Federal Court of Australia Judgments

• Banerjee (Liquidator), in the matter of Eastside Formwork Pty Ltd (in liq) v Stojic (Application for Freezing Order) [2026] FCA 1594
  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by plaintiffs for freezing order – defendants seek to appeal from trial judgment and to refinance loan over property to enable legal fees to be paid – consideration of risks between undertaking given by defendants and freezing order – undertaking to be given in lieu of making order
• KTM24 v Rio Tinto Limited (Strike Out) [2026] FCA 1579
  REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – strike out application – whether applicants have standing to bring representative proceedings under s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) – whether group members are required to be “persons aggrieved” by the alleged acts, omissions or practices – whether group member definition exceeds scope of s 46PO(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act – whether claims of group members are in respect of, or arise out of, the same, similar or related circumstances for the purposes of s 33C(1)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – application dismissed REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – amendment of group member definition pursuant to s 33K of the Federal Court of Australia Act – whether description of group members certain for the purposes of s 33H(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act – application allowed HUMAN RIGHTS – strike out application – whether the applicants’ personal claim exceeds the scope of the terminated complaint before the Australian Human Rights Commission for the purposes s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act – whether claim not accepted by the Commission forms part of the “terminated complaint” – struck out in part PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – strike out application pursuant to r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether pleas supported by material facts – struck out in part
• Storey, in the matter of Britton v Britton (No 3) [2026] FCA 1593
  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application for an adjournment — Where adjournment previously granted — Provision of medical certificate — Potential question of competency — Whether evidence sufficient to warrant grant of adjournment — Prejudice to other side if adjournment granted — Effect of adjournment on court resources — Adjournment refused
• Storey, in the matter of Britton v Britton (No 2) [2026] FCA 1592
  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application for an adjournment — Consideration of principles of bankruptcy jurisdiction — Human impact of sequestration order —Where Respondents submitted they were solvent — Adjournment allowed.
• Williams v Albarran (Costs) [2026] FCA 1584
  COSTS – application to vary previous interlocutory costs order – where costs were ordered as the respondents’ costs in the cause – application by respondents to vary the order to include an order that their disbursements be payable by lump sum and within 28 days – whether the Court has jurisdiction to vary the order under r 40.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), or further or alternatively r 39.05(c) – whether the respondents are “entitled to costs” within the meaning of r 40.02 – respondents’ entitlement to costs conditional on them obtaining a general costs order in the substantive proceeding, which has not occurred – respondents not “entitled to costs” – jurisdiction enlivened under r 39.05(c) of the Rules – where the parties were not heard on costs at the interlocutory hearing or judgment delivery – whether Court should exercise discretion to vary the costs order – both parties enjoyed a measure of success – the previous costs order reflects the impression of those successes – no compelling reason to exercise the Court’s discretion to vary the order in the manner sought by the respondents – application dismissed with costs
• Gavin v Svitzer Australia Pty Ltd (Relief) [2026] FCA 1582
  INDUSTRIAL LAW – employment – question of relief – where applicant seeks reinstatement, compensation for economic and non-economic loss to the date of reinstatement, and a further amount for aggravated (or general) damages and interest, or, alternatively, compensation for past and future economic loss, a further amount for aggravated damages and interest, and a civil penalty INDUSTRIAL LAW – employment – reinstatement – where applicant seeks a position involving the same or similar duties and responsibilities to that held previously, with the same remuneration, location, and grade – the prima facie position favours reinstatement unless there are good reasons why an employee should not be reinstated – reinstatement not possible due to a restructure – there is no position into which the applicant can be reinstated – to re-create a role in the business which no longer meets the business’ operational requirements would impose a significant burden on the respondent – no order for reinstatement INDUSTRIAL LAW – employment – compensation for past and future economic loss – where, but for the “snap decision” to make the applicant redundant, the parties would most likely have reached a mutually acceptable solution and the applicant would have remained employed at the respondent – where the applicant sought to mitigate his loss – compensation for past and future economic loss awarded INDUSTRIAL LAW – employment – aggravated (or general) damages – where the decision to make the applicant redundant had a real effect of harm – aggravated (or general) damages awarded reflecting the applicant’s hurt and embarrassment, and the fact that the respondent’s contravention arose out of one decision INDUSTRIAL LAW – employment – civil penalty – where the respondent is a large and well-resourced organisation – where the contravention involved senior management, was significant and reckless, and had a serious impact on the applicant – where there was a lack of remorse and systemic or cultural change in processes – civil penalty to be imposed
• Boi v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1576
  REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – application for approval of a settlement pursuant to s 33V(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – claims by current and former employees for unpaid work in contravention of s 50 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – parallel penalty proceeding by union raising common issue – settlement of both proceedings considered as single proposal – union’s costs of funding met by settlement of penalty proceeding – respondent appointed scheme administrator – whether settlement fair and reasonable in the interests of group members – no deduction for funder commission or legal costs – settlement approved
• Fotu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1589
  MIGRATION – judicial review – mandatory cancellation of visa overturned by Administrative Review Tribunal –Minister exercised power under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to overturn Tribunal decision and cancel visa – national interest – where Tribunal in assessing risk of reoffending addressed youth of the applicant at time of offending and increased maturity over time – where Minister engaged with Tribunal’s reasons – whether Minister’s reasoning and dismissal of Tribunal’s approach to risk of reoffending was illogical and revealed jurisdictional error – whether Minister failed to make necessary findings in relation to interests of minor nephews, nieces and cousins – whether Minister failed to consider the legal consequences of his decision that the applicant would be taken from the community and placed in immigration detention pending removal – decision set aside
• Vanu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1581
  MIGRATION – application for urgent interlocutory injunction to prevent the applicant’s removal from Australia to New Zealand – where Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed decision not to revoke cancellation of applicant’s visa – where applicant applied for extension of time to seek judicial review of Tribunal’s decision – whether serious question to be tried – whether balance of convenience favoured grant of injunction – application refused.
• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (No 22) [2026] FCA 1543
  CORPORATIONS – application by Court appointed Receivers for fixing remuneration and interim payment of remuneration pending determination by a Registrar – fixing of an appropriate percentage for interim payment – whether interim payment is subject to appropriate safeguards
• Sijabat (Liquidator) v Avance Urban Pty Limited, in the matter of Avance Urban Pty Limited (In Liquidation) [2026] FCA 1590
  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) by recipients of summonses for examination and orders for production by liquidator, to set aside or stay summonses and orders for production – whether applicants have standing – where applicants not party to the proceedings before the Registrar – no standing under s 35A(5) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under r 39.05(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and r 11.5 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) by recipients of summonses for examination and orders for production by liquidator, to set aside or stay summonses and orders for production – where no evidence of liquidator having improper purpose in seeking examination or production – refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for directions pursuant to s 596F of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) limiting the area of questioning that may be pursued in the examinations – where any concerns about particular lines of questioning can be addressed by the Registrar conducting the examination – refused
• Blue Dragon Pty Ltd v Huang (No 2) [2026] FCA 1588
  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – redaction of bank statements – where orders of court require discovery of bank statements showing payments received or made for a specific limited purpose – where previous order of court does not contain a qualification allowing redaction – clarifying order made
• US1 Critical Minerals Limited (Formerly Gladiator Resources Limited) v Price (No 2) [2026] FCA 1583
  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE– application for interim injunction – where prima facie case for misleading and deceptive conduct and injurious falsehood – whether injunction should be issued – whether applicant established the basis for an injunction in the terms of the order sought
• AVH24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1585
  MIGRATION – application for an extension of time to appeal decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – r 36.74 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – no appearance by applicant – application dismissed
• McCabe v Mosaic Brands Limited, in the matter of Mosaic Brands Limited (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2026] FCA 1569
  PRIVILEGE – legal professional privilege – claim of legal professional privilege by current and/or former directors of Mosaic Brands Limited and its subsidiaries (together, Mosaic Companies) – whether advice relating to the safe harbour provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (safe harbour advice) is subject to a claim for privilege by the directors of the Mosaic Companies exclusively, or alternatively subject to joint or common-interest privilege of the directors and the Mosaic Companies – held the directors had exclusive privilege over the safe harbour advice PRIVILEGE – waiver of privilege – whether the directors acted inconsistently with the maintenance of confidentiality of the safe harbour advice by providing the advice to administrators of the Mosaic Companies – whether the production of the safe harbour advice was “compelled” under the Corporations Act – whether the inclusion of the safe harbour advice in the board minutes of Mosaic amounted to a waiver – held the directors waived privilege in the safe harbour advice