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.
Taxation
Carbery v Fire Rescue Victoria [2026] FCA 1488
MCELWAINE J, 8 Oct 2026
TAXATION – Fringe Benefits Tax – contributions reimbursed for firefighters who are members of a scheme which provides for income protection and other benefits – common issue in three proceedings – separate question determination as to the taxable value of external expense payments fringe benefits pursuant to ss 23 and 24 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth) – application of the otherwise deductible rule – approach to apportionment of contributions – held apportionment reasonable and taxable value question answered accordingly
Other
Knight v Corrections Victoria (ex parte leave to institute proceeding) [2026] FCA 1484
HILL J, 8 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether leave should be granted under Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.27A to permit an unrepresented litigant to file an originating application to bring representative proceedings and supporting affidavit – where unrepresented litigant cannot represent another person without leave, and leave is almost invariably refused – whether unlikelihood of leave being granted for Applicant to represent other persons is reason to refuse leave to file the originating application – leave granted to file documents
Administrative
RSZN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1467
ANDERSON J, 8 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – application under s 476A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) to quash a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal – whether there are serious reasons for considering that the applicant has committed crimes against humanity as referred to in s 36(2C)(a)(i) of the Act and is thereby excluded from refugee protection – whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by misunderstanding or misapplying the law – jurisdictional error established. CRIMINAL LAW – human rights – public international law – Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court –crime against humanity of persecution – accessorial criminal responsibility of aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime against humanity or a war crime – criminal responsibility for contributing to the commission of a crime against humanity by a group of persons acting with a common purpose.
Administrative
Daniel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1480
SARAH C DERRINGTON J, 8 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – application for review of refusal to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – Ministerial Direction 110 – whether Tribunal misconstrued paragraph 5.2(6) of the Direction concerning the tolerance principle – whether any error material – whether Tribunal’s reasoning illogical or irrational – application dismissed with costs
Commercial
Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia v Mensink (Contempt) [2026] FCA 1470
RANGIAH J, 8 Oct 2026
CONTEMPT OF COURT – where respondent charged with contempt of court for failing to comply with amended summons for examination issued under s 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where respondent is former director of company in liquidation which had its examinable affairs publicly examined – where Registrar conceded that Charge 1 should be dismissed – whether Charge 2 established beyond reasonable doubt – whether any reasonable excuse for failing to comply – respondent found to be in contempt of court – penalty to be determined EVIDENCE – whether two affidavits that purported to be sworn or affirmed by respondent were admissible as containing evidence of admissions – whether authenticity of affidavits must be proved at admissibility stage – affidavits admissible
Administrative
Nareddula v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1485
BENNETT J, 8 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – application for extension of time and leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – where application for review of decision by Administrative Appeals Tribunal was summarily dismissed – where proposed grounds of appeal lack merit – application dismissed
Commercial
Amal Security Services Pty Limited (Trustee) v The APF Custody Company Pty Ltd, in the matter of The APF Custody Company Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1486
JACKMAN J, 8 Oct 2026
CORPORATIONS – application to fix a later time for registration of security interests under s 588FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where security was not registered on the PPSR within 20 business days due to inadvertence – Court’s discretion under s 588FM enlivened – where registration made almost immediately upon notification of oversight – where interests of potentially affected parties are sufficiently protected – where respondent does not object to relief sought – discretion exercised in favour of plaintiff to fix later time
Employment
Safarimaznabi v Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2026] FCA 1479
SARAH C DERRINGTON J, 8 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under rr 39.04 and 39.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to vary or set aside costs order – where costs order made against applicant in respect of respondents’ strike out applications – where there was a failure to make submissions on unreasonableness of applicant’s conduct in a “no costs” jurisdiction – costs order set aside COSTS – whistleblower protection claims under Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and claims under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether applicant’s conduct leading to the filing of strike out applications was unreasonable – costs order made
Employment
Grofski v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] FCA 1478
SARAH C DERRINGTON J, 8 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications to strike out applicant’s further amended statement of claim (FASOC) – where applicant is self-represented – where FASOC is dense, repetitious, and pleads voluminous amounts of evidence – where extensive cross-referencing renders pleading confusing and incapable of meaningful response – where material facts not adequately pleaded – whether applicant should be granted leave to replead – where FASOC is sixth iteration of pleading – applications allowed; leave to replead refused
Administrative
Cristobal Fida v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1471
RAPER J, 8 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – application to review the decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal which affirmed the decision made by the delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a working holiday visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal took into account irrelevant matters – whether the Tribunal misapplied or misinterpreted Direction 110 by considering whether the applicant would be able to satisfy the substantive visa eligibility criteria rather than whether and how the duration or purpose of his intended stay affected the risk of harm to the Australian community – whether the Tribunal failed to understand and address the applicant’s claims concerning how a decision affirming the refusal would have an effect on the best interests of a minor child – whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant matters when considering the best interests of a minor child – whether the Tribunal relied upon unfounded factual assumptions, speculation and irrelevant matters when analysing the issue of the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia – Application allowed
Administrative
FGS20 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1476
BROMWICH J, 29 Jul 2026
MIGRATION – where applicant made ministerial intervention request pursuant to ss 46A and 46B of the Migration Act 1958 – duty of Secretary to bring ministerial intervention request to attention of the Minister – where applicant had sent ministerial intervention request directly to Minister – no duty to advise of request already directly communicated by the applicant to the Minister – application for declaration dismissed with costs
Commercial
Gaszewski v Harrison, in the matter of Kazmierczak (Bankrupt) [2026] FCA 1465
JACKSON J, 7 Oct 2026
BANKRUPTCY – review of decision of trustee to reject proof of debt – insufficient evidence provided in proof of debt claim – debt statute barred under s 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) or s 13(1) of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA) – no proper foundation for request for payment under the principle in Ex parte James (1874) LR 9 Ch App 609 – application dismissed
Employment
Haywood v Comcare [2026] FCA 1483
HESPE J, 7 Oct 2026
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant seeks to appeal the refusal of an extension of time to commence proceedings – where the combined effect of s 24(1AA)(a) and s 20(3)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is that the applicant has no right of appeal – appeal dismissed
Commercial
White Oak Commercial Finance Europe (Non-Levered) Ltd v Insurance Australia Ltd (Japanese Privilege) [2026] FCA 1475
THAWLEY J, 7 Oct 2026
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – statutory interpretation – where the applicant (White Oak) sought an order that certain respondents (BCC/TM) produce an unredacted copy of a report prepared by a Japanese law firm – where BCC/TM claimed the report was subject to legal professional privilege – where no doctrine of legal professional privilege exists in Japan – whether the existence of the privilege is governed by Japanese law or Australian law – where no choice of law issue arose – where the question of the applicable law was resolved by construing r 20.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which exempted from production discovered documents subject to “privilege” – held: r 20.02 refers to privilege according to Australian law PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – choice of law – whether, if a choice of law issue did arise, the lex causae was Japanese law or Australian law – where legal professional privilege is a principle of substantive law but is not a right enforceable by a cause of action – where the claim for privilege arose in the context of Australian litigation and Australian discovery orders – where a long line of authorities has held that questions of privilege are governed by the lex fori – held: if a choice of law issue arose, the lex causae of the existence of the privilege was Australian law PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – legal professional privilege – whether the report was privileged under Australian law – whether Australian law recognises privilege where the jurisdiction in which the advice was given has no doctrine of privilege – where Japanese law respects the confidentiality of legal advice – where Japanese civil procedure contains no general discovery process and protects specified categories of documents from compulsory production – where the policy behind legal professional privilege in Australian law supported maintaining the confidentiality of the report – held: Australian law could recognise legal professional privilege where no equivalent doctrine of
Commercial
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1472
ANDERSON J, 6 Oct 2026
CORPORATIONS – previous interim ex parte freezing and travel restraint orders – investment scheme under investigation by Australian Securities and Investments Commission – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1323 – interim orders continued – orders made appointing receivers and managers to protect against dissipation of assets and enable ascertainment of true financial position of companies.
Commercial
Hammer Metals Limited, in the matter of Hammer Metals Limited [2026] FCA 1466
JACKSON J, 2 Oct 2026
CORPORATIONS – scheme of arrangement – first hearing to convene meeting of members pursuant to s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – proposal for acquisition of 100% of shares in plaintiff in exchange for shares in bidder – proposed concurrent demerger of Western Australian gold assets from plaintiff – demerger conducted by way of capital reduction and not scheme – expert report concludes scheme is fair and reasonable and in best interests of shareholders in absence of a superior offer – orders made to convene meeting of shareholders to consider scheme
Administrative
LFDB v SM (Costs) [2026] FCA 1473
JACKMAN J, 7 Oct 2026
COSTS – whether costs should be ordered on indemnity basis – where applicant should have known that the application had no prospect of success – where applicant’s conduct in seeking to join respondent’s solicitors as party to proceedings unnecessarily added to respondents costs – quantum of indemnity costs – where respondent’s solicitor has provided affidavit containing sufficient material to enable a broad-brush estimate – whether costs should be payable immediately – where proceeding appears to be finished – where order for payment immediately will ensure fairness and certainty
Native title
Stanbroke Pty Ltd v State Minister for the State of Queensland [2026] FCA 1468
MOSHINSKY J, 30 Sep 2026
NATIVE TITLE – non-claimant application for determination that native title does not exist in respect of an area – where no native title determination covering the area – where no claimant application currently registered in respect of the area – where previous applications in respect of the area withdrawn or discontinued – where the relevant native title representative body did not appear to oppose the application – where no other person appeared to oppose the application despite public notification process – where evidence regarding use and recent history of the area consistent with native title not existing – determination made
Commercial
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Keystone Asset Management Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) (No 6) [2026] FCA 1463
MOSHINSKY J, 29 Sep 2026
CORPORATIONS – external administration – where receivers and managers appointed – where company in liquidation – where receivers and managers and liquidators sought judicial advice relating to an interim distribution of funds to unitholders – where unitholders either supported or did not oppose the interim distribution – where interim distribution designed to alleviate hardship to underlying unitholders – judicial advice given
Administrative
Hameed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1469
BROMWICH J, 17 Aug 2026
MIGRATION – application for an extension of time and leave to appeal from Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) – where applicant did not attend hearing – where first respondent applied for dismissal of application under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – HELD: application for an extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed
