Browse Federal Court Judgments (Single & Full Court)
Published last 7 days
A listing of judgments published in the last 7 days, with the most recently received listed at the top.
Commercial
Torc Solutions Pty Ltd v Unex Corporation doing business as Hytorc [2025] FCA 1124
NESKOVCIN J, 12 Sep 2025
CONTRACTS – formation – where applicant and second respondent were parties to a Distributor Agreement – where closure of the second respondent announced – where applicant and first respondent executed a Branded Product Distribution Agreement – where applicant alleged that applicant and first respondent made an alternative agreement or that such agreement could be inferred from conduct – alternative agreement not established CONTRACTS – whether the Branded Product Distribution Agreement was entered into by reason of economic duress – economic duress not established CONTRACTS – interpretation – whether the Distributor Agreement was a perpetual agreement CONSUMER LAW – whether the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or made misrepresentations – whether the respondents engaged in unconscionable conduct – whether the applicant is entitled to loss and damage – application dismissed
Commercial
Albarran v Reynolds, in the matter of Mercedes Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 1129
FEUTRILL J, 11 Sep 2025
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a freezing order under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and Div 7.4 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – prima facie good arguable case for final relief – danger of defendants absconding, removing assets from the jurisdiction or disposing or otherwise dealing with them within the jurisdiction – danger that judgment will go unsatisfied
Commercial
Metledge v Woori International Pty Ltd, in the matter of TJM Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1130
HALLEY J, 9 Sep 2025
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to stay winding up orders of a registrar pending final determination of an application for review of a decision of a registrar pursuant to s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) – application for injunction restraining liquidators from making payments and taking steps to finalise winding up of a company – application for inquiry into the external administration of a company under Div 90 of Sch 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) – test for the granting of the interlocutory relief – where applicant was not a party to the proceedings in which the registrar has exercised the power that is sought to be reviewed under s 35A of the FCA Act – whether Court should of its own motion review exercise of power by registrar pursuant to s 35A(6) of the FCA Act – where there was no serious question to be tried –– where balance of convenience did not point in any particular direction – orders made dismissing the interlocutory application
Taxation
RPPL Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 1126
CHEESEMAN J, 12 Sep 2025
APPEALS – competency – notice of objection to competency of an appeal of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal to refuse application under s 14ZZK(a) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) to expand grounds of review of an objection decision under Pt IVC of the Act – whether the decision is the decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding within the meaning of s 172(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) – whether the appeal is on a question of law as required by that section – whether appeal competent – Held: appeal not competent, appeal dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a stay of the Tribunal proceeding pending determination of this proceeding – Held: application dismissed
Commercial
Lin v Chu [2025] FCAFC 130
O’CALLAGHAN, O’BRYAN AND VANDONGEN JJ, 12 Sep 2025
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – where respondents invested in secured income mortgage fund for purpose of obtaining a significant investor visa – where primary judge found that corporate trustee of fund committed breaches of trust by making three improper loans – where breaches of trust were dishonest and fraudulent – where primary judge found that appellant directors knowingly assisted in the dishonest and fraudulent design – where primary judge found that appellant directors knowingly procured or induced certain breaches – where primary judge found that appellant directors had actual knowledge of the relevant dishonest and fraudulent breaches of trust – where appellant directors did not contest finding of primary judge that corporate trustee was in breach of trust by making loans because they were imprudent investments in hazardous securities – where appellant directors did not contest finding of primary judge that two of the three loans were made for an improper purpose EQUITY – where primary judge held that a director of a trustee company, whose conduct is the conduct of the trustee that involves a breach of trust, can be liable either for knowingly procuring or inducing a breach or for knowingly assisting in a dishonest and fraudulent design – where primary judge awarded respondent directors equitable compensation – consideration of the so-called principle in Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497 – held that a director acting as such can knowingly induce or procure a breach of trust, or knowingly assist in a dishonest and fraudulent design, by a trustee company of which that person is a director, when the directors lack relevant bona fides because they acted in their own personal interest and contrary to the interests of the company in breach of their duties to it – held that in such circumstances the principle in Said v Butt has no application – where notice of contention allowed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where appellants contended that pleas of accessorial liability were not properly plead
Commercial
Nipps (Liquidator), in the matter of Ochre Group Holdings Limited (in liq) (No 4) [2025] FCA 1132
BANKS-SMITH J, 12 Sep 2025
CORPORATIONS – public examinations underway – production of documents ordered from third party corporate entity and person with disclosed addresses in New Zealand – application for leave to serve orders in New Zealand in accordance with the law of New Zealand – orders made
Intellectual property
Jacksons Drawing Supplies Pty Ltd v Jackson's Art Supplies Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1127
JACKSON J, 12 Sep 2025
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - contraventions of s 18, s 29(1)(g) and s 29(1)(h) of the Australian Consumer Law and passing off - declarations - appropriate form of non-pecuniary relief - format of and content of website disclaimer - disclaimer not required to be published in other media COSTS - offers made before trial commenced - applicant's rejection of Calderbank offer not unreasonable - costs as between applicants and first and second respondents to be assessed on a party-party basis - applicant's rejection of offers from third and fourth respondents unreasonable - those respondents entitled to indemnity costs from certain date COSTS - parties each enjoyed some degree of success - whether costs of third and fourth respondents to be assessed separately - overall 15% discount on costs payable by first and second respondents - costs to be assessed on a lump sum basis by a Registrar
Commercial
Anthony v Apple Inc [2025] FCA 902
BEACH J, 12 Aug 2025
COMPETITION LAW — representative proceeding against Apple by developers and users — representative proceeding against Google by developers and users — group members’ claims for overcharge — digital technology — Apple mobile devices — Android mobile devices — operating system software — smart phones — tablets — personal computers — native apps — web apps — web browsers — Apple’s App Store —Google’s Play Store — downloading apps — installing apps — app developers — access to platforms — two-sided platforms — platform operators — distribution services market — market for payment services — Apple and Google restrictive conduct in distribution market and payments market — imposition of restrictive contractual conditions — substantial lessening of competition — contraventions of s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) — alleged contraventions of ss 45 and 47 —unconscionable conduct — alleged contravention of s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law — counterfactual commissions in the absence of contravening conduct — overcharge of commission by Apple — overcharge of commission by Google — consequential relief
Commercial
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 7) [2025] FCA 1125
FEUTRILL J, 12 Sep 2025
BANKRUPTCY – appeal from sequestration order made under s 43 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – judgment debt statute-barred under s 13(1) of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA) – enforcement of debt contingent on grant of leave under s 13(1) of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) – whether judgment debt payable immediately or at a certain future time under s 44(1) of the Act LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – limitation period for remedies for enforcement of judgment debts – application of s 13(1) of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA) to judgment debt – application of State remedies for enforcement of judgment debt under s 213 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and r 25.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – application and interpretation of s 12 and s 13(1) of Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)
Administrative
PYYV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1113
SNADEN J, 11 Sep 2025
MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where Tribunal was engaged in merits review of decision of Minister’s delegate – where applicant’s visa had been cancelled as a result of his imprisonment for sexually based offending against a child – where controversy centred on existence of “another reason” why mandatory cancellation of applicant’s visa should be revoked – where Tribunal rejected expert’s finding that risk of reoffending was “negligible” in circumstances of conflicting expert evidence – where Tribunal found that any risk (other than a fanciful risk) was unacceptable due to nature of offending and upheld Minister’s decision not to revoke cancellation – whether Tribunal failed to comply with or misapprehended Direction No. 110 issued under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether Tribunal’s decision affected by legal unreasonableness – grounds focused predominantly on Tribunal’s evaluation of expert evidence and assessment of risk of reoffending – no jurisdictional error identified – appeal dismissed
Commercial
Epic Games, Inc v Google LLC [2025] FCA 901
BEACH J, 12 Aug 2025
COMPETITION LAW — digital technology — Android mobile devices — operating system software — original equipment manufacturers — Google mobile services — anti-fragmentation agreement — Android compatibility commitment —smart phones — tablets — personal computers — native apps — web apps — web browsers — Google’s Play Store — downloading apps — installing apps — app developers — access to platforms — two-sided platforms — platform operators — market definition — market power — mobile OS licensing market — distribution services market — market for payment services — restrictive conduct in distribution market and payments market — security and technology considerations and constraints — misuse of market power — imposition of restrictive contractual conditions — substantial lessening of competition — purpose questions — effects questions — contraventions of s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) — alleged contraventions of ss 45 and 47 — unconscionable conduct — alleged contravention of s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law
Administrative
Knight v Defence Force Ombudsman [2025] FCA 1098
MOSHINSKY J, 11 Sep 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – where the applicant made a complaint to the Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO) regarding the handling of an earlier complaint made by the applicant to the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce – where the DFO decided not to take any steps in response to the fresh complaint – whether the DFO failed to perform his statutory function of “dealing with” the applicant’s complaint and thereby fell into jurisdictional error – application dismissed
Administrative
McGinn v High Court of Australia (No 6) [2025] FCA 1123
JACKMAN J, 9 Sep 2025
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for disqualification on ground of actual bias – where submitted that judge was an active party in the proceedings – application dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to set aside vexatious proceedings orders – where hearing and orders made in applicant’s absence – principle of finality considered – where Court not satisfied, in light of evidence before it, that original order should not have been made – application dismissed
Commercial
Queensland Nickel Sales Pty Ltd v Park (Liquidators) of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] FCAFC 129
MARKOVIC, HALLEY AND WHEATLEY JJ, 11 Sep 2025
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether leave to appeal required pursuant to s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether judgment or order appealed from is final or interlocutory – where directions provided to liquidators by way of judicial advice – where judgment and orders were interlocutory – leave to appeal required PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time to appeal – application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision – whether decision to be appeal attended with sufficient doubt to warrant its reconsideration on appeal – whether, if decision is wrong, substantial injustice would result if leave were refused – application for extension of time to appeal granted – leave to appeal refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where leave to appeal required – where leave to appeal not sought – appeal dismissed as incompetent
Administrative
National Disability Insurance Agency v IHY25 (by next friend IHZ25) [2025] FCA 1122
BANKS-SMITH J, 10 Sep 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from Administrative Review Tribunal – National Disability Insurance Scheme - where directions made by Tribunal on review of reviewable decision in relation to supports – where aspects of Tribunal's decision-making in error or delegated – errors of law – where parties agreed that appeal should be allowed – principles to be applied – appeal allowed
Commercial
Hogan (liquidator) v McCorkell, in the matter of McCorkell & Associates Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2025] FCA 1115
SHARIFF J, 3 Sep 2025
CORPORATIONS – interlocutory process initiated by liquidator seeking approval of entry into two deeds amending a funding agreement and a deed of indemnity pursuant to s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where deeds of variation give rise to obligations which may remain in effect for more than three months – whether plaintiffs were justified and acting reasonably in entering into the variation deeds – application granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for suppression and non-publication orders – whether orders necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – orders made
Employment
Torrens University Australia Limited v Fair Work Ombudsman (No 2) [2025] FCA 1120
HALLEY J, 10 Sep 2025
COSTS – application for indemnity costs or, in the alternative, party and party costs pursuant to s 570(2) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) – where Fair Work Ombudsman issued compliance notice based on mistaken interpretation of meaning of “associated working time” in Awards – whether absence of reasonable belief under s 716 and s 717 of FW Act constitutes unreasonable act under s 570 of FW Act – application dismissed
Commercial
Ashton v Pope (No 2) [2025] FCA 1121
BANKS-SMITH J, 10 Sep 2025
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – cross-vesting application to cross-vest Federal Court of Australia proceedings to the Supreme Court of Western Australia – where various extant proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia relating to same factual foundation of conduct of affairs of Welldog Pty Ltd – where parties seek transfer by consent – where potential overlap of issues to be decided – whether case management principles favour management by one court – whether in the interests of justice to transfer – transfer order made
Employment
BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Mining and Energy Union [2025] FCA 1116
WHEELAHAN J, 10 Sep 2025
INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for a stay of regulated labour hire arrangement orders made by the Fair Work Commission – orders made under s 306E of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – no express statutory power to order a stay under the Act – if no stay granted and applicants ultimately successful, recovery of overpayments difficult – claims of jurisdictional error based on correct test to apply pursuant to s 306E(1A) – whether the relevant work constituted the provision of a service or the supply of labour – employees also face prejudice if orders stayed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application pursuant to the Court’s implied power to grant stay – degree of strength of case for final relief required to succeed in an application for a stay – existence of a strong case for final relief is not a prerequisite for the grant of a stay – starting point is the object of the exercise of the power – object is to preserve the subject matter of the litigation – a stay should be granted only in exceptional circumstances – whether applicants’ case is attended with exceptional circumstances – stay not necessary to preserve the subject matter of the litigation in this case – application for a stay refused
Administrative
EUD24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCAFC 128
CHEESEMAN, OWENS AND HILL JJ, 10 Sep 2025
MIGRATION – primary judge dismissed an application for judicial review of the respondent Minister’s decision under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to set aside a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal and cancel the Appellant’s visa – whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that the Minister’s decision was legally unreasonable, or illogical or irrational – whether Minister’s findings on success of rehabilitative efforts lacked a probative basis – whether Minister’s findings on appellant’s access to welfare services in Iran lacked a probative basis – whether the primary judge erred in failing to conclude that the Minister committed jurisdictional error by reasoning as if the power in s 501BA(2) was, and was only, a power to cancel a visa – appeal dismissed
