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
Ausprout Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Gordon, in the matter of Ausprout Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 1635
WHEATLEY J, 30 Oct 2026
CORPORATIONS — Shadow or de facto directors — Grant of Power of Attorney — Where Defendants held a Power of Attorney executed in their favour for the company — Whether Power of Attorney alone sufficient to make the Defendants shadow directors or de facto directors — Whether the power and control granted to and exercisable by the Defendants sufficient to make the Defendants shadow directors or de facto directors — Defendants not shadow or de facto directors PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application to adjourn once trial already commenced —Application to amend pleadings once trial already commenced — Where Plaintiffs had sufficient time to seek to amend Statement of Claim — Compensation by costs — Prejudice — Application refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Where Plaintiffs sought to go beyond the pleadings in closing submissions — Whether Plaintiffs should be bound to pleaded case — Plaintiffs bound to pleaded case
Commercial
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden (Liability – Jones) [2026] FCA 1617
KENNETT J, 30 Oct 2026
CORPORATIONS – where the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) seeks declarations, the imposition of pecuniary penalties and disqualification orders against five defendants for contraventions of ss 180(1), 181(1) and 182(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where the fourth defendant denies the alleged contraventions – where the fourth defendant was the chief executive officer and subsequently a director of the relevant entities (the ACBF Entities) that operated funeral funds marketed predominantly to Indigenous communities – where ASIC alleges the fourth defendant knew or ought to have known the effect of a substantial increase in insurance premiums payable by one entity and the vulnerability of the other entities to similar increases – whether the fourth defendant failed to consider the effect of the insurance arrangements on the financial position of the ACBF Entities, whether those arrangements were in their best interests and the availability of alternative insurance arrangements – whether, by maintaining the insurance arrangements, the fourth defendant preferred the financial interests of other directors and the insurer over the interests of the ACBF Entities and their respective fund members – whether the fourth defendant thereby obtained an advantage for those other directors, the insurer or caused a detriment to the ACBF Entities – whether the conduct materially prejudiced the financial interests of the ACBF Entities and their members – whether the fourth defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence in contravention of s 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – whether the fourth defendant failed to exercise his powers and discharge his duties in good faith in the best interests of the ACBF Entities and for a proper purpose in contravention of s 181(1) – whether the fourth defendant improperly used his position in contravention of s 182(1)
Commercial
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden (Liability and Penalty – Pattenden) [2026] FCA 1616
KENNETT J, 30 Oct 2026
CORPORATIONS – where the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) seeks declarations, the imposition of pecuniary penalties and disqualification orders against five defendants for contraventions of ss 180(1), 181(1) and 182(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where ASIC reached agreement on liability and relief with the first defendant – where the first defendant was the founder and a director of the relevant entities (the ACBF Entities) that operated funeral funds marketed predominantly to Indigenous communities – where the first defendant, among other defendants, also had an interest in the company with which the insurance funds were insured (Crown) and agreed to an increase in the insurance premiums payable by one of the ACBF Entities to Crown – whether the first defendant failed to consider the effect of the financial arrangements with Crown on the ACBF Entities and failed to consider or pursue alternative insurance arrangements – whether the first defendant failed to manage a conflict of interest and preferred his and/or another defendant’s interests to the interests of the ACBF Entities in maintaining the insurance arrangements with Crown – whether the Court should make the declarations sought by ASIC
Administrative
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1638
MOSHINSKY J, 30 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div 2) – partner visa – where it was a requirement for the visa that the applicant satisfies Schedule 3 criterion 3001 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) “unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying the criteria” – where the appellant did not satisfy Schedule 3 criterion 3001 and the delegate was not satisfied that there were compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria – where Tribunal affirmed delegate’s decision – where primary judge dismissed application for judicial review – where appellant sought to rely on new points on appeal – appeal dismissed
Commercial
Aulich v Scott [2026] FCAFC 139
CHARLESWORTH, GOODMAN AND NESKOVCIN JJ, 30 Oct 2026
CORPORATIONS – oppression – appeal from finding that the appellant directors engaged in oppressive conduct for the purpose of s 232(e) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where respondent shareholder wished to be bought out at fair value – where directors issued shares that had the effect of diluting shareholder’s interest in companies to a negligible amount – whether primary judge erred in finding that the share issues were done for an improper purpose and without commercial rationale – standard of appellate review – no error in primary judge’s finding that the share issues were oppressive. CORPORATIONS – relief – where order made under s 233 that directors personally pay compensation to shareholder equivalent to the value of her shareholding at the time of the dilution – where one company in liquidation and the other likely to go into administration for reasons unrelated to the oppressive conduct – whether relief appropriate where oppressive conduct has ceased because of external administration – whether primary judge erred in finding that the most appropriate form of order was for the directors to pay compensation personally – no error in the exercise of the discretion as to relief – appeal dismissed
Administrative
Balbir Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] FCA 1627
STEWART J, 30 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant applies for leave to appeal against the summary dismissal of her claim – whether primary judge’s judgment is attended with sufficient doubt – leave to appeal refused
Administrative
Balbir Singh v Western Australian General Practice Education and Training Ltd [2026] FCA 1626
STEWART J, 30 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant applies for an extension of time and leave to appeal against the summary dismissal of her claim – whether the primary judge’s judgment is attended with sufficient doubt – extension of time allowed – leave to appeal refused
Commercial
Thompson v Lane (No 4) [2026] FCA 1599
COLLIER ACJ, 30 Oct 2026
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – application for removal of trustee in bankruptcy and return of personal property held by trustee – where applicant discharged from bankruptcy in 2023 – whether administration of bankrupt estate continues despite discharge where administration incomplete – relevance of definition of “end of an administration” in sch 2 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – whether trustee held personal property on a bare trust following discharge – relevance of a judgment of the District Court of Queensland – possibility of continued administration contemplated by Bankruptcy Act – whether applicant has standing to bring removal application – whether trustee should be removed – legal basis and statutory purpose of administration – relevance of trustee discretion – where applicant makes broad allegations of trustee misconduct encompassing aspects of the administration of bankrupt estate – two-stage process of inquiry for removal – relevance of breakdown of relationship between applicant and trustee – interests of the administration generally – application refused BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – application by trustee in bankruptcy to take possession of real property – where respondent (a discharged bankrupt) refused to deliver up vacant possession – whether property vested in trustee on commencement of bankruptcy – where respondent was not the registered owner of the property at commencement of bankruptcy – where respondent had equitable interest in the property at commencement of bankruptcy – where trustee caused registration of the property in his name after respondent’s discharge from bankruptcy – whether trustee entitled to retain title to the property – no automatic revesting of property in respondent upon discharge – statutory purpose of administration not exhausted – trustee did not derive benefit or profit from administration – trustee bound to realise property for benefit of bankrupt estate – application allowed REAL PROPERTY – application by d
Administrative
Cheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1631
COLVIN J, 30 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision by Administrative Review Tribunal – where the applicant's visa was cancelled by the Minister under s 501(3A) because the applicant was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment – where the Minister's delegate affirmed the cancellation – where the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision – where applicant alleged the Tribunal erred by departing from a finding of fact made by the sentencing judge and misunderstood the applicant's evidence relating to her use of drugs – where the applicant alleged the Tribunal erred by failing to advert to, understand and evaluate the significance of material relating to the applicant's rehabilitation in prison relied upon by the applicant – where the applicant alleged the Tribunal erred in misconstruing and misapplying para 8.5 of Direction No 110 – where the applicant alleged the Tribunal erred by not taking legal consequences of the decision into account – automatic refusal of the applicant's partner visa application – frustration of Family Court orders – breach of parole conditions – humanitarian concerns – application dismissed
Employment
Randall v Woodside Energy Ltd [2026] FCA 1630
FEUTRILL J, 30 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend originating application and statement of claim – applicable principles – whether proposed amendments raise a reasonably arguable case PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for interlocutory injunctive relief – applicable principles – whether prima facie case for relief
Other
Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care v CDA Clinics QLD Pty Ltd trading as CDA Express [2026] FCA 1623
COLLIER ACJ, 30 Oct 2026
HEALTH LAW – where first respondent contravened s 42DLB(1) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) by advertising therapeutic goods not entered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, making prohibited and restricted representations and referring to substances included in Schedule 3, 4 or 8, but not Appendix H, of the Poisons Standard February 2021 and Poisons Standard June 2021 – whether advertisements constituted advice or information given directly to patients by health practitioners in the course of treatment for the purposes of s 42AA(4) – where second respondent was involved in the first respondent’s contraventions for the purposes of s 42YC – contraventions established PENALTY – amount of pecuniary penalties to be imposed pursuant to s 42Y of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) – course of conduct principle – totality principle – general and specific deterrence – penalties imposed
Administrative
Singh v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] FCA 1596
COLLIER ACJ, 30 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike out parts of amended statement of claim – alternative application for partial summary dismissal – negligence and breach of statutory duty – whether claims disclose no reasonable cause of action – principles applicable to strike out and summary dismissal – caution in exercise of summary powers – claim not shown to disclose no reasonable cause of action – application dismissed NEGLIGENCE – police officers – alleged duty of care owed to person under investigation – existence and scope of alleged duty dependent upon factual findings BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) – Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) – whether statutory scheme discloses intention to confer private right of action – existing authority not binding – competing statutory constructions
Employment
Henderson v Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd (Legal Professional Privilege) [2026] FCA 1632
JACKMAN J, 30 Oct 2026
PRIVILEGE – whether claims for legal professional privilege over certain documents are established – where evidence and inspection of documents shows that they were created for the sole or dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice – where documents created by internal legal team created in a professional capacity and with sufficient independence from employer to attract privilege – where unsent drafts created for dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice – where documents were confidential when created and remained confidential PRIVILEGE – whether legal professional privilege over certain documents was waived – where arguments advanced about state of mind of parties – where content of documents themselves not put in issue – insufficient to lay open the documents to scrutiny
Administrative
Majak v State of Victoria (No 2) [2026] FCA 1634
O'SULLIVAN J, 29 Oct 2026
COSTS — indemnity costs — application for different costs orders following summary dismissal of proceedings — where applicant seeks no order as to costs or, alternatively, costs on a party and party basis — principles governing award of indemnity costs — whether the circumstances of the proceedings justified departure from the ordinary rule as to costs — whether the applicant’s status as a self-represented litigant militated against an award of indemnity costs — where proceedings were found to have no prospects of success and to constitute an abuse of process — where applicant contends proceedings raised genuine constitutional questions and were not commenced dishonestly, recklessly or for an improper purpose — whether the absence of dishonesty, improper purpose or litigation misconduct rendered an award of indemnity costs inappropriate — where proceedings against State related to matters the subject of extensive prior litigation — where proceedings against Commonwealth sought to re-agitate issue of applicant’s bankruptcy which had previously been litigated and determined — where applicant had been informed prior to hearing of deficiencies in proceeding against Commonwealth and given opportunity to discontinue without an order as to costs — whether the applicant’s submissions justified a different costs order — application refused
Commercial
Hudson Global Investments Pty Ltd v Elkerton [2026] FCA 1577
MOORE J, 29 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave for non-lawyer to represent plaintiff corporation – where purpose of proceeding is to benefit a third party, being the sole shareholder of the plaintiff – where proposed representative has a conflict – whether leave for sole director and shareholder to appear on behalf of plaintiff company should be granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by defendant liquidator for security – where impecunious corporate plaintiff has not established that the proceeding will be stultified – where proceeding is for the benefit of a third party – whether security for costs should be granted – quantification of security
Taxation
AusNet Services Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCA 1609
MOSHINSKY J, 29 Oct 2026
TAXATION – goods and services tax – decreasing adjustments – where the applicant was the head of a GST group that included an electricity distributor (AES) – where AES supplies connection services and supply services – where AES required by regulatory regime to comply with Guaranteed Service Levels – where AES required to make Guaranteed Service Level payments (GSL Payments) if it failed to meet Guaranteed Service Levels – where the applicant contended that the GSL Payments gave rise to decreasing adjustments under Div 19 or Div 134 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) – whether the relevant services were supplied by AES directly to customers or by AES to the retailer and by the retailer to the customers – whether the GSL Payments gave rise to decreasing adjustments
Commercial
Barnden (Trustee) v Ross, in the matter of Chami (Bankrupt) (substituted service) [2026] FCA 1633
CHEESEMAN J, 29 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – substituted service on corporate respondent – no point of principle – attempts at registered office unsuccessful – director said to reside overseas – caveat identifies solicitor and provides solicitor’s office as address for service – extension of time to file statement of claim. Held: substituted service orders made – time for filing statement of claim extended.
Other
Gussen v Momentum Media Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1618
ANDERSON J, 29 Oct 2026
DEFAMATION – applicant alleges articles conveyed numerous defamatory imputations – whether imputations conveyed – whether any imputations defamatory – whether applicant has established serious harm – where no direct evidence of serious harm – where evidence does not allow for inference of serious harm – respondents established defence of fair summary of a public document – application dismissed.
Administrative
Saywell v Comcare (No 2) [2026] FCA 1614
ANDERSON J, 29 Oct 2026
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for extension of time – application to amend proposed notice of appeal – leave granted to rely on proposed amended notice of appeal – appeal from the Administrative Review Tribunal – application for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) – documents claimed to be exempt on the ground of legal professional privilege – no obligation to provide edited copies under s 22 – applicant makes allegations concerning Comcare’s conduct before the Tribunal – applicant attempts to raise contempt allegations – no question of law raised in the proposed amended notice of appeal – proposed appeal lacks merit – application dismissed.
Commercial
Marlton Investments Pty Ltd v Villawood Management Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1613
O'CALLAGHAN J, 29 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to file statement of claim in oppression proceeding – where parties agree pleadings necessary – where respondent opposed inclusion of particular paragraphs of proposed statement of claim
