Browse Federal Court Judgments

Administrative Law
Avati v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2026] FCA 1597
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – where TAFE NSW refused to re-credit the applicant’s HELP balance after he withdrew from a course – where the applicant applied to review that decision in the Administrative Review Tribunal nearly five years later – where his application for an extension of time under s 19(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) was refused – appeal to the Court under s 172 – whether the appeal grounds identify or raise questions of law – whether the Tribunal treated the duration of the delay as effectively determinative – to what extent the Tribunal can take into account the merits of the underlying application for review – whether the Tribunal afforded the applicant procedural fairness
STEWART J - 27 Oct 2026

Migration
Roseingrave v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1602
MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision of Administrative Review Tribunal – non-revocation of visa cancellation – where Tribunal bound by Ministerial Direction 110 issued under s 499 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether Tribunal erred by failing to engage adequately with representations concerning impact of non-revocation decision on applicant’s wife and son – whether Tribunal erred by failing to adequately engage with applicant’s asserted ties to people of Torres Strait – decision of Tribunal set aside
MCDONALD J - 27 Oct 2026

Migration
EEN25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1600
MIGRATION – application for leave to appeal from decision of Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dismissing application for review of registrar’s decision to summarily dismiss application for judicial review of decision of Administrative Review Tribunal – where Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to review decision of delegate of first respondent because application for review lodged outside prescribed period – where delegate refused to grant protection visa – application for leave to appeal dismissed
MCDONALD J - 27 Oct 2026

Corporations Law
Nano v Sound Advice Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1608
CORPORATIONS – application by one of two company directors for appointment of provisional liquidator pursuant to s 472(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – breakdown of relationship between the two company directors – question as to present ability of company to acquit current liabilities – plaintiff has reasonable prospect of obtaining a winding up order in respect of the company on just and equitable grounds – good reason for intervention prior to final hearing of winding up application – application granted
YOUNAN J - 27 Oct 2026

Practice and Procedure
Australian Property Scout Pty Ltd v Titus [2026] FCA 1610
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for orders under Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) pt VAA – Orders as to confidentiality of certain affidavit evidence and annexures – Where orders proposed by consent – Orders appropriate to be made – Public interest in open justice served by publication of short reasons – Orders made.
SNADEN J - 27 Oct 2026

Costs
Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd v Arrotex Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (Interlocutory Costs) [2026] FCA 1611
COSTS – costs of interlocutory application by non-parties – where application withdrawn in the course of oral argument – where non-parties acted unreasonably in commencing and pursuing interlocutory application
JACKMAN J - 27 Oct 2026

Practice and Procedure
Comcare v Zakman [2026] FCA 1603
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal – appeal allowed by consent
GOODMAN J - 27 Oct 2026

Copyright
Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 122
COPYRIGHT – infringement – reproduction of a substantial part – source code for firmware in digital mobile radios – whether firmware imported into Australia, and made available for download, was an adaptation of a substantial part of the respondent's works – whether the totality of the source code copied by the appellants was a substantial part of each copyright work – substantial part assessed by reference to the originality of the code copied, including the structure of the code and the choice and sequencing of commands – whether copied code lacked originality as derived from antecedent works – relevance of function, header files, architecture and quantity – relevance of an animus furandi (intention to copy) – substantial part established
BEACH, O'BRYAN AND ROFE JJ - 7 Sep 2026

Practice and Procedure
Hamid v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2026] FCA 1587
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to competency under r 31.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where application is for judicial review of decision by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority – whether impugned decision susceptible to judicial review – whether applicant should be granted leave to reconstitute proceeding into competent form – proceeding dismissed
MOORE J - 26 Oct 2026

Costs
Grigorovich v Morgan Environmental Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1601
COSTS – application for transfer of proceeding from Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) dismissed – whether proceeding in relation to a matter arising under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether proceeding instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause – whether unreasonable act caused costs to be incurred
FEUTRILL J - 26 Oct 2026

Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Hurst-Meyers v Hoy (No 2) [2026] FCA 1598
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – application made almost two years after entry to vary final costs orders made on an appeal from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – Court functus officio subject to any power conferred by statute or the Rules and the limited recognised exceptions – whether power available under r 39.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – orders accurately reflected the Court’s intention – no clerical error, accidental slip or omission – substantive variation sought – variation unnecessary – substantial and unexplained delay – application inconsistent with the principle of finality. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – determination on the papers – request by appellant for an opportunity to respond – where respondent did not seek hearing – where proposed disposition not adverse to appellant – where matters identified by appellant did not bear upon basis of dismissal – hearing and further submissions unnecessary – further cost and delay would serve no useful forensic purpose – overarching purpose in ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Held: application dismissed.
CHEESEMAN J - 26 Oct 2026

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Wanambi v Wanambi [2026] FCA 1591
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLES – application for leave to appeal from decision of primary judge that provisions of the Burial and Cremation Act 2022 (NT) and the Administration and Probate Act 1969 (NT) do not engage s 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) in so far as those provisions apply to the burial of a deceased Aboriginal man from the Marraŋu people – interaction of Territory legislative burial provisions with the traditional laws and customs of the Marraŋu people – whether primary judge misdescribed the relevant right – whether primary judge mischaracterised Territory burial provisions or placed too much weight on their apparent racial neutrality – insufficient doubt as to correctness of primary judgment – no substantial injustice supposing primary judgment to be wrong – application dismissed – proceeding dismissed
JACKSON J - 23 Oct 2026

Migration
Fred-Tutavaha v Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1586
MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision by the Respondent under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether consideration of ground 1 should be deferred until after High Court appeal is heard that raises the same issue – whether any jurisdictional error in Assistant Minister’s consideration of the legal consequences of the decision – whether Assistant Minister’s assessment of what was required in the “national interest” was legally unreasonable – consideration of ground 1 is deferred, but other grounds rejected
HILL J - 26 Oct 2026

Migration
TVVT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1595
MIGRATION – where Assistant Minister conceded jurisdictional error in decision made under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – orders including that writ of certiorari should issue sought by consent – orders made
BENNETT J - 23 Oct 2026

Practice and Procedure
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
NEEDHAM J - 29 Sep 2026

Representative Proceedings
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
YOUNAN J - 23 Oct 2026

Practice and Procedure
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
WHEATLEY J - 22 Oct 2026

Practice and Procedure
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.
WHEATLEY J - 8 Sep 2026

Costs
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
NEEDHAM J - 23 Oct 2026

Industrial Law
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 remo
NEEDHAM J - 23 Oct 2026