The High Court refused an application by US singer Katy Perry to cancel the clothing trade mark Katie Perry held by an Australian fashion designer1. It was argued that its use by the designer ‘would be likely to deceive or cause confusion’2. This was due to the reputation the singer’s later trade mark Katy Perry had …
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 …
Chief Commissioner v Gentner [2026] VSCA 22
The court in this case (at [72]) noted that, when selecting between competing interpretations, regard may be had to the consequences of each10. Detective G was charged with a breach of discipline. Another officer later amended the charge, found it proved, and determined that G should be dismissed. The regulation said …
Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2026] ACTCA 5
A ‘shopping service’ operator was accused of selling a fake Chanel handbag. A social media video later detailed the allegation without naming the person13. She sued for defamation alleging ‘serious harm’14.
One issue was how social media posts are to be understood. The trial judge said that posts are to …
What is the difference between ‘ordinary meaning’ and ‘plain meaning’? A recent American article spends 70 pages explaining the position1. Often the two terms are used without discrimination. In our system, ordinary meaning involves the natural way in which people use a word. Plain meaning refers to the evident or clear meaning of a word in the sense …
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 …
