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.
Administrative
ETS19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1434
LENEHAN J, 6 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) – whether the primary judge was correct to find that the Tribunal decision was not affected by jurisdictional error – no issue of principle – no error of law established – appeal dismissed with costs
Administrative
Parmar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1433
LENEHAN J, 6 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) – whether the primary judge was correct to find that the Tribunal decision was not affected by jurisdictional error – where Tribunal made its decision without hearing from the appellant after he did not reply to a request for information by the Tribunal’s deadline – no issue of principle – no error of law established – appeal dismissed with costs
Commercial
PlayWest Pty Ltd v Apple Inc [2026] FCA 1464
COLVIN J, 17 Sep 2026
CORPORATIONS – application for urgent interlocutory injunction restraining first defendant from terminating agreements with plaintiffs and restoring PlayWest App to App store – where plaintiff stands to incur significant loss from removal of App – where plaintiffs claim App being removed from App store and termination was breach of agreements – where plaintiffs claim in the alternative that provisions in agreements allowing for termination in the manner complained of are unfair contract terms contrary to s 23(2C) of the Australian Consumer Law or is unconscionable conduct for the purposes of s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law – consideration of principles where relief sought is a mandatory injunction – held that serious question to be tried as first defendant did not provide basis for termination and inequality in bargaining positions is obvious and extreme – balance of convenience in favour of granting injunction as damages unlikely to be an adequate remedy and no possible harm to defendants identified – application allowed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for retrospective leave for service outside of Australia pursuant to r 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where first defendant is a United States entity – where notification to first defendant incorrectly referred to leave having been obtained – retrospective leave denied – order for plaintiffs' solicitors to provide documents by email on request of first defendant
Commercial
Sech Finance Pty Limited v RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited (Initial Trial) [2026] FCA 1458
LEE J, 6 Oct 2026
CONTRACTS – mortgage broking franchise for five-year term – authorised credit representative arrangements – revocation of authorised credit representative arrangements followed by notice of proposed termination of franchise agreement – contractual provisions governing revocation and proposed termination – interaction between contractual powers and statutory power of revocation under s 68 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) CONTRACTS – express contractual obligation to deal in good faith – obligation under Franchising Code of Conduct – content of obligation of good faith in exercise of contractual powers and discretions – franchisor entitled to have substantial regard to recommendation and assessment of related credit provider – relevant powers conferred upon franchisor – whether franchisor genuinely exercised its own powers – decision-maker identified deficiency in information supporting recommendation – Westpac advised that all information it considered itself able to share had been provided – evaluative process completed while identified deficiency remained unresolved – absence of meaningful opportunity to address substance of accumulated case relevant to character of exercise – breach of obligation of good faith established CONSUMER LAW – Franchising Code of Conduct – statutory obligation of good faith – unconscionable conduct – whether conduct constituting breach of good faith also unconscionable – unconscionability not established – implied obligation of co-operation – no additional conclusion arising from implied obligation BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS – consumer credit – National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) – authorised credit representatives – relationship between credit provider, credit licensee and authorised credit representatives – heightened review of loan applications by credit provider – genuine regulatory and commercial concerns – restrictions upon disclosure of information under Anti-M
Employment
Colgrave v TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 1462
HORAN J, 5 Oct 2026
COSTS – application for indemnity costs – where applicant succeeded on appeal from decision of Administrative Review Tribunal – whether respondent persisted in hopeless case – where applicant made offer to compromise under Pt 25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) prior to hearing of appeal – where applicant obtained more favourable judgment – where applicant entitled to indemnity costs from second business day after service of offer – where no reason not to order indemnity costs under r 25.14(3) – whether costs orders should be stayed pending foreshadowed appeal
Administrative
AVG26 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1457
WHEELAHAN J, 5 Oct 2026
MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the applicant’s protection visa – whether the Tribunal misapplied Direction No 110 by failing to consider the applicant’s removal to Naoero as a legal consequence of its decision – the Tribunal erred jurisdictionally by curtailing its consideration of the applicant’s removal to Naoero on the basis that it was not a direct and immediate consequence of the decision – whether the Tribunal misapplied Direction No 110 by reasoning that it need not consider the impediments that the applicant would encounter if removed to his home country because of a protection finding preventing his removal – the Tribunal erred by not considering the impediments that the applicant would encounter in the hypothetical scenario that he were removed to his home country – the error was not material because removal was not in prospect and would in any case have been given neutral weight – whether the Tribunal misapplied Direction No 110 by conflating consideration of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s previous conduct and the risk of further offending – no error in the Tribunal’s consideration of the potential risk of harm caused by prior conduct – whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal did not indicate that it disbelieved the applicant’s evidence – no error in the Tribunal’s approach as it was not required to indicate its assessment of the evidence and inconsistencies in the evidence were put to the applicant – whether the Tribunal’s reasons created an apprehension of bias – no apprehension of bias in the Tribunal testing the evidence and deciding matters adversely to the applicant
Commercial
Ziebarth v Nayaned [2026] FCA 1459
COLVIN J, 24 Sep 2026
CORPORATIONS – application for urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain first defendant from dealing with its assets or selling its business – where plaintiff claims to be a director and shareholder of first defendant – where plaintiff claims any dealing with the assets of the first defendant and sale of the business not properly authorised – where plaintiff claims there has been 'unwarranted oppression' of his interests as a shareholder – where injunction may result in adverse consequences to a third party – held that serious case to be tried as to whether plaintiff was irregularly removed as director, sale was properly authorised and proceeds from sale would be distributed in proportions which reflect true shareholding of company – balance of convenience in favour of granting injunction of short duration – application allowed
Administrative
HXHS, by his litigation representative LOT26 v National Disability Insurance Agency [2026] FCA 1455
MEAGHER J, 2 Oct 2026
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – application to review National Disability Insurance Scheme’s implementation of decision of Administrative Review Tribunal regarding applicant’s statement of participant supports – where National Disability Insurance Scheme admitted delay in implementation – whether decision of Administrative Review Tribunal implemented – application for judicial review dismissed EVIDENCE – where applicant sought leave to rely on further affidavit – where respondent objected to applicant’s reliance on further affidavit on the basis that contents not relevant – ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether contents of affidavit could rationally affect assessment of probability of a fact in issue – where proceeding concerned whether respondent had failed to implement decision of Administrative Review Tribunal – leave to rely on further affidavit refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by respondent for summary dismissal of applicant’s claim – s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting claim – summary judgment granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory applications for relief arising from respondent’s purported failure to implement decision of Administrative Review Tribunal – whether Court had jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunctions – whether prima facie case established – whether balance of convenience favoured grant of interlocutory injunction – interlocutory applications dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for suppression and non-publication orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where parties consented in principle to the making of a pseudonym order on the ground stated in s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where pseudonym order sought to protect identity of child and mother – whether order necessary to pre
Intellectual property
Bickford’s Australia Pty Ltd v Noot Drinks Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1456
O'SULLIVAN J, 29 Sep 2026
EVIDENCE — ADMISSIBILITY — objection by applicant to the proposed tender of two expert reports — whether the expert reports are admissible pursuant to s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) — where the author of the reports possesses relevant expertise — where first expert report reveals the opinions of the expert and the basis for those opinions in a manner sufficient to enable the Court and the applicant to determine that the opinions of the expert are based on the experience and observations of the expert applied to known or assumed facts — s 219 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) applied — objection to first expert report overruled — where a statement included in the second expert report does not sufficiently identify material relied upon in support of the opinions expressed — where second expert report otherwise reveals the opinions of the expert and the basis for those opinions in a manner sufficient to enable the Court and the applicant to determine that the opinions of the expert are based on the experience and observations of the expert applied to known or assumed facts — s 219 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) applied — objection to second expert report overruled, save for one paragraph which is not admitted into evidence
