Browse Federal Court Judgments (Single & Full Court)
Published last 24 hours
A listing of judgments published in the last 24 hours, with the most recently received listed at the top.
| NPA | Date | |
|---|---|---|
| Employment |
Woods v T&F.S. Woods Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1001
ROFE J PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – where the parties resolved the extension of time issue, the extension sought being one day – where the applicant had discontinued the proceeding below several months before the scheduled trial date – where the respondent made an application for costs pursuant to s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether the primary judge applied an impermissible gloss in determining the costs application – whether the proposed grounds of appeal have reasonable prospects of success – whether the applicant would suffer substantial prejudice if leave to appeal were refused – application allowed |
21 Aug 2025 |
| Commercial |
Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 5) [2025] FCA 986
MOORE J PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – security for costs – whether risk that applicants will be unable to meet an order for costs – where first applicant has substantial assets but second applicant does not – whether first applicant should provide an undertaking – where undertaking proffered by Group Managing Director apparently on behalf of another entity – proffering of undertaking not found to constitute an admission – where insolvency of certain group companies insufficient to call into question solvency of other group companies without further evidence – where undertakings need to be perfected – where the applicants’ written submissions require further explanation in light of potentially misleading statements as to the true financial position of the applicants |
20 Aug 2025 |
| Commercial |
Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 4) [2025] FCA 985
MOORE J PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to add cross-respondents and new causes of action to cross-claim – where applicants have standing to object to joinder as it may affect the conduct of their existing claims – whether proposed pleadings are properly pleaded or particularised – application granted subject to certain pleadings being removed |
20 Aug 2025 |
| Commercial |
PC Whitehall & Sons Pty Ltd v Gollant as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Livanidis [2025] FCA 993
HILL J PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether leave should be granted under s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to a party to take fresh steps in County Court proceedings – Applicant seeks to apply for extension of freezing order made by the County Court against the assets of the bankrupt – judgment entered against the Respondent before bankruptcy – leave granted |
20 Aug 2025 |
| Intellectual property |
Lift Shop Pty Ltd v Next Level Elevators Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 108
FEUTRILL, NESKOVCIN AND MOORE JJ COPYRIGHT – additional damages – whether primary judge erred in determining entitlement to additional damages in advance of determining quantum and prior to the applicant’s election – whether primary judge erred in her approach to assessing the flagrancy of the conduct – where threatening communications considered in the context of the respondents’ earlier denials of copyright infringement INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – confidential information – whether primary judge erred in finding no breach of confidence – difficulty in identifying confidential information – where customer quote not confidential, including because it was available on a public website – whether improper use by solicitors for the respondents of material obtained from the applicant’s website – whether applicant’s employee supplied confidential information to corporate respondents by accessing customer relations management database when undertaking ordinary work activities |
21 Aug 2025 |
| Administrative |
GNHW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 990
O'BRYAN J PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for discovery – where applicant seeks review of decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal to refuse to grant him a protection visa on character grounds – where applicant contends that the Minister failed to inform the Tribunal that he could be removed to Nauru under a third country reception arrangement under s 198AHB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) announced shortly after the Tribunal’s decision – whether documents evidencing the negotiation of that arrangement are discoverable – application granted in part |
21 Aug 2025 |
| Commercial |
Bluetag Australia Pty Ltd v BCC Trade Credit Pty Ltd trading as Bond and Credit Co (No 2) [2025] FCA 992
STEWART J PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application where the first and second respondents seek leave to apply to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to obtain documents pursuant to 28 USC §1782 – whether the Court should exercise its discretion to permit the first and second respondents to take steps to seek discovery from a third party in Delaware for use in Australian proceedings |
21 Aug 2025 |
| Commercial |
Villawood Management Pty Ltd v Marlton Group Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 980
ANDERSON J PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to review Registrar’s exercise of power setting aside subpoena issued to respondents’ solicitors – where respondents contended subpoena lacked legitimate forensic purpose – where respondents claimed legal professional privilege in respect of documents responsive to subpoena – consideration of authorities regarding legitimate forensic purpose – held responsive documents apparently relevant to questions to be tried in interlocutory application, issues of credit, and substantive issues in proceeding – consideration of authorities regarding fraud exception to privilege – where solicitor’s first affidavit contained false evidence – where no explanation for false evidence provided – third respondent’s instructions to solicitor inferred to be for an improper purpose – where no basis for solicitor’s belief in second affidavit, correcting his first affidavit, was disclosed – established on prima facie basis that second affidavit may not have corrected false evidence – held fraud exception applied – inspection of documents allowed, subject to redactions of non-responsive material. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to review Registrar’s exercise of power setting aside application to examine respondent in respect of production pursuant to notice to produce – where respondents filed evidence establishing respondents understood obligations in respect of notice and undertook proper and reasonable searches to locate documents – no sufficient basis for examination – application dismissed. |
21 Aug 2025 |
| Commercial |
Korea Midland Power Co Ltd v ACIRL Quality Testing Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 987
GOODMAN J PRIVILEGE – legal professional privilege – third party reports – investigation of alleged misconduct of employees – whether third party reports were created for the dominant purpose of receiving legal advice – held that reports were subjective to legal professional privilege PRIVILEGE – waiver – implied waiver – whether voluntary disclosure of aspects of the third party reports by way of disclosure in an Australian Securities Exchange announcement was inconsistent with the maintenance of confidentiality in those reports – held that there has been a waiver of legal professional privilege |
21 Aug 2025 |
| Commercial |
Kimber v Clark as trustee of the estate of Kimber [2025] FCA 979
CHARLESWORTH J APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – application for leave to appeal from three interlocutory orders – order summarily dismissing an application for annulment of a bankruptcy – bankruptcy brought about by debtor’s own petition – applicant unable to demonstrate any arguable appealable error affecting critical findings relating to delay and solvency – proposed appeal cannot succeed without showing error in those findings – proposed appeal from costs orders made upon dismissal of an interlocutory injunction application – applicant attempting to show an injunction ought to have been granted – no reasonable prospect of any appeal relating to costs succeeding – appeal not enjoying sufficient prospects to justify reconsideration of orders by a Full Court |
20 Aug 2025 |
| Administrative |
VRRQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 983
BUTTON J MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal) – where the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa – whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the Applicant had been convicted of a sexually based offence involving a child for the purposes of s 501(6)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether “child” in s 501(6)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) means a person under the age of 16 – whether “sexually based offending involving a child” in s 501(6)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) means the age of the victim must be an element of the criminal offence – whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the Applicant’s risk of reoffending having regard to the stress of his uncertain immigration status – whether the Tribunal erred in finding that any third country to which the Applicant might be removed pursuant to a third country reception arrangement would have to be assessed as “safe” in order for the Applicant to be removed – application dismissed |
20 Aug 2025 |
| Commercial |
Wealth Trail Pty Ltd (in liq) v Del Vecchio [2025] FCA 982
Button J PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment under r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where Respondent failed to file a defence – where Applicants sought judgment for damages and/or equitable compensation to be assessed at a later date – whether permanent injunction should be granted in circumstances where Respondent is in prison and Applicants are in liquidation – whether freezing orders should be continued pending the assessment of damages and/or equitable compensation – judgment entered against the Respondent for damages and/or equitable compensation, to be assessed within 12 months – leave granted for Applicants to apply to extend such time period, with supporting evidence |
20 Aug 2025 |
