than abstract arguments about how a salary was supposed to operate.
Outcome: On the extract available, the Court’s clearest substantive conclusion was that the relevant set-off clauses were only effective to discharge obligations under the Award within a single pay period. The Court explained, at least in the Woolworths context, that the actual payment obligation was the periodic amount payable under the contract and Award, not a separate annual payment obligation that could be applied across a 26-week period in the way argued. The Court also declined to determine a number of issues because they were framed too hypothetically or were not sufficiently tied to actual employee facts. Rather than finally disposing of all issues across the four proceedings, the Court ordered further case management on 27 October 2025.
Gavin v Svitzer Australia Pty Ltd
If your business is considering a restructure, start with the operational case and make sure the documents consistently support it. This case shows that a court may examine draft org charts, internal emails, remuneration proposals, meeting discussions and the sequence of decisions to work out the real reason for what happened. A redundancy can still breach the Fair Work Act if the employee’s exercise of a workplace right formed part of the substantial and operative reasons for the decision. The practical reading for employers is straightforward. Treat employee complaints and inquiries about employment as potentially protected. Keep decision-making disciplined. Be clear about who made the decision, when it was made, and why. If a new role is genuinely needed, explain its purpose and accountabilities carefully. If remuneration is changing, make sure the business rationale is documented and consistent with the changed duties. And do not assume that calling a role change a restructure will isolate the business from a general protections claim.
Outcome: On the published orders, Mr Gavin succeeded on the section 340 general protections claim. The Court declared that Svitzer dismissed him because of his exercise of a workplace right within the meaning of section 341 of the Fair Work Act, and therefore contravened section 340. The Court also declared that Svitzer restructured its operations in a manner that made his position redundant, altered his position to his detriment and injured him in his employment because he had exercised a workplace right, which was also a contravention of section 340. Relief was not finally determined in the reproduced orders. The parties were directed to confer about relief by 6 February 2026, with a case management hearing listed for 13 February 2026.
GGPG Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Golden Eagle Property Group Pty Ltd (No 2)
Business owners should read this as a case about litigation discipline in a complex property development dispute. If your position is that the wrong entity has sued, that a receiver was not validly appointed, or that another party lacks authority to run the case, that issue needs to be stated clearly and consistently from the outset. It is risky to proceed for months or years on the basis that a receiver is acting, then try to convert a related challenge in another proceeding into a late defence just before trial. The judgment also shows that the Court may split related proceedings where one dispute is sufficiently discrete and should not be delayed by a larger corporate fight. In practical terms, businesses should check the authority chain, transaction documents, security documents and pleadings early, especially where land has been acquired through nominee structures, related entities or insolvency appointments.
Outcome: The Court granted leave to amend only to the extent of allowing the respondents to remove parts of their earlier positive factual defence. It refused leave to add the proposed new standing or authority contentions in paragraph 1C and paragraph 41A. McElwaine J held that failing to plead the standing issue explicitly was contrary to sections 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rule 16.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), because the point was one that could take the other side by surprise. The Court also set aside earlier orders requiring this proceeding to be heard with QUD 93 of 2022, made a separation order, fixed a fresh timetable, and listed the matter for hearing in Brisbane from 9 February 2026. Costs of the interlocutory applications were reserved.
Gillham v Melbourne Symphony Orchestra Pty Ltd (No 2)
Business owners should read this as a process and evidence case, not a final ruling on liability. If a worker alleges action was taken for a prohibited reason, the dispute may turn on the actual reasons of the people involved in the decision chain. In practice, that can include directors, executives, advisers and former staff, not just one manager. The Court made clear that it would not lightly interfere with a respondent's choice about what evidence to call where a reverse onus applies. It also preferred oral evidence over affidavit-heavy proof in a case about contested motives and fast-moving events. The practical message is to document decisions carefully at the time, identify who made them, keep public explanations aligned with internal records, and assume complaint material and communications may later be scrutinised closely.
Outcome: The Court vacated the five-day trial listed for 1 December 2025 and relisted the proceeding for a three-week trial commencing on 18 May 2026. It held that the original estimate was inadequate given the parties' witness choices, the importance of oral evidence and the complexity of the issues. The first and fourth respondents' interlocutory application was otherwise dismissed, and the applicant's amended interlocutory application was also dismissed, largely because the vacation of the December trial date meant the immediate video link issues no longer required determination. The Court also directed service of the subpoena application on Dr Galaise and Mr Moore and ordered further amended witness outlines for specified witnesses.
Global Capital Property Fund Limited (in liquidation) v Point Bay Developments Pty Ltd
Read this case as a warning about governance, records and litigation strategy. If your business enters a joint venture, project funding arrangement or variation that changes who gets paid, document the commercial purpose, approvals and money flow clearly. Where the same people sit on multiple sides of a deal, conflict management needs to be active and recorded, not assumed. If a dispute later overlaps with regulator action or insolvency proceedings, check early whether findings, affidavits or adverse determinations from the earlier matter may affect the later case. That does not mean a recusal application will always succeed, but it does mean procedural fairness issues can become a serious part of the dispute. Good records, clear approvals and early legal review can reduce both merits risk and procedural disruption.
Outcome: The Court allowed the interlocutory application for recusal. Neskovcin J held that the test for apprehended bias in Ebner was satisfied and that he should recuse himself from further hearing and case management of the proceeding. The matter was referred to the National Operations Registrar for reallocation to another docket judge, and there was no order as to costs. The reasons show that the result was driven by the combined effect of overlapping findings made in the earlier ASIC winding-up proceeding and the receipt of extraneous information there that had ongoing significance in the later case. The Court also found that the timing of the application did not cause prejudice and did not justify refusing recusal.
Gogulwar v H.B. Fuller Company Australia Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a reminder to separate three issues that often get blurred together in workplace disputes. First, identify the actual source of the requirement, such as a public health direction or another legal rule. Second, ask only for the information genuinely needed to comply with that requirement or to assess whether the employee can perform the role. Third, if disciplinary action is being considered, make sure the evidence shows the decision was made for that operational or legal reason, not because the employee complained, questioned management, raised safety issues or referred to privacy rights. The available judgment supports the view that the employer succeeded because the court accepted its explanation of why it acted. Businesses should still be cautious about making broad assumptions from this case. Public health directions change, workplace facts differ, and the available judgment does not contain the full reasoning on every issue argued.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the appeal. The orders and catchwords make that result clear. On the available judgment text, the court did not disturb the primary judge’s conclusion that the employer had rebutted the section 361 presumption. The visible material supports the employer’s position that the dismissal was connected to the employee’s refusal to disclose vaccination status, the operation of the Victorian public health directions, and the resulting inability to attend the workplace and perform the inherent requirements of his on-site role. Because the available text is truncated, it is safer not to go further than that in describing the court’s detailed reasoning on each pleaded claim.
Greer v Bandjalang Aboriginal Corporation Prescribed Body Corporate RNTBC (No 3)
If your organisation is subject to an interim injunction, do not assume the order will remain in place unchanged until trial. A major governance event, such as the appointment of an administrator with sole control over staffing decisions, can justify setting the order aside if the original risk has fallen away. This case also shows the importance of separating legal theories. An alleged retaliatory dismissal because an employee made a complaint is different from a later dismissal or redundancy decision made by an independent controller for operational, financial or governance reasons. That does not make the later decision immune from challenge, but it may shift the dispute into a different Fair Work pathway. Businesses should document who made the decision, what legal authority they had, what reasons they relied on, and whether those reasons are genuinely distinct from any employee complaint or protected workplace right.
Outcome: The respondent’s urgent application succeeded. Rangiah J ordered that the interlocutory injunctions made on 10 October 2025 be set aside. The court found that the appointment of the special administrator had substantially changed Bandjalang’s governance because the directors’ offices became vacant and only the special administrator could control the corporation’s affairs, including employee decisions. As a result, the threat that had originally justified the injunctions, namely that certain directors might act against Ms Greer because she had made a complaint to SafeWork NSW, had dissipated. The court accepted that the special administrator might still terminate her employment or investigate misconduct, but treated that as a different issue that could engage different remedies rather than a reason to preserve the existing section 340 injunctions.
Haverkort v Qantas Airways Limited
Business owners should read this as a communications and privacy process case, not a final ruling on refund liability. If you need to contact customers about a dispute, class action, remediation program or regulatory issue, do not assume that using your brand or domain is always the safest option. The Court looked closely at whether the sender identity matched the true source of the communication, whether recipients might be confused, and whether extra personal details were genuinely necessary. It preferred a structure where customer data was used behind the scenes by a distribution agent, but not exposed in the notice itself. It also supported verification steps such as links on a known company webpage and the Court website. In practice, businesses should settle notice wording, sender identity, hotline ownership, privacy controls and third-party undertakings early, before any mass communication goes out.
Outcome: The Court approved the opt out notice, fixed the opt out deadline at 4.00 pm AEST on 24 April 2026, approved a detailed distribution process and approved the expert questions in Annexure C. It held that the notice should not be sent from an email address ending in qantas.com because the notice was not a communication from Qantas and using that domain could create an incorrect or misleading impression, cause confusion and lead to misdirected enquiries. The Court also held that booking references and cancelled flight dates should not be included in the notice itself because recipients might be concerned by unexpected personal and confidential information, and because including that information might not reduce scam concerns and could heighten them. The Court instead ordered a confidential third-party distribution process using Qantas' records in the background.
HealthX Group Pty Ltd v Palling (No 2)
If you want an incentive payment to be discretionary, the contract needs to say that clearly and identify who decides, when they decide, and whether any entitlement arises before written approval. If you want a formula-based profit share, define the metric precisely and keep the records needed to prove the calculation. This case also highlights the danger of using one metric in the contract and another in practice. The judgment refers to EBIT in the clause, but parts of the evidence and calculation discussion refer to EBITDA. That kind of mismatch can become central in litigation. Businesses should review incentive clauses, supporting spreadsheets, approval processes and survey records together, not as separate issues. A well-drafted clause and reliable records are often the difference between a manageable remuneration dispute and a court-ordered payment.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed HealthX's claim for a declaration that it was not liable to pay the amount demanded by Ms Palling and allowed Ms Palling's cross-claim. On the judgment, the Court held that Item 10 was a profit-share clause, not a discretionary bonus clause, and that once the gates were met Ms Palling was entitled to payment. The Court found, on the best evidence available, that the gates had been met before 29 April 2019. It then calculated Ms Palling's entitlement for the claim period from 1 July 2022 to 26 April 2023 at $366,405.20 and ordered HealthX to pay that amount plus interest within 28 days. The extract also records dismissal of HealthX's interlocutory application and limited costs orders.
HKW25 v National Disability Insurance Agency
Read this case as a decision about anonymity in litigation, not as a general statement of Australian privacy law. It does not create a new rule requiring businesses to conceal identities, and it is not authority that all health or disability disputes should proceed confidentially. What it does show is how the Federal Court approaches suppression applications where serious mental health evidence is put forward. The Court required more than general assertions, allowed further evidence to be filed, noted that the NDIA did not oppose the application, and then made an order limited to what was necessary. If your business is involved in a dispute touching sensitive personal information, think separately about pre-litigation privacy obligations, what must actually be filed in court, and whether there is evidence strong enough to justify a targeted anonymity application. Also remember that an order made until further order can later be revisited.
Outcome: The Court granted the application and ordered, until further order, that the applicant continue to be known as "HKW25" and that information revealing or tending to reveal his identity not be disclosed or published. The Court accepted that identifying the applicant would likely aggravate his serious mental health conditions and create a threat to his safety. It also considered that open identification would prejudice the proper administration of justice because it would likely worsen the disabilities connected to the proceeding and undermine the applicant's safe access to the Court. The Court further noted a possible chilling effect on similarly situated litigants. The order was expressly left open to later reconsideration if sought by a party, the media or the public.
Horizon Solsolutions Australia Pty Ltd v National Disability Insurance Agency
If your business depends on fast decisions from a government payment system, do not assume the usual turnaround time will continue once integrity concerns arise. This judgment shows that a court may be slow to force immediate decisions where the agency can point to statutory duties around fraud prevention, risk control and stewardship of public money. The case was not a ruling that Horizon committed fraud or breached privacy law. The court’s decision turned on the high threshold for proving unreasonable delay, not on the merits of the underlying allegations. Even so, the background shows how disputed issues about billing, records, audit findings and data handling can combine to trigger manual review and serious cashflow stress. Businesses should keep claim documentation strong, train staff on privacy and billing practices, respond quickly to regulator concerns, and plan for the possibility that payment cycles can blow out from days to weeks while reviews continue.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed both applications with costs. The published catchwords state that the court was not satisfied there had been unreasonable delay by the NDIA in deciding Horizon’s claims for payment. The judgment also records that unreasonableness must be assessed objectively in light of all the circumstances and that it is not the court’s role to supervise the administration of the agency absent an issue involving legality. The decision should be read as a ruling about the high threshold for proving unreasonable delay, not as a final judicial finding on the truth of the disputed allegations that formed part of the background to the NDIA’s manual review.
J Wisbey & Associates Pty Ltd v UBS AG (No 3)
If your business is affected by an industry-wide competition issue, this decision is a reminder to focus on evidence of loss as early as possible. Keep records showing what was bought, when, at what price, and what happened to that cost in your own pricing and margins. If you are part of a class action, do not assume that staying in the class is enough to receive money. Registration and claims administration steps can be decisive. This judgment also should not be overstated. The clear holding is that the Federal Court approved the settlement and distribution scheme. The reasons include observations about pass-through and class closure, but the available text does not support broad claims that every aspect of those issues was finally resolved on the merits.
Outcome: The Federal Court approved the settlement and the settlement distribution scheme. The Court authorised the applicant to enter into and give effect to the settlement deed on behalf of relevant group members, confirmed that the applicant, respondents and group members would be bound by the orders and settlement, and dealt with the status of registered, late and invalid registrants. Maurice Blackburn was appointed administrator of the distribution scheme. The Court also approved deductions from the settlement sum for legal costs and disbursements, ATE insurance costs, administration costs up to the approved amount, and reimbursement to the applicant for its time and expenses as representative party. Unregistered group members remained group members for the proceeding but were not permitted to seek any benefit under the settlement.
Jacksons Drawing Supplies Pty Ltd v Jackson's Art Supplies Ltd (No 2)
If you are launching or localising an online store for Australia, clear the brand early and test the whole customer journey for confusion. This case shows that courts assess the combined effect of naming, website structure, currency, local contact details, warehouse references and customer service conduct. A disclaimer may be ordered, but only as tightly controlled corrective relief, not as a general permission slip to keep trading in a confusing way. Here, the court required a specific disclaimer, a pop-up that blocked access until acknowledged, and a repeat statement at or near the bottom of each page. It also refused to require a hyperlink to the Australian business's website because the purpose of the order was to correct confusion, not to drive traffic. Businesses should read this as a warning that localisation decisions made by marketing, web and support teams can create ACL and passing off exposure just as readily as formal advertising claims.
Outcome: The court declared that the first and second respondents had contravened section 18, section 29(1)(g) and section 29(1)(h) of the Australian Consumer Law and had engaged in passing off. On and from 26 September 2025, they were permanently restrained from operating the identified Australia-specific site and any other website, subdirectory or subdomain with specified Australian characteristics unless a prescribed disclaimer was displayed. The disclaimer had to appear prominently in a pop-up at least once in any browser session, block access until acknowledged, and also appear at or near the bottom of each page. The court ordered an inquiry as to pecuniary relief, otherwise dismissed the amended originating application and the cross-claim, and made lump sum costs orders with a 15% discount applied to the assessed sum.
Kanevsky, in the matter of M.A Services Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed)
Read this case as an early administration procedure decision with a strong lease-management angle. The Court did not say leases stop mattering in administration. It recognised the opposite: lease liabilities matter enough that administrators may urgently seek a short postponement of personal liability while they identify premises, vehicles and other leased or financed assets. If your business operates from several sites or uses leased equipment, keep a reliable lease and asset schedule with counterparties, payment obligations, notice details and supporting documents. If you are a landlord or creditor, check court orders, ASIC published notices, emails and any creditor portal carefully. This case shows that notice methods, meeting format and response times can be modified, and those changes can affect how and when you need to act.
Outcome: The Court granted the relief substantially as sought. It ordered that notices could be given by email where an email address was available, otherwise by post, with publication on ASIC's published notices website and a creditor portal as additional safeguards. It permitted meetings to be held by telephone or audiovisual conference only and approved a livestream first meeting with written live chat participation. It extended the response time for certain creditor requests and allowed requested information to be provided through the creditor portal. Importantly, it ordered that the administrators' personal liability under the relevant lease provisions would begin on 16 January 2026, so they were not personally liable for the relevant lease-related liabilities from 23 December 2025 to 16 January 2026 inclusive.
Keybridge Capital Limited v Kirant Regional Media Investments Pty Ltd
If your business is putting money into an acquisition through another entity, document the commercial position precisely at the start. State who is the beneficial owner, who is only the registered holder, whether a trust exists, whether confidentiality is a condition, whether other investors must consent, and what happens if that consent never comes. If the fallback is repayment, record that clearly. Then make sure your board papers, market announcements, financial reports and correspondence stay consistent with that position. This case also shows that a person seeking derivative leave must present as acting for the company, not for a personal or factional agenda. Timing matters. If a claim is only pushed after a board spill or control dispute, the court may view the application with real scepticism.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for derivative leave. Button J held that two mandatory statutory preconditions had not been established. First, the court was not satisfied that Mr Bolton was acting in good faith. Secondly, the court was not satisfied that granting leave would be in the best interests of Keybridge. The judgment indicates that the court's reasoning was influenced by the timing of the application after Mr Bolton's removal from the board and failed appeal, his role as CEO and director during the underlying events, Keybridge's repeated public statements describing the transaction as incomplete and subject to refund, and Keybridge's acceptance of the return of the $5 million in July 2020. The court also ordered Mr Bolton to pay Keybridge's costs of the application.
Kirkalocka Gold SPV Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v SCL AUS Limited
If your business depends on future royalties, earn-outs, revenue shares or other asset-linked payments, separate the commercial promise from the legal protection. This case shows that a deed can say obligations are intended to run with a tenement, require transferees to sign up, and permit a caveat, yet still be treated by the Court as creating contractual rights only. A contractual right may still be valuable, but it does not necessarily support the kind of control over the asset that many businesses assume. In an insolvency setting, that can mean your monetary claims are dealt with through a DOCA rather than outside it, and a caveat may not survive. Before signing, businesses should test four things together: the payment clause, any transfer mechanism, any security or proprietary interest actually granted, and what happens if receivers or administrators are appointed. Those issues should be reviewed as one package, not clause by clause in isolation.
Outcome: The plaintiffs were largely successful. Jackson J declared that, on the proper construction of the Royalty Deed, SCL's rights were contractual and did not confer any proprietary interest in the mining lease. The Court also declared that the DOCA dated 22 December 2023 was binding on SCL for the purposes of section 444D(1) of the Corporations Act in respect of all monetary claims by SCL against Kirkalocka for any breach, future or otherwise, of obligations in clauses 3, 5 and 8 of the Royalty Deed, where those obligations were extant as at 2 November 2023. The Court further declared that the receivers had repudiated the Royalty Deed for the purposes of the relevant DOCA clause by their 14 November 2023 letter, while expressly not deciding whether SCL had accepted that repudiation so as to terminate the deed. SCL was ordered to consent to withdrawal of caveat number 649465 and cooperate in effecting its withdrawal. Costs were left for further submissions.
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2)
If a worker’s public comments trigger complaints, slow the decision down enough to separate legal grounds from commercial pressure. Check the contract, any enterprise agreement, any applicable policy, and whether the worker has been given a clear direction or only informal advice. Record who made the decision, what information they had, and the exact reason for the action. If the issue is framed as misconduct or policy breach, follow the disciplinary steps that apply, including notice of the allegation and an opportunity to respond where required. This case is a reminder that a short engagement does not remove legal risk. A rushed decision can create liability both for the reason behind the termination and for skipping the process that should have been followed.
Outcome: The Court declared that the ABC contravened s 772(1) of the Fair Work Act by terminating Ms Lattouf’s employment for reasons including that she held a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. It also declared that the ABC contravened s 50 by breaching specified clauses of the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2022-2025. The ABC was ordered to pay Ms Lattouf $70,000 in compensation. The Court did not finally determine pecuniary penalties in the orders reproduced here, instead directing that there be a further hearing to decide whether any penalty should be imposed and, if so, in what amount.
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Penalty)
Read this case in two stages. The earlier liability judgment decided that the ABC had broken the law. This penalty judgment decided how many contraventions there were for penalty purposes and what monetary penalties should be imposed. That distinction matters. A business cannot assess its risk only by asking whether there was a policy concern or reputational issue. It must also ask whether the disciplinary process required by an enterprise agreement or similar instrument was followed step by step, and whether a prohibited reason formed part of the decision. The Court’s reasoning shows that paragraph numbering alone does not determine penalty exposure. The substance of the obligation matters. Advice requirements that would ordinarily be given together may be treated as one obligation, while a separate duty to give the employee an actual opportunity to respond can be a different contravention. For employers, the practical lesson is to slow down, identify the governing instrument, separate suspicion from proof, and record lawful reasons carefully before removing or terminating a worker.
Outcome: The Federal Court imposed four pecuniary penalties on the ABC. It ordered $75,000 for the contravention of ss 772(1) and 50 through the breach of clause 55.4.1(f), $12,500 for the contravention of s 50 through the breach of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 55.2.1, $12,500 for the contravention of s 50 through the breach of paragraph (f) of clause 55.2.1, and $50,000 for the contravention of s 50 through the breach of clause 55.2.2. The Court held that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) formed one combined obligation, while paragraph (f) and clause 55.2.2 were separate obligations. The ABC was ordered to pay the penalties to Ms Lattouf within 28 days.
Leigh v National Disability Insurance Agency
Do not assume the Federal Court will keep names, allegations or documents private just because the material is sensitive or because another forum already granted anonymity. This case shows that the Court requires cogent evidence and a close fit between the order sought and the statutory ground relied on. General privacy concerns, distress, embarrassment, or broad claims that publicity may be misused elsewhere are not enough. For business owners, the practical response is to plan confidentiality early. Decide what really needs to be filed, whether redactions or narrower annexures are possible, and whether there is evidence to support any application for suppression or non-publication. If you are relying on safety concerns or prejudice to other proceedings, you will need concrete material showing a real and legally relevant risk, not just understandable concern.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the interlocutory application. It held that the applicant had not shown the requested orders were necessary on the grounds relied on. The judgment says generalised privacy concerns, including concerns about medical and health-related information, did not satisfy the statutory test. The Court also held that an earlier AAT pseudonym order did not automatically justify the same result in the Federal Court because the AAT was applying a different and less demanding provision. On the evidence before it, the Court was not satisfied that suppression was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice in the other proceedings identified by the applicant. The published reasons available here also indicate the safety case was not made out on the material summarised.
Leigh v National Disability Insurance Agency (Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal)
If your business needs confidentiality in Federal Court proceedings, do not assume sensitivity alone will be enough. Work out early exactly what protection is sought, which statutory ground may apply, and what evidence can show the order is necessary. Also check whether any existing confidentiality order comes from a different legal regime, because tribunal protections do not automatically transfer to the Federal Court. This case is also a reminder to treat interlocutory appeal deadlines seriously. A late application usually needs both a satisfactory explanation for delay and a proposed appeal with real prospects. If either element is weak, the Court may refuse to let the appeal proceed at all.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal. The judgment records that the application was filed more than two months late, there was not a complete explanation for the delay, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. In assessing the proposed appeal, the Court accepted the primary judge’s reasoning that the applicant’s concerns were too general to establish that pseudonym and suppression orders were necessary under the Federal Court Act. The Court also accepted that earlier AAT orders did not control the Federal Court outcome because the statutory tests were different and more demanding in the Court. As a result, the applicant could not overcome either the lateness problem or the weak merits of the proposed appeal.
Liu v Miller-Kovacs, in the matter of Privato Enterprises Pty Limited
If you are buying or selling a company, do not treat a deposit note, a board minute and a Form 484 as enough. The safer approach is a written share sale agreement that clearly states the parties, the price, any deposit, who is contributing funds, whether anyone is acting as nominee or trustee, what happens on default, and exactly what must be handed over at settlement. Signed transfer instruments, payment records, director resignations and appointments, bank access, passwords, accounting access and company registers should all be dealt with together. This case also shows the danger of leaving one person in control after settlement for convenience. Here, the continuing control of the company bank account and later ASIC changes became central to the dispute. If any part of the arrangement is unusual, such as cash payments, overseas transfers or one person holding an interest informally, document it properly before money changes hands.
Outcome: The plaintiffs substantially succeeded. Halley J accepted their account of the terms on which they acquired the shares in Privato and the amounts paid. The Court declared that the Form 484 lodged with ASIC on 27 March 2024 was ineffective in transferring title in the plaintiffs' shares to the first, second and third defendants. The first and second defendants were ordered to pay $100,000 to each plaintiff, plus $14,666.08 each in pre-judgment interest from 15 January 2024. The plaintiffs were also ordered to execute instruments transferring their shares to the first, second and third defendants so that each would hold 400 shares, and the defendants were ordered to lodge a validly executed Form 484 recording those transfers. Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, and the fourth defendant's cross-claim was dismissed.
Mansfield (Trustee), in the matter of Frugtniet v Frugtniet (Stay Applications)
Business owners should read this case as a procedural enforcement decision. The applicants were residential tenants, and the Court was not deciding ordinary leasing rights. It was deciding whether to pause execution of writs of possession for a very short time. The applicants appeared in person, and the Court still required detailed, credible evidence. One had secured a new tenancy starting on a fixed date and had serious cardiac illness. The other had secured a new tenancy within days and was recovering from severe burn injuries. The Court accepted there was some risk to the trustee and some prejudice to creditors, but still granted short stays because the evidence was concrete and the time sought was limited. If your business is in similar trouble, do not rely on assumptions, rumours about appeals, or broad hardship claims. Move quickly, gather documents, and ask only for relief you can realistically honour.
Outcome: The Court granted both stay applications. Execution of the writ for the Lidcombe property was stayed until 9.00 am on 27 October 2025, and execution of the writ for the Rosehill property was stayed until 11.00 am on 10 November 2025. Costs were reserved. Perry J accepted that the trustee and creditors would suffer some prejudice from delay and that there was some risk the occupants might not vacate as promised. Even so, the balance of convenience favoured short stays because each applicant gave credible evidence of genuine hardship and concrete plans to move into alternative accommodation within a limited timeframe. The Court also made clear that it expected both applicants to vacate in line with the dates they had put forward.
McGinn v Australian Information Commissioner (No 2)
Businesses should read this case as a reminder to separate three issues that often get mixed together in customer disputes: whether an event happened, whether a record of that event exists, and whether your business holds personal information that must be given under APP 12. The Court accepted that an OAIC delegate could treat those as different questions. If your business genuinely does not hold the requested record, privacy law may not require you to create one just to answer the request. But that is not a licence for poor systems. You still need to know which entity holds what, search properly, explain your position consistently, and keep a clear written trail. Confusion across head office systems, third-party platforms or related entities can turn an ordinary complaint into a costly privacy dispute.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the originating application in full. Jackman J held that the delegate had afforded procedural fairness by providing a preliminary view, supplying the substance of the adverse material, inviting a response and considering that response before making the final decision. The Court also rejected the allegations of actual bias, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant material, unreasonableness, no evidence and misconduct. It found that the delegate had cogent reasons for accepting North Shore BMW's position that it did not hold a record dated 15 May 2017 and that the decision had an evident and intelligible justification. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Cronan
Read this case as a warning about litigation management, not as a ruling that finally resolved the parties’ commercial claims. Goodman J made interlocutory orders aimed at controlling the proceeding and protecting the court process. The court held that MWP had engaged in vexatious proceedings, but did not make the broad vexatious proceedings order sought. Instead, it made narrower restraint orders against Mr Michael Wilson acting for MWP in this proceeding and in certain future related Federal Court proceedings without leave. The court also required MWP to pay earlier costs owed to two respondents, provide $225,000 security for costs, and accepted that the proceeding should be stayed until those amounts were dealt with. For businesses, the lesson is to keep claims tightly framed, avoid scandalous or irrelevant material, communicate professionally, and treat adverse costs orders as urgent operational risks. If your business is overseas or asset-light in Australia, expect security for costs to be a live issue.
Outcome: Goodman J made targeted interlocutory orders. Mr Michael Earl Wilson was restrained from acting for MWP in this proceeding and from acting for MWP in future Federal Court proceedings, whether in MWP’s name or another person’s name, against Mr Porter or Mr Moretti and connected with the bankrupt estate of Mr David Slater, unless leave was first obtained. The court held that MWP had engaged in vexatious proceedings, but did not make the broader vexatious proceedings order sought because a lesser order would suffice. MWP was ordered within 21 days to pay $74,984 due under earlier costs orders and to provide $225,000 security for the respondents’ costs by paying that amount into court. The proceeding was stayed pending both payments. The respondents’ amended interlocutory application was otherwise dismissed, and MWP was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of that application on a lump sum basis to be quantified by a registrar acting as referee.
Miciulis v Cimic Group Limited
Business owners should read this as a class action settlement approval case, not as a new statement of privacy law. The Court did not finally decide whether CIMIC breached continuous disclosure or misleading conduct laws. Instead, it approved a no-admissions settlement and the machinery for distributing the settlement fund. The practical lesson is that process matters. If your business is defending a representative proceeding, the headline settlement figure is only part of the picture. The Court may closely examine legal costs, funding commissions, administration costs, reimbursement payments, registration rules, objections and confidentiality requests. If your business could be a claimant or group member in a class action, registration deadlines matter as much as opt out deadlines. Missing them can affect whether you receive any payment even if you remain bound by the outcome. For listed businesses, strong governance around market disclosures, financial reporting and investor communications remains critical because those issues can become the foundation of long-running and costly litigation.
Outcome: The Federal Court approved the settlement and the settlement distribution scheme. Neskovcin J held that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members as a whole. The Court granted the funder leave to intervene for the settlement approval application, approved the deed of settlement signed on 27 November 2024, appointed an administrator, and ordered that only registered group members and certain deemed-registered late group members could receive distributions. The Court adopted the costs referee's report, approved specified costs and expenses, made a common fund order requiring participating group members to contribute pro rata to the funding commission, and made confidentiality and non-publication orders over identified materials. The parties were directed to seek final dismissal and bar orders after completion of settlement administration.
Monks v Pieman Resources Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a procedure-first decision. It does not decide, on the material summarised here, whether the underlying allegations about directors’ duties were true. Instead, it shows how the Federal Court deals with repeated non-compliance after multiple chances have already been given. The applicants’ explanations included a change of solicitors, piecemeal file transfer, surgery, difficulties obtaining instructions, and problems briefing counsel. The primary judge was not persuaded those matters justified the defaults, and the Full Court did not grant leave to appeal. The practical lesson is to treat every court order as an operational deadline with named responsibility inside the business. Gather documents early, answer particulars properly, and if compliance is genuinely impossible, seek an extension before the deadline passes with evidence explaining why. Waiting until the eve of a hearing is risky and can leave the business facing judgment and costs without a full merits hearing.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents’ costs, as taxed or agreed. On the material available here, the Court was not persuaded to reopen the primary judge’s discretionary decision to enter default judgment. The reasons record a sustained pattern of non-compliance with procedural orders, including consent orders, inadequate responses to the request for particulars and notice to produce, and a lack of satisfactory evidence explaining the defaults or the failure to seek further relief in time. The default judgment therefore remained in place.
Moroney v TM Insight Operations Pty Ltd
If you want a restraint to be enforceable, start with the commercial interest you are genuinely protecting. That may be customer connection, goodwill, confidential information or another recognised business interest. Then draft the restraint so its duration, scope and target group go no further than reasonably necessary. This case also shows that you should review all related documents together. A founder or executive may sign an employment agreement, a shareholders deed and transaction documents at the same time, but a court will still ask which exact restraint survives and for how long. Be especially careful with defined terms such as clients, prospects and pipeline opportunities. If those definitions are uncertain, the restraint can fail even if the business otherwise has a legitimate interest to protect.
Outcome: The Court held that the restraints were valid only to a limited extent. In the shareholders deed, paragraphs (a) to (g) and (i) to (o) of the relevant restraint period were invalid, but paragraph (h) was valid and kept clause 23.1 operative until six months after Industrial Property Solutions Pty Ltd ceased to be a shareholder of Holdings. Paragraph (p) was valid but expired on 13 August 2025, and paragraph (q) was valid but expired on 31 January 2025. In the employment agreement, paragraphs (a) to (h) were invalid and only paragraph (i) was valid, expiring on 13 August 2025. The definition of "Identified Prospective Client" was void for uncertainty in both agreements. The balance of the proceeding was left for later case management and possible mediation.
Norden Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Martens Investments Pty Ltd (Trustee), in the matter of Amazonia IP Holdings Pty Ltd (No 6)
Read this case as a warning about court process, not as a general statement that privacy lets businesses withhold records. The court treated the real problem as non-compliance with existing orders. Redacted documents were non-compliant because there was no order permitting redactions. Incomplete emails without attachments were non-compliant. A trial balance was not accepted as compliance where general ledgers had been ordered. The court also rejected the idea that direct access required some special, near-impossible threshold. In the circumstances, the question was whether stronger procedural relief was justified, and the answer was yes in part because there had been delay, admitted non-compliance and no acceptable plan to fix it. If your business has confidentiality concerns, the safe course is to seek protective orders or a variation from the court before altering production.
Outcome: The application was allowed in part. Wheatley J held that most of the specific document types sought under the May orders and the expert requests had not been provided, and that the June 2024 orders had not been complied with because the required general ledgers were not produced. The court decided that direct access to the relevant systems should be granted so the applicant could satisfy itself about documents that should already have been produced. The reasons emphasised non-compliance with previous orders, delay, the oppression context of the proceeding, the need to avoid further delay and increased costs, and the absence of any reasonable or acceptable proposal for compliance. The court said it would hear further on the precise form of orders and separately on costs.
Pennytel Australia Pty Limited v Engelke
Business owners should read this case as an evidence and drafting case, not as authority that customer departures alone prove wrongdoing. Pennytel alleged that former staff and a third party used confidential customer and pricing information to establish a competing business through Citratel and then SPN. The Court rejected that case on the facts. The judgment also records that one employee remained bound by his original contract despite promotions, while another employee’s six-month restraint was invalid because it was broader than necessary and could not be read down. In practice, if your business wants to protect customer relationships and internal information, you need to identify confidential information precisely, control and log access to systems, refresh contracts when roles materially change, and draft restraints around the employee’s actual role and the part of the business that genuinely needs protection. If a dispute arises, a full review of the complete judgment and your own records is important before making legal or operational decisions.
Outcome: Pennytel did not succeed on the extract available. Needham J found Pennytel had failed to prove its case. The Court was not satisfied that the first and second defendants took or misused confidential information, and was not satisfied that there was a scheme as alleged with the third defendant. The extract also records that there was no breach of the first and second defendants’ employment contracts and no breach of sections 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act. The Court held that Mr Engelke remained bound by his original employment contract despite promotions, but held that the six-month restraint applying to Ms Chitas was broader than necessary, could not be read down and was invalid, although there was no breach of restraint in any event. The proceedings were to be dismissed after costs are dealt with.
Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd (No 3)
The main lesson is procedural but commercially important. Once information goes into pleadings, affidavits or other court documents, your ability to claw it back can become limited. This case shows the Federal Court may make tailored confidentiality, suppression and file-access orders after settlement, but it will not treat those outcomes as automatic. The Court distinguishes between material already used in open court and material that has not been publicly deployed, and that distinction can affect what protection is available. Businesses should therefore review draft court documents carefully, avoid unnecessary detail, identify confidential material early, and seek narrow protective orders on proper grounds before hearings if possible. Settlement terms should also be drafted realistically. A private agreement can require the parties to ask the Court for certain orders, but it cannot guarantee the Court will make them.
Outcome: The Court made a tailored set of orders on 18 September 2025. It dismissed a number of interlocutory applications with no order as to costs, upheld objections to parts of the applicant’s affidavit evidence and struck out identified passages, and discharged some earlier suppression and confidentiality orders. It also prohibited disclosure of the statement of claim filed on 1 June 2022 and the amended statement of claim accepted for filing on 19 June 2023 until further order, subject to specified exceptions. The Registrar was directed to remove certain documents from the Court file and store them as voided and suppressed records, while other documents were made confidential and unavailable for non-party inspection unless leave was granted. The result reflects a controlled, rule-based approach rather than automatic approval of all settlement-driven secrecy.
R and N Hunter Pty Ltd ATF The Hunter Family Superannuation Fund v Count Financial Limited
Businesses should read this decision cautiously. It is not a general approval of conflicted remuneration, and it is not a statement that disclosure will always solve a conflict problem. What it does show is that courts will separate different questions that are often blurred together: fiduciary duties, statutory best interests duties, conflict priority duties, supervisory obligations and misleading conduct. If you run an advice business or licensee network, your practical focus should be on evidence. Keep clear records of what advice was actually given in the relevant period, how remuneration worked, what was disclosed orally and in writing, and what review and supervision systems were operating. If you are a client business or SMSF trustee, ask how the adviser is paid, whether commissions or other benefits continue, and whether alternatives were considered. Those details can decide whether a later claim succeeds or fails.
Outcome: The applicant did not succeed on the available extract. The Court held that the only personal financial advice the applicant received during the relevant period in relation to its products was advice about the AMP Policy. The applicant's representatives owed fiduciary duties in relation to that recommendation, but the Court found the commissions and other benefits connected with the policy were disclosed and formed part of the agreed remuneration for acquiring it, or were otherwise covered by informed consent. The Court did not find that Count owed fiduciary duties to the applicant in relation to the relevant period advice, and it found that contraventions of s 961B, s 961J, s 961L, s 1041H, s 12DA and ACL s 18 were not established. The amended originating application was otherwise dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay Count's costs.
Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd v Acusensus IP Pty Ltd
Read this as a procedural warning rather than a final win on the merits for either side. If your business wants to sue over confidential know-how, you need to define the information carefully, connect it to documents or systems, and explain how it was allegedly disclosed or used. Broad labels like trade secrets or know-how are usually not enough on their own. If your business is defending that kind of claim, raise any pleading complaint early, ideally at the first practical opportunity. Do not proceed through defence, discovery and hearing timetabling as if the case is understandable and then later argue that it was impossible to answer. The case also shows how patent activity can become part of a confidentiality dispute. Instructions to patent attorneys, patent applications and product development timelines may all become central evidence.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the respondents' interlocutory application to strike out the amended statement of claim and granted Redflex leave to file its further amended statement of claim. The Court's catchwords record that the amended and further amended pleadings were better particularised than the original statement of claim, and the reasons show that the absence of any earlier objection to the original pleading was an important contextual factor. The Court did not finally determine whether confidential information had been disclosed or misused. On costs, Redflex was ordered to pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the amendments to the amended and further amended statements of claim, while the respondents were ordered to pay Redflex's costs of the interlocutory application dated 10 October 2025.
Reference by Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Ltd (No 2) [2025] ACopyT 3
If your business depends on a licence scheme, do not treat an old rate as permanent just because it has been accepted for years. This case shows that once a long-standing arrangement is terminated, the real debate becomes evidence: what rights are being used, how the market has changed, what comparable deals exist, and what a reasonable bargain would now look like. It also shows that non-price terms matter. Reporting, recordkeeping, inspections, invoicing, term and termination can materially affect cost and compliance burden. A practical approach is to keep a register of key licences, track new uses such as streaming or simulcasts, and review whether your pricing model still matches the rights your business actually uses.
Outcome: On the published judgment material, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate rate payable by commercial radio broadcasters for the broadcast of copyright-protected, commercially released sound recordings within the PPCA repertoire was 0.55%. That meant the Tribunal did not simply continue the old 0.4% industry-wide arrangement advocated by CRA, and it did not simply adopt PPCA's proposed sliding-scale model. The structure of the reasons shows the Tribunal approached the matter as a broader evaluative exercise, considering the statutory framework, benchmark agreements, changed market conditions, the value of simulcast rights, international rates, capacity to pay, inflation, operating costs and disputed non-price terms. The orders also show the matter still required further steps to finalise implementation, with the parties directed to confer and report back by 18 February 2026. So the substantive rate was stated, but the practical finalisation of the licence scheme still needed to be checked.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v Sandoz Pty Ltd
If your business is launching into a market where patents are still being asserted, this case is a reminder to prepare for both the legal and commercial sides of an urgent dispute. The applicants had a live patent case and sought to stop Sandoz from marketing, importing and otherwise launching its biosimilar aflibercept products, including by seeking steps affecting PBS listing. But the Court refused interim relief because the balance of convenience did not support it at that stage. Businesses should read this as a warning that timing, pricing, customer behaviour, product information, non-infringing uses, and the ability to calculate damages can all shape the result. If you are the rights holder, gather evidence early on why damages would not be enough. If you are the launch business, undertakings, careful records and realistic evidence about market effects may materially improve your position.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the application for interlocutory injunctive relief. Justice Rofe stated in the summary of conclusion that the balance of convenience did not lie in favour of granting the interim relief sought. The orders also recorded undertakings that Sandoz AG would submit to the Court’s jurisdiction and be jointly liable with Sandoz Pty Ltd, to the extent Sandoz Pty Ltd could not meet any pecuniary relief, up to $100 million, and that accounts would be kept for sales of the Sandoz aflibercept products. Costs were reserved. The reasons were initially subject to non-disclosure and a redaction process for confidential information. The practical result was that Sandoz was not restrained by interlocutory order from proceeding toward launch while the substantive proceeding continued.
Reiche v Neometals Ltd (No 3)
If your business is in Federal Court, do not treat filed evidence as automatically private once it is used in open court. This case shows that affidavits and exhibits read or relied on in court will usually be open to inspection by outsiders, including the media. At the same time, the Court can protect specific categories of information through non-publication orders, especially struck-out material and private personal details of natural persons. The decision was procedural and the orders were made after the parties consented to the Court's proposed approach. For business owners, the practical message is to prepare evidence carefully. Before filing and before trial, review whether names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and similar details are really needed. If sensitive information must be included, consider early applications for tailored protection rather than broad claims of secrecy.
Outcome: The Court granted leave for Adele Ferguson of the ABC to inspect the affidavits and exhibits listed in paragraph 1 of the orders because those documents had been tendered and used as evidence in the proceeding. It refused leave to inspect four other affidavits because they were one or more of unsigned, not read in open court, or not relied on in open court, and therefore were not part of the evidence received. The Court also made non-publication orders until further order over specified struck-out paragraphs and over specified personal information concerning natural persons, including names in some circumstances and contact details. The reasons make clear that the orders were procedural, grounded in open justice principles, and made after the parties consented to the Court's proposed approach.
Reurich v Savills (SA) Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a process and evidence case. The Court accepted that disability protections were engaged and that assistance-animal protections can extend beyond a person being presently accompanied by the animal. Even so, the claim failed because the applicant did not prove the required legal elements. The practical lesson is not that bans are unlawful, but that bans and removals must be defensible on the facts and capable of being explained without reference to disability, an assistance animal, or retaliation for a complaint. If your staff or contractors can exclude people from premises, they need training on when discrimination risk arises, how to state the actual reason for action taken, and when repeated or long-term bans should be escalated for management or legal review.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application. The Court's published orders on 30 April 2025 dismissed the proceeding and set a timetable for any costs application to be determined on the papers. In the visible reasons, the Court said Mr Reurich failed to establish his claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation or incitement against any of the respondents. The Court nevertheless accepted important threshold points, including that he had a disability for the purposes of the Act, that the allegations concerned access to public premises, and that assistance-animal protections can extend beyond present possession of an animal. The claim failed because the Court was not satisfied that the statutory tests were proved on the evidence.
Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited
Business owners should read this case as a practical example of how online copyright enforcement works in Australia under the site-blocking regime. If your business uses third-party film, television or video sources, check that the source is authorised for Australia and that your contracts clearly cover the rights you need. If your website, app or marketing team embeds players, indexes streams or sends traffic to questionable sources, review that conduct before it becomes a problem. If you are a carriage service provider or similar operator, understand that orders can require action within 15 business days, may permit several technical blocking methods, can include redirection pages and can be extended to new domains through a streamlined process. The judgment also records a compliance cost order of $50 per domain name for DNS blocking.
Outcome: The application was granted. The court ordered each respondent to take reasonable steps within 15 business days of service to disable access to the target online locations. Compliance could be achieved through DNS blocking, IP address blocking or re-routing, URL blocking, or another agreed technical means. The orders also required reasonable efforts to redirect users to an explanatory webpage, allowed temporary suspension in limited operational or security circumstances, created a process for adding changed domains, URLs or IP addresses, and permitted later applications for associated new target online locations. The orders operate for 3 years from 9 July 2025. The applicants were ordered to pay compliance costs at $50 per domain name for DNS blocking, and there was no order as to costs generally.
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Admission of Recording)
The practical reading for business owners is narrow but important. This was not a court endorsement of secretly recording or circulating private conversations. Nor was it a final finding that the recording proved the alleged misconduct. The court was deciding an evidence question only: whether the recording and derivative versions could be admitted despite objections under sections 135 and 138 of the Evidence Act. The answer was yes, largely because the recording was treated at its highest for admissibility purposes, had mid-range probative value, and was central to a grave allegation raised in the reopening application. In practice, businesses should have clear rules on recording, access, storage and disclosure, and should get legal advice before sharing recordings that may involve privacy rights, privileged information or active proceedings.
Outcome: The Full Court admitted the recording and derivative versions of it. On section 135, it held that the recording's probative value had to be taken at its highest and assessed that value as lying in the middle range. It found no unfair prejudice substantially outweighing that value, particularly in a judge-alone setting where the alleged deficiencies could be considered when assessing weight. On section 138, the Court assumed in the respondents' favour that Person 17 had communicated the recording unlawfully under Queensland law, but still held that the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained that way. The recording was central to the application and was said to raise a grave allegation, which strongly influenced the result.
Rock Solid Industries International (Pty) Ltd v Ozi 4X4 Pty Ltd
If your business sells products that are visually close to a competitor’s registered design, this case is a strong warning to act early and carefully. The Court treated repeat infringement, breach of a prior settlement, continued offers for sale after notice, and non-compliance with court orders as serious aggravating features. It also accepted that damage from design infringement is not limited to lost sales. A business can suffer harm to brand value, exclusivity, dealer confidence and customer perception when lower-priced lookalike products are sold in the market. If you receive a complaint, review the product itself, preserve records, stop any conduct that may breach a settlement or order, and engage with the proceeding. If you own a registered design, this case also shows that reputational damage and additional damages may still be available even where the other side’s poor record-keeping makes precise loss hard to prove.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Ozi 4X4 Pty Ltd to pay RSI damages of $250,000. That amount comprised $50,000 for damage to RSI’s reputation and $200,000 in additional damages. The Court accepted that RSI’s reputation as a supplier of exclusive and novel products had been harmed by the sale of identical-looking but inferior and cheaper products, and that customer confusion and dealer complaints supported that conclusion. It also found Ozi’s conduct flagrant because this was the second proceeding between the parties, Ozi had previously settled and undertaken to cease sales, it continued offering products for sale after notice, appeared to continue offering modified products after default judgment, failed to engage with the proceeding, and failed to comply with orders requiring sales and profit information. Interest was ordered from 9 April 2024, and Ozi was also ordered to pay RSI’s costs of the damages assessment.
Ron Crouch Transport Pty Ltd, in the matter of Ron Crouch Transport Pty Ltd
If your business enters voluntary administration, leased premises can become one of the most urgent issues almost immediately. Under the usual statutory position, an administrator can become personally liable for rent and other amounts after the five-business-day period unless notices are given or the Court orders otherwise. This case shows that the Court may excuse that personal liability for a short period where continued trading is likely to support a better outcome for creditors as a whole. But the order is fact-specific and temporary. It does not cancel the company’s own liabilities under the leases. For directors and managers, the practical message is to identify every leased site, what is stored there, whether customer goods or dangerous goods are present, what security exists, and what would happen if the business had to vacate quickly. For landlords, the case is a reminder that bank guarantees, arrears, make-good exposure, possession issues and the ability to return to Court can all affect the result.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the application. It ordered that Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act operate as if ss 443A(1)(c) and 443B(2) provided that the administrator was not personally liable, from 22 December 2025 up to and including 15 January 2026, for any debts or other liability with respect to any real property hired, leased, used or occupied by the company, including amounts payable under the leases. The Court found that the short continuation period was consistent with the objectives of voluntary administration and likely to produce a better return for creditors than an immediate winding up. It also ordered further notice to creditors and ASIC, gave interested persons liberty to apply to vary the relief, and suppressed a confidential affidavit until the external administration concluded unless otherwise ordered.
Roohizadegan v Technology One Ltd (No 6)
Businesses should read this case as a reminder that courts closely examine the real decision-maker, the timing of the decision, the surrounding communications and whether any prohibited reason entered the process through another manager’s influence. Technology One succeeded because the Court accepted evidence that the termination decision was made for lawful reasons tied to performance, organisational change and workplace morale, not because the employee had made complaints or was unwell. The judgment also highlights two operational points. First, communications about meetings and attendance directions should be handled carefully, especially where an employee is on medically certified sick leave. Second, bonus and profit-share clauses should be drafted with precision so there is little room for argument about whether revenue from another team or business unit is included.
Outcome: The proceeding was dismissed. The Court held that some alleged workplace rights were not proved as objective facts, while other complaint-based rights were accepted. Even where workplace rights existed, Technology One rebutted the statutory presumption in s 361 and established that the relevant action was taken for lawful reasons related to poor economic performance against targets and budgets, inability to accept senior decisions, inability to integrate into organisational change, and serious concerns about morale and employee relations in the Victorian office. The Court also found no contravention of s 351, s 352 or s 345, and no contractual entitlement to the claimed share of student management services revenue from the separate Brisbane-based unit.
Scidera, Inc. v Meat and Livestock Australia Limited (No 2)
Do not assume that moving one technical step offshore removes Australian patent exposure. In this case, samples were received in Australia, testing was said to occur in the United States, and genotype information and downstream reports were then used in Australian cattle breeding workflows. The Court did not finally decide infringement, but it did decide that the issue was too novel and fact-sensitive to be shut down summarily. If your business uses overseas labs, software platforms or related entities, map the whole service chain carefully. Identify who receives samples, who performs each step, where data are generated, who sends results back, and how Australian customers receive and use the output. Review marketing materials, service descriptions and contracts alongside the technical workflow. If there is a relevant Australian patent landscape, get targeted patent advice before launch, before changing providers, and before relying on an offshore step as your main risk answer.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd's interlocutory application for summary dismissal of all infringement claims against it. The Court also ordered, subject to further costs orders, that Zoetis pay Scidera's costs of and incidental to the application, and directed the parties to arrange a case management hearing in November 2025. On the available extract, the Court's reasoning was procedural and cautious. The application raised a novel question of law, the dispute sat in a highly specialised biotechnology field, and the proceeding was still at an early stage with no discovery and no substantive evidence for the main case yet filed. In those circumstances, the Court was not satisfied that Scidera had no reasonable prospect of success.
Scidera, Inc. v Meat and Livestock Australia Limited (No 3)
If your business is in Federal Court litigation, do not treat a costs win as the same thing as immediate reimbursement. This case shows three separate questions can arise after an interlocutory fight: who is entitled to costs, how the amount will be assessed, and when payment will actually happen. It also shows that another party may try to use earlier costs orders to reduce or neutralise the practical benefit of your later costs win. Before bringing or resisting a procedural application, ask your lawyers for a costs strategy that covers timing, likely assessment method, any existing adverse costs orders, and whether set-off arguments may arise. That is especially important where the case is still at an early stage and legal spend is being closely managed.
Outcome: The Court ordered that Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd pay Scidera's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application for summary dismissal dated 6 June 2025. Those costs are to be determined by a Registrar on a lump sum basis following the hearing and determination of the proceeding. The Court therefore accepted lump sum assessment, but refused to make the costs payable forthwith. On the available material, that means Scidera succeeded on costs entitlement for the failed application, but not on immediate payment. The visible reasons also discuss set-off principles, but the available text is truncated before the full reasoning on that issue is shown.
SCL AUS Limited v Kirkalocka Gold SPV Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that urgent procedural applications can matter almost as much as the final hearing. If your position depends on a caveat, registration, consent right, transfer restriction or similar protection, an order requiring that protection to be removed can have immediate commercial consequences. The Court was prepared to preserve the position temporarily because the appeal raised arguable grounds and there was a real risk the appeal could become pointless if the caveat disappeared first. The case also shows that when a counterparty has been through administration or a DOCA, disputes often arise about which rights survive and which claims are compromised. If your deal involves future production payments, royalties or asset-linked rights, review both the contract wording and the practical enforcement structure early. And if the other side argues for money to be paid into court, be precise about what that money is meant to secure.
Outcome: The Court granted the stay application. It ordered that the primary withdrawal of caveat order be stayed until 4.00 pm AWST on 20 May 2026, on the basis of SCL's undertaking as to damages and its further undertaking to pursue the proceedings with due expedition. The $100,000 already paid into court was ordered to stand as security for that undertaking. The Court accepted that the appeal raised arguable grounds and considered there was a real risk the appeal could be rendered nugatory if the caveat were removed before the appeal was heard. It rejected the respondents' push for $400,000 in security because the larger figure was based on appeal costs and remuneration, not loss flowing directly from the stay itself.
Scott v SV Partners SA Pty Ltd, in the matter of Scott
If your business is enforcing a debt, this case shows the importance of building the file properly from the start. Keep the signed engagement terms, invoices, interest provisions and court orders together and internally consistent. If you later rely on bankruptcy procedures, make sure the petition and supporting affidavits accurately describe any security position and are updated if circumstances change. If your business is on the receiving end of a claim, objections usually need to be raised in the original proceeding or through the proper appeal route. Courts are unlikely to let a party use a later bankruptcy application to relitigate old disputes, attack state court judgments indirectly, or make serious accusations without clear evidence. The case also highlights a basic but critical point: name the correct legal entities and individuals. A proceeding can fail before the merits are reached if the wrong respondents are sued or the court lacks power to grant the relief sought.
Outcome: McDonald J dismissed Dr Scott's Form B2 application dated 21 March 2025. The Court held that she had not established any entitlement to the relief sought. On the material discussed in the reasons, the allegations of fraud were unclear and the evidence was not capable of establishing fraud in relation to the incorrect statement about security in the creditor's petition. The Court also dismissed the bias application. The respondents' separate interlocutory application for a vexatious proceedings order was also dismissed because the precise basis for such an order had not been clearly identified. Even so, Dr Scott was ordered to pay 80% of the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis, and the Court fixed 10 December 2025 as the date for any application for leave to appeal against an earlier order made on 31 July 2025.
Shanahan as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Hall v Hall, in the matter of Hall
Do not assume an interim procedural deal will automatically stop the other side from starting again later. If your business wants a deadline to operate as a true cut-off, say so in direct terms and deal expressly with releases, abandonment of claims, fresh proceedings and the effect of discontinuance. If you only intend to pause service, preserve a caveat, await examinations or hold a matter in abeyance, record that just as clearly. This case also shows that courts are cautious about permanently stopping a claim before trial. Even where there has been delay, non-service, adjournments and a discontinued earlier case, the Court may still allow a fresh proceeding to continue unless the abuse is very clear. Businesses should therefore treat correspondence, consent arrangements and procedural concessions as documents that may later be read closely by a judge.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the respondents' interlocutory application and ordered them to pay the trustee's costs, to be taxed if not agreed. On the available extract, the Court was not satisfied that the fresh Federal Court proceeding should be shut down at the threshold as an abuse of process. The extract indicates the Court approached summary dismissal with caution, considered whether the interim arrangements actually barred a fresh proceeding, and did not treat the matter as one of the rare clear cases warranting summary intervention. The substantive claims concerning the property and the alleged resulting trust were therefore left to continue for determination on their merits.
Shaoxing Newtex Imp & Exp Co Ltd, in the matter of Mosaic Brands Limited (in liq) v Strawbridge
Business owners should read this as an insolvency governance and process case, not as a general contract or unfair contract decision. The main lessons are practical. First, if you are owed money by one company in a group, do not assume that a deed of cross guarantee automatically gives you voting rights across the whole group without checking how your claim has been admitted for meeting purposes. Secondly, meeting documents matter. Reports, circulars, proxy forms and what is said by the chair can all affect whether votes are validly counted. Thirdly, if there is a concern about a liquidator's independence, the court may look beyond broad allegations and focus on whether there is a credible possibility the liquidator may need to investigate matters connected with earlier advisory work. Finally, the court may prefer a tailored solution over wholesale replacement. On the material available, the case points toward special purpose liquidator relief as an appropriate response in at least part of the dispute.
Outcome: On the material available, the clearest substantive conclusion is that the court considered appointment of a special purpose liquidator to be appropriate, as stated in the catchwords. That indicates the court saw a basis for targeted intervention, particularly in light of the independence issue and the possibility of future claims including insolvent trading claims. However, the visible orders are only procedural directions for short minutes, costs and a further hearing. Because the available reasons do not show the final perfected operative orders, the exact outcome on the voting-validity argument, the casting-vote argument, and the full scope of any special purpose appointment should be confirmed before treating this as a final authority note.
Shearman v Techin MBS Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a contract discipline case first and a marketing case second. If you are selling a premium product, keep records showing exactly what was represented, who was involved, and the basis for any forward-looking claims. If a customer later asks for major changes, do not let the project drift into a new commercial arrangement unless the variation is documented in the form the parties themselves expect. Here, negotiations, draft documents and practical planning were not enough because the parties treated a formal deed as necessary. The reference to s 126(1) of the Instruments Act 1958 (Vic) also matters. Where a variation to a land sale contract is of a kind that must be in signed writing, informal agreement can be especially vulnerable. If your team is reserving rights, changing scope, adjusting price or altering delivery assumptions, get the variation signed before acting as though the new deal is locked in.
Outcome: The court held that Techin did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. It found that, to the extent representations were made about the quality of the development and the involvement of Christopher Doyle Architects, they were not shown to be untrue and Techin had reasonable grounds for future-matter statements. However, the court also held that there was no binding agreement to vary the contract so the penthouse would be delivered as a cold shell at a reduced price, because the parties had proceeded on the basis that a formal deed was required and the deed was never executed. Estoppel was rejected. On that footing, Techin was not in a position to settle in accordance with the original contract, and Mr Shearman was entitled to terminate for Techin's fundamental breach. The exact consequential orders should be checked against the complete court record.
Shearman v Techin MBS Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business is dealing with a deposit under a contract, do not assume that leaving the money with a stakeholder solves the commercial problem. This case shows that once the other party is entitled to repayment, the Court may still award pre-judgment interest against the party in breach, even if the deposit stayed invested and even if the stakeholder was acting cautiously. It also shows the value of clear written contract terms and clear evidence of any variation. The vendor failed on the central contract issue because it could not prove the alleged variation or estoppel said to justify settlement on a different basis. Businesses should review deposit clauses, stakeholder clauses, termination rights and post-termination steps early, especially in Victorian property transactions and Federal Court litigation.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered judgment for Mr Shearman for $650,000 plus pre-judgment interest of $194,177.26 under section 51A. It also ordered Techin to cause Maddocks Lawyers to return the deposit and any accrued account interest to Mr Shearman on account of the judgment sum. Techin's cross-claim was dismissed. On costs, the Court held that Mr Shearman had succeeded on the central issue in the proceeding, but because he failed on the misleading or deceptive conduct claim, a full costs order was not appropriate. Instead, Techin was ordered to pay 75% of Mr Shearman's costs on a party and party basis, including reserved costs.
Simpson v Taylors Business Pty Ltd (No 2)
Read this case as a warning about both customer property systems and litigation discipline. If your business takes possession of goods under a contract, be precise about what rights you actually have. A right to hold goods, charge fees or sell after default is not necessarily the same as owning them. If your premises are lost, your lease ends, or goods are moved to a landlord or storage provider, you need a documented chain of custody, a plan for customer communication and a lawful process for return. The case also shows the risk of ignoring procedural steps. The respondent had previously been given extra time to defend the case, later failed to defend the new possession claim, and a director was refused leave to appear for the company. That combination helped lead to default judgment on a key issue. Businesses should treat pleadings, defence deadlines and representation requirements as operational risks that need active management.
Outcome: Justice Bennett granted partial default judgment on the possession claim. The Court held that Taylors was in default because it failed to file a defence to that claim despite court orders. Although partial default judgment is unusual, the Court found it was available and appropriate here because the possession issue arose later, was discrete from the unresolved claims, and there was a practical risk to the goods while they remained in third-party custody. The Court accepted that Taylors' interest in the goods was possessory and contractual rather than ownership, that title had not passed, and that the applicant and group members were entitled to possession. The Court also ordered the applicant to file a revised scheme for the return of goods within seven days.
Singhal v Finsure Finance & Insurance Pty Ltd
The main takeaway is procedural. This judgment does not establish that Finsure or BOQ were substantively correct about the suspension, termination, withheld commissions, accreditation decision or reference checks. It establishes that the Federal Court decided the claims, as framed by the applicant, did not enliven its jurisdiction. If your business is in a dispute about a contract, commissions, platform access, accreditation, audit findings or reputational harm, start by asking three questions. What exactly happened? What legal claim does that support? Which court or forum can hear that claim? If those questions are not answered clearly at the outset, a case can be dismissed before the underlying facts are fully tested. Businesses should also keep the relevant contract, notices, audit records, reference communications and payment records organised from the start, because those documents shape both the legal claim and the choice of forum.
Outcome: The Federal Court summarily dismissed the proceeding under rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Justice O'Bryan held that none of the claims made by Ms Singhal against Finsure or BOQ properly invoked federal jurisdiction. The Court ordered that the proceeding be dismissed and that Ms Singhal pay Finsure's costs of the proceeding. The outcome should be read carefully. It is a procedural ruling about jurisdiction and the way the claims were framed, not a final merits finding that Finsure or BOQ were substantively right about the suspension, termination, commissions, accreditation decision, incident report or references.
Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Mining and Energy Union
Businesses should read this case as a warning about scope, drafting and proof. The Court accepted that Part 2-7A is aimed at protecting bargained wages from being undercut by lower-paid labour hire arrangements. But it still quashed these particular orders because the Commission went wrong in the way it identified or described the covered employees. If you supply workers, receive them, or are facing a union application for a regulated labour hire arrangement order, do not assume the issue is only whether labour hire exists. You also need to map the actual cohort of workers, the kind of work they perform, the host instrument that would apply if they were directly employed, and whether the proposed order is confined to what the evidence supports. Broad wording that reaches beyond the proved workforce can create serious legal risk.
Outcome: The Full Court held that jurisdictional error was established. It issued certiorari quashing the Mt Arthur regulated labour hire arrangement order made on 21 February 2025 and the Bengalla order made on 13 March 2025. It also issued mandamus compelling the Fair Work Commission to hear and determine the relevant applications again according to law. The Court's reasoning, as reflected in the published extract, turned on the proper construction of s 306E and the scope, specification and certainty of the employees covered by the orders. The Court did not reject the statutory purpose of protecting bargained wages. It held that the Commission had to apply that purpose within the statutory limits Parliament had set.
Southern Cross Industrial Group Pty Ltd v Mickala Mining Maintenance Pty Ltd (Costs)
If your business is in a patent dispute, do not treat settlement offers as a one-off event. Reassess them as the case develops, especially after pleadings change or a stronger invalidity case is properly put. In this matter, the court accepted that Southern Cross was not unreasonable in rejecting the 2019 and 2022 offers because the prior art that ultimately mattered had not yet been properly pleaded at those times. But by 28 February 2023, the respondents offered to end both proceedings for fixed costs of $300,000 when they had already spent nearly $700,000. The court held that offer should reasonably have been accepted, and indemnity costs followed for the later period. Also plan for security for costs as a real balance sheet issue. Money or banking capacity tied up in guarantees may be released to the successful side before final assessment of costs.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Southern Cross to pay the respondents’ and cross-claimants’ costs on the standard basis up until 11am on the second business day after 28 February 2023 and on an indemnity basis thereafter in both proceedings. The court held that Southern Cross had not acted unreasonably in rejecting the 31 October 2019 offer or the 9 August 2022 offer, because the Exsto Towers prior art case that ultimately proved decisive had not yet been properly pleaded when those offers were made. But the court held that Southern Cross unreasonably failed to accept the 28 February 2023 offer, which proposed dismissal of both proceedings with fixed costs of $300,000. On security for costs, the court ordered release of the two $200,000 bank guarantees to the respondents and left the third guarantee of $385,000 to remain held by the court pending taxation.
Southern Cross Industrial Group Pty Ltd v Mickala Mining Maintenance Pty Ltd (Liability Trial)
The practical takeaway is simple but important. A registered patent is not enough on its own. Before threatening a competitor or starting proceedings, check whether your key claims can survive attacks based on prior public disclosures and lack of inventiveness. In this case, Southern Cross narrowed its case to claims 1 and 4, Mickala admitted infringement of those claims, and Southern Cross still lost because the Court found those claims invalid. Businesses should read this as a warning to control pre-filing disclosures, keep records of product development and launch activity, and review earlier publications and sales before relying on a patent in court. If you are on the receiving end of an infringement claim, this case also shows the value of investigating prior art early. A validity defence can be decisive. Where directors are personally involved in the conduct, get advice on both company and individual exposure.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that claim 1 lacked novelty because it was anticipated by the Australasian Mine Safety Journal article, the EcoTower and the Exsto towers. Claim 4 lacked novelty because it was anticipated by the Exsto towers. The Court also found that the alleged invention, so far as claimed in claims 1 and 4, did not involve an innovative step. As a result, the invention claimed in claims 1 and 4 was not a patentable invention within the meaning of s 18(1A) of the Patents Act, and Southern Cross’s claims against the respondents in each proceeding had to be dismissed. The Court then directed the parties to provide draft orders and, if needed, written submissions on costs.
Sozou (liquidator) v Touchline Pty Ltd, in the matter of Touchline Pty Ltd
Read this case as a records and exposure case, not as a final ruling on liability. The court was only deciding whether the liquidators should have more time to investigate and, if appropriate, bring claims. It did not determine whether Commercial TC, Auswide, Empryl or Videriva actually owe anything. The practical message for business owners is that limitation dates in insolvency matters can be extended if the liquidator applies in time and gives a persuasive explanation for delay. If your business uses labour hire, related entities or intermediary payment flows, make sure contracts, invoices, bank records and internal explanations line up. If you oppose an extension, general commercial uncertainty may not be enough by itself. You should be ready to point to concrete prejudice caused by the delay. If a liquidator contacts you, gather the documents early and treat the issue seriously.
Outcome: The application was allowed. The court extended time to 29 April 2028 for Touchline and Highpoint, and also for Grow Surge generally. For one identified category of possible Grow Surge claim against Commercial TC, the court granted a shorter extension to 1 March 2027. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceeding be costs in the winding up of the plaintiff companies and directed that specified company funds could be used to pay the costs of the proceeding. On the available reasons, the court accepted the liquidators' explanation for delay and was not persuaded that the prejudice asserted by Commercial TC justified refusing relief.
Spyrou v Thorn, in the matter of IAZ Logistics Pty Ltd
The application succeeded, but the judge made it clear that the plaintiff came very close to failing because of the way the case was prepared and presented. The court was troubled by short notice to creditors, a misleading email seeking support, and the absence of the kind of forward-looking solvency evidence usually expected in these applications. What carried the day was not polished process, but the practical protection built into the orders: enough money was available to pay current creditors in full, the shareholder had already placed $792,000 into his lawyers’ trust account, he undertook to cover any shortfall, and the company would still have a capital buffer after debts were cleared. If your business is considering a similar application, assume the court will test both your numbers and your conduct. A rescue plan needs more than optimism. It needs evidence, funding, and a payment structure the court can trust.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application and terminated the winding up of IAZ Logistics Pty Ltd. The court was satisfied that all current creditors could be paid in full because there was at least $200,000 in available cash, the plaintiff had already placed $792,000 into his lawyers’ trust account, and he undertook to cover any shortfall. However, the judge said he was only just persuaded that future creditors would be sufficiently protected because the evidence about future trading was scant. The orders therefore built in a detailed payment regime and also dealt with the trust structure by authorising the liquidators to administer and realise trust assets, lodge trust-related tax documents, and recover remuneration and expenses. The practical effect was that the winding up ended, but only with safeguards designed to ensure creditors were actually paid and the trust-related administration was properly resolved.
Stanford v Depuy International Pty Ltd (No 9)
If your business ever settles a large multi-party dispute, runs a compensation program, or manages a structured refund or remediation process, the administration rules matter. This case shows the value of clear eligibility rules, a documented payment methodology, expert support for final calculations, and a written process for dealing with uncontactable recipients. It also shows that privacy protections are more likely to be granted where the information is genuinely sensitive and disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice. A business should not leave end-stage issues until the last minute. Plan for contact updates, final cut-off points, contingency reserves, approval of administration costs, and the treatment of any leftover balance. If the process is supervised by a court or governed by a formal scheme, expect to justify each of those steps with evidence rather than broad assertions.
Outcome: The Court granted the orders sought, with a qualification for the uncontactable cohort. It approved final payments to eligible group members in amounts giving effect to the actuary's updated recommendation of 4.82 cents in the dollar. It approved administration costs of $1,115,474, claims book costs of $120,450 and disbursements of $232,695. It ordered that the identified uncontactable group members were not entitled to any further payment or distribution from the settlement account unless otherwise ordered, leaving open the possibility of further directions before the scheme was wound up. The Court also made confidentiality and non-publication orders over annexures containing names of group members and details of their settlement elections and payments. The judgment accepted a $100,000 contingency amount as reasonable and noted the proposal that any remaining balance after finalisation would be donated to a suitable charity.
Sunflower Care Services Pty Ltd v Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (No 2)
Business owners should read this case as a warning about governance discipline, not as a sign that banning orders are easy to overturn. The Court’s orders show that the legal form, scope and review process for a banning order matter, and that undertakings by the regulator can materially change what remains in dispute. But the underlying facts also show how exposed a provider can be when revenue depends on a small participant base and the business is closely tied to a founder or family group. If a person loses worker screening status or is said to be unsuitable, update company records promptly, remove any practical influence that conflicts with the law, document every change, and respond to Commission notices urgently. Preliminary letters can be the point where the factual record is still open. Once final action is taken, the business may be forced into urgent court proceedings just to keep operating.
Outcome: The applicants obtained substantial relief. The Court ordered certiorari quashing the written notice dated 3 May 2024 that purported to be a banning order against Mrs Karunarathna under s 73ZN(2) of the NDIS Act. It also quashed the later written notice identified in the orders as dated 5 August 2025, described as a purported review banning order, and separately quashed the review decision-maker’s decision to make that order. The Court granted limited leave to re-open the hearing and further amend the originating application, but dismissed broader amendment attempts. For Sunflower’s challenge to preparatory notices about suspension, revocation and a possible banning order, the Court made no further or other relief on certain grounds once the Commissioner gave written undertakings to the Court. Costs were reserved.
Talaugon v Allight Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a process case, not a green light to reject flexibility or dismiss soon after a complaint. The Court accepted that the employer carried the reverse onus on the general protections claims and still succeeded. That means the employer was able to satisfy the Court that the dismissal was not for the prohibited reasons alleged. The extract also shows the Court drew a distinction between an earlier informal arrangement and a later formal written arrangement, and paid close attention to attendance, communication and management records. In practice, businesses should make flexible work requests in writing, respond in writing, identify the actual decision-maker, keep recommendations and reasons clear, and avoid letting concerns about attendance or performance become blurred with pregnancy, family responsibilities, leave or employment complaints.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Ms Talaugon's originating application and entered judgment for the respondents. That means the employer and the individual respondents succeeded, and the Court did not find the alleged Fair Work Act contraventions established in this proceeding. The orders then set a timetable for any costs application, with costs to be dealt with separately after judgment. The extract also shows the Court relied heavily on contemporaneous documents and made factual findings including that there had been no formal written flexible working arrangement before the earlier manager resigned, although there had been some informal arrangement. Because the available text is truncated, this page does not go further than the published material supports on the detailed reasoning for each failed claim.
Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association Limited v Director of Biosecurity
Read this case as a process case, not a final ruling on whether the underlying biosecurity settings were right or wrong. The Tasmanian salmon industry participants were trying to obtain reasons and documents about decisions that opened the way for Chilean salmonid imports. They succeeded only in relation to the permit decisions under section 179 of the Biosecurity Act. The Court declared they could ask for reasons for those permit decisions and that their 1 May 2025 request was made within a reasonable time. The rest of the reasons application was otherwise dismissed, and the preliminary discovery case remained unresolved. For businesses, the lesson is to separate each government decision in the chain. A policy step, a list inclusion, a permit grant and permit conditions may all be legally different decisions with different timing and standing issues. If a regulator's decision affects your business, move quickly, keep a clean chronology, identify the statutory power, and make any request for reasons in writing with precision.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted limited relief. It declared that the applicants were entitled to make a request for reasons for the decisions to grant permits authorising the importation of salmonid products for human consumption from Chile under section 179 of the Biosecurity Act, being the decisions made between 20 September 2024 and 28 April 2025. It also declared that the applicants' 1 May 2025 request for a statement of reasons for those permit decisions was made within a reasonable time for the purposes of sections 13(5)(b) and 13(6) of the ADJR Act. The further amended originating application was otherwise dismissed. The separate preliminary discovery proceeding was adjourned part-heard, costs were reserved, and time to appeal orders 1 to 3 was extended to 13 February 2026.
The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Limited (Costs)
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that litigation strategy and settlement discipline matter just as much as the underlying legal claim. If your dispute is really about stopping publication of footage, protecting commercially sensitive material, or controlling content taken from your premises, the court may treat that as the central controversy even if several different causes of action are pleaded. That can affect costs in a major way. The case also shows that rejecting an offer because you think the law is novel is risky. The court will ask whether rejection was reasonable at the time, looking at prospects, the compromise offered, the clarity of the offer and whether indemnity costs were flagged. Before refusing a settlement proposal, get advice on the likely end result and the costs exposure if you are wrong.
Outcome: By majority, the Full Court ordered FTI to pay GMC’s costs of the proceedings at first instance on a party-party basis until 5 June 2024, and GMC’s costs of the proceedings at first instance and the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal on an indemnity basis after 5 June 2024. The court rejected FTI’s proposed 50% reduction in costs, holding that GMC had succeeded on the fundamental controversy and that the unsuccessful claims substantially overlapped with the successful constructive trust issue. It also rejected the argument that GMC had failed on trespass appeal grounds, because those grounds were simply not dealt with once GMC had succeeded on constructive trust. The majority further held that FTI’s rejection of GMC’s 22 May 2024 offer was imprudent and unreasonable.
The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd
If someone enters your premises without permission and records video, the legal response may include much more than suing for trespass. This case indicates that a court can, in an appropriate situation, treat the copyright in that footage as being held for the affected business and order the footage to be assigned, deleted and not published. For business owners, the practical message is to respond on several fronts at once: secure the site, preserve CCTV and access records, identify the date range and devices involved, track any publication or sharing, and get advice early about urgent court orders. For organisations that receive or plan to publish footage gathered from private premises, the case is a warning that being in possession of the footage, or even being the maker of it, may not protect you if the footage was obtained through trespass and ongoing use would be against good conscience.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. It declared that the respondent held the copyright in the relevant images and copies on trust for the appellant. The Court ordered the respondent to execute a written assignment of that copyright within 7 days, with the Registrar authorised to do so in default. It permanently restrained publication of the images, except to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and ordered permanent deletion of relevant images in the respondent's possession or control. The respondent also had to file an affidavit confirming deletion and identifying recipients of the images and how they were provided. The Court made confidentiality orders over specified court material, ordered pre-judgment interest of $2,010.86 on the $30,000 general damages award, and directed further submissions on costs.
The NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd (No 2)
Read this case as a warning against focusing only on isolated wins inside a larger patent dispute. A business may succeed on construction points, show that some rival products would infringe if the patent were valid, or defeat some invalidity grounds, and still lose the case overall if the asserted claims are revoked. That overall result will usually dominate costs. At the same time, the Court may still adjust costs where the losing party had genuine success on discrete issues that consumed real time and expense. The settlement part matters too. A formal offer to compromise is important, but indemnity costs are not automatic just because the offeree later does worse than the offer. The Court looks at reasonableness when the offer was made, including timing, compromise, and what the parties then knew. Businesses should treat patent disputes as commercial projects with active costs planning, not just technical legal contests.
Outcome: The Court ordered NOCO to pay 80 per cent of Brown and Watson's costs of the claim and the cross-claim, including reserved costs, on a party and party basis, with the amount to be determined on a lump sum basis by a Registrar. The Court held that Brown and Watson was the successful party overall because its invalidity cross-claim succeeded and NOCO's infringement claim was dismissed. However, the Court accepted that NOCO had been successful or largely successful on several discrete issues, including the Automatic Start, USB and DC-DC converter issues, the CN190 prior art issue, and the best method issue, and reduced the costs otherwise payable by 20 per cent. Brown and Watson's application for indemnity costs based on its January 2025 offer to compromise was rejected because the Court was not satisfied that NOCO had unreasonably failed to accept the offer.
The Pops Group Pty Ltd as trustee for The Pool Shops Trust v Pro Pool Services Pty Ltd
A registered trade mark is valuable, but it does not guarantee that a court will stop another trader immediately. If the other business is using a different sign rather than an identical mark, the court may require a full hearing to work through similarity, descriptive wording, dominant cognitive clues and any available defences. Businesses should clear names carefully before launch, especially where the brand uses ordinary industry words. If a dispute starts, gather evidence early about how your mark is used, how the other sign appears in the market, whether similar words are common in the industry, and what checks were done before the name was adopted. If you are enforcing your mark, think strategically about whether the case is really suitable for summary relief or whether it will need a fuller evidentiary process.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the applicant’s summary judgment application. Derrington J held that the matter was not suitable for summary judgment because the alleged infringement depended on an evaluative assessment of the parties’ respective marks and raised issues of some complexity. The Court was not satisfied that the respondent had no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or part of it. Although the respondent’s affidavit material was described as generally poor in quality, it still raised relevant issues about infringement and good faith, and there might be further evidence available about industry usage and the respondent’s pre-adoption checks. The applicant’s costs of the application were reserved.
Thomas v Monsoon Group Pty Ltd
If your trade mark is not yet actively trading in Australia, do not assume the registration is safe and do not assume this case gives you a simple defence. The Court did not finally decide whether KAYAL had been used in Australia during the relevant period. The appeal succeeded because the non-use applicant stopped pressing its case, the Registrar stayed out, and the Court could see no self-evident reason to keep the delegate’s removal decision in place. The practical message is to keep strong records of launch steps, franchise or licence arrangements, supplier and fit-out activity, and any external events that delayed rollout. If you receive an adverse Trade Marks Office decision, move quickly. Appeal deadlines are short, and confusion about whether attorneys or solicitors need to file can create avoidable risk.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted Thomas an extension of time, allowed the appeal, set aside the delegate’s decision and ordered that Australian trade mark number 2003430 remain registered for all covered services. The Court accepted the short delay in filing because it was explained and no prejudice was shown. On the appeal itself, the Court did not finally determine whether the mark had been used in Australia during the relevant period. Instead, it held that because Monsoon no longer contested the matter, the Registrar did not intervene, and there was no self-evident factual or legal barrier, the delegate’s decision should be reversed.
Tonks (Liquidator), in the matter of Vaucluse 29 Pty Ltd (in liq)
Business owners should read this case as a reminder that insolvency disputes often turn on documents and payment flows, not just headline asset values. Here, the court was dealing with property companies where sale proceeds had largely gone to a related party, secured debt was disputed, and tax exposure appeared to remain. If your business uses related-party loans, private funding, mortgages or informal repayment arrangements, keep the paperwork clear and consistent. If insolvency later occurs, those records may shape whether a liquidator can challenge transactions or recover money. For insolvency practitioners, the case is more direct. Identify early whether a retainer or funding agreement is being entered into on the company’s behalf and may continue beyond 3 months. If so, seek approval promptly, explain the commercial benefit to creditors, and do not assume retrospective approval will be routine simply because the arrangement appears sensible.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the liquidators all substantive relief sought. Owens J approved, nunc pro tunc, the litigation funding agreement with Pretium Funding Pty Ltd and the legal services agreement with Piper Alderman, including later variations. The court also extended the time for making any application under s 588FF(1) to 24 April 2026 and made a confidentiality order over part of an exhibit. The visible reasons show that the court accepted the retainer and related litigation activity could support proper asset realisation and potential returns to creditors, and that prolonging the liquidation was reasonable in those circumstances. At the same time, the judge criticised the plaintiffs for leaving the application until the last minute and creating their own urgency.
Torc Solutions Pty Ltd v Unex Corporation doing business as Hytorc
The practical message is not that phone calls and commercial discussions never matter. It is that they may not be enough if the parties are still saying they will put terms in writing, circulate drafts or work up an agreement. In this case, the Court was not satisfied that the teleconference or later conduct created the binding supply arrangements Torc Solutions alleged, and the written Branded Product Distribution Agreement remained central to the legal position. If your business is moving from one supplier structure or brand to another, document the essentials before you rely on them. That includes the products covered, branding rights, territory, order acceptance process, stock commitments, lead times, pricing, credit terms, termination rights and compliance conditions such as insurance. If those points are still being negotiated, treat the arrangement as unsettled until the contract clearly says otherwise.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application. The catchwords and reasons state that the alleged alternative agreement was not established, economic duress was not established, and the claims for misleading or deceptive conduct, misrepresentations and unconscionable conduct failed. Justice Neskovcin said he was not satisfied that Torc Solutions had established any of its claims against Torc LLC or Hytorc. In practical terms, the Court did not accept that the teleconference or later conduct created the binding long-term supply obligations Torc Solutions alleged, and it did not accept the arguments advanced to avoid the legal effect of the written Branded Product Distribution Agreement. The orders also directed the parties to submit a proposed form of order dealing with written submissions on costs. Importantly, the case did not determine whether Hytorc wrongfully terminated the Branded Product Distribution Agreement, because Torc Solutions did not seek relief on that basis in the proceeding.
Torc Solutions Pty Ltd v Unex Corporation doing business as Hytorc (No 2)
If your business sues through a company and later loses, the court may fix costs in a lump sum and let the successful party recover from security already held in court. That can happen even if the company has since gone into liquidation. But a non-party costs order against directors, shareholders or related entities is a separate and more demanding step. The court will ask whether those non-parties were effectively the real litigants, whether the company was insolvent from the outset, whether the claims were unreasonable or abusive, and whether making them pay would be fair in all the circumstances. In this case, those factors were not strong enough. The applicant could fund the case when it began, the claims were conceded not to be baseless or abusive, and one claim was settled after the respondents acknowledged deficient discovery. Businesses should read this as a warning to plan both merits and costs exposure early, not as a guarantee that personal exposure will never arise.
Outcome: The court granted part of the respondents’ costs application and refused the rest. It joined Andrew Case, Adrian Case, AEC Developers Pty Ltd and ACASE Pty Ltd to the proceeding for the purpose of the interlocutory application. It ordered the applicant to pay a portion of the respondents’ costs fixed at AU$335,000 and directed that AU$290,000 held in the Litigants’ Fund be paid to the respondents’ solicitors’ trust account in satisfaction of that obligation. The application was otherwise dismissed, which means the respondents did not obtain the non-party costs order they sought against the related individuals and entities. The judge held that the circumstances did not warrant exercising the discretion to make a non-party costs order and that there were not sufficient factors to justify departing from the ordinary rule that the parties should bear the costs of the proceeding. Further submissions were ordered on the costs of the costs application itself.
Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited (Penalty)
Business owners should read this as a warning about decision-making process, not as a rule that outsourcing is always unlawful. A business can still pursue cost, efficiency or service changes, but it must be able to prove the real reasons for the decision and those reasons must not include preventing employees from exercising workplace rights. If bargaining, union activity or possible industrial action is in the background, the risk level rises sharply. Decision-makers should be briefed on prohibited reasons before options are considered. Commercial papers, emails and presentations should be consistent with the lawful rationale and prepared at the time, not reconstructed later. If a court finds that a prohibited reason formed part of the decision, penalty exposure can be extreme, and the court may also examine the organisation's culture, contrition and reform efforts when setting the amount.
Outcome: Lee J ordered Qantas Airways Limited to pay a pecuniary penalty of $90,000,000 under section 546(1) of the Fair Work Act. The Court also ordered under section 546(3) that $50,000,000 of that penalty be paid to the Transport Workers' Union of Australia. The proceeding was adjourned part-heard for further orders about the remaining $40,000,000 balance. The catchwords indicate the Court treated the matter as exceptionally serious, referring to the largest ever contravention of the general protections provisions of Part 3-1, and noted that evidence of contrition was not persuasive while evidence of reform was mixed.
Twinza Oil Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed), in the matter of Twinza Oil Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 2)
If your company is planning a court-approved restructure, do not treat the approval hearing as a formality. Where the proposal affects existing equity but only creditors are voting, the company may need to prove that excluded shareholders have no real economic interest. That requires valuation evidence the Court can rely on in contested proceedings, not just material prepared to explain the deal commercially. You also need to think carefully about whether the structure of the scheme matches the rights being changed. In Twinza, the Court refused approval because it was not satisfied the objectors lacked an economic interest, and it therefore did not need to decide a separate argument about whether preference share rights could be extinguished through a creditors' scheme without a members' scheme. The practical lesson is to prepare the evidence, class analysis and transaction structure together from the start.
Outcome: The Federal Court refused to approve the proposed scheme of arrangement and dismissed Twinza's application. The Court accepted that the scheme creditors had approved the proposal unanimously and that the relevant procedural steps had been duly and properly taken. However, Twinza did not persuade the Court that the objectors had no economic interest in the company. The judgment indicates that contested valuation and expert evidence was central to that conclusion. Because the application failed on that basis, the Court said it was unnecessary to determine the separate statutory construction argument about whether CRPS rights could be extinguished without a separate members' scheme. The Court also directed the parties to provide proposed orders dealing with costs.
Tzaros v ServiceNow Australia Pty Ltd
Read this decision as a process case with a strong operational message. If your business is recruiting, be careful about what recruiters, managers and interviewers say about the role, support available, market readiness, customer opportunities and likely earnings or progression. Those statements may later be relied on in Australian Consumer Law claims if the employee says they accepted the role because of them. If a dispute reaches court, precision matters. A claimant may need to identify the actual representations, incidents, dates, decision-makers and legal links with much more detail than a broad narrative provides. A respondent should check whether it has fair notice of the case. A claimant should expect the Court to require a clearer pleaded roadmap where the allegations are numerous, mixed and factually dense.
Outcome: Horan J held that the concise statement and supplementary concise statement did not provide adequate notice of the applicant's case in relation to the alleged Part 3-1 Fair Work Act contraventions. The Court therefore ordered the applicant to file and serve a statement of claim by 6 February 2026, the respondent to file a defence by 6 March 2026, and the applicant to file any reply by 20 March 2026. Earlier orders were partly vacated, the matter was referred to mediation before a Registrar on a date not before 6 April 2026, costs were reserved and liberty to apply was granted. The judgment did not determine liability, compensation or the truth of the underlying allegations.
Ulan Coal Mines Pty Ltd v Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
Read this case as a warning about timing and forum. If a bargaining representative applies for a single interest employer authorisation, the most important opportunity to shape the outcome is usually the Commission hearing, not later court proceedings. The Full Court’s orders left the authorisation in place and dismissed all three employers’ applications. The judgment shows that the employers argued the Commission had approached the statutory tests too generally and had missed important differences between them. The Court was not persuaded that those complaints established jurisdictional error. For business owners, that means two things. First, do not assume that pointing to some commercial or operational differences will be enough. Secondly, if you want to resist being grouped with other employers, build the factual record early and carefully. That includes evidence about your operations, business activities, workforce, bargaining position, current agreements, and any features that make your business materially different from the others named in the application.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed all three applications. Its orders of 5 September 2025 left the Fair Work Commission's single interest employer authorisation standing. The Court said the proceedings concerned judicial review, not the merits of the underlying industrial dispute or the broader policy question of compulsory multi-employer bargaining. On the extract, the Court was not persuaded that the employers had established jurisdictional error in the Commission's construction or application of section 249. The safe public reading is that the employers' challenges to the Commission's approach to common interests, public interest, reasonable comparability, majority support and related issues did not succeed. The authorisation therefore remained effective.
United Firefighters’ Union of Australia v Minister for Emergency Services Victoria (No 2)
If your business is in a workplace dispute and another party, regulator, owner, minister, board or parent entity tries to influence the outcome, do not jump straight to broad labels like coercion. Start by mapping the exact source of authority being relied on. Ask whether the approval, veto or direction is actually required by statute or contract, whether it was validly exercised, and whose workplace right is said to have been affected. This case also shows that an invalid assertion of power does not necessarily mean a coercion claim will succeed. Keep a clear record of letters, directions, submissions and decision-making steps. If a tribunal proceeding is on foot, be especially careful about communications that could affect how a party participates in that process.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal. On the available extract, that left in place the first instance result that the Union had not established a contravention of s 343(1) of the Fair Work Act. The extract records that the primary judge had found the Minister's refusal-of-consent letter was ultra vires because ministerial consent was not required for FRV to enter the proposed services agreement, but also found that the later Ministerial Direction was validly given under s 8 of the Fire Rescue Victoria Act and that neither step involved action that was unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable for the purposes of s 343(1). The Court also amended the first respondent's name to the office of Minister for Emergency Services Victoria.
Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited
Business owners should read this case as a practical warning about online facilitation. The Court was satisfied that the target online locations were primarily infringing or facilitating infringement, and it made orders that were designed to keep pace with evasive behaviour such as domain or URL changes. If your business operates a website, app, forum, directory, media tool or infrastructure service, do not assume that being one step removed from the content avoids risk. Review whether your service design, branding, indexing, linking or user flows could be characterised as steering users to unauthorised material. Keep clear records of licences and permissions. Make sure legal notices can reach the right person quickly. If you are an ISP or similar provider, have a process for implementing court orders, redirect notices, temporary suspensions and cost tracking. If you are a legitimate operator affected by a blocking order, the orders expressly allow an application to vary or discharge them on short written notice supported by evidence.
Outcome: The Court granted the site-blocking and ancillary orders. Respondents including Telstra and other Australian providers were required to take reasonable steps to disable access to the target online locations within the timeframes set by the orders, using DNS blocking, IP address blocking or re-routing, URL blocking, or another agreed technical method. The Court accepted that the evidence established that the primary purpose or effect of each target online location was to infringe, or facilitate the infringement of, copyright in one or more cinematograph films, inferred that the applicants had not licensed or consented to that conduct, and described the infringement as flagrant. The orders also included user redirection requirements, temporary suspension rights for network and security reasons, procedures for mirror sites and associated new sites, a 3 year duration with an extension process, and compliance cost orders requiring the applicants to pay $50 per domain name subject to DNS blocking. There was no order as to costs generally.
Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited (No 2)
If your business depends on the value of digital content, this case is a reminder to think beyond the first infringing domain or URL. In practice, infringing operators may shift traffic to a similar domain, a new URL or a different IP address after an order is made. That means enforcement often needs monitoring, evidence collection and follow-up steps rather than a single one-off response. The judgment also shows the difference between proving ongoing commercial harm in general terms and proving urgency in a way a court can act on quickly. The applicants relied on evidence about what had changed, how the new access means resembled the original targets, and why delay would matter during a theatrical release window. Businesses should read this as a prompt to preserve screenshots, dates, redirects, branding similarities and technical details early. If you are an ISP or a business involved in implementing network-level restrictions, the case underlines the need for a clear compliance pathway, realistic internal escalation and coordination with any external vendor that performs blocking work.
Outcome: The Court granted the urgent orders. Each respondent was ordered to take reasonable steps to disable access to the Additional Urgent Access Means by 4.00 pm on Friday, 28 November 2025, and certain earlier orders were applied to those access means in the same manner as the Urgent Target Online Locations. Justice Halley accepted evidence that some target online locations shift to similar but not identical domain names after s 115A orders are made, and that the ordinary process under the earlier orders would take too long here. The Court also held that the applicants’ use of the phrase “Additional Target Online Locations” in notifications did not materially detract from those notifications, and it noted that respondents had effectively consented to the proposed orders.
UON Pty Ltd v Hoascar (No 2)
Read this case as a practical lesson in separating different forms of protection. If you are building technology, do not assume patent rights and confidentiality rights rise and fall together. Keep clear records of what was disclosed internally, what was supplied externally, what was capable of inspection or reverse engineering, and what staff agreed to keep confidential. Use employment contracts and stand-alone confidentiality agreements that define confidential information broadly enough to protect the business, but specifically enough to be workable in a dispute. When employees leave, run a documented exit process and check for personal email forwarding, downloads or retention of files. If you hire from a competitor, make it clear that the new hire must not bring or use competitor material. If related litigation changes the strength of part of your case, reassess quickly, because procedural positions and settlement decisions can have major costs consequences.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the respondents' amended interlocutory application to strike out substantial parts of the statement of claim. On the available reasons and catchwords, Jackson J held that the earlier patent invalidity findings in Allied Pumps did not make the confidentiality-based claims necessarily untenable. The court identified three important points: making an invention publicly available for patent novelty purposes does not necessarily destroy confidentiality, express contractual confidentiality obligations remained relevant, and there was not necessarily complete identity between the invention and the specified confidential information pleaded about the invention. The court also ordered the cross-claim seeking a declaration that the patent was invalid to be discontinued, treating any possibility of revival as entirely theoretical after the related findings had revoked the patent. Costs were split in a commercially significant way: the respondents had to pay the applicants' costs of the failed strike-out application, but the applicants and cross-respondent were ordered to pay costs on the discontinued patent aspects, including indemnity costs after 17 March 2023.
Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Limited v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd trading as Database Consultants Australia (No 13)
If your business is in patent litigation, do not treat the money stage as something that can be worked out later with broad estimates. This case shows the court may require a claimant to elect between damages and an account of profits once it considers enough information has been provided, even if the claimant would prefer to wait for more evidence or testing. In practice, businesses should prepare early for remedy-stage disputes by identifying what records exist, how revenue was generated, what costs are said to be attributable, and how internal spreadsheets or apportionment formulas were built. If you are producing affidavit evidence, it needs to comply with the court’s orders and explain the methodology clearly. If you are receiving that evidence, assess early whether it is enough to force the other side to commit to one remedy path. Finance, operations and legal teams should work together from the start, because the quality of business records can directly affect litigation strategy.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered VMS to notify the City in writing of its election between damages and an account of profits within 21 days of 4 September 2025. The court also ordered VMS to pay the costs of the 10 July 2025 hearing and preparation for it, and the costs related to its application to re-open and rely on the affidavit of Mr Piesiewicz sworn 21 July 2025. On the material visible in the judgment, the court concluded that the balance favoured requiring an election now rather than allowing VMS to defer the choice while keeping both remedies open. The decision therefore narrowed the remaining dispute and reinforced the court’s case management emphasis on efficiency once sufficient information has been produced.
VGW Holdings Limited, in the matter of VGW Holdings Limited (No 2)
Read this case as a process case as much as an approval case. If your business is proposing a scheme, keep the record clean: dispatch materials on time, keep shareholder communications consistent with the scheme booklet, document meeting conduct, satisfy or waive conditions precedent properly and engage with ASIC early. If your company wants to object, focus on issues the Court can actually decide and support them with admissible evidence. For a corporate shareholder, representation and authority are threshold issues, not side points. A low bank balance alone will not usually prove the company cannot afford a lawyer, and a director who cannot confirm company authority may not be allowed to speak for it. Strong commercial views are not enough without the right evidence and procedure.
Outcome: Jackson J dismissed Belleco’s interlocutory application and refused to let it be heard through its non-lawyer director. The Court held that Belleco had failed to establish two important threshold matters: that it, or those standing behind it, could not afford legal representation, and that Mr Hobson was properly authorised to speak for the company. The Court also considered that large parts of Belleco’s proposed submissions misunderstood the Court’s role in a scheme approval hearing and were unsupported by evidence. The Court then approved the scheme under s 411(4)(b) of the Corporations Act and exempted VGW from compliance with s 411(11) in respect of the scheme. It was satisfied about procedural compliance, the strong vote of eligible non-LEO shareholders, the satisfaction or waiver of conditions precedent and ASIC’s no-objection letter.
Vouris, in the matter of Rapid Response Revival Research Limited (Administrators Appointed)
Read this case as an administration and asset-preservation decision, not a patent dispute. The Court did not decide who owned any patent or whether any IP right was infringed. Instead, it accepted that the administrators needed more time because the companies' assets included a large international IP portfolio and the likely buyer pool was expected to include overseas purchasers. If your business depends on registered rights, licences, certificates or technical know-how, keep ownership records, assignments, renewal details and licence terms organised well before any distress event. If administrators later need court relief, they will need evidence of a credible plan, work already underway, and a practical explanation of how extra time is likely to improve creditor outcomes. Creditors should also expect that an IP-heavy administration may move more slowly than a simple stock sale.
Outcome: The Court granted the application. Cheeseman J extended the convening period for the second meetings of creditors for each of the seven companies to 22 October 2025. The Court also made a Daisytek-style order under s 447A allowing the second meetings to be held together or separately during, or within five business days after, the extended period. Additional orders modified notice requirements so notice could be given by email where addresses were held, by post or other permitted means for others, and by publication on the ASIC Published Notices website. On the published reasons extract, the Court considered the extension appropriate because it would advance the interests of the administration by allowing the international sale campaign, receipt of offers and proceeds, further investigations and preparation of a report to creditors.
Vouris, in the matter of Rapid Response Revival Research Limited (Administrators Appointed) (No 2)
Read this case as a lesson in structure, control and sale readiness, not as a patent law ruling. The Court accepted that appointing the administrators as receivers over the trust assets would simplify the administration and help preserve value because the trust held essential business assets. However, the judge also said the administrators appeared able to appoint themselves as trustee under the deed and that applications of this kind should be discouraged where a cheaper alternative is available. For business owners, that means two things. First, check where your IP actually sits and what happens if the trustee becomes insolvent or enters administration. Secondly, do not assume a court order will be the default fix. Your trust deed may already contain a replacement mechanism, and if it does, cost, timing and personal exposure issues should be considered early. If a sale, capital raise or restructure may depend on trust-held assets, review the deed before a crisis rather than during one.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application and appointed the administrators as receivers and managers over the CellAED IP Holding Unit Trust and its assets. The Court gave them the powers a receiver has under section 420 of the Corporations Act, adapted to the trust context, and dispensed with the usual requirement to file guarantees under the Federal Court Rules. It also ordered that their remuneration, costs and expenses as receivers be paid from trust assets, with recourse to Cellaed’s assets if trust assets were insufficient, and allowed affected persons to apply to vary or set aside the orders on notice. However, the Court made clear that it was not fully satisfied this was the cheapest available path, noting that the administrators appeared able to appoint themselves as trustee under the deed and warning that similar applications should be discouraged where a simpler and cheaper alternative exists.
Watson Webb Pty Ltd v Comino
If your business receives drawings, marked-up designs, CAD files or prototype specifications from a supplier or collaborator, do not assume you can reuse them for design registration, manufacturing instructions or commercial rollout. This case shows that copyright ownership, confidentiality obligations and entitlement to a registered design can sit with different parties at the same time. It also shows that conduct and silence around intended use of drawings can support ACL findings. In practice, businesses should document who created each version of the design, who owns the drawings, what uses are permitted, whether any design application will be filed, and whether any assignment or joint ownership arrangement is needed before filing or commercial launch.
Outcome: The Court found largely in favour of AVI and Cimberio on the ownership and misuse issues, though not on every claim. It held that Cimberio was at least a co-designer and an entitled person in relation to the two registered designs. It found the designs were distinctive over the cited prior art, but also found AVI’s ball valves did not infringe the 810 design. The Court rejected the unjustified threats claim. It found direct copyright infringement, authorisation of infringement, breach of confidence and contraventions of section 18 of the ACL. It also held claims 1 to 4 of the 757 innovation patent invalid and said AVI would not have infringed even if the patent had been valid. Relief included revocation-related, declaration and transfer-related outcomes, plus monetary relief to be quantified later.
Watson Webb Pty Ltd v Comino (No 2)
If your business is the real commercial driver of a dispute, but another entity ends up named as the applicant or appellant, do not assume the Court will sort it out later without cost. This case suggests the Court can make a non-party or third party costs order where the non-party actually incurred the legal costs and had a direct and substantial interest in the outcome. But that result was reached after detailed evidence about the filing history, correspondence, costs arrangements and undertakings. A practical example is where a distributor funds a design revocation challenge but a law practice or another entity appears as the formal applicant because of filing issues. If the distributor wins, it may need a specific order to recover its costs. Businesses should identify the correct party early, document who is paying, record any indemnities clearly, and check that consent orders and stay wording refer to the right proceeding and appeal.
Outcome: The Court ordered that the respondent pay the costs of the appellant and AVI with respect to the Designs Office appeal and the proceeding before the Designs Office. Halley J held that AVI should receive a third party costs order because, in substance, Watson Webb was pursuing the appeal as the named or nominal party for AVI's benefit, AVI had a legitimate and substantive commercial interest in the designs, and AVI had paid the relevant legal costs. The Court refused the respondents' application to stay the main proceeding costs order and the inquiry into damages. It also varied the earlier consent orders so the relevant stay would continue beyond 28 days only if an appeal was lodged in proceeding NSD 1335 of 2021, the Designs Office appeal, and until that appeal and any further appeal were determined.
Wealth Trail Pty Ltd (in liq) v Del Vecchio
If your business may face customer or investor claims because someone inside the business allegedly acted without authority, your loss may emerge in stages rather than all at once. This case shows that, in the right circumstances, the Court can enter judgment on liability after a default and postpone the assessment of damages or equitable compensation until the position is clearer. That does not remove the need for careful pleading or evidence. You still need a clear account of the contractual or fiduciary duties said to be breached, the claims already made, the claims that may still arise, and why immediate quantification is not realistic. From a practical perspective, businesses should secure documents early, map all known and potential third-party exposures, notify insurers promptly, coordinate with liquidators or other decision-makers where relevant, and keep a running record of defence costs, settlements, AFCA outcomes and unresolved claims.
Outcome: The Court entered judgment against Anthony Del Vecchio for damages and/or equitable compensation, to be assessed within 12 months of the orders. The applicants were also given leave to apply for an extension of that period with supporting affidavit evidence, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs. On the reasons shown, the Court was satisfied that the pleaded facts, taken as admitted because no defence was filed, entitled the applicants to damages for breach of contract and/or equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty. The published reasons available here do not fully show the Court's final treatment of the requested permanent injunctions and continuation of freezing orders, so those aspects should be checked directly against the full judgment if they need to be discussed in detail.
Weber v Thomas Foods International (Stawell) Pty Ltd (Strike Out Application)
Business owners should read this as a case about pleading discipline, standing and forum choice in employment litigation. It does not mean the employer was cleared of all alleged wrongdoing. The Court had previously found the employee had a reasonably good prima facie case for interim reinstatement on an adverse action theory. What changed here was the Court’s focus on whether the later pleading had been framed properly. The practical lesson is to separate the core dispute from everything that has been added around it. If your business is sued, identify which claims are actually open under the Fair Work Act, whether the claimant can seek the remedies claimed, and whether allegations against individuals are properly particularised. If the pleading is repetitive, confusing or tries to cover non-parties, consider an early strike-out or summary judgment application. If your business is making decisions after an employee raises pay or award concerns, treat that as high risk and document the reasons for any action carefully.
Outcome: The Federal Court summarily dismissed two categories of claim. First, it dismissed claims made on behalf of other drivers because Weber lacked standing under the Fair Work Act and had not commenced a proper representative proceeding. Second, it dismissed the unlawful termination claims under s 772 because Weber was entitled to bring, and had brought, a general protections court application in relation to the same conduct. The Court also struck out references to s 772 in the amended originating application, struck out the unfair dismissal pleading, and otherwise struck out the statement of claim. However, the proceeding was not ended. Weber was given qualified leave to file a new amended statement of claim and further amended originating application in conformity with the reasons, except that any workplace injury-related claim required a separate interlocutory application supported by affidavit and draft pleading.
Weekes v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
If your business is the subject of an ACCC complaint, this decision suggests the complainant cannot simply assume the ACCC must investigate, answer every letter, or make a formal decision that can be challenged under the ADJR Act. The Court held that judicial review for delay only works where there is a duty to make a decision under an enactment. Here, the complainant could not point to any provision in the Competition and Consumer Act or another statute requiring the ACCC to decide whether to address his February 2025 submission. That means businesses should separate two issues. First, the regulator’s internal triage and correspondence process. Secondly, the underlying legality of the business conduct. This case only dealt with the first issue. It does not mean the conduct complained about was lawful. It also does not mean the ACCC must ignore future complaints. The safest business response is still to review the substance of the complaint, keep records, correct any risky claims or practices, and treat repeated complaints as a warning sign even if the ACCC has marked an earlier matter as no further action.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the application and upheld the ACCC’s objection to competency. Perry J held that Mr Weekes had not identified any “decision … under an enactment” and therefore had not identified a “decision to which [the ADJR] Act applies” for the purposes of section 7(1) of the ADJR Act. The Court found that no provision of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), or any other statute, created the alleged duty to decide whether to address the February 2025 submission. Any connection between the ACCC’s handling of that submission and the Act was too general and remote. The Court also held that no specific substantive statutory power had been identified that could affect legal rights or obligations in the required sense. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction and ordered Mr Weekes to pay the ACCC’s costs.
Weston (Trustee) v Sanna (No 7)
Read this case as a sale-proceeds and secured-creditor dispute, not just a property fight. The court was prepared to approve a negotiated split of the remaining funds because most active claimants had settled and because objections from Mr and Ms Sanna did not justify stopping the distribution on the material described in the judgment. Earlier findings had already voided certain transfers against the bankruptcy trustee and upheld key debt and security documents relied on by creditors. For businesses, the practical message is straightforward. Keep signed loan agreements, guarantees, security documents and evidence of enforcement steps in order. If your claim depends on property, protect it properly and be ready to prove it. Check whether earlier judgments already determine the debt or the validity of the security, because that can sharply limit what can still be argued later. If a fund is being held after sale, delay can be costly. A commercial settlement may produce a better result than spending the remaining money on a full priority battle.
Outcome: The court allowed the applications. It authorised the relevant liquidators and companies in liquidation, nunc pro tunc, to enter the heads of agreement dated 12 May 2025 and the deed of settlement dated 15 July 2025 under s 477(2A) and s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act. It also authorised the trustee and his solicitors to distribute the remaining sale proceeds in specified amounts: $215,000 to the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Lepa Sanna, $60,000 to Bluescope Steel Ltd, $80,000 to Defined Properties Investments Pty Ltd (in liquidation), $80,000 to ACN 146 329 008 Pty Ltd (in liquidation), and $80,000 to E&B Pastoral Pty Ltd. The remaining $83,385.90 was to be paid to Dentons Australia to be applied first to the applicant's costs and remuneration of obtaining the orders and then, if anything remained, equally among certain creditors. The seventh respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the interim application and the distribution application, and the proceedings were otherwise dismissed.
Westpac Banking Corporation v Forum Finance Pty Limited (in liq) (Reinstatement)
Treat ASIC deregistration as an administrative event, not a liability shield. In this case, the company had been deregistered for unpaid fees, but the Court restored it because Westpac had a genuine and economically significant interest in pursuing relief after liability findings in related fraud litigation. The Court considered the deregistration administrative in nature, noted that Westpac had not been told it was about to happen, and accepted that reinstatement was needed to obtain effective and enforceable relief. Just as importantly, the Court looked at what should happen next. Because the company was likely to become insolvent very shortly after reinstatement, and because the former officeholders did not seek to be heard, the Court ordered immediate winding up and appointed liquidators already involved with associated entities. If your business uses multiple companies, keep ASIC fees current for every entity, including dormant or asset-holding companies. If a company is tied to disputed money, property or litigation, assume deregistration may be undone and plan accordingly.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. ASIC was ordered to reinstate the registration of 1160 Glen Huntly Road Pty Ltd forthwith under s 601AH(2) of the Corporations Act. Upon reinstatement, the Court ordered that the company be wound up on just and equitable grounds under s 461(1)(k). Jason Craig Ireland and Jason Preston of McGrathNicol, both registered liquidators who had consented to act, were appointed as joint and several liquidators. The Court also ordered Westpac to pay ASIC all outstanding administrative fees relating to the company’s registration and reinstatement, and ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the liquidation. In substance, the company was restored so that relief could be pursued and enforced, but control passed immediately to liquidators rather than former officeholders.
Westpac Banking Corporation v Forum Finance Pty Limited (in liq) (Relief)
Read this case as an asset recovery and tracing case, not as a general regulator enforcement matter. It is also not the main liability ruling. The key point is that once liability has been established, the court can use a broad set of equitable remedies to follow money into assets, sale proceeds and discharged mortgages. The judgment is especially important for businesses that use multiple entities, move money internally, or apply borrowed funds to property, acquisitions or debt repayment. In practice, businesses should keep a clear audit trail showing whose money was received, under what authority, into which account, for what purpose, and what asset or liability it touched. If that trail is missing, a court may accept practical tracing methods and strong inferences that can favour the claimant and leave recipients exposed.
Outcome: The court made orders substantially in accordance with the financiers' proposed short minutes. On the published reasons, it accepted declarations of trust over identified assets or sale proceeds where tracing evidence established the use of stolen funds, accepted that the financiers could trace into the whole of the increase in value of relevant assets in the circumstances described, and recognised equitable subrogation in the Westpac and SMBC proceedings where misappropriated funds had discharged secured debts. It also accepted that proprietary and personal remedies were cumulative rather than inconsistent, subject to the rule against double recovery, and awarded substantial pre-judgment interest. Some orders were later varied nunc pro tunc, including an additional SMBC subrogation declaration and a correction of an internal cross-reference.
Whittome v Woolworths Group Limited
Read this case as a warning about process and proof, not as a final ruling on Woolworths’ conduct. The Court accepted a practical arrangement because the ACCC proceeding and the class action raised materially the same liability issues. That reduced duplication, but it also meant the representative applicant and non-opt-out group members would generally be bound by the liability findings from the ACCC trial, subject to appeal rights and later orders. For business owners, the real lesson is to treat discount claims as evidence-based statements. Before advertising a price reduction, make sure your systems can show the product’s earlier ordinary selling price, the timing of any changes, and the basis for the promotional wording. If a dispute arises, preserve pricing data, internal approvals, campaign materials and communications early. Parallel proceedings can change litigation risk and cost very quickly.
Outcome: The Court made orders largely in the form proposed by the parties. It ordered that the initial trial on liability issues in the representative proceeding be heard together with the initial liability trial in the ACCC proceeding. The applicant was ordered to take no step in either proceeding, including at the Joint Liability Trial, unless leave was obtained. The evidence in the ACCC proceeding was to be evidence in the representative proceeding. Subject to release from the implied undertaking and confidentiality protections, Woolworths was to provide the applicant with specified ACCC proceeding materials and transcripts. Woolworths' security for costs application was adjourned indefinitely, with liberty to re-enliven it if the applicant later sought leave to take a step. The Court also set a timetable for proposed opt-out orders and notice. The judgment was therefore a case-management ruling, not a final liability decision.
Wight (liquidator), in the matter of Responsible Entity Services Limited (in liquidation)
If your business is negotiating with a secured creditor in liquidation, get clear early on four things. First, is the creditor actually bound by the restructuring document, or will a separate deed, consent or deed poll be needed? Second, what exactly is being released: land mortgage, shares, PPSR security, plant, equipment, or all of them? Third, is the officeholder being asked to compromise the debt itself, release security only, or do both at once? Fourth, will the officeholder seek court directions or approval before signing? In this case, the deal only worked because the DOCA, the deed poll and the court orders were designed to fit together. SMEs should treat that as a drafting and timing lesson. Do not leave security releases, payment triggers or approval steps to the end of the transaction.
Outcome: Beach J made the orders sought by the liquidators. Under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), the Court held they were justified and acting reasonably in receiving $5,975,000 plus GST under the PPM DOCA, executing and performing the deed poll, and taking steps connected with releasing the identified security interests. Those interests were the mortgage over the Helidon property and the security interest over all issued shares in BRS. The Court also approved the liquidators receiving the secured creditor amount in exchange for releasing those security interests under s 477(2A), to the extent necessary. The Court further made a confidentiality order over investor details, ordered the liquidators' costs to be costs in the liquidation, and granted liberty to apply.
Wingstar Holdings Pty Ltd v Point Capital Group Pty Ltd
If your business is in Federal Court proceedings and security for costs becomes a live issue, prepare for close scrutiny of your finances. This case shows that the Court may permit inspection of subpoenaed documents where they are apparently relevant to whether security should be ordered. That can include recent accounts, banking records, tax material and documents showing whether someone else is standing behind the litigation. The decision does not mean every confidential document will be handed over without restriction, but it does mean broad confidentiality objections may not be enough. A practical response is to keep financial records organised, understand how your group structure looks from the outside, and be ready to explain any shareholder, director, related-party or third-party support for the case. If sensitive information needs protection, seek agreement or a court direction. Do not make unilateral redactions and assume that will be accepted.
Outcome: The Court granted the refusal application only in limited part. Wheatley J held that the Wingstar parties’ main argument wrongly treated relevance as if it had to be determinative. For subpoena inspection in this context, the correct question was apparent relevance to the respondents’ security for costs application. Because security for costs is a broad discretionary exercise, documents about financial position, access to funds and who may be standing behind the litigation could properly be inspected if they might throw some light on those issues. The Court therefore mostly rejected the attempt to prevent inspection. However, it imposed specific limits. Access to the 2024 financials was refused, and documents within category 5(b), concerning third-party funding arrangements, were to be inspected only with appropriate redactions, to be agreed or dealt with by further order. Liberty to apply was granted. The Court also criticised the unilateral redaction of a bank transaction descriptor, although it declined to draw the inference the respondents sought from the deposit itself.
Woori International Pty Ltd, in the matter of TJM Holdings Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
If your company is served with a statutory demand or winding up application, separate the issues early. First, decide whether the debt itself is disputed and what process exists to challenge it. Second, if the company is solvent, be ready to prove that with proper evidence at once. Third, be realistic about timing. A prompt application to review or set aside a winding up order may be treated very differently from one brought many months later after the liquidation has effectively run its course. This case also shows that reputational concerns, while real, may not be enough to justify reopening a winding up if there is no meaningful legal or commercial difference between setting the order aside and simply terminating the liquidation. In lease disputes, registered tribunal debts can become insolvency problems unless dealt with quickly.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application with costs. Owens J refused leave under section 198G(3), holding that the proposed review case was very weak once the need for a lengthy extension of time was taken into account. Although the company appeared to have been solvent, the court found there was no substantial practical advantage in setting aside the winding up order because the liquidation had all but concluded, a property had been sold, the debt had been paid and the liquidators were close to seeking termination of the winding up under section 482. The court also rejected the alternative rule 39.05 arguments. A winding up order was not interlocutory, and the alleged fraud case failed because it had not been clearly articulated or properly supported with the necessary material.
Xie v Moshav Financial Wholesale Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a supervision and sales-controls case, not just an investor dispute. The pleaded representations included specific claims about a backdoor listing structure, completion by the end of 2018, a $100 million fund raise, a 6 to 8 times return, safety and a guaranteed refund if the transaction failed. Those are the kinds of statements that can drive an investment decision and later become the centre of a misleading conduct claim. The case also shows that internal contracts do not eliminate external exposure. Even if a business later seeks recovery from the individual who made the statements, that does not undo the customer claim against the business. In practice, businesses should tightly define authority, approve all future-looking statements, monitor off-script communications, separate personal dealings from client transactions and keep records showing the basis for any forecast or assurance.
Outcome: The published reasons and catchwords indicate that the court found the representative made false and misleading representations and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and that the licensee was liable for that conduct. The catchwords also indicate that there would be orders for damages. On Moshav’s cross-claim, the catchwords state that Mr Yu breached his employment agreement and fiduciary duties, again with damages to follow. However, the orders made on 26 March 2025 required the parties to provide draft short minutes and contemplated a further case management hearing if they could not agree on the form of orders or costs. So the liability outcome is clear at a high level, but the exact final relief and costs position should be checked in the court file.
YAF Master v S&P Global, Inc (Applications for Leave)
A business owner should read this case as a warning about litigation discipline rather than as a ruling on the underlying merits of credit ratings or structured finance products. The Court allowed only limited amendments and limited further evidence shortly before trial, and refused the balance. That tells you two things. First, a court may still permit a targeted late change if the prejudice case is not clearly made out and the amendment is tied to material already in play. Second, the absence of a good explanation for delay remains a serious problem, especially in old and document-heavy disputes. In practice, businesses should make sure their pleadings, witness evidence and expert reports match each other well before hearing dates are close. If a new issue emerges from expert work, it should be escalated immediately, not left until after an admissibility fight or on the eve of trial.
Outcome: On the available judgment text, Shariff J allowed the application only in limited respects. The Court said leave should be granted for amendments at [349.5]-[349.6] of the proposed further amended statement of claim. The Court also said leave should be granted for the applicants to rely on the Fowler outline and to amend particulars at [422]-[425] to refer to that outline, subject to a condition that relevant documents requested by S&P be produced within about seven days. The Court otherwise refused the balance of the disputed matters. The reasons reproduced in the available text show that leave was refused for the proposed amendment to particulars at [341], and that the Court was more receptive to the proposed amendments at [349] because the prejudice evidence did not clearly isolate the prejudice caused by those specific amendments. The full judgment should be checked for the complete reasoning and exact final orders.
Yeo (liquidator), in the matter of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
Read this case as a process and risk-management decision. It does not tell you that the former director or holding company would have lost at trial. It tells you that the Court was prepared to approve a commercial compromise reached by liquidators where insolvency issues were likely to be contestable and where the Court was satisfied the settlement was reasonable. If your business is under financial pressure, keep strong records of cash flow, liabilities as they fall due, available funding, and any advice received about solvency. If you are dealing with a liquidator, do not assume a settlement can simply be signed and implemented without checking authority. Ask early whether court, creditor or committee approval is needed, whether a protective direction should be sought, and whether any confidential material will need to be protected by court order.
Outcome: Justice Beach approved the settlement. The Court approved the liquidators' entry into the terms of settlement dated 15 July 2025 under section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act, nunc pro tunc, and directed under section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that the liquidators were justified in entering into, causing the companies to enter into, and giving effect to the settlement. The litigation representative's entry into the settlement was also approved under rules 9.70 and 9.71 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The Court made confidentiality orders over specified affidavit material, concluded the examination of Mrs Scott under the summons, dismissed the proceeding otherwise, and ordered that the applicants' costs be costs in the liquidations. The judge said he was generally satisfied that the settlement was commercial and a reasonable compromise of the relevant claims.
ZACD Group Limited v Bao (Costs)
Business owners should read this case as a warning about settlement strategy and litigation arithmetic. The underlying misleading conduct findings sit in the earlier principal judgment, so this decision is not the place to learn the full factual story of the dispute. What it does show clearly is how quickly a case can become more expensive after liability is decided. Here, the defendant faced more than $1.86 million in pre-judgment interest, plus indemnity costs after an earlier offer was rejected. The Court also treated an unsigned Form 45 offer as effective after dispensing with the technical non-compliance. In practice, if your business is in Federal Court proceedings, do not reject an offer simply because you think there is a technical defect. Get advice on whether the defect is likely to matter, compare the offer with the realistic trial range, and record the commercial reasons for your decision. If you are making an offer, make it as compliant and clear as possible because it may later shape the costs order in a major way.
Outcome: The Court ordered Mr Bao to pay total pre-judgment interest of $1,862,770.61. That comprised $1,669,008.63 on the $4.7 million damages award and $193,761.98 on the $610,327.67 mitigation costs. The Court held that interest on the main damages should be calculated by reference to the amount actually awarded against Mr Bao, not the whole $37.5 million loss. It also held that interest on the mitigation costs accrued from when the payments were made, proceeding on the basis that each invoice was paid on its due date because exact payment evidence was unavailable. On costs, the Court dispensed with the signature defect in the 18 July 2023 Form 45 offer and ordered standard costs up to 11.00 am on 20 July 2023 and indemnity costs after that time.
Zimmermann Vearings Pty Ltd v Sandhurst Capital Pty Ltd
If your business is changing ownership percentages, document the exact legal path, not just the commercial intention. Be clear whether you are issuing new shares, transferring existing shares, correcting an error, or agreeing a fresh deal. Record the number of shares, the resulting percentages, who approved the step, and which entity is to hold the shares. This case also shows the risk where one person controls multiple entities and signs documents across them without a clearly documented approval trail. A later attempt to reframe the transaction in court can fail if it contradicts the structure of the original case. In practice, align board approvals, applications, resolutions, certificates, ASIC updates and the company register at the same time, and investigate any discrepancy early before positions harden into litigation.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that the common 10.65 per cent variation contention was untenable. O'Callaghan J accepted Sandhurst's submission that the only term of the original pleaded contract was that Johnson or his nominee would be a 10 per cent shareholder in Vearings Lane, and that this had already been achieved on the pleaded case by 8 or 10 December 2021. Because the contract was therefore fully performed, it could not later be varied in the way pleaded. The court allowed Zimmermann to amend only in part, excluding the proposed paragraph 7B and related relief, struck out the matching paragraph 25(c) in the defence in the related proceeding, and ordered costs against the parties advancing those unsuccessful positions.
Zong v Woodcroft (liquidator), in the matter of Sunshine Contracting Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
Treat related-party funding as if an external lender will later audit it. Use signed loan agreements, keep drawdown notices and bank records, and make sure the company's balance sheets and reports do not contradict the claimed debt. If funds are borrowed by one person or entity and then passed to the company, document that chain clearly and explain why it was done that way. In an insolvency, a liquidator may scrutinise insider claims closely, especially if those claims could influence a vote about who controls the liquidation. This case shows both sides of that risk. Weak or incomplete records can lead to a claim being admitted for only a nominal amount at a meeting, but a court can correct that if the available material is sufficient. Businesses should prepare the evidence before any dispute arises, not after a meeting has already been called.
Outcome: The Federal Court allowed the application. Markovic J varied the liquidator's decisions so that, for voting purposes at the 16 July 2025 meeting, Mr Zong's proof of debt was admitted for $1.5 million, DIHE's proof was admitted for $700,000, and Unik's proof was admitted for $1,470,545. The Court declared that the resolution to remove the existing liquidator and appoint Edwin Narayan and Domenic Calabretta as liquidators had passed. It then set aside the earlier decision on that resolution and ordered the removal of the existing liquidator and the appointment of the replacement liquidators. Costs were left to be dealt with by later agreement or short submissions.
Zulic v CMC Markets Asia Pacific Pty Ltd (No 3)
A business owner should read this as a records and systems case. The Court did not decide whether CMC actually engaged in the alleged conduct. Instead, it decided what extra material had to be handed over so the parties could properly test those allegations. The practical lesson is that policies alone are not enough. If your systems record that a customer failed a suitability or appropriateness check, but another part of the process still allowed that customer to proceed, a court may want to see both the assessment data and the later customer outcomes. The case also shows that discovery disputes often turn on data architecture and document control. Businesses that know what they hold, what a related entity holds, and how difficult extraction really is are in a much stronger position when a dispute escalates.
Outcome: The Court granted the application in part. By orders made on 9 May 2025, CMC was required by 29 August 2025 to give verified discovery of the data described in categories 1(a) and 2, and documents responsive to categories 6(b), 7(a), 7(b) and 8(a) to 8(f), with production to occur in accordance with the parties' Electronic Exchange Protocol. The amended interlocutory application was otherwise dismissed, and costs were made costs in the cause. In the reasons visible here, Jackman J accepted that the Raw Data Sheet trading and loss data and the suitability data were directly relevant and sufficiently probative to justify the burden of production, but refused the hedging category because the likely relevant documents appeared to be controlled by CMC's UK parent and the proposed search was too speculative and remote.
Attree Pty Ltd v Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London Subscribing to Policy Number P_ML/0/272375/20/L-7
Business owners should read this case as a warning against treating management liability insurance as a backstop for underpayments. The Court’s reasoning was that paying employees what they were already entitled to receive is not the same thing as paying compensation or damages for an actionable wrong. On that approach, settlement sums for unpaid wages, allowances and similar entitlements may be characterised as fulfilment of antecedent obligations rather than insured loss. The same problem can then flow through to defence costs, depending on the wording. The practical response is to tighten payroll systems before a dispute arises. Check award coverage, classifications, minimum rates, allowances, deductions, commissions and leave settings. Keep records that let you explain how each amount was calculated. Separately, ask your broker or lawyer to walk through the policy definitions of claim, loss, wrongful act and defence costs, and to identify any exclusions dealing with contractual liabilities, business liabilities or industrial instrument obligations. If a staff claim arrives, notify the insurer promptly, but do not assume notification means cover exists.
Outcome: The proceeding was dismissed. On the published judgment, Derrington J held that although the employee matters were civil proceedings or written demands, they were not claims for compensation or damages in the relevant insurance sense. They were claims for payment of statutory and award-based entitlements that Attree was already obliged to pay for the employees' services. The Court treated the compromise payments as fulfilment of antecedent obligations rather than insured loss. As a result, Attree was not entitled to indemnity for the settlement amounts or the legal costs it claimed. The orders also directed the parties to file submissions on costs separately.
Austin Engineering Ltd v Podulova (No 3)
Read this case as a practical lesson in litigation control. It does not establish a broad rule that businesses can always show court-obtained material to senior management, and it does not finally decide whether Austin's information was misused. The orders turned on the specific wording of earlier consent orders, the confidentiality undertakings already in place, the nature of the documents, and the fact that Schlam had not shown the disputed material was confidential to Schlam and still needed protection from disclosure to Austin. If your business is pursuing or defending a confidential information claim, focus on the exact scope of the orders, the purpose for which disclosure was compelled, and who is allowed to see the material. Also make sure your pleadings explain the commercial mechanism of harm. Courts may tolerate some refinement, but they can require targeted particulars before the case moves forward.
Outcome: The Court granted Austin leave to amend its interlocutory application and varied the 25 May 2023 orders and related confidentiality undertakings so specified material could be disclosed to Austin's General Counsel and CEO, provided each signed a confidentiality undertaking. The Court otherwise made no broader variation orders and reserved costs. It also ordered Austin to provide limited further and better particulars by 16 September 2024 about industry practice, usual employment terms, knowledge, damage and causation. Apart from those targeted particulars, the respondents' particulars application was dismissed, and the separate strike-out application was also dismissed, with costs reserved. The underlying substantive claims remained unresolved.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd (No 3)
If your business is under court orders, treat every compliance deadline as a board-level issue. In this case, the Court dealt with repeated failures to update a disclosure document on time, prepare marketing fund statements on time and ensure quarterly compliance reporting to the board and/or senior management. The Court referred to the statutory purposes behind these obligations, including transparency, accountability and helping franchisees or prospective franchisees make informed decisions. It also referred to earlier Full Court observations that delays by external service providers are not an adequate explanation and that compliance remains the franchisor’s responsibility. For franchisors, the practical response is to build a dated compliance calendar around the end of each financial year, assign named owners, require early escalation of any likely delay, and minute compliance reports at board or senior management level. If orders or undertakings already apply to your business, do not assume a short delay will be treated lightly.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared that Ultra Tune was guilty of contempt on all four charges and convicted it on each charge. The Court imposed total fines of $1.5 million, with the formal orders recording $240,000 for charge 1, $300,000 for charge 2, $600,000 for charge 3 and $360,000 for charge 4, payable within 60 days. The Court also ordered Ultra Tune to pay the ACCC's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application on an indemnity basis. A correction table dated 6 March 2024 also inserted an order dispensing with compliance with rule 41.06 to the extent required and noted an amendment to paragraph 195 of the reasons, so the latest published version should be checked carefully.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BSF Solutions Pty Ltd (Liability)
If your business touches consumer lending, do not assume that a separate service agreement, a different operating entity or a "no fee" label will keep you outside the credit regime. You need to assess the whole model together: who suggests the loan, who helps the customer apply, who communicates with the customer, who receives repayments, who manages defaults, who changes payment schedules and what fees the customer pays because they obtained the loan. This case also shows that stopping new originations may not end the problem if you keep demanding or receiving money under existing agreements while unlicensed. Directors should treat model design and licensing as a governance issue, not just an operational one. If a business model depends on consumers paying account, administration or schedule-change fees linked to a loan, it needs careful review before launch and while it is operating.
Outcome: The Federal Court found ASIC's liability case established. It declared that BSF contravened section 29(1) of the Credit Act by engaging in credit activity without a licence and section 32(1) by demanding, receiving or accepting late payment fees while unlicensed. It declared that Cigno contravened section 29(1) and section 32(1) by providing the relevant services and demanding, receiving or accepting the Cigno fees without a licence. The court also declared that each director was involved in the relevant company's contraventions. Permanent restraining orders were made against the companies and directors in relation to substantially the same conduct while unlicensed. Penalties, some further injunctive issues, adverse publicity orders and costs were left for later determination.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Darranda Pty Ltd (Liability)
If your business rents goods to consumers over time, do not assume that calling the arrangement a lease will settle the legal position. Review the full customer journey together: marketing, application flow, contract wording, declarations, staff scripts, end-of-term treatment and payment structure. If customers are led to expect that they or a nominated person will end up with the goods, that feature may be legally significant. This case also shows that compliance risk can sit at both operating entity and franchisor level where systems, training and documentation are centrally controlled. Before scaling a lease-style model, get the product architecture reviewed as a whole, not document by document. That is especially important where the total amount paid exceeds the cash price of the goods and the business holds an Australian Credit Licence.
Outcome: The Federal Court delivered liability reasons on 4 September 2024 and ordered the parties to file agreed or competing minutes of order within 14 days, with a further case management hearing to set a timetable for final orders. However, the judgment text available here is truncated before the full concluding analysis and findings can be safely set out issue by issue. That means this page cannot confidently state the final liability findings on contract characterisation, the efficiently-honestly-and-fairly allegation, or the involvement case against the master franchisor. The case should therefore be read as an important liability-stage decision on product characterisation and compliance risk, with the exact holdings and relief to be confirmed from the full judgment and any later orders.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Latitude Finance Australia (No 2)
Read this case as a reminder that finance advertising is judged by substance, not just technical disclosure. If your promotion suggests a customer can simply buy goods and repay the purchase price in equal monthly instalments, but the customer must first obtain a credit card, enter a revolving credit arrangement, or pay establishment or account fees, those features may be central to the message. The Court materials available here show close attention to prominence, repetition and whether consumers would realistically absorb the qualifications in newspapers, radio and television. Businesses should review the whole campaign, not just the disclaimer. Check what the ad would communicate to an ordinary consumer who only notices the main message. If the real arrangement is more complex or more expensive than the headline suggests, the ad needs to say so clearly and prominently.
Outcome: The reasons confirm that this was a liability judgment delivered by Yates J on 18 October 2024 and that the Court ordered the parties to bring in agreed or competing draft orders by 28 October 2024. The reasons also show detailed analysis of the representative advertisements, the parties’ submissions, the law, consumer evidence and broader issues such as cumulative effect. However, the text available here cuts off before the full disposition can be checked in detail. For that reason, this page does not state any unverified final contraventions, declarations, injunctions, penalties or adverse publicity orders. The safe reading is that the Court gave substantive liability reasons in a significant misleading advertising case, but the complete final findings and relief should be confirmed from the full judgment and any later orders.
Broadband Solutions Pty Ltd v Ramirez
Business owners should read this as an evidence case, not a blanket endorsement of all restraint clauses. The court was not finally deciding that every alleged breach had occurred. It was deciding whether there was a strong enough prima facie case, and whether the balance of convenience favoured temporary protection until the matter could progress. Broadband had several things working in its favour: written confidentiality, intellectual property and restraint clauses, evidence that its system contained commercially sensitive client and technical information, a usage protocol limiting access, and logs showing specific documents were viewed, converted to PDF or shared after employment ended. If your business wants to protect client files, internal manuals, pricing, workflows or passwords, your contracts and your systems need to work together. Without reliable records, urgent injunction relief is much harder to obtain.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted interlocutory relief in Broadband's favour on 30 August 2024. The respondent was restrained from using, accessing, disclosing, deleting or reproducing Broadband's confidential information, intellectual property and specified business materials. He was ordered to deliver up relevant documents and to file an affidavit identifying any use, transfer, disclosure, deletion and storage of the information. The court also granted temporary restraint relief, including a six-month non-compete order within the contractual geographic area from 16 September 2024, plus client non-solicitation and service restraints. The court reserved liberty to the respondent to apply on short notice in relation to the non-compete order before it took effect. These were temporary orders at an interlocutory stage, not a final determination.
Ceni Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sykes, in the matter of Ceni Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq)
If your business is involved in a franchise, distribution or branded product arrangement, this case shows the importance of both transaction discipline and litigation planning. On the transaction side, major asset sales should be documented carefully, especially where there is a director conflict, a shareholder dispute, or a risk that key contractual rights have expired or are being renegotiated. On the litigation side, a company in liquidation cannot assume that strong allegations will be enough to avoid security for costs. The Court may treat the merits as neutral at an early stage if the allegations are disputed and the defendants' evidence is not yet in. That means liquidators, directors and shareholders should think early about cash reserves, litigation funding, adverse costs exposure and whether staged security may be needed. A claim may still proceed, but only if the claimant can manage the procedural and funding realities.
Outcome: The Court granted the security for costs applications. The plaintiffs were ordered to provide $747,000 security for the first and second defendants up to the service of their evidence, and security for the third and fourth defendants in two stages of $400,000 and $350,000 on the timetable set out in the orders. Security could be provided by payment into Court or unconditional bank guarantee. If security was not provided on time, the proceeding against the relevant defendants would be stayed until further order. The defendants were given liberty to apply for further security on reasonable notice. The Court dismissed the Sykes parties' separate application for injunctive relief under section 1324. Costs were apportioned so that the plaintiffs paid the successful security application costs, while the first and second defendants paid the plaintiffs' costs of the dismissed injunction application.
Crosbie (administrator), in the matter of Godfreys Group Pty Ltd (administrators appointed)
Business owners should read this case as a practical lesson in structure, timing and documentation. The Court did not decide a franchise dispute on the merits. It approved a package of administration orders so the Godfreys business could keep trading for a limited period while administrators investigated the group and pursued a sale. The most useful point for franchisors and franchisees is the lease structure. Where the head entity holds the lease and the franchisee occupies under a licence, the head entity remains exposed to landlord claims and the administrators may need court relief while they decide which sites to keep. The relief here was not open-ended. It was granted by court order and tied to a specific period ending on 28 May 2024. If you run a network, make sure you know who is the tenant, who employs staff, who grants occupancy rights, how notices can be given, and how funding and intercompany arrangements would work if the group entered administration.
Outcome: The Court granted the relief sought. It extended the convening period for the second meeting of creditors to 28 May 2024 and ordered that the meeting could be held during that extended period or within five business days after it. It approved electronic and website-based notice arrangements, allowed a single administration account and a single committee of inspection across the companies, and made orders limiting or modifying the administrators' personal liability in relation to trading liabilities, the funding deed, lease liabilities during the specified period, pre-appointment employment arrangements and arrangements to fund or supply the New Zealand entity. The Court also declared that continuing to trade the business up to 28 May 2024 while pursuing a sale, entering into the funding deed, paying employees under the employee proposal, and funding or supplying the New Zealand entity were actions taken in the interests of creditors.
CW Group Holdings Limited, in the matter of CW Group Holdings Limited
If your business is pursuing a merger, sale or restructure through a scheme of arrangement, this case shows that the early court stage is largely about whether members can make an informed decision on a properly disclosed proposal. The Court was prepared to let CWG shareholders vote because the scheme materials explained the transaction mechanics, the directors’ interests were prominently disclosed, and all shareholders were to receive the same form of consideration under the scheme. The judgment is particularly useful where directors have multiple roles. Being a shareholder, franchisee, supply contract counterparty or proposed future director of the merged group does not automatically require a separate voting class or prevent a recommendation to shareholders. But those interests must be analysed carefully and disclosed clearly. Businesses should also remember that first-hearing orders do not mean the transaction is approved. Further shareholder steps, regulatory steps and a second court hearing still matter.
Outcome: The Federal Court made orders convening the scheme meeting. Moshinsky J held that the statutory prerequisites were satisfied and that it was appropriate to exercise the Court's discretion in favour of allowing CWG shareholders to vote on the proposal. The Court accepted that the scheme booklet and independent expert report provided adequate information to members and that the scheme was fit for consideration. It also accepted that the disclosed interests and benefits of CWG directors did not require separate classes and did not prevent those directors from recommending the scheme. The scheme meeting was ordered for 29 January 2025, and a second hearing was listed for 3 February 2025 for any application to approve the scheme. The judgment did not itself finally approve the merger.
Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v Isuzu Australia Limited (No 2)
If your business is considering separate proceedings arising from the same commercial events, plan the sequence carefully and document the reason for it. A later defendant may say the second case should have been brought earlier, especially if there is substantial factual overlap, a risk of inconsistent findings, or insolvency has changed the practical position of other parties. At the same time, this judgment shows that a permanent stay is exceptional. The Court may prefer to control the overlap through pleadings, issue management, witness arrangements and other directions rather than shut the case down. Businesses should preserve documents early, identify all possible parties, assess insolvency risk, and raise procedural concerns promptly instead of waiting until the overlap has become more expensive and harder to manage.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Isuzu's interlocutory application for a permanent stay. Rofe J held that any abuse-of-process or oppression concerns could be avoided or minimised by appropriate case management, and that the application had again been pressed prematurely before those options had been properly explored. The Court was not persuaded that Directed should reasonably have appreciated a risk in mid-2019 that the Hanhwa parties would become insolvent, or that there was therefore a foreseeable need to sue Isuzu at that time. The Court also held that witness-related prejudice could be accommodated through available processes, including witness availability, video-link evidence, and use of prior evidence and transcripts. The matter was ordered back into case management, with costs to be dealt with on written submissions.
Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v Isuzu Australia Limited (No 3)
If your business is thinking about a procedural application to shut down, pause or narrow a claim, treat it as a commercial decision, not just a legal tactic. Ask whether the issue is ready to be decided on the current pleadings, whether ordinary case management could solve the problem more cheaply, and whether the application is likely to save time rather than create another expensive fight. Also make sure your legal team follows directions exactly. In this case, the Court did not say Isuzu's application was frivolous from the beginning. But it still ordered costs against Isuzu because the application failed, and it singled out specific conduct for indemnity costs, especially the filing of a 460-page affidavit contrary to directions. Businesses should also understand the difference between standard costs and indemnity costs. Standard costs usually mean only recoverable costs on the ordinary basis. Indemnity costs are a stronger response where the Court considers the other side was unreasonably put to expense. Even if the Court leaves open the possibility of a later application, that does not stop a failed application from attracting its own costs order now.
Outcome: Rofe J ordered Isuzu to pay Directed's costs of and incidental to Isuzu's interlocutory application on a party-party basis. The Court also ordered Isuzu to pay Directed's costs of reviewing and considering the affidavit of Ms Emma Lee-Anne Iles on an indemnity basis. The amount of those costs was to be determined by a Registrar immediately on a lump sum basis and payable forthwith after determination. However, the operation of those orders was stayed until 28 days after the appeal in Federal Court proceeding VID 1179 of 2024 was determined. In reaching that result, the Court held that Directed had successfully opposed the application, rejected Isuzu's argument for costs in the cause, and confined indemnity costs to the wasted work caused by the affidavit filed contrary to directions rather than awarding indemnity costs for the whole later period.
Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd
If you run a franchise network, do not assume payroll compliance sits only with the franchisee. This case shows that where head office has strong operational control and warning signs of underpayments or record-keeping failures, the franchisor can face major penalties under s 558B(1) of the Fair Work Act. The practical reading is that franchise compliance systems must be active, not theoretical. Audit rights need to be used. Award coverage, classifications, penalty rates, overtime, leave payments, payslips and records need regular checking. If the regulator raises concerns, or your own audits show problems, you need documented intervention across the network. Prior Fair Work history will make it harder to argue later breaches were isolated or unexpected. Franchisees should also read this carefully. They remain the direct employer and still carry the primary obligation to pay staff correctly and keep compliant records.
Outcome: The Federal Court made extensive declarations of contravention and ordered 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd to pay total penalties of $1,440,000 to the Commonwealth within 60 days of 4 June 2024. Bromwich J treated substantial penalties as clearly appropriate, given the admitted knowledge element, the company’s prior compliance history, the vulnerability of workers, and the need for general deterrence. The Court also considered admissions and contrition, but still imposed a very significant penalty. A correction table issued on 7 June 2024 adjusted some figures in the reasons and schedule, but the final total penalty remained $1,440,000.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3)
Read this case as a systems warning. If someone is really your employee, you need the right employing entity, the right award classification, the right pay settings, compliant payslips, accessible time and wage records, and a lawful response if the Fair Work Ombudsman gets involved. Do not assume a complicated company structure will protect you if the day-to-day reality points elsewhere. Do not try to fix a complaint by re-labelling a worker as a contractor, reducing hours without dealing properly with leave and notice consequences, or scrambling to reconstruct records after the event. If inspectors ask for documents, preserve everything and respond carefully. The judgment also underlines that directors or managers may face accessory exposure where they were knowingly involved in the conduct.
Outcome: The published orders show that the Court declared the first respondent contravened the Fair Work Act and Fair Work Regulations in numerous respects, including failures to pay minimum award rates, casual loadings, Saturday and Sunday penalty rates, some public holiday penalty rates, some overtime rates, superannuation contributions, and wages on the required cycle. The orders also show findings that Xing Yang’s accrued untaken annual leave was not paid and that notice of termination or payment in lieu was not given when her full-time employment ended. The catchwords indicate the case also dealt with record-keeping, false or misleading records, notices to produce, general protections, obstruction, serious contraventions and accessory liability, but the full detail should be checked against the complete judgment history.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Make Dough Enterprises (in liquidation)
If you run a franchise network, treat workplace compliance as a live legal risk across the network, not just a franchisee issue. This decision shows that where a franchisee allegedly failed to keep required records, the Ombudsman may still use the Fair Work Act presumption to prove the underlying franchisee contravention in a case against the franchisor. But the franchisor can still defend itself by putting on evidence. In practice, that makes documented compliance systems commercially important. Franchisees should keep complete records of hours, pay rates, overtime, leave and employment status. Franchisors should understand where they may have a significant degree of influence or control, maintain training and audit processes, and keep records of steps taken to prevent contraventions of the same or a similar character. This judgment is best read as a procedural and interpretive ruling that shapes how the later trial can be run, not as the final answer on liability or penalties.
Outcome: The Court answered the separate question in the affirmative. It held that s 557C applies to establish the contravention referred to in s 558B(1)(a), and that it is open to a responsible franchisor to discharge the burden of disproving the relevant allegations. The Court accepted the Ombudsman's construction of the statutory scheme and rejected the idea that the same franchisee contravention must be proved twice under different evidentiary rules. The Court also considered it important that the franchisor not be denied an adequate opportunity to be heard. The proceeding itself was not finally resolved in this judgment. Case management was adjourned to a later date.
FanFirm Pty Limited v Fanatics, LLC
Do not treat trade mark registration as a one-off filing exercise. This case shows the need to keep a clear record of when you first used your brand in Australia, what goods or services you used it for, and how that use appeared to customers. It also shows the importance of checking both goods classes and service classes before launch or expansion, especially if your business sells merchandise online. If your registration covers classes you do not genuinely use, those parts may be vulnerable. In practice, keep dated records of websites, catalogues, invoices, product pages, social media, customer communications and partnership arrangements. If your business changes direction, review your trade mark portfolio before the change becomes a dispute.
Outcome: FanFirm succeeded on a significant part of its trade mark case. The Court declared that Fanatics, LLC infringed FanFirm's registered word mark by using its FANATICS word marks and FANATICS flag mark in relation to clothing, headgear, sportswear, sports bags, scarves, water bottles, towels and blankets. A permanent injunction was granted. The Court also ordered rectification of the register by removing the respondent's relevant marks in class 35 and removing the respondent's SPORTS FANATICS mark. However, the result was mixed. Parts of FanFirm's own word and device marks were removed in classes 9, 16, 32 and 38 for non-use. The applicant's remaining claims were otherwise dismissed, the respondent's cross-claim was dismissed, neither side established ACL or passing off claims, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs subject to a limited liberty to seek variation.
Ford Kinter & Associates Pty Ltd, in the matter of Reliance Franchise Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) v Reliance Franchise Partners Pty Ltd (in liq)
Read this case as a reminder that funding a liquidator can be commercially powerful, but it does not guarantee a simple court pathway. Ford Kinter funded investigations and recovery action that led to a substantial settlement fund in the liquidation. It then sought priority over other unsecured creditors. Related parties tried to move that claim into the Supreme Court, where the liquidators’ remuneration was already being contested, but the Federal Court refused because the overlap between the issues was considered low. For business owners, the practical lessons are to document funding carefully, be clear about what return or priority you are seeking, and expect separate proceedings where one dispute is about creditor ranking and another is about remuneration or expenses. Also remember that this judgment did not decide the substantive priority claim itself.
Outcome: The transfer application was dismissed. Anderson J ordered that the interlocutory process filed by the interested parties on 26 March 2024 be dismissed and that they pay Ford Kinter’s costs of and incidental to that application. The court’s reasoning, as reflected in the catchwords and orders, was that the overlap of relevant issues between the Federal Court creditor-priority proceeding and the Supreme Court remuneration proceeding was low, so it was not in the interests of justice to transfer the matter. The practical result was that Ford Kinter’s s 564 proceeding stayed in the Federal Court. Importantly, the judgment did not determine whether Ford Kinter would ultimately obtain priority in the liquidation. That substantive issue remained unresolved by this decision.
Fortescue Limited v Element Zero Pty Limited (No 2)
If your business is considering urgent action to protect confidential information, treat search orders as a last-resort evidence-preservation tool, not as a shortcut to winning the case. You need a carefully prepared evidentiary record, a clear explanation of the serious harm you face, and a disciplined account of why notice would create a real risk to evidence. You also need to present the absent party's likely response fairly and directly. If your business is served with a search order, the immediate priority is compliance under legal supervision, preservation of material and rapid advice on whether there are grounds to challenge the order or seek variation. This case shows that a later challenge may fail even where the respondents argue the applicant overstated its case, there was no real destruction risk, there was material non-disclosure, surveillance was excessive or the order was too broad. It also shows that the dismissal of such a challenge does not decide the underlying confidential information, copyright, contract or misleading conduct claims. Those substantive issues remain to be fought in the main proceeding.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the first, second and fourth respondents to set aside the search orders. Those respondents were ordered to pay Fortescue's costs of the application. The Court also vacated two earlier orders made on 14 May 2024 and set a process for the parties to confer about redactions before publication of the reasons, with the matter then listed for case management. The practical effect was that the search orders remained in place. The ruling did not finally determine the underlying dispute about confidential information, copyright, contract, misleading conduct or other substantive claims.
Fortescue Ltd v Element Zero Pty Ltd
Read this case as a procedural decision, not a final win for either side on ownership or misuse of technology. The court was dealing with the first hearing after search orders were executed. It refused to keep the whole proceeding generally suppressed, but it did preserve confidentiality for particular affidavit annexures and related material. It also restricted Fortescue from personally inspecting removed items until a later case management hearing or further order, and it adjusted compliance dates because the respondents foreshadowed an application to set the search orders aside. For businesses, the practical steps are clear: identify and protect genuinely confidential information, use strong employment and contractor terms, control access to sensitive material, run disciplined offboarding processes, preserve evidence quickly if misuse is suspected, and assume that if litigation starts the existence of the dispute may become public. If your business seeks urgent search orders, expect later scrutiny of both the application and the execution process.
Outcome: The court held that there should be no general continuance of confidentiality over the existence of the proceeding or the identity of the parties. Open justice remained the starting point, and the respondents’ concerns about commercial and reputational harm were not enough to justify broad ongoing suppression. However, the court preserved confidentiality for particular affidavit annexures and related material until a later case management hearing or further order. It also varied the search orders to control access to seized material, including preventing the applicants in person from inspecting or receiving copies of removed items until the later hearing or further order. The court directed how digital copies and listed things were to be retained and delivered, extended some compliance dates to account for a possible application to set aside the search orders, set dates for defences and interlocutory applications, listed the matter for a later case management hearing, reserved costs, and granted liberty to apply.
Galactic Seven Eleven Litigation Holdings LLC v Davaria
If your business is thinking about joining a funded class action, ask early how the funding model works and what it could mean for your net recovery. This case shows that the Court may approve a common fund order at settlement stage, even though not every group member signed the same funding agreement. It also shows the difference between a common fund order and a funding equalisation order can materially change what the funder receives and what group members keep. Businesses should ask for a clear explanation of proposed commissions, legal costs, security for costs, and whether the settlement approval process itself is likely to become expensive. A large settlement can still produce a much smaller return once deductions are made.
Outcome: The appeal was allowed. The Full Court held that the primary judge erred in finding that the Court lacked power under s 33V(2) to make a common fund order at settlement approval stage. Referring to Elliott-Carde v McDonald's Australia Ltd, the Court accepted that the power exists. The Court also held that the primary judge erred in the exercise of discretion by refusing to make the order on that basis. Re-exercising the discretion, the Court ordered that, for the purposes of the settlement scheme, the amount payable to Galactic from the settlement sum on account of its litigation funding commission be fixed at $24.5 million. The Court also ordered that Galactic's appeal costs, including the contradictor's costs, be paid from the settlement sum.
Hampden Holdings I.P. Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a packaging governance case as much as a copyright infringement case. The Court did not accept a simple all-or-nothing story. Some Aldi packaging was found to infringe and some was not, even within the same broader redesign exercise. That means internal teams need a more disciplined process than simply asking whether a new pack is "different enough" overall. You need a clear chain of title for commissioned artwork, especially where agencies, distributors, employees and related entities are all involved. You also need careful written briefs for redesign projects. If a competitor’s packaging is being used as a benchmark, the brief should define that as category research only and should record what visual elements must not be copied. Keep drafts, approvals and ownership documents organised. If a dispute arises later, those records can be as important as the packaging itself.
Outcome: On the summary conclusions visible in the published reasons, the Court held that Hampden had the right to bring the copyright claims concerning the B&B works, and that Lacorium and Hampden had the right to bring the claims concerning the Mota works. The Court found that Aldi’s impugned puffs works reproduced a substantial part of the applicants’ puffs works, but that the impugned non-puffs works did not reproduce a substantial part of any of the applicants’ works. The Court also concluded Aldi was liable for additional damages. Aldi’s unjustifiable threats cross-claim was to be dismissed, subject to an assumption referred to later in the reasons. The visible order listed the matter for a case management hearing, with quantum to be dealt with separately from liability.
Hemmes Trading Pty Limited v Establishment 203 Pty Ltd
If you are naming a restaurant, bar, hotel or related venue, clear the name before launch. Check registered trade marks, market use, media references and how the name will actually appear on signage, menus, booking sites and social media. Do not assume a common English word is safe, and do not assume adding a number or relying on your own business history will avoid infringement. In this case, the respondent’s connection to “203” through its beef business did not stop the court from finding that ESTABLISHMENT 203 infringed ESTABLISHMENT and breached the ACL. The judgment also notes that the respondent did not conduct trade mark searches or ask its lawyers for advice when choosing the name, and that it continued after receiving a demand letter. For operators and franchisors, the safest time to fix a naming issue is before launch. The next safest time is immediately after a complaint arrives.
Outcome: The Federal Court found for Hemmes Trading. It declared that the respondent’s use of ESTABLISHMENT 203 in relation to restaurant services infringed registered trade mark number 876753 for ESTABLISHMENT and contravened ss 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. The respondent’s cross-claim to cancel the mark was dismissed. The court permanently restrained the respondent, from 30 days after the orders, from using ESTABLISHMENT 203 and any substantially identical mark for restaurant, café, bar, hotel or function services. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs, including the cross-claim. The extract also states that additional damages were not awarded and that the matter was listed for later case management on remaining questions.
Hix Investment Pty Ltd v Wong
If your business uses supplier plans, stock specifications, renders, product photos or website copy as a starting point, treat ownership and evidence as an operational issue from day one. Keep dated versions of each plan, record who made each modification, and make sure employee and contractor agreements clearly deal with intellectual property, confidentiality and return of information. If a staff member leaves with access to Shopify, Dropbox, freelancer accounts, domains or supplier contacts, lock down access immediately and preserve logs, screenshots and device records. This case suggests that suspicious timing, shared suppliers and visible similarities may still not be enough for urgent court orders unless the evidence is strong on originality, ownership, copying and commercial urgency. Businesses should also remember that an interlocutory injunction can seriously affect the other side's ability to trade, so the court will look closely at the balance of convenience, not just the applicant's allegations.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Hix's interlocutory application and ordered Hix to pay the respondents' costs of that application. The available reasons confirm that the court applied the orthodox interlocutory injunction framework, focusing on whether Hix had established a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience favoured urgent relief. Because the available text is truncated, this page does not attempt to state the court's full reasoning on each pleaded cause of action. What is clear is that Hix did not obtain the urgent restraints it sought over the respondents' websites and alleged use of plans and 3D images, and the matter was not resolved in Hix's favour at the interim stage.
Husseini v Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd
Treat franchise disclosure as substantive risk management, not a compliance formality. If your disclosure document or related sales material creates a misleading overall impression, disclaimers may not save you. The court record in this appeal shows close attention to context, qualifications, objective misleadingness, subjective inducement and causation. For franchisors, every statement about performance, prospects, support, demand or business conditions should be supportable and internally consistent with the rest of the document. For franchisees and buyers, do not assume that a later complaint will succeed just because a statement turned out to be wrong or optimistic. Keep records showing what you received, what questions you asked, what assumptions you made and why you proceeded. In disputes under section 236 of the ACL, proof of reliance and proof of loss can be just as important as proving the representation itself.
Outcome: The Full Court allowed the appeal and varied the orders made on 12 May 2023. It ordered the first and second respondents to pay compensation to the first applicant of $1,789,848.99, to the fifth applicant of $1,955,996.29, and to the eighth applicant of $1,485,643.10, each amount inclusive of interest to 12 May 2023. The claims against the third and fourth respondents were dismissed. The costs orders were also varied, including party and party costs up to 11:00am on 9 March 2020 and indemnity costs thereafter for specified costs in the proceeding. The parties' costs in the proceeding below were reserved, and the respondents were otherwise ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal if not agreed.
Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc
If your business builds or imports products with software, you need a documented process showing where the code came from, who had access to competitor materials, and how independent development was maintained. Hiring competitor staff is not unlawful by itself, but using their former employer’s documents, code or technical know-how in a way that reproduces protected material can create serious patent, copyright and evidence problems. This case also shows that deleting source code or related records can badly damage your position. In practice, businesses should use onboarding controls, clean-room development where needed, repository access rules, preservation steps once a dispute is on foot, and IP review before importing or distributing devices in Australia.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed Hytera's appeal. It rejected Hytera's challenges to the findings that it had infringed the 355 patent and to the copyright and additional damages findings challenged by Hytera. Motorola's cross-appeal was allowed in part on copyright grounds 2 and 3, but otherwise dismissed, including its challenge to the finding that the 960 patent was invalid. Importantly, the Court said it could not finally determine whether Motorola's copyright claim should succeed in whole or in part because the necessary factual findings had not been made using the correct methodology. It therefore ordered a further hearing and case management process for the copyright claims arising on the appeal. The Court also made confidentiality and redaction orders concerning the reasons.
Killer Queen, LLC v Taylor
A registered trade mark is valuable, but it is not a complete shield if another trader has an earlier reputation likely to cause confusion or if your registration later becomes vulnerable to cancellation. This case also shows that filing strategy matters. The celebrity side applied for KATY PERRY in classes 9, 25 and 41, but the class 25 application was later withdrawn, with registration proceeding only in classes 9 and 41. That detail matters because the dispute still turned heavily on clothing and merchandise in Australia. If your business uses a founder name, artist name or other personal brand, clear the name early, think carefully about the goods you will actually sell, and document who owns, licenses and uses the brand across your group. If a dispute starts, expect the other side to challenge the registration itself, not just deny infringement.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court allowed the appeal in part and the cross-appeal in part. It set aside the key first instance orders, dismissed Ms Taylor's originating application, allowed the cross-claim, and ordered rectification of the Register by cancelling trade mark no. 1264671. It also ordered Ms Taylor to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, while remitting the question of first instance costs to the primary judge for re-determination. The court stayed cancellation pending any special leave application and any High Court appeal. The extract makes clear that the decisive point was the court's conclusion that the primary judge had erred in leaving the KATIE PERRY mark on the Register.
Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV v Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd
If your product stands out because of its container, this case is a practical warning not to overestimate what a shape registration does. The registered mark here covered the three-dimensional shape of a container as shown on the Register, not its dimensions, colour or material. In a supermarket setting, consumers may rely much more on brand names, labels and other get-up than on shape alone. That can make infringement harder to prove, even where products look broadly similar at first glance. At the same time, a competitor should not assume shape marks are weak or irrelevant, because this one survived a substantial removal attack. The safest commercial approach is to check exactly what is registered, assess how the shape is actually used in market, and avoid sending aggressive demand letters unless the infringement case is genuinely strong.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the applicants' claims. On the published judgment material, Wheelahan J held that the Vittoria 400-gram jar was not used as a trade mark and was not deceptively similar to the KDE shape mark, so there was no infringement. The court also held there was no real risk that Cantarella's get-up would mislead or deceive persons familiar with the applicants' product into believing there was a commercial association, so the ACL and passing off claims failed. Cantarella's cancellation and removal claims also failed, with no ground of removal established. However, Cantarella succeeded on unjustified threats under s 129. Declaration and injunction relief were refused, and damages, including additional damages, were left for a separate hearing.
Lian Fa International Dining Business Corporation v Mu (No 2)
If your business is in a serious brand, franchise or distribution dispute, do not treat trial dates as flexible. The court will look closely at whether you acted promptly to secure lawyers, brief counsel, prepare witnesses, deal with experts, and complete practical steps like objections, agreed facts and translation issues. Even where the court accepts that a hearing cannot fairly go ahead, it may still conclude that your own delay helped cause the problem and order immediate payment of substantial costs. This case also shows that disputes about brand use can sit alongside claims for trade mark infringement, misleading conduct and misuse of confidential information, so the underlying agreements and communications matter. Businesses should get their brand rights clear early and, once proceedings start, manage the case like a major operational project with funding, deadlines and contingency planning.
Outcome: The court allowed the adjournment application and vacated the hearing listed from 17 June to 4 July 2024 and the closing submissions listed for 24 and 25 July 2024. It gave the applicant leave to seek hearing dates convenient to it not before 1 September 2024 and, without prejudice to that right, relisted the matter for hearing from 17 to 28 February 2025 with closing submissions from 7 to 9 April 2025. The judge granted the adjournment with serious misgivings, stressing both the respondents' lack of promptness and the practical unfairness of forcing the matter to proceed unprepared. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the May and June 2024 adjournment applications, certain travel, accommodation, transport and interpreter costs, other thrown-away costs, and to provide $300,000 security for certain further costs.
Light & Wonder, Inc v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited
The practical lesson is that preliminary discovery under r 7.23 is available for a narrow but important purpose: helping a business decide whether to start a proceeding, not proving the whole case in advance. Aristocrat had evidence suggesting possible misuse of confidential information and copyright material, but the Court accepted that it still lacked enough objective information to sensibly decide whether to sue in Australia without seeing more of Dragon Train's underlying design material. A related US lawsuit did not automatically mean Aristocrat already knew enough. For business owners, that means two things. First, if key evidence is locked inside a competitor's product development records, a targeted preliminary discovery application may be worth considering. Second, if you hire from competitors or launch a similar product, keep strong development records, confidentiality controls, and evidence of independent creation, because those documents may become central very early in a dispute.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed Light & Wonder's application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicants to pay Aristocrat's costs of that application. Jackman J held that the proposed grounds of appeal had no realistic prospect of success and that the primary judge's decision was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration. The Court accepted that Aristocrat's case was circumstantial and that the material already available suggested possible use of confidential information or copyright works but did not reveal whether such material was actually used in Dragon Train. The Court also rejected the argument that the US proceeding showed Aristocrat already knew enough to sue in Australia, and rejected the claim that the primary judge had reversed the onus in exercising discretion. The earlier preliminary discovery order therefore remained in place.
Mansfield, in the matter of Fresh For Life.....Pty Ltd (administrators appointed)
Read this case as a practical administration decision, not as a ruling on whether the franchise termination was valid or whether a deed of company arrangement should ultimately be accepted. The Court used s 447A of the Corporations Act to modify how Part 5.3A operated for this company, so the adjourned second creditors' meeting could be resumed as late as 19 November 2024 instead of within the usual 45 business day limit in s 75-140(3) of the Insolvency Practice Rules. The administrators had evidence that the sale process was commercially complex, involved Oporto, the directors and landlords, and could improve returns to unsecured creditors. The Court also made temporary confidentiality orders over valuations and other commercially sensitive material. If your business depends on franchise rights or site licences, this case is a reminder to map out early who must cooperate for a sale to happen and whether the administration timetable gives enough room to complete that process properly.
Outcome: The Court granted the extension. It ordered that Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act operate in relation to the company as if the usual 45 business day adjournment limit in s 75-140(3) were replaced with a deadline of 19 November 2024, and that holding the adjourned meeting by that date would satisfy the relevant convening requirement in s 439A, provided the other requirements of s 75-140 were met. Yates J accepted that more time was needed to complete the negotiations described by the administrators and that a better outcome was likely for unsecured creditors if the contemplated sale could be completed. The Court also made limited confidentiality orders over valuation and other commercially sensitive material, required notice of the orders to be given to known creditors and directors within two business days, and allowed interested persons to apply to vary or discharge the key extension order.
Punchbowl Casual Dining Pty Ltd v Rashays Cafes & Restaurants Pty Ltd (No 2)
If you are relying on a promise that a franchise will be renewed, extended or replaced, get that promise recorded clearly and early. Do not assume a verbal assurance will protect you once the written term expires. This case also shows that payment disputes can cut both ways. A franchisor may rely on alleged defaults to resist interim relief, but if the franchisee can show a genuine dispute about what is actually due, the court may still preserve the business until trial. Keep a clean record of royalties, rent, supplier invoices, payment plans and any amounts paid in reliance on a proposed new deal. If the franchisor controls the lease or licence to occupy, treat the expiry date as a hard risk point and seek advice before the final days.
Outcome: The court dismissed Rashays' application to discharge the interlocutory injunction. Justice Jackman held that there remained a serious question to be tried, including on the applicants' evidence of alleged promises about a renewed or new agreement for the Punchbowl site. The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunction because there was a bona fide dispute about whether the amounts claimed by Rashays and others were actually due and unpaid. Although the applicants' delay in seeking relief weighed against them, it was not determinative. The injunction granted on 4 December 2023 continued until further order, the costs of the application were made costs in the cause, and the matter was fixed for final hearing on 29 May 2024.
Punchbowl Casual Dining Pty Ltd v Rashays Cafes & Restaurants Pty Ltd (No 3)
If your business is already in litigation, do not assume you can add a major new contractual complaint just before trial. In this case, the applicants tried to add an allegation that the franchisor breached an exclusivity clause by opening a Beverly Hills franchise within the defined territory. They also served an expert report late to support loss. The Court refused the amendment to the statement of claim because the respondent could not fairly prepare evidence in time and there was no evidence explaining the delay. The applicants were also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of that interlocutory application. The practical lesson is to act quickly when a possible breach first appears. Review the contract wording, record when you became aware of the conduct, preserve turnover data, and get advice before deadlines pass.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted leave to amend the originating process in the form annexed to the affidavit of Mr Vaughan dated 17 September 2024, but only because the amendments adding claims for equitable compensation linked to equitable estoppel were not opposed. The Court refused leave to amend the statement of claim in the proposed form. That refusal related specifically to the new exclusivity allegation. Justice Jackman held that allowing the amendment would cause irremediable prejudice to the respondent because it could not prepare evidence, including responsive expert evidence, in time for the hearing due to start on 2 October 2024. The absence of any evidence explaining the delay reinforced that conclusion. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory application dated 17 September 2024.
Punchbowl Casual Dining Pty Ltd v Rashays Cafes & Restaurants Pty Ltd (Trial Judgment)
If a renewal, extension, replacement agreement, second-site deal or payment arrangement matters to your decision, get it recorded clearly and promptly in writing. This case shows how dangerous it is to invest on the basis of disputed conversations when the written franchise documents say the current agreement has a fixed expiry date and no renewal option. It also shows that draft documents, payment emails and other contemporaneous records can be more persuasive than later recollections in court. Franchisees should check the term, expiry date, renewal mechanism, guarantees and any conditions linking one site to another. Franchisors should also document discussions carefully so that future opportunities are not later characterised as binding promises. If the business is already behind on payments, do not assume a compensation claim will protect you from debt recovery.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the applicants' amended originating application. It also entered judgment for Rashays on its cross-claim in the amount of $144,901.20 plus interest. On the published extract, the outcome was driven by the court's rejection of the applicants' evidence about the key conversations and its acceptance of Rashays' witnesses, especially Mr Krayem. The court accepted that no promise was made that buying the Bankstown site would secure an extension of the Punchbowl franchise or a new Punchbowl franchise agreement. The extract also records findings that the Punchbowl agreement expired on 4 December 2023 with no option to renew, and that Bankstown draft franchise documents had been sent. Those findings substantially undermined the applicants' compensation case while leaving the debt cross-claim to succeed.
St Mary's Hog's Pty Ltd v HBCA Pty Ltd (No 2)
The practical point is not that the franchise allegations succeeded or failed. The key point is that a court can end a proceeding if an applicant does not comply with a security for costs order and has no real prospect of doing so. Here, the applicants argued that related Local Court proceedings might later improve their position, reduce issues, or justify changing the security orders. That was not enough to keep the Federal Court case alive on the material available. If your business is bringing a claim, especially a representative or multi-party claim, you need to assess funding, timing, overlap with other proceedings, and the commercial effect of leaving a stayed case on foot. If your business is defending a claim, this case also shows that ongoing procedural non-compliance and evidence of commercial prejudice can support dismissal.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the proceeding pursuant to s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The applicants were ordered to pay the first and third respondents' costs of their interlocutory application, the second, fourth and fifth respondents' costs of their interlocutory application, the sixth respondent's costs of its interlocutory application, and the respondents' costs of the proceeding. On the available reasons, the Court relied on the long period since the security orders, the applicants' notice of the dismissal applications, their admitted inability to comply, and prejudice to the respondents, including evidence of commercial prejudice to HBCM. The respondents' separate applications to bar fresh proceedings until costs were paid were dismissed, but the available reasons do not fully show the court's explanation for that refusal.
Sydney Trains v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (Separate Question)
The main lesson for business owners is to treat bargaining procedure as a connected sequence, not as a set of isolated technical steps. In this case, the employers argued that once the Commission made a single interest employer authorisation, the earlier ballots no longer supported the unions' planned industrial action. The Court disagreed. If your business has multiple employing entities, or there is uncertainty about whether you are bargaining for a single-enterprise or multi-enterprise agreement, get advice early and map the bargaining pathway carefully. Review notices of employee representational rights, ballot applications, ballot orders, and industrial action notices together. Do not assume that consenting to, or being subject to, a later Commission authorisation will automatically stop protected industrial action that has already been authorised and notified.
Outcome: The Federal Court refused the declaration sought by Sydney Trains and NSW Trains. Wheelahan J held that the statutory expression "proposed enterprise agreement" is a generic expression and is not pitched at a level of specificity that includes a fixed or immutable type of enterprise agreement. On that basis, the making of the single interest employer authorisation on 6 December 2024 did not affect the character of the proposed enterprise agreement in the way the Rail Agencies argued. The Court entered judgment for the respondents on the declaration claim, discharged paragraph 1 of the interlocutory orders made on 8 December 2024, and listed the proceeding for further case management.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc v Anderson (No 2)
Do not assume your business is safe just because you only distribute a tool and do not use it yourself. In this case, the court held that manufacture and distribution conduct was actionable under s 116AO, while the claim under s 116AN did not succeed on the same pleaded conduct. That distinction is important for any business selling or sharing software that modifies another company’s product. The public orders also show that not every related company can sue on a TPM claim. Here, Rockstar Games had no standing because it was not the copyright owner or an exclusive licensee of the GTA V works. For practical risk management, map exactly what your tool bypasses, how it is supplied, how it is marketed, and which entity in your group actually owns or licenses the relevant rights.
Outcome: The court found for the first applicant in part. It declared that, during the relevant period from March 2017 to June 2018, the Infamous Mod contained circumvention devices for the Real Time Memory Analysis TPMs and the Access Control Check TPMs, as defined and more fully described in the reasons. It further declared that the respondent engaged in actionable conduct under s 116AO(1) by manufacturing the mod with the intention of providing it to others, distributing it, offering it to the public, providing it to others and communicating it to others, in circumstances where he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that it contained circumvention devices for those TPMs. The court granted a permanent injunction. However, the held outcome recorded in the catchwords was that the conduct was actionable under s 116AO but not s 116AN, and the originating application was otherwise dismissed.
The Epoch Holding Group Pty Ltd v Katz (Evidence Admissibility)
If your business needs to rely on foreign-law evidence in an Australian interlocutory application, do not assume the evidence is unusable just because the foreign lawyer is involved in the matter. This case shows the Court may still admit it. However, that is not a free pass. The safer approach is to keep the affidavit focused on what the foreign law or procedure is, rather than asking the witness to predict how a foreign court will exercise its powers in your specific case. You should also expect arguments about weight if the witness is not independent. In practical terms, the drafting of foreign-law affidavits can shape whether your interim application proceeds smoothly or becomes bogged down in admissibility fights.
Outcome: Needham J admitted the affidavits, except for limited passages. The Court held that r 23.11 of the Federal Court Rules did not exclude the evidence because the matter was an interlocutory application rather than a trial. The judge was not persuaded that the witness's lack of independence, by itself, made the affidavits inadmissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act. If necessary, the Court would have waived compliance with the Expert Evidence Practice Note, although the judge did not consider a waiver necessary. However, the last three sentences of paragraph 44 and all of paragraph 46 of the 1 August 2024 affidavit were rejected because they were opinions about the application of foreign law rather than evidence of its content. Weight remained open.
The Game Meats Company of Australia v Farm Transparency International Ltd
For business owners, this case shows the difference between controlling your premises and controlling what happens to information taken from them. GMC succeeded on the clearest point: FTI admitted repeated trespasses, and the Court awarded $130,000 in damages, including $100,000 exemplary damages. But the Court did not convert that wrongdoing into a complete publication remedy. It refused ACL relief, refused the copyright trust and assignment arguments, and otherwise dismissed the case. If your business faces covert filming, break the problem into parts. First, secure the site and preserve evidence of entry, damage and device installation. Second, consider urgent interim restraint if publication is imminent. Third, separately analyse whether any publication is false, misleading, defamatory, confidential or otherwise legally restrainable. Fourth, do not assume your business owns footage just because it was obtained unlawfully on your premises. Finally, deal with any underlying operational or regulatory issue on its own merits.
Outcome: The application was allowed in part. The Court ordered FTI to pay GMC damages of $130,000, comprising $30,000 general damages and $100,000 exemplary damages. However, the Court refused relief under the Australian Consumer Law and refused the equitable copyright relief seeking recognition of a trust and compulsory assignment of copyright in the footage. The orders state that the amended originating application was otherwise dismissed, and the overview of the reasons says that no injunctive or declaratory relief should issue. Interest and costs were left for later agreement or further hearing, and the damages orders were stayed for the appeal period.
The Practice Pty Ltd v The Practice Business Advisers & Tax Practitioners Pty Ltd
If you are choosing a business name or logo, do not stop at ASIC, business name or domain availability checks. This case shows that the real legal question is whether you are using a sign as a badge of origin that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, an existing registered trade mark for the same or similar services. Here, the registered mark covered a broad range of Class 35 and Class 36 services, including tax, accountancy, business advisory and financial services. That overlap mattered. The Court also treated inadequate searches as important when considering the respondent’s defences based on good faith and claimed entitlement to registration. Before launch, search the Trade Marks Register, search the dominant words on their own, review service overlap, and assess how the brand will actually appear in market-facing material. Adding descriptive wording may not solve the problem.
Outcome: The applicant succeeded on the trade mark claim. The Court declared that the respondent had infringed Australian Trade Mark Registered Number 1757523 by using THE PRACTICE and the logo as trade marks in relation to the promotion and provision of business and tax advisory and accounting services. The respondent was restrained from using the applicant's mark or any other mark that was substantially identical with or deceptively similar to it. The Court awarded damages of $200,000, including $100,000 in additional damages. The respondent's statutory defences were not made out, with the catchwords recording that use of the logo was not in good faith or honest due to inadequate searches. The ACL and passing off claims were left undecided because the trade mark claim succeeded.
Transportable Shade Sheds Australia Pty Ltd v Aussie Shade Sheds Pty Ltd
Read this as a procedural decision, not a final win on intellectual property ownership or infringement. The Court did not finally decide who owned every right, whether infringement was proved, or whether the respondents would ultimately be liable. It granted temporary restraints to hold the position until further order. The practical lesson is that businesses with a strong paper trail are in a much better position to seek urgent protection. Keep sale agreements, schedules of assets, licence deeds, access records and evidence of copying organised and accessible. If you hire former staff from a competitor, make it explicit that they must not bring customer lists, plans, templates, quotes, CRM exports or internal documents. If you receive a demand or become aware of a dispute, do not delete files or alter systems. And if you seek urgent orders, expect the Court to require undertakings, full disclosure of relevant facts and a prompt move into substantive proceedings.
Outcome: On the extract available, Collier J granted temporary ex parte interlocutory orders on 4 June 2024. Until further order, the respondents were restrained from making, selling, supplying, disposing of, offering to deal with, or using the defined assets in the sale agreement schedule, including the client database assigned by the sale agreement, and any product derived, created or made from the intellectual property assets. They were also restrained from concealing, destroying or erasing relevant storage devices, documents and other things. The Court made suppression orders over certain material to protect the identity of a person referred to in the evidence. TSS gave undertakings including to commence a proceeding within 14 days, to submit to compensation orders if appropriate, and to serve the material promptly. The orders were temporary and procedural only, and the extract does not reveal any later developments or final determination.
Transportable Shade Sheds Australia Pty Ltd v Aussie Shade Sheds Pty Ltd (Contempt Application)
If your business obtains an urgent injunction, treat the drafting and service steps as part of the enforcement strategy, not as administrative follow-up. The order should identify the restrained conduct and the relevant assets clearly enough that the other side can comply without guessing. If the order refers to a schedule, annexure or transaction document, confirm that the exact material has been served and that any confidentiality treatment is actually authorised. If you later bring contempt proceedings, the statement of charge must spell out the alleged acts of disobedience with precision. You cannot expect the court or the respondents to piece the case together by searching through affidavits. This decision also warns against trying to repair a defective contempt case at the hearing with broad amendments, fresh affidavits or assumptions about what directors, former directors or shareholders must have known. Before filing, businesses should test whether the order is clear, whether service was complete, and whether the evidence is strong enough to meet the criminal standard applied in civil contempt.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed TSS's oral application to adjourn the contempt hearing, dismissed its oral application for leave to amend the statement of charge, and dismissed the contempt application itself. The court held that the statement of charge did not specify the alleged contempt with sufficient precision and that the proposed amendment suffered from the same defect. It also held that the additional affidavits would not have been admitted because they did not provide cogent evidence that the respondents knew the relevant assets and raised concerns under section 135 of the Evidence Act. The contempt case failed in any event because the underlying order was not clear, unambiguous or capable of compliance, and because the key annexure defining the assets had not been served. The court later ordered indemnity costs against TSS in relation to the failed contempt-related applications.
Trimuryani v Retail Food Group Limited
Business owners should read this case as a lesson in litigation risk, not as a statement that the franchisor was liable. The Court did not decide the pleaded claims. It decided that the settlement sat within the range of reasonable outcomes because the case was difficult, fact-heavy and expensive, and because the claims had little prospect of being prosecuted to completion if funding was withdrawn. If you run a franchise network, major system changes, supplier arrangements and marketing fund decisions should be documented carefully and explained consistently across the network. If you are a franchisee, this case shows why it is important to assess not only your claim, but also any alleged debts, set-offs, proof of loss and the practical ability to fund a long dispute. In some cases, a release from debt exposure or costs risk may be commercially significant even where there is no damages payment.
Outcome: The Federal Court approved the settlement, authorised the applicant to enter into and give effect to the settlement deed on behalf of group members, and ordered that the settlement would bind the applicant, the respondents and the group members. The proceeding was dismissed on the agreed release basis, with no order as to costs between the applicant and the respondents, and a confidentiality order was made over certain confidential settlement material. The Court held that the settlement was fair and reasonable in the interests of group members as a whole. Key reasons were the considerable legal and factual complexity of the claims, the uncertainty and cost of taking the matter to judgment, the likely length of the proceeding and possible appeals, and the evidence that the funder would not continue if the settlement was not approved. The Court also accepted that broad releases, including significant debt claim releases for 166 group members, supported approval despite objections and the absence of monetary payment for others.
Tse v Evans as trustee in bankruptcy for Ngo (No 2)
If your business is litigating against someone who becomes bankrupt, do not assume you can later recover the extra court costs from that person personally just because their bankruptcy forced you to seek leave to continue. A non-party costs order is possible, but you still need to show a sufficient connection between that person and the proceeding in which the costs were incurred. If your argument is that the bankruptcy was timed to frustrate your claim, the Court will expect proof, not suspicion based only on timing. You should also think early about notice, service and whether the person should be joined to the costs application. This decision also warns against treating a trustee in bankruptcy as if they automatically act as the bankrupt’s stand-in for every costs question.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the application for costs against Mr Ngo personally and made no order as to costs. Perry J held that, although the Court had power to award costs against a non-party, the applicants had not shown a sufficient basis for doing so here. The trustees could not simply be treated as standing in Mr Ngo's shoes, there was no evidence that Mr Ngo instructed them as his proxy, and the applicants had not proved that he entered bankruptcy to thwart the Supreme Court proceeding. The Court accepted that his bankruptcy caused the applicants to incur the costs of seeking leave, but said that causal connection was not decisive. The fact that Mr Ngo had not been put on notice of the costs application also weighed against making the order, and the Court declined to reopen the process to allow notice to be given later.
Vitaco Health IP Pty Ltd v AFI Cosmetic Pty Ltd (No 3)
For business owners, the practical lesson is to clear branding properly before launch and to respond quickly if a dispute escalates into court proceedings. A basic name search is not enough. You should check registered trade marks, domain names, website copy, logos, artwork, translated brand elements, and any statements that could imply affiliation, sponsorship or approval. If you are using a brand story that refers to another business’s history, country of origin or founding date, that also needs to be accurate and authorised. This case also underlines a procedural lesson. The Court still had to be satisfied that the applicants were entitled to relief, but because there was no defence, the pleaded facts were treated as admitted. Once that happened, the respondents lost the chance to contest the factual story in the usual way. Directors should also be careful not to assume the company alone will bear the risk if they personally direct the conduct.
Outcome: The Federal Court entered default judgment for the applicants. It declared that the first respondent had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, made false or misleading representations about affiliation, committed passing off, infringed the first applicant’s registered trade marks and infringed copyright in the artistic works. It also found the second respondent personally liable for directing or procuring the trade mark infringement and passing off, and for being knowingly concerned in the ACL contraventions. The Court granted injunctions, ordered transfer of the relevant domain names within 21 days, cancelled Australian Trade Mark Registration Number 2325650 in the second respondent’s name, awarded damages of $280,000 and ordered the respondents to pay costs.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Honda Australia Pty Ltd
The practical lesson is to separate network status from real-world trading status. A former authorised dealer may no longer be part of your official network, but that does not automatically mean it has shut down or stopped servicing the relevant products. Customers usually hear those statements in an ordinary commercial sense, not as technical language about authorisation. This case also shows that liability is not confined to formal advertising. It can come from automated customer journeys, copied templates, call centre scripts and staff answers given on your behalf. Before a restructure goes live, map every customer touchpoint and test the likely customer impression. Review what your systems will send after termination dates, what your website says, and what support staff are trained to tell customers. That approach is relevant across many industries that rely on branded networks, service partners or franchise-style arrangements.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that Honda had contravened sections 18 and 29(1)(j) of the Australian Consumer Law in relation to the communications Honda admitted were misleading, namely the service reminder emails and text messages sent to customers of Astoria, Tynan and Burswood, and 17 call centre communications made on Honda’s behalf. However, the Court concluded that the other communications still in dispute, including certain exit emails, website statements and one additional call centre communication, did not contravene those provisions. On penalty, the Court fixed $5.5 million for the service reminder communication contraventions and $500,000 for the 17 call centre contraventions, producing a total penalty of $6 million.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Latitude Finance Australia
Read this case as a procedural warning, not a final liability ruling. If your promotion depends on a credit card, approval criteria, establishment fees, monthly account fees or other qualifying conditions, those features should be treated as central parts of the offer, not background detail. The court’s reasoning also shows that complaint records can become important evidence, even though the legal test for misleading conduct remains objective. Businesses running joint campaigns should document who approves the ad, who owns the customer journey, who handles complaints and who is responsible for disclosures across TV, radio, print, online and in-store channels. If a regulator challenges the campaign, the court will expect discovery to be focused, but it may still require production of complaint material that directly relates to the alleged misleading message.
Outcome: The court granted ASIC leave to file its amended originating process, amended concise statement and amended concise reply, as those amendments were unopposed and minor. On discovery, the court ordered discovery for Categories 4 and 5 because they were not opposed, and for Category 9 because the first defendant agreed to provide it. Of the disputed categories, the court only allowed Category 6, and only after limiting it to complaints or feedback relating to the particular misleading conduct and false representation allegations identified in ASIC's amended concise statement. The court refused Categories 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10. Because ASIC achieved only very limited success on the disputed questions, the court said ASIC should pay the defendants' costs.
Colbran, in the matter of Balsub Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
If your business uses a company as trustee, but the same company also signs contracts, employs staff or incurs tax liabilities in its own name, you need clear records showing which capacity applies to each obligation. This case shows what can happen when that structure reaches liquidation and the only meaningful asset is a statutory claim pursued by the liquidator. The court gave the liquidator comfort that any proceeds of the insolvent trading claim could be distributed across company debts, claims and expenses without first splitting them by personal or trustee capacity, and then according to the normal priority rules. That does not mean capacity stops mattering. It still mattered enough that earlier directions had been needed about which debts fell into which category. The practical lesson is to keep contracts, payroll, tax registrations, trust documents, related-party accounts and signing blocks consistent before financial distress arises, because once insolvency begins, uncertainty becomes expensive and can affect directors, employees and creditors alike.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the direction sought. McEvoy J ordered that the liquidator was justified and acting reasonably in proceeding on the basis that proceeds of the liquidator's s 588M cause of action were to be applied in discharge of debts, claims or expenses of the company irrespective of whether those liabilities were incurred by the company in its own right or as trustee of the Balms Family Trust, and in accordance with the priorities prescribed by ss 556 and 555. The court also ordered that the liquidator's remuneration, costs and disbursements of the application be paid from the assets of the company and trust on an indemnity basis. Parts of the reasons were redacted and the unredacted reasons were suppressed from publication.
Court House Capital Pty Ltd v RP Data Pty Limited
If your business is using a commercial litigation funder, do not assume the downside sits only with the claimant on the court record. This case shows that a funder backing litigation for profit may be exposed to an adverse costs order if the claim fails and the court considers the funder sufficiently connected to the case. The absence of an adverse-costs indemnity was not enough to protect the funder here. Nor was it decisive that the funded parties formally retained the right to instruct their lawyers. If your business is defending a funded claim, think early about whether to seek disclosure of the funding arrangement, whether security for costs is worth pursuing, and whether a later non-party costs application may be available. If your business is being funded, review the agreement carefully and understand who carries what risk if the case is lost after trial or appeal.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal. It held that Court House had not established any reviewable error in the primary judge’s discretionary decision to make a non-party costs order. The court confirmed that the Federal Court’s costs power under s 43 extends to non-parties and that the relevant inquiry is whether the non-party has a sufficient connection with the litigation and whether making the order is fair in all the circumstances. It rejected the suggestion that there is a rigid checklist for these cases and said it is not necessary to prove impropriety or abuse of process before a non-party costs order can be made. The court also rejected Court House’s arguments based on RP Data’s failure to seek security for costs earlier. Court House was ordered to pay RP Data’s costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed.
Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd (No 13)
If your business is involved in a funded class action, do not focus only on the settlement total. You need to understand the distribution model, the categories of claimants, the legal costs to be deducted, and the exact basis on which any funder will be paid. This case shows that the Court may closely test whether different groups are being treated fairly, whether older or weaker claims should be discounted, whether costs have been properly monitored, and whether the evidence actually proves the funder's contractual rights. It also shows that a proposed common fund approach may fail even after settlement approval issues are otherwise advanced. For franchise businesses in particular, claims may be split between the operating company and the individuals behind it, such as principals or guarantors, and that can affect settlement allocation. Before signing a funding agreement or supporting a settlement scheme, get clear advice on deductions, weighting rules, and what your business is likely to receive net of costs and funding charges.
Outcome: The clearest outcome from Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd (No 13) [2023] FCA 84 is that the Federal Court held it had no power to make the common fund order sought, applying Cantor v Audi Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2020] FCA 637. The judgment also records that the Court worked through a detailed set of questions about the fairness of the proposed distribution scheme, the rationality of allocations between the two proceedings and within one of them, the reasonableness and proportionality of legal costs, the adequacy of costs disclosure and monitoring, the existence of any deferred fee arrangements, the proof of funding agreements, and the proposed gross-up. The Court further made orders amending the settlement scheme to allow temporary transfer of settlement funds into accounts earning higher interest and adjourned the further hearing to a date to be fixed. The settlement against 7-Eleven itself had already been approved in earlier reasons.
Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd v Ultimate Franchising Group Pty Ltd (Final Hearing)
Treat franchise sales discussions as legally significant conduct, not just marketing. If you are selling a franchise, do not make or circulate future-looking statements about likely income, membership numbers, opening performance or establishment costs unless you can identify the facts and assumptions actually relied on when the statement was made. Keep those grounds in a file. Use consistent approved materials and avoid optimistic verbal assurances that go beyond the documents. If you are buying a franchise, test every forecast and budget independently. Ask what comparable sites, local market assumptions, quotations and methodology support the numbers. Confirm important verbal statements in writing. Review the franchise agreement, disclosure material and any guarantee together, because this case shows that misleading conduct in the sales process can affect both the operating agreement and the personal security given for it.
Outcome: On the available judgment text, Thawley J held that each of the franchise agreements and each of the guarantees should be set aside. The Court also held that each corporate applicant was entitled to damages under s 236 of the ACL for losses sustained because of the respondents' contravention of s 18. The applicants' MSA fees claim had been abandoned in closing submissions, and the cross-claim issues did not arise because the agreements were to be set aside. The catchwords also show that the Court dealt with quantification issues concerning establishment costs and adopted a referee report in part. However, the precise damages figures and final consequential orders are not included in the available text.
Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd v Ultimate Franchising Group Pty Ltd (Final Orders)
Business owners should read this case as a warning about both documents and evidence. If you are entering a franchise, do not treat the franchise agreement and any personal guarantee as routine paperwork. In this matter, the Court declared the franchise agreements void from a stated future date, but declared the related guarantees void ab initio, meaning from the outset. If you are already in a dispute, keep your financial records clean and business-specific. The Court was not prepared to accept a loss assessment at face value where unrelated expenses had been included in the accounts. Even though the judge accepted that significant losses had been suffered, the issue had to go back to the referee for further work, with extra cost consequences. The safest practical approach is early legal review, careful disclosure and disciplined accounting records.
Outcome: The Federal Court declared three UFC Gym franchise agreements void with effect from 22 May 2023 and declared the related personal guarantees void ab initio. It ordered the first, second and third respondents to pay compensation of $1,789,848.99 to the first applicant, $1,955,996.29 to the fifth applicant and $1,485,643.10 to the eighth applicant, inclusive of interest to 12 May 2023. The Court reserved liberty to apply regarding matters arising from those applicants' exit from the franchise. It remitted the eighth applicant's operating losses and borrowing costs to the Court-appointed referee with directions to exclude unrelated and personal expenses, and ordered the eighth applicant to bear the further referee costs. The claims against the fourth respondent were dismissed, the cross-claim was dismissed, and detailed costs orders were made, including indemnity costs for part of the proceeding against the first, second and third respondents.
Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited (Third Party Costs)
Read this case as a practical warning about risk allocation, not just funding mechanics. A commercial funder cannot assume it is insulated from adverse costs merely because the claimant remains the named party, the agreement says the claimant instructs the lawyers, or the funder did not promise to cover adverse costs. Here, the funder only actually paid senior counsel's fees, but that did not save it. The Court focused on the commercial reality: the funder backed the case for profit, had rights requiring consultation and consent before compromise, and attended mediation. For claimants, funding agreements should be reviewed for control rights, settlement rights, pricing and downside exposure. For defendants, investigate whether a funder is involved, consider security for costs where appropriate, and keep open the possibility of a later third party costs application if the claimant cannot pay.
Outcome: The Federal Court ordered Court House Capital Pty Ltd to pay RP Data's costs of the proceeding excluding the cross-claim, on a party and party basis up to 11.00 am on 28 June 2019 and on an indemnity basis thereafter. Court House was also ordered to pay RP Data's costs of the interlocutory application dated 3 February 2023. The costs were to be paid by way of lump sum, with a Registrar to fix the amount if the parties could not agree. Thawley J held that Court House was a commercial litigation funder seeking to profit from the proceeding, that it had a sufficient connection to the litigation, and that it was fair for it to bear the costs risk when the funded claim failed. The Court rejected the argument that RP Data's failure to seek security for costs earlier prevented that result.
Higgins v JSS Logistics Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)
If you are buying or selling a business, document exactly what is being transferred, what is excluded, what stock is on hand, and what happens if items are missing at completion. If sale money is to be held in trust or otherwise retained pending disputes, the reason for that arrangement and the release conditions should be recorded clearly. This case also shows that once a company enters liquidation, a buyer's claims, a seller's counterclaims and any side debts may all be folded into a broader settlement. A court will often approve that settlement if the liquidator has investigated the issues, obtained advice, negotiated properly and can show the compromise is sensible for creditors overall. Do not assume trust-held sale proceeds are automatically yours, or automatically available to the company, without looking closely at the legal basis for the fund and any competing claims.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the application. Banks-Smith J authorised the liquidators nunc pro tunc to enter into the deed of settlement dated 10 November 2022 with Simm Group Assets Pty Ltd and Simmcal Pty Ltd. The court also vacated part of the earlier December 2021 orders and ordered that the surplus sale proceeds held in the plaintiff's solicitors' trust account be released to the liquidators. The court accepted that the settlement was commercially reasonable and in the best interests of creditors because it resolved substantial contested claims, gave the liquidators immediate access to most of the trust funds, allowed the excluded fleet items to be realised, avoided costly litigation, and left the remaining damages claim to the proof of debt process. The liquidators' costs of the application were ordered to be costs of the liquidation.
Kilimanjaro Consulting Pty Ltd v MYOB Australia Pty Ltd
If your business relies on a supplier for recurring fees, commissions, licence renewals or access credentials, review that arrangement before a dispute starts. Check who controls pricing, margins, customer renewals, termination rights and operational tools such as licence codes. If a supplier announces a major change, move quickly and document the likely effect on staff, customers, revenue concentration and goodwill. This case shows that interim court protection may be available where a sudden change threatens to destabilise an established business and the other side will suffer little prejudice from temporary restraint. But the orders here were narrow. The court did not rewrite the contract, did not force MYOB to invoice on KC's preferred basis, and did not decide the final merits. Businesses should read the case as a reminder to gather concrete evidence early, not as a guarantee that a reseller can resist any unilateral change.
Outcome: The Federal Court partially granted KC's interlocutory application. Justice Jackman held that there was a serious question to be tried, although KC's case was not described as compelling on the present evidence. The court found the balance of convenience favoured some interim relief because MYOB accepted there would be no prejudice to it from the relevant orders, while KC faced a real and tangible prospect of retrenching staff and suffering disruption to its business and customer relationships if relief were refused. The court held that damages were not an adequate remedy. However, the court refused to require MYOB to issue invoices on a 35% margin basis. Instead, it made narrower orders restraining MYOB, until further order, from taking breach action or withholding licence codes by reason only of KC retaining 35% of the annual licence fee and paying 65% to MYOB. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.
McD Asia Pacific LLC v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd
If you are launching a new product that sits close to a competitor’s flagship offering, do not assume the legal risk is a single trade mark question. This case involved infringement, cancellation, non-use and misleading advertising, all arising from the same campaign. The safest approach is to run separate checks. First, assess whether the proposed name is too close to existing registered marks under the Trade Marks Act. Secondly, consider whether your own proposed registration is defensible if challenged. Thirdly, review whether your existing registrations are actually being used for all listed goods. Finally, test every comparative statement in your advertising with reliable evidence before publication. The court’s reasoning also matters because it applied the High Court’s approach in Self Care. Reputation alone does not expand the infringement test under section 120(1). Even a famous brand must still prove deceptive similarity under the statutory comparison. But if your campaign includes a factual comparison, such as more beef, more weight or more content, the evidence behind that claim can decide the case.
Outcome: Burley J held that McDonald’s did not establish trade mark infringement. BIG JACK was not deceptively similar to BIG MAC, and MEGA JACK was not deceptively similar to MEGA MAC, so the section 120(1) claim failed. The court also rejected McDonald’s challenge to Hungry Jack’s BIG JACK registration, finding no basis for cancellation under sections 44, 60 or 88. Hungry Jack’s cross-claim partly succeeded: McDonald’s MEGA MAC registration remained on the Register but was to be amended to remove certain goods. On the ACL claim, McDonald’s succeeded. The court found that Hungry Jack’s engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by making the '25% more Aussie beef' representation. The judgment dealt with liability only, with loss, damage and pecuniary relief left for later determination.
Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College) v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Read this case as a warning about systems, incentives and governance. If your business already knows there are complaints, warning signs or recurring problems in the way customers are being recruited, you increase your risk if you remove checks, speed up onboarding or leave agents loosely supervised. The court’s reasoning, as summarised in the judgment, links liability to knowledge of risk, weakened safeguards, pursuit of revenue and foreseeable harm. That means practical compliance is not just about having a contract or a policy on paper. It is about whether your real-world process helps customers understand what they are signing up for and screens out unsuitable customers. Senior managers should also assume that involvement in major process decisions can create personal risk under the ACL. Businesses using agents should review scripts, incentives, verification steps, suitability checks, complaint data and escalation pathways.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court largely dismissed the appeals. It upheld the core finding that the college engaged in systemic unconscionable conduct. It set aside certain declarations made on 4 August 2021 because of ambiguity and remitted the question of replacement declaratory relief to the primary judge. It also allowed the appeal in part by finding that the college did not engage in unconscionable conduct with respect to Consumers B to E, which required some declarations to be set aside. The court further narrowed the period of Mr Wills' knowing involvement, holding that he was knowingly concerned from 20 November 2015, when he became acting CEO, rather than from the earlier implementation date of the enrolment process changes. Otherwise, the appeals were dismissed and the appellants were ordered to pay 95% of the ACCC's appeal costs.
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 42)
If your business is paying for someone else's court case, treat that arrangement as a serious governance and risk issue. This decision shows that a court may allow subpoenas for documents that reveal how closely the business funded, monitored or participated in the litigation, especially where the other side is considering a non-party costs order. The threshold at this stage is not whether the documents will definitely prove liability. It is whether they might shed light on the issue. That means businesses should be careful about how funding is documented, what rights the funder has, who gives instructions, who attends hearings, and how communications with lawyers are recorded. If the business only intends to provide financial support, the documents should reflect that clearly. If there is any oversight, management input or entitlement linked to a successful outcome, that may attract closer scrutiny later. Privilege may still protect some material, but it will not necessarily prevent a subpoena challenge or avoid document-by-document disputes.
Outcome: The Court held that the subpoenas should not be set aside altogether. Instead, they should be confined in certain respects. Justice Besanko accepted exclusions for documents relating to compliance with earlier subpoenas, specified correspondence about foreshadowed third-party costs applications, and advice to SNOL about news broadcasting issues concerning the proceedings. Subject to those limits, the Court found the subpoenas had a legitimate forensic purpose because the part played in the litigation by SNOL and ACE was relevant to the proposed third-party costs application and the requested documents might throw light on that issue. The Court also rejected the suggested time-based limits, and said privilege objections would be determined if and when a claim of privilege was made. The reasons record that the parties were to be heard as to the appropriate order in light of the Court's reasons.
Self Care IP Holdings v Allergan
Brand strategy should be checked before launch. Businesses need to consider registered marks, packaging, product naming and the overall impression created for customers.
Outcome: The High Court found against the key trade mark and consumer law claims. In broad terms, the Court did not accept that the challenged words were being used in the infringing way alleged, or that the relevant misleading representation was conveyed to reasonable consumers.
Sharif v Vitruvian Investments Pty Ltd (No 3)
If your company believes an equity deal was induced by false information, do not try to fix it by board resolution and immediate changes to the register. This case shows that alleged misleading conduct does not automatically give a company a self-help right to rescind an issued shareholding. The Court rejected the company’s attempt to obtain relief under s 1322, and the oppression claim succeeded. The Court also treated the later dilution issue seriously. Even where the company needed capital and some later share issues had a proper commercial purpose, the Court looked at whether the cancellation and subsequent issues formed part of a plan that would leave the shareholder with little value if reinstated later. For founders, directors and investors, the practical message is to separate commercial frustration from legal power, follow the Corporations Act process, preserve evidence, and avoid steps that can look like an attempt to sideline a shareholder before the dispute is properly resolved.
Outcome: Vitruvian’s claim for relief under s 1322 was dismissed with costs. The catchwords record that the Court found complete disregard for statutory requirements, continuing and blatant disregard demonstrating dishonesty, delay, and that the requirements of s 1322 were not met. Mr Sharif’s oppression claim succeeded. The cancellation of his shares was found to be oppressive, and the Court also found oppression in the cancellation followed by further share issues that would dilute his position if reinstated later. The reasons indicate that the appropriate relief was to require the benefiting shareholder to transfer shares to Mr Sharif. The orders made on 8 August 2023 required the parties to file agreed or competing minutes to give effect to the reasons, so the final form of relief was to be settled after that step.
Sino Group International Limited v Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo Pty Ltd
If your company is proposing a DOCA, do not rely on a headline statement such as '100 cents in the dollar' unless the assumptions behind it are strong, clearly explained and consistent with the likely costs and claim values. If you are a creditor, look closely at how disputed claims were estimated, whether any set-off has been applied, what administrator and deed administrator fees are assumed, and whether a sale or liquidation alternative has been fairly assessed. This case also highlights a practical point that often gets missed: a claim may be admitted one way for voting purposes, but that does not necessarily answer how it should be estimated when comparing likely dividends under a DOCA and a winding up. Where insiders are funding the proposal or standing aside from dividends, transparency becomes even more important.
Outcome: The Full Court of the Federal Court allowed the appeal, set aside the primary judge's order of 2 June 2022, and ordered that the DOCA executed on 28 March 2022 be terminated. The court said Sino had established House v R error in relation to the grounds dealing with misleading information and the interests of creditors. It was satisfied that the discretion under s 445D(1) was enlivened and should be exercised. The court therefore did not need to determine all remaining grounds. It also allowed Sino's application to adduce further evidence in part, because that evidence was directly relevant to the misleading-information ground. Costs were reserved.
Sunshine Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Youssef
If your business is considering suing over confidential information, director conduct, breach of contract or a lost opportunity, treat litigation as an operational project as well as a legal one. In this case, the court accepted it had power under s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to dismiss the proceeding when security for costs was not provided. The court also relied on the applicants' repeated non-compliance with earlier orders and the overarching civil procedure obligations in ss 37M and 37N. Before filing, work out who will fund the case, whether security for costs is likely, how security would actually be provided, and who inside the business is responsible for deadlines, evidence and communications with lawyers and the court.
Outcome: The Court dismissed the entire proceeding on 9 March 2023. It held that the applicants had failed to provide the ordered security for costs, had not given any reasonable or plausible explanation for the delay, had not shown any real ability to fund the proceeding, and had a serious history of non-compliance with earlier court orders. The Court considered that keeping the matter on foot would continue to prejudice Mr Youssef, who would incur further unrecoverable costs, and would also place an unnecessary burden on court resources. Orders were made under s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs, including the costs of the first respondent's interlocutory application dated 25 January 2023.
The Agency Group Australia Limited v H.A.S. Real Estate Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a warning to do brand clearance early and to assess the whole customer-facing presentation, not just the business name in isolation. The available judgment text confirms that the respondents used the name “The North Agency” for a new Dee Why real estate business and that the applicants sued on trade mark, ACL and passing off grounds, but the application was dismissed. The extract also confirms that the Court considered issues such as website URLs, social media handles, context, descriptiveness and trade usage evidence. Because the publicly available text is truncated, the safest practical lesson is limited but still useful: document how your name was chosen, search registered marks and business names, review logos and online branding together, and do not overstate what this case proves about trade mark doctrine until the full reasons are checked.
Outcome: The Federal Court dismissed the originating application on 17 May 2023. The available text confirms that the applicants did not obtain the declaratory or injunctive relief they sought against the first respondent. The catchwords also confirm that, for the ACL and passing off aspects of the case, the alleged representation of authorisation or affiliation was not made, the conduct did not constitute passing off, and the presumption of damage in passing off was rebutted. The orders directed the parties to file written submissions on costs after judgment. Because the published text is truncated, the precise reasoning on the trade mark claims, including how the Court dealt with deceptive similarity and any statutory defence, should be checked in the full reasons before relying on the case for a detailed doctrinal proposition.
The Agency Group Australia Ltd v H.A.S. Real Estate Pty Ltd
Business owners should read this case as a warning against two common assumptions. First, owning a registration for a stylised brand does not necessarily give you a broad right to stop every trader who uses similar words. The court focused on the registered mark as filed, including its stylised “A”, and said ignoring that stylisation would expand the monopoly beyond the registration. Secondly, adding a location or qualifier will not always avoid infringement, but it can matter a great deal where the shared wording is descriptive and the added word changes the overall impression. The Full Court also accepted that the way customers choose real estate services matters, including that they are likely to be more attentive than in routine consumer purchases. If you are clearing a new name, assess the exact words, logo treatment, industry usage and customer journey together. If you are enforcing a mark, make sure your claim matches the registration you own and the confusion theory you can realistically prove.
Outcome: The Full Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. It held that no error had been shown in the primary judge’s conclusion that THE NORTH AGENCY was not deceptively similar to the registered AGENCY Mark and therefore did not infringe it. The court accepted the importance of assessing the registered mark in its actual stylised form, treated “NORTH” as a substantial differentiating feature, and accepted the relevance of both the descriptive quality of “AGENCY” in real estate and the careful way consumers engage in property transactions. The court also rejected the respondent’s application to adduce further evidence, finding that other means of obtaining the material were available and that the material would not have changed the result.
United Petroleum Franchise Pty Ltd v Istanikzai (No 2)
Read this case as a litigation management decision, not a ruling on franchise rights. The court was concerned with whether it could sensibly assess overlap between the Federal Court proceedings and the Supreme Court proceeding before the Supreme Court decided an amendment and joinder application. The answer was no, so the transfer applications were stood over. For business owners, the practical message is to treat pleadings, party structure and parallel proceedings as commercial risk issues, not just legal technicalities. If your network uses more than one entity, more than one agreement type, or a standard operating model across many sites, a dispute can widen quickly. Proposed amendments may change whether proceedings should be transferred, stayed, run together or defended separately. Early mapping of parties, contracts and overlapping allegations can save duplicated cost and avoid having to fight the same procedural battle twice.
Outcome: Justice Anderson ordered that the case management hearing and the hearing of the respondents' transfer applications be stood over to a date to be fixed after the hearing of the amendment and joinder application in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court held that the key consideration was the extent of overlap between the Federal Court proceedings and the Supreme Court proceeding, and that overlap could not be properly assessed until it was known whether the Supreme Court plaintiffs would be allowed to pursue the foreshadowed amended claims and join United Petroleum Pty Ltd. The court also considered that hearing the transfer applications immediately could lead to unnecessary duplication and cost if similar transfer applications had to be argued again after the Supreme Court ruling. To prevent the Federal Court matters from stalling, the parties were ordered to jointly notify the judge's chambers within 7 days of the hearing of the Supreme Court application so that a further case management hearing could be fixed.
United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Istanikzai
Read this case as a warning against assuming that a bigger later case will absorb an earlier one. United had already started two Federal Court proceedings against former franchisees over specific post-termination conduct, alleged misuse of confidential information and allegedly misleading statements. When those former franchisees later became lead plaintiffs in a broader Supreme Court representative proceeding, they still could not secure a pause of the Federal Court matters. For business owners, the practical point is to separate the procedural question from the underlying allegations. Even if another case raises wider systemic issues, the court may still let narrower earlier claims continue. If you want a stay, you need evidence showing real overlap, real utility in waiting, and that justice is better served by delay than by letting the first case run.
Outcome: Anderson J dismissed both interlocutory applications for a stay and ordered the respondents to pay the applicants' costs of those applications. The orders and catchwords make clear that the court considered the interests of justice to militate against granting a stay. The practical result was that United's two Federal Court proceedings were allowed to continue despite the later representative proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Because the available reasons are truncated during the court's consideration section, the full detail of how each stay factor was weighed is not fully available from the text used for this page.
4th Dimension Transport Pty Ltd v Australian Couriers Pty Ltd
Read this case as a warning about drafting and network control. The dispute turned on a franchise deed that was accepted to be poorly drafted, especially clause 2.3(b), but the Court still gave it a commercially sensible reading at the interlocutory stage. If your business model depends on one territory sending work to another, your agreement should say clearly who must accept that work, what "procure" requires in practice, whether related entities and subsidiaries are covered, and what happens if safety, capacity or product-type issues arise. If you are a franchisee, the case shows that urgent relief may be available where a network refusal threatens a key customer relationship and damages may not be enough. If you are a franchisor or network operator, do not assume internal operational decisions will override a contractual promise unless the agreement clearly gives that flexibility. This was only an interim ruling, not the final outcome of the whole case, but it is still a strong indicator of how courts may respond to unclear but commercially important network obligations.
Outcome: The Federal Court granted the interlocutory injunction. Aramex Australia was ordered, until final determination of the proceeding or further order, to comply with the deed, including clause 2.3, by procuring that all licensees, including Link Logistics Pty Ltd trading as Aramex Perth, promptly undertake delivery during the franchise period of packaged goods emanating from Aramex Melbourne. The Court held that Aramex Melbourne had a compelling case that there was a serious question to be tried on breach of the deed and that no serious answer had been advanced in argument. On the balance of convenience, the Court found that refusing relief could cause more potentially irremediable damage to Aramex Melbourne than granting relief would cause to Aramex Australia. The Court was not satisfied that damages would be an adequate remedy for Aramex Melbourne, while Aramex Australia was protected by Aramex Melbourne's undertaking as to damages. Costs of the interlocutory application were awarded against Aramex Australia, and Aramex Melbourne was given leave to amend its originating application to seek specific performance.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v BlueScope Steel Limited (No 5)
Business owners should read this case as a warning about pricing conversations and market coordination efforts. If your staff are discussing future prices, common benchmarks, resale prices, import volumes, or ways to get others in the market to "hold the line", you may be moving into cartel territory even if nobody agrees. The Court’s findings indicate that an attempt to induce an unlawful understanding may be enough. That means ordinary commercial language can be dangerous when the real objective is price alignment. Keep pricing decisions independent, train staff not to seek commitments from competitors or likely competitors, and escalate any conversation that drifts toward coordinated pricing or market discipline. This is especially important in industries under margin pressure, where the temptation to stabilise prices can be strong.
Outcome: The Federal Court found the majority of the ACCC's allegations proved. O'Bryan J held that during the relevant period BlueScope and Mr Ellis attempted to induce certain suppliers of flat steel products in Australia, being seven Australian distributors, one import trader and one overseas steel manufacturer, to contravene s 44ZZRJ by arriving at understandings containing cartel provisions. The Court also made clear that the ACCC did not allege the attempts were successful and that no understandings were ultimately arrived at. This was therefore a liability judgment about attempted inducement, not a finding that a completed cartel understanding existed. The Court listed the matter for a later remedies hearing, so penalties and other final relief were not determined in this decision.
Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)
If your business is defending a claim, this decision shows the cost of leaving major pleading decisions too late. A court may permit some late amendments, but it can also refuse parts of them, restrict the evidence you can rely on, preserve the trial date above your preferred strategy, and still order you to pay the other side’s costs. The case also shows that discovery complaints need to be raised in a practical and timely way. Cross-examining a person on their discovery affidavit is unusual and will not usually be allowed unless there is a solid basis and real utility. In practice, businesses should investigate early, plead carefully, raise discovery disputes promptly, and treat trial dates as something the court will protect, not casually move.
Outcome: The Court granted Nine limited leave to amend its defence, but not to the full extent sought. It allowed a new justification defence only for certain pleaded imputations and permitted some amended and additional particulars. It refused leave for a justification defence in relation to imputations that Ms Edwards had exploited Oscar for her own financial benefit, because the proposed particulars could not establish that imputation as pleaded. It also refused a proposed new contextual imputation that Ms Edwards, as a lawyer, misled police in relation to ownership of Oscar, finding it was not even arguable that the broadcast conveyed that meaning and that allowing it would unfairly prejudice Ms Edwards before trial. The Court dismissed Nine's application to cross-examine Ms Edwards on her discovery affidavit and ordered Nine to pay Ms Edwards' costs of the interlocutory application.
Personnel Contracting
A contractor label will not save a labour-hire or contractor model where the legal rights and obligations point to employment. Businesses should draft for the real relationship and run classification checks before scaling a workforce model.
Outcome: The High Court held Mr McCourt was an employee of the labour-hire company. The written agreement mattered, but its substance showed a labour-hire employee relationship rather than an independent business providing services.
ZG Operations v Jamsek
Long-running contractor relationships can still be genuine contractor arrangements where the contracts and business structure support independence, but businesses should not treat that as a free pass.
Outcome: The High Court held the drivers were not employees for the Fair Work claims before it. The contracts were with the partnerships, the partnerships owned and operated the trucks, and the legal rights and obligations pointed away from employment, even though the commercial relationship was long-running and close.
ACCC v Employsure
Read this case as a warning about the whole structure of a paid search campaign. The legal risk did not come only from one phrase in isolation. It came from the combination of the search terms chosen, the dynamic use of those terms in headlines, the ads appearing first, the official-sounding wording, and the absence of Employsure’s name. If your business advertises near a government function, make sure an ordinary user can immediately tell that your business is a private provider. Do not rely on the idea that users will slow down, inspect every detail, or work out that a result is only an ad. Review keywords, headlines, URLs, call extensions and landing pages together. If the campaign works because users think they are clicking on the regulator or an endorsed service, that is exactly the kind of impression that creates ACL risk.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court upheld the ACCC’s appeal. It held that Employsure’s publication of the Google Ads conveyed the alleged government affiliation representations to the ordinary or reasonable member of the relevant class. That conduct contravened s 18 of the ACL and involved false or misleading representations contrary to ss 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(h). The Court set aside the first instance orders, directed the parties to confer on the form of declarations and injunctions, remitted the proceeding to the primary judge for hearing on pecuniary penalty and first instance costs, and ordered Employsure to pay the ACCC’s appeal costs.
ACCC v Google
Businesses collecting location or behavioural data should make privacy and consumer disclosures match the real product settings. Privacy wording can also be consumer law risk.
Outcome: The Federal Court found Google had made misleading representations to some Android users about location data settings during the relevant period. The decision showed that consumer law can apply to privacy and product-setting representations, not just classic sales advertising.
WorkPac v Rossato
Employers should use clear casual contracts, but should not treat WorkPac as the whole answer. Casual employment rules changed after the case, so documents, rosters, employee choice rights and current Fair Work guidance all need to be checked together.
Outcome: The High Court allowed WorkPac's appeal. It held that, on the contracts before the Court, Mr Rossato worked assignment by assignment, WorkPac was not bound to offer further work after each assignment, and Mr Rossato was a casual employee for the relevant Fair Work Act and enterprise agreement purposes.
ACCC v Trivago
Read this case as a decision about what an ordinary consumer would take from a digital comparison service. If your website or app highlights a result as top, featured, recommended, best value or cheapest, you need to be able to justify that impression. It is not enough to say the algorithm is complex or that cheaper options appear elsewhere. If payment from suppliers affects prominence, the presentation must not imply neutral or cheapest-first comparison unless that is really what the system delivers. Savings claims also need like-for-like comparisons. Before launch and after major product changes, review the interface as a whole, including ranking order, labels, strike-through prices, hover-overs, disclosures, ad copy and any statements about impartial comparison.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that Trivago made each of the alleged Cheapest Price, Top Position, Strike-Through and Red Price representations during the periods alleged by the ACCC. The Court concluded that the Cheapest Price Representation contravened sections 18 and 34 of the Australian Consumer Law, and that the Top Position, Strike-Through and Red Price representations contravened sections 18 and 29. The Court also found that Trivago engaged in broader conduct up to 2 July 2018 that led consumers to believe the website provided an impartial, objective and transparent price comparison enabling them to quickly and easily identify the cheapest available offer, and that this conduct contravened sections 18 and 34. The published orders show the matter was then listed for further case management.
Calidad v Seiko Epson
A patent owner may not control every downstream use after first sale. Businesses refurbishing, repairing, importing or reselling patented products need to understand the exhaustion line.
Outcome: The High Court allowed Calidad's appeal. A majority accepted the exhaustion doctrine and held that the relevant modifications did not amount to making a new product; they were modifications of products that had already been sold.
Kraft v Bega
Treat get-up, packaging and product presentation as transaction assets. In this case, the Court's summary of the primary judgment was that the rights to the Peanut Butter Trade Dress were sold to Bega in July 2017 and that Bega was entitled to use it in the business it acquired. The appeal failed because Kraft's core argument about the 2012 restructure documents was rejected. For a business owner, the lesson is not just to list registered marks in a sale or restructure. You should identify unregistered get-up, goodwill, recipes, packaging files, transitional branding rights, and any obligations a buyer is assuming under earlier group agreements. If the deal expects continuity on shelves from day one, the documents need to say exactly what visual presentation and goodwill move with the business, and what does not.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court dismissed Kraft's appeal with costs and dismissed Bega's cross-appeal with costs. The Court rejected Kraft's core argument that the 2012 restructure documents allocated the Peanut Butter Trade Dress to the North American grocery business. Instead, the Court held that, properly construed in commercial context, the trade dress was allocated to the global snacks business. The Court's summary of the primary judgment also records findings that the rights to the Peanut Butter Trade Dress were sold to Bega in July 2017, that Bega was entitled to use it in the business it acquired, and that Bega had not breached any assumed restructure obligations by doing so.
Mondelez v AMWU
Employers should calculate personal/carer's leave through ordinary hours and payroll rules, not informal notions of a calendar day. Shift patterns and enterprise agreements need careful payroll setup.
Outcome: The High Court allowed the appeal and adopted the notional-day approach. In effect, paid personal/carer's leave accrues by reference to ordinary hours of work, not by giving every shift worker 10 full shifts regardless of shift length.
ACCC v Ultra Tune Australia
Read this case as a first instance Federal Court warning on franchise basics. If you run a franchise network, treat disclosure updates, marketing fund reporting, document delivery and pre-contract sales conduct as core compliance work, not admin. Make sure statements about price, rent, site history, equipment and refund rights are accurate and match the written documents. If money is taken before the deal is final, record clearly what it is for and whether it is refundable. If a complaint arises, do not try to rebuild the file after the event. The Court's response shows that poor records and invented justifications can worsen both liability and penalty.
Outcome: Bromwich J held that the ACCC had established its case against Ultra Tune in relation to all alleged breaches. The Court imposed a pecuniary penalty of $2,604,000. The extracted orders require Ultra Tune to pay $33,000 plus interest for the redress of Mr Nakash Ahmed and to pay the ACCC's costs on an indemnity basis. The reasons also state that declarations and other relief should be granted, and the contents list refers to injunctions, a compliance order and publication orders. This page does not cover any later appeal or later procedural history.
ACCC v JJ Richards
If your business uses standard form contracts with small business customers, ACCC v JJ Richards is a strong reminder to review the whole template, not just one clause at a time. The Court dealt with a recurring service contract that gave the supplier control over renewal, pricing, service-related credits, exclusivity, credit, indemnity and termination. Those rights are commercially familiar, but the case shows they can become unfair when they operate one way and leave the customer exposed to lock-in or detriment. A practical review should ask four questions. First, does the clause give your business a unilateral power over an important part of the relationship? Second, is that power genuinely necessary to protect a legitimate business interest? Third, does the customer have a meaningful counterbalance, such as notice, a right to dispute, or a right to terminate? Fourth, do several clauses work together to make the contract harsher overall? The case also shows the consequences of getting this wrong. A business may have to stop relying on existing terms, stop using them in future, notify customers, publish corrective material and run a compliance program. For many businesses, that is a much bigger problem than simply redrafting a clause.
Outcome: Moshinsky J made declarations and orders by consent on 13 October 2017. The Court declared that the eight identified term categories in captured small business standard form contracts entered into or renewed after 12 November 2016 were unfair contract terms within s 24 and void by operation of s 23. The Court also restrained JJ Richards from applying or relying on those terms in captured contracts, restrained it for five years from entering into small business standard form contracts containing those terms, required corrective notices and customer notification within 14 days, required an ACL compliance program within 90 days to be maintained for three years, and ordered that the parties bear their own costs.
ACCC v Valve Corporation
Online businesses selling to Australian customers should assume the Australian Consumer Law applies, and refund or 'no returns' clauses cannot override consumer guarantees.
Outcome: The Federal Court found Valve had made misleading representations about Australian consumer guarantees. The Full Federal Court later dismissed Valve's appeal, including against the finding that it carried on business in Australia and the $3 million penalty.
ASIC v Healey
Directors need enough financial literacy and attention to company accounts to spot obvious problems. Signing reports or approvals without understanding them is not a defence.
Outcome: The Federal Court found the directors had breached their duties. The decision made clear that directors are expected to understand the business's financial position well enough to identify obvious errors and ask further questions before approving financial reports.