Isaac Regional Council v Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 93, 13 May 2026, Cooper J
Brent Reading, led by Mark Ambrose KC, appeared for the plaintiff/respondent. Justice Cooper considered an application by the applicant/defendants for leave to file a substantially amended defence and counterclaim in proceedings concerning an Infrastructure Access Agreement for the upgrade of a 96-kilometre road used to access the Carmichael Mine. Although Justice Cooper accepted that the proposed amendments were brought late (without adequate explanation) and would likely delay the trial, his Honour granted leave, holding that the new damages claim was not statute-barred, was arguable, and should be determined in the existing proceeding rather than in separate litigation.
Link: Isaac Regional Council v Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 93 (13 May 2026)
South Burnett Regional Council v Aquatec Maxcon Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 85, 24 April 2026, Kelly J
Brent Reading, led by Dominic O’Sullivan KC appeared for the successful applicant in this proceeding, in which Justice Kelly granted leave under r 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) to amend a statement of claim to include a new cause of action for misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. His Honour held that it was “appropriate” to permit the amendment notwithstanding delay, where the new claim arose out of substantially the same facts, was brought in good faith, and did not cause any material prejudice to the respondent. In doing so, his Honour emphasised that the relevant inquiry is not confined to delay, but requires a broader evaluative judgment informed by the interests of justice, including the explanation for delay, the conduct of the parties, and whether the amendment would facilitate determination of the real issues in dispute.
Link: South Burnett Regional Council v Aquatec Maxcon Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 85 (24 April 2026)
Spring Hill Views Pty Ltd v 2 Fella Pty Ltd & Pedro Meletios Pikos [2026] QSC 36, 12 March 2026, Freeburn J
Mark Steele KC, leading Richard Gardiner, acted for the successful defendants in this proceeding, relating to alleged breach of fiduciary duties arising out a property development. Freeburn J found that no fiduciary obligations arose, in circumstances where the parties’ relationships were regulated by contract. His Honour further found that in relation to the alleged sale of land at an undervalue, informed consent had been given to the plaintiff.
Link: Spring Hill Views Pty Ltd v 2 Fella Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] QSC 36 (12 March 2026)
EDH17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FedCFamC2G 207, 18 February 2026, Egan J
Alexander White appeared unled against King’s Counsel for the successful first respondent in the above proceeding. The proceeding concerned an application for judicial review of a decision of the former Immigration Assessment Authority. The Court found that none of errors the applicant had alleged were made out.
Link: EDH17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FedCFamC2G 207 (18 February 2026)
CIP Group Pty Ltd v So (No 12) [2026] FCA 60, 6 February 2026, McElwaine J
Alexander Psaltis recently appeared for the applicants, led by Adam Pomerenke KC with Danielle Tay, in successfully applying for leave to amend the originating process and statement of claim in a long running Federal Court derivative action concerning breaches of directors' and fiduciary duties and in successfully resisting applications brought by the respondents to revoke the grant of derivative leave. McElwaine J’s judgment is one of only a handful of cases to have considered the principles applicable to an application to revoke a grant of derivative leave under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and in the Federal Court’s incidental jurisdiction.
Link: CIP Group Pty Ltd v So (No 12) [2026] FCA 60 (6 February 2026)
Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCATA 23, 20 January 2026, Senior Member Traves
Hannah Lilley appeared for the successful respondent in this application for leave to appeal and appeal regarding a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission not to allow the appellant's claim under the Statutory Insurance Scheme established by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). The decision by Senior Member Traves examines the proper construction and application of section 64 of the Scheme's Terms of Cover provided for in Schedule 6 to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld).
Link: Perry v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2026] QCATA 23 (20 January 2026)
Smallwood on behalf of the Bindal People #2 v State of Queensland [2025] FCA 1668, 22 December 2025, McEvoy H
Mark Steele KC, leading Doug Quayle and Louise Kruger, appeared for the State of Queensland in this decision of McEvoy J in the Federal Court of Australia. The case decided a separate question in a native title proceeding, namely whether the descendants of a particular apical ancestor held native title rights and interests in the Bindal claim area. The Court accepted the submissions of the State, and of the Bindal and Gurambilbarra Wulgurukaba applicants, that those descendants did not hold native title rights and interests in the area.
Link: Smallwood on behalf of the Bindal People #2 v State of Queensland [2025] FCA 1668 (22 December 2025)
KFB24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 2174, 15 December 2025, Vasta J
Maxwell Walker, leading Alexander White, appeared pro bono for the successful applicant in the above proceeding. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal. Judge Vasta found that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider a clearly articulated claim that the applicant – who was a Papua New Guinea national – faced persecution as a consequence of sorcery and witchcraft accusations made against her.
Link: KFB24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 2174 (15 December 2025)
Blue Dog Group Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission & Ors [2025] QSC 342, 11 December 2025, Wilson J
Mark Steele KC appeared for the successful plaintiff, with Peter Dunning KC and Storm Scarlett, in this application for leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim. The decision by Wilson J examined the relevant principles relating to leave to replead and summary dismissal. Her Honour also considered the way in which novel causes of action should be dealt with, in this case relating to the statutory insider trading provisions in the Corporations Act 2001.
Reims Investments Pty Ltd v City Fertility Sydney CBD Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 243, 2 December 2025, Bradley and Doyle JJA and Henry J
Douglas Savage KC leading Ben Kidston appeared for the Appellant in this appeal relating to the enforceability of various restraints of trade as against a specialist (IVF) doctor.
The Court of Appeal (Doyle JA with whom Bradley JA and Henry J agreed) held that particular restraints were void as (in respect of some) unreasonable as between the parties and (in respect of another) unreasonable in the public interest.
Link: Reims Investments Pty Ltd v City Fertility Sydney CBD Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 243 - Caselaw
Downer EDI Rail Pty Ltd v John Holland Queensland Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 310, 18 November 2025, Cooper J
Brent Reading led by Dominic O’Sullivan KC appeared in this proceeding, in which the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered the respondent to enter into an expert determination agreement under a major construction contract and granted declaratory relief clarifying the scope of that process. The dispute concerned whether a respondent in an expert determination could introduce new cross-claims beyond the subject matter of disputes previously notified and progressed through the contractual dispute resolution regime. The Court held that, on the proper construction of the contract, the expert’s jurisdiction is confined to the disputes identified in formal notices and cannot be expanded by new claims raised during the determination process. In doing so, the Court emphasised the mandatory and staged nature of contractual dispute resolution procedures and confirmed that cross-claims must arise from the same or substantially the same subject matter as the referred dispute.
Link: Downer EDI Rail Pty Ltd v John Holland Queensland Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 310 (18 November 2025)
York Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Tomkins Commercial & Industrial Builders Pty Ltd & Others (2025) QSC 286, 4 November 2025, Wilson J
Mark Steele KC, leading Thomas Ambrose, appeared for the successful applicant in this application relating to an adjudicator’s decision. Wilson J found whether a reference date arose was an objective jurisdictional fact, and was not something that could determined conclusively by the adjudicator. Her Honour also found that most of the award was adversely affected by a failure to provide procedural fairness.
AB v Chief Executive of Queensland Health [2025] QSC 277, 25 October 2025, Callaghan J
Mark Steele KC, leading Storm Scarlett and Josh Sproule, appeared for the successful applicant in this application for judicial review of a decision of the Chief Executive of Queensland Health to cease the provision of gender dysphoria treatment to certain children. Callaghan J found that the Chief Executive had failed to undertake proper consultation, and that he had been directed to make the decision by the Minister for Health.
Link: AB v Chief Executive of Queensland Health [2025] QSC 277 (28 October 2025)
Puohotaua v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 141, 17 October 2025, Charlesworth, Downes AND O'Sullivan JJ
Alexander White (led by Craig Lenehan SC) appeared for the successful first respondent in the above appeal. The Full Court considered whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness before the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal because he was asked questions about conduct which may have constituted criminal offences. The appeal was unanimously dismissed on the basis that there was no real and appreciable risk of the appellant being prosecuted as a consequence of any of the questions asked. The majority (Downes and O’Sullivan JJ; Charlesworth J not deciding) also upheld the first respondent’s notice of contention on the grounds that the appellant did not discharge his evidentiary onus to establish his awareness (or lack thereof) of the privilege against self-incrimination and what the appellant may have done during the hearing in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had he been informed of the privilege.
Link - https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2025/2025fcafc0141
Body Corporate for Ocean Pacifique CTS 8379 v Body Corporate for Orchid 17 CTS 11906 [2025] QSC 260, 10 October 2025, Cooper J
Andrew Crowe KC appeared with Michael Bland of Counsel for the Respondent. Ahead of a trial to commence on 20 October 2025 the Applicant sought leave to make substantial amendments to the statement of claim.
The amendments were opposed by the Respondent. The Respondent did not argue that it could not meet the amendments if allowed and did not seek an order adjourning the trial if the amendments were allowed.
Although the outcome of the application turned on its own facts of interest is that substantial amendments were not allowed which sought to incorporate expert reports by reference into the statement of claim rather than pleading material facts.
Cooper J. referred to Hartnett v Hynes [2009] QSC 225 at [27] where Applegarth J conveniently sets out 12 principles which apply to the exercise of the discretion (described as a guide by the Court of Appeal in Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd v Sanrus Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 267, [74]).
Cooper J. also referred with approval Heart of Jesus (Qld) v FERM Engineering Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 102, [18]-[19] where Crow J. held that pleadings should be self-contained so as to define the issues for trial and the fact that the true nature of a party’s case can be gleaned from reading parts of an expert report is no answer to a failure to properly plead and particularise the case the party wishes to pursue.
The matter proceeded to trial and the judgment is reserved.
Link: Body Corporate for Ocean Pacifique v Body Corporate for Orchid 17 [2025] QSC 260 (10 October 2025)
Shamrock Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 178, 23 September 2025, Bond, Brown and Doyle JJA
Director, Professional Services Review v Yoong [2025] FCAFC 95, 25 July 2025, O’Bryan and Horan JJ
Alexander Psaltis (led by Nitra Kidson KC) was successful in this appeal which clarified that the Director, Professional Services Review has a broad power to require the production of clinical records pursuant to compulsory notices issued in connection with the Director’s review of inappropriate practice by medical practitioners in rendering or initiating services for which medicare benefits are payable.
Link - Director, Professional Services Review v Yoong [2025] FCAFC 95 (25 July 2025)
Payload Industries Pty Ltd v Melco Engineering Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2025] FCA 701, 26 June 2025, Younan J
Alexander Psaltis recently appeared (with Lois Bullen) for the administrators of the defendant company in successfully obtaining an adjournment of a winding up application to enable the creditors to vote on a proposal for a deed of company arrangement at the second meeting of creditors.
Blue Dog Group Pty Ltd v Credit Suisse Equities (Australia) Limited & Ors [2025] QSC 101, 17 June 2025, Williams J
This is an important recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, concerning an application to discontinue a representative proceeding (class action), and whether such a discontinuance ends the suspension of the limitation periods of the claims of group members to which the proceeding relates.
Williams J held that it did not, and made orders on the respondents’ cross-application, providing that such limitation periods would begin to run again after the discontinuance took effect.
Philippa Ahern appeared for the applicant, and Will LeMass appeared for the respondents who led the cross-application.
Kozik v Redlands City Council [2025] QSC 124, 4 June 2025, Treston J
Link - Kozik v Redlands City Council [2025] QSC 124 (4 June 2025)
Fullarton v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2025] FCA 585, 3 June 2025, Downes J
Mark Steele KC, leading Sarida McLeod, acted for ASIC in successfully opposing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal a decision to appoint receivers to her property.
Link: Fullarton v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2025] FCA 585 (3 June 2025)