Browse Federal Court Judgments

Migration
Hameed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1469
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
BROMWICH J - 17 Aug 2026

Migration
ETS19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1434
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
LENEHAN J - 6 Oct 2026

Migration
Parmar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1433
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
LENEHAN J - 6 Oct 2026

Corporations Law
PlayWest Pty Ltd v Apple Inc [2026] FCA 1464
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
COLVIN J - 17 Sep 2026

Contracts
Sech Finance Pty Limited v RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited (Initial Trial) [2026] FCA 1458
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
LEE J - 6 Oct 2026

Costs
Colgrave v TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 1462
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
HORAN J - 5 Oct 2026

Migration
AVG26 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1457
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
WHEELAHAN J - 5 Oct 2026

Corporations Law
Ziebarth v Nayaned [2026] FCA 1459
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
COLVIN J - 24 Sep 2026

Administrative Law
HXHS, by his litigation representative LOT26 v National Disability Insurance Agency [2026] FCA 1455
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
MEAGHER J - 2 Oct 2026

Evidence
Bickford’s Australia Pty Ltd v Noot Drinks Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1456
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
O'SULLIVAN J - 29 Sep 2026

Industrial Law
Alexiou v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2026] FCA 1373
INDUSTRIAL LAW – adverse action – where events occurred against backdrop of a regulatory investigation into rigging of the bank bill swap rate – where applicant had been stood down, his standing down had been reported by the press, his employment was terminated and his bonuses clawed back or forfeited – where action alleged to have been taken because applicant made complaints including whistleblowing disclosures – whether reverse onus under s 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was discharged – whether s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) had been contravened CORPORATIONS – whistleblower protections – banking and financial institutions – where alleged disclosures were made about the rate setting process to the respondent and the regulator – where applicant alleged that he was caused detriment because he had made disclosures – whether the whistleblower protections in Pt 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and/or Pt VIA Div 1 of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) had been contravened CONTRACT – employment contract – where deferred bonuses were clawed back or forfeited on termination of employment – where contract required consideration of whether grant of bonus was not justified in light of information that had come to light after the grant – whether clawback was in breach of contract EQUITY – where dismissal and clawback of bonus purportedly for applicant’s inappropriate language in chat messages in breach of workplace policies – where alleged representation that workplace policies would not be enforced – where alleged toxic workplace culture – whether promissory estoppel established – whether waiver, unconscionability or election established DAMAGES – where applicant claimed past and future economic loss – where remuneration included performance-based incentives and grant of deferred equity – where applicant claimed non-economic loss being stress and harm to reputation EVIDENCE – rule in Jones v Dunkel – where former employees were not called by respon
PERRAM J - 18 Sep 2026

Industrial Law
Fair Work Ombudsman v Chambers [2026] FCA 1452
INDUSTRIAL LAW – sham contracting – various contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) alleged – where respondents directors of company – where Fair Work Ombudsman alleged company engaged cleaning workers as employees – whether company was engaging entity – applicable test for determining engaging entity following WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2021] HCA 23; 271 CLR 456, Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1; 275 CLR 165 and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2; 275 CLR 254 – where company not held to be engaging entity – application dismissed
MEAGHER J - 2 Oct 2026

Practice and Procedure
Triumph Metals & Minerals Australia Pty Ltd v BCC Trade Credit Pty Ltd (Security for Costs) [2026] FCA 1454
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for increased security for costs – where the parties previously agreed the amount of security to be provided up to an identified milestone and that there be no leave to apply for additional security before that milestone – where the agreement was expressed in consent orders – where the milestone has not been reached – whether the Court should grant leave to apply for additional security – whether it is necessary in the interests of doing justice between the parties to do so
STEWART J - 2 Oct 2026

Costs
Hubexo Australia Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2026] FCA 1443
COSTS – costs in relation to the respondents’ interlocutory application to amend their defence and withdraw an admission – where parties agree that costs of the application and costs thrown away be payable on the indemnity basis – whether costs ought to be payable forthwith – where conduct of the party was not reasonable – that other orders in the proceeding were not payable forthwith is not to the point – order that costs be payable forthwith, save for costs to be incurred by further calling of witnesses – costs order seeks to put the applicant in as near as possible a situation where they were not prejudiced by the respondents’ conduct COSTS – costs in relation to the applicant’s interlocutory application to adduce tendency evidence – where applicant would have always had to bring application – where applicant was successful on some tendencies but not on others – where parties had reasonably equal amounts of success – order that costs be costs in the cause
NEEDHAM J - 17 Sep 2026

Corporations Law
Reid (Administrator), in the matter of Pint Club Incorporated (Administrators Appointed) [2026] FCA 1451
CORPORATIONS – application for orders pursuant to s 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where deed enabled association under administration to trade – where association incurred further creditors by trading – where acquisition offer requires settlement of further creditors' debts – where orders sought take the form of providing for Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act to apply as if the original creditors and the further creditors were bound by an amended form of deed - consideration of power of original creditors to vary deed to include further creditors by creditors' meeting – consideration of court's power under s 447A(1) – held that court has power to make orders that would provide for Part 5.3A to operate as if the original creditors and further creditors were subject to an amended deed – application allowed in substance – orders made to require appropriate notice to be given for the purposes of s 445HA in respect of any material contravention of the deed in its original form
COLVIN J - 2 Oct 2026

Practice and Procedure
Collie v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2026] FCA 1425
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for mandatory injunction and orders in the nature of interrogatories – appeal against the decision of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority under s 1057A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – whether the Court has the power to grant the injunction sought – whether appropriate case for the grant of interrogatories – application dismissed
LONGBOTTOM J - 25 Sep 2026

Costs
True EV Distribution Pty Ltd v Shenzhen Xiaopeng Motors Supply Chain Management Co Ltd (No 5) [2026] FCA 1453
COSTS – quantum of lump sum costs – where respondents’ solicitor has provided a detailed summary of costs, which are reasonable and proportionate to the work required to be undertaken in the matter – where respondents’ solicitor has significant experience in commercial litigation and has prepared the evidence in accordance with the Costs Practice Note – where no submissions or materials filed by the applicants regarding costs – costs ordered in accordance with respondents’ estimate
JACKMAN J - 2 Oct 2026

Practice and Procedure
Reynolds, in the matter of an application by Reynolds [2026] FCA 1447
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for leave to institute proceedings pursuant to r 2.27A of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – proposed appeals from decisions to dismiss applications for judicial review – no reasonable prospects of success – applications dismissed
JACKSON J - 1 Oct 2026

Migration
Wano v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1427
MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision of Administrative Review Tribunal affirming non-revocation decision – whether Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations – whether Tribunal failed to consider evidence concerning applicant’s participation in opioid substitution treatment program when assessing risk of reoffending – whether Tribunal failed to consider evidence concerning applicant’s Islamic faith as explanation for short period of courtship before marriage – whether realistic possibility of different outcome – application dismissed
DERRINGTON J - 2 Oct 2026

Administrative Law
Coen v Attorney-General (Cth) [2026] FCA 1440
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of parole decision – where a delegate of the respondent refused to grant the applicant parole under s 19AL(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – where sentencing remarks which were adverse to the applicant were brought to the delegate’s attention without notice being given to the applicant – where the delegate deleted specific references to the sentencing remarks from her reasons but retained a reference to having taken those remarks into account – whether there was a material denial of procedural fairness – whether the delegate gave adequate reasons and engaged with the material before her – whether the delegate incorrectly characterised the applicant as an “untreated sex offender” – whether the delegate correctly understood the scope of “protection of the community” in s 19AKA – whether the delegate’s decision lacked an evident and intelligible justification and therefore was legally unreasonable
KENNETT J - 2 Oct 2026