Dermatology & Cosmetic v Nichols [2025] VSCA 328
After surgery, N sued the doctors for ‘significant injury’4. Her solicitors emailed medical assessments to their solicitor. These came to the doctors’ attention a few days later. The doctors challenged the assessments by way of referral to a medical panel. The referral was valid only if it occurred within 60 …
Royal Embassy [etc] v Saleh [2025] FCAFC 184
Foreign states now enjoy only limited immunity from domestic jurisdiction10. In an unfair dismissal action by mission staff, the embassy argued that the Fair Work Commission was not a ‘court’. Therefore, the employment exception to immunity did not apply11, & the embassy had absolute immunity at common law. …
Hoang v Minister [2026] FedCFamC2G 26
It was not disputed that a visa scheme responding to family violence was ‘beneficial legislation’, and to ‘be accorded a fair, large and liberal interpretation’13.
An earlier decision, informed by this principle, had permitted a psychologist to provide a ‘medical report’ under a legislative instrument. This was argued to be ‘plainly wrong’ …
FCT v SNA Group [2026] FCAFC 10
Law students early in their studies learn that the objective theory of contract is ‘in command of the field’. This case (at [15-21]) explains the principles.
Contract formation and terms depend on the words and conduct of the parties as reasonably understood by reasonable people in their position, not on any actual subjective …
Farshchi v The King [2025] HCA 46
F appealed against federal convictions on the basis that directions to the jury under state law diminished the criminal standard of proof7. The trial judge said ‘a reasonable doubt is not … an unrealistic possibility’.
The plurality (at [16]) said that the state law merely carved out things that ‘could not …
NSW Aboriginal LC v Minister [2025] NSWLEC 144
Just because legislation has a general beneficial purpose does not mean all provisions bend to that objective. The issue usually resolves to how far provisions go in progressing a general purpose9. The question here was whether 2 lots claimed by the council were ‘claimable Crown lands’10. The Minister …
Harris v Military Rehabilitation [2025] FCAFC 198
Edelman J recently explained why the presumption against surplusage seldom carries great weight12. In the present case (at [23]), further reasons are suggested by the Full Federal Court. Once it is appreciated parliament has approved a text which includes surplusage, parliamentary supremacy ‘necessarily includes accepting that sometimes parliament might approve the …
Campbelltown Central v CCSR [2025] NSWSC 1568
Bennett J held that ‘confirmation deeds’ involved no declaration of trust for duties purposes. Our interest in the case is twofold. First, the ‘well established’ principles by which contracts are read are set out13. Second, it was confirmed that it is not necessary to find ambiguity before ‘surrounding circumstances’ can be …
Otsuka v Sun Pharma [2025] FCAFC 161
This case raises whether a statutory definition may change in meaning when provisions to which it relates are later amended. Otsuka sought extension of its aripiprazole patent on the basis that other ‘pharmaceutical substances’ were disclosed in the patent specification. A ‘pharmaceutical substance’ is defined as a ‘substance … for therapeutic use …’…
Jayasinghe v Perry [2025] VSC 751
Vacant land sold by P to J was subject to a restrictive covenant as to building height to protect ‘rather stunning views’. After the new house exceeded the height limit by 3m, J sought to vary the covenant7. When an issue arose on how the underlying statutory provision was to be interpreted, …
