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.

LInk: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2025/286.html

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: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2025/277.html

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: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2025/260.html

Shamrock Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 178, 23 September 2025, Bond, Brown and Doyle JJA

Link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2025/178.html

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 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2025/95.html

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.

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2025/701.html

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.

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2025/101.html

Kozik v Redlands City Council [2025] QSC 124, 4 June 2025, Treston J

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2025/124.html

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: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2025/585.html

HDTY and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 98, 14 February 2025, Senior Member A Nikolic

Alexander White appeared for the successful respondent in an application for merits review of a decision made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/ARTA/2025/98.html

Puohotaua v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1491, 20 December 2024, Sarah C Derrington J

Alexander White appeared for the successful first respondent in the judicial review of a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant alleged that the AAT denied him procedural fairness by failing to warn him of his privilege against self-incrimination.

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review on two bases.

First, the Court found the applicant was not entitled to assert the privilege because there was no real risk of prosecution arising from the questions he was asked.

Second, even if there had been some denial of procedural fairness in the hearing before the AAT, that denial was not material in the sense that there was no prospect of the AAT reaching a different decision, even if the applicant had been given adequate warning of the privilege against self-incrimination. That conclusion arose because of the other evidence of the applicant’s conduct that was before the AAT (and in respect of which the privilege could not apply).

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/1491.html

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v A One Multi Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FCA 1469, 18 December 2024, Derrington J

Mark Steele KC and Jane Menzies appeared for ASIC in this application by the receivers appointed pursuant to s. 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001. The receivers sought an indemnity from ASIC in relation to an expected shortfall between assets recovered by them, and their expenses, remuneration and costs. Derrington J refused the receivers’ application for an indemnity.

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/1469.html

Stillwater Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Stanwell Corporation Ltd [2024] FCA 1382, 4 December 2024, Derrington J

Peter Franco KC and Jane Menzies appeared for the First Respondent.

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/1382.html

Devine Constructions Pty Ltd v Heinrich Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 285, 22 November 2024, Kelly J

Brent Reading (led by Gareth Beacham KC) appeared for the successful Applicant in this proceeding concerning r. 376 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (amendment after limitation period). The Respondents opposed the relief sought, primarily on the basis that the “new” cause of action for which the Applicant sought leave to plead did not “arise out the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action for which relief has already been claimed” (see r. 376(4) of the UCPR). Following a detailed consideration of the relevant authorities, Justice Kelly rejected the Respondents’ arguments.

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2024/285.html

Rusbridge v Lake Fox Limited [2024] QSC 279, 15 November 2024, Freeburn J

Hannah Lilley (led by Michael Hodge KC) appeared for the successful second defendant, the plaintiff in this third party proceeding, which focused on the construction of a clause in a commercial contract relating to insurances. The third party was found to have breached the contract for failing to procure public liability insurance naming the second defendant as an additional insured or a person to whom the benefit of insurance extends for its respective rights and interests.

Link - https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2024/279.html