Giggle for Girls v Tickle [2026] FCAFC 64
Giggle created an app as a safe online space for women. Born male, Tickle had gender change surgery and was recorded as female. When her access was blocked, Tickle sued Giggle for sexual discrimination7.
The ordinary meanings of ‘woman’ and ‘female’ became relevant in this context. It was noted that …
CCDM Holdings v Republic of India [2026] HCA 9
It was held that ratification of a New York convention did not involve waiver of foreign state immunity from jurisdiction over an arbitral award. India had not waived immunity to enforcement in Australia of an award made in the Netherlands in favour of CCDM.
The text of the convention was silent …
Karam v Close the Loop [2026] VSC 270
An issue in this case was whether High Court cases on the meaning of an expression in fair work provisions were binding in a retail leases context.
Croft J noted that statutory construction ‘differs from that in distilling the common law from past decisions’. The starting point with legislation is always the …
Shell Energy Holdings v FCT [2026] FCA 577
What is of note in this CGT case is the summary from Jackman J (at [62]) on the legal effect of deeming provisions. The judge observed that they do not always create a statutory fiction13. But, where they do, we are to ‘proceed on the deemed basis when applying the …
Wollondilly SC v Godfrey [2026] NSWLEC 21
Robson J in this case (at [66-69]) comments on the interpretation of development consents4.
First, ambiguity is to be resolved by application of the ordinary rules as apply to statutes5. Second, no principle of laxity in drafting is conceded to them. Third, nor is ambiguity to be resolved against …
Anderson v Anderson [2026] QCA 50
In this case, it was argued that the trial judge erred in law by considering policy before consulting the text. This was rejected. Brown JA quoted cases for starting with the text and also considering context in the widest sense ‘at the first stage of the process …’
Comment – the requirement to have …
Aguasa v Hunter [2026] WASCA 37
Whether a statutory requirement is procedural or substantive is often difficult to determine10. Various ‘formulations’ of the test to be applied have emerged. Vaughan J said (at [163]), however, that nothing is served by expressing a preference for one formulation over another. Courts in this regard are ‘not offering a dictionary or …
SEPL Pty Ltd v FCT [2026] FCAFC 36
Were three brothers each an ‘employee’ (undefined) for FBT purposes?13 While ‘employee’ might take its common law meaning, subject to context, the court noted (at [25]) that it could take a ‘commercial and trade usage’, its ‘natural and ordinary meaning’, or a meaning peculiar to the specific legislation involved.
Where …
Glascott v The King [2026] VSCA 42
The court gave 9 reasons why it could not have been intended that a special hearing on mental competence was invalid for being conducted outside the statutory time limit. The provision said the ‘court must hold a special hearing … within 3 months …’6 The last reason given (at [122-123]) was …
McCallum v Projector Films [2026] FCA 173
After setting out the basics of our ‘modern approach’ from Palmanova, the court (at [150-151]) provided guidance on the proper use of dictionaries.
The court said that ordinary meaning ‘is not necessarily divined from a dictionary’. A ‘familiar difficulty’ is that dictionaries specify a range of meanings (or senses) rather than any …
