Australia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal area

18 Mar 2026

SunshineLoans Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments CommissionCitation:[2026] HCA 8Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:18 Mar 2026Case Number:B23/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The High Court held that the primary judge's adverse credit findings at the liability stage did not, without more, justify recusal from the penalty stage on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias. The findings did not reveal animus or prejudgment, and the ordinary practice of bifurcated hearings does not require recusal unless there is a logical connection between the findings and the risk of partiality.
- Reasonable apprehension of bias
- Recusal of judge
- Civil penalty proceedings
18 Mar 2026

EGH19 v Commonwealth of AustraliaCitation:[2026] HCA 7Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:18 Mar 2026Case Number:S55/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The Court held that cl 070.612A(1) of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), to the extent it authorises and requires the Minister to impose monitoring and curfew conditions, is not invalid as it does not confer judicial power on the Minister. The conditions are protective, not punitive, and are reasonably necessary and appropriate to address the risk posed by the visa holder. The absence of natural justice does not render the conditions punitive or invalid.
- Judicial power
- Separation of powers
- Visa conditions
- Punitive measures
- Natural justice
11 Mar 2026

Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [No 2]Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [No 2]Citation:[2026] HCA 4Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Mar 2026Case Number:S20/2025 , S21/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The Court held that the error or omission regarding the remittal of the costs issue was obvious and that it was in the interests of justice to exercise the discretionary power to recall and amend the orders.
- Judgments and orders
- Correction of errors
- Discretionary powers
11 Mar 2026

The King v McGregorCitation:[2026] HCA 3Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Mar 2026Case Number:S45/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

New South Wales courts cannot impose an aggregate sentence under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) for multiple Commonwealth offences where any offence attracts a mandatory minimum sentence under s 16AAA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), as s 53A is incompatible with the federal sentencing regime.
- Aggregate sentence
- Mandatory minimum sentence
- Federal jurisdiction
- Sentencing procedure
11 Mar 2026

San Bao Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and CitizenshipCitation:[2026] HCA 6Before:Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:11 Mar 2026Case Number:S160/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The Court held that the delegate did not constructively fail to exercise jurisdiction and the decision was not legally unreasonable, as all relevant material was considered and the refusal was within the scope of lawful discretion.
- Judicial review
- Jurisdictional error
- Visa nomination refusal
- Constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction
- Legal unreasonableness
11 Mar 2026

Taylor v Killer Queen LLCCitation:[2026] HCA 5Before:Gordon ACJ, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Mar 2026Case Number:S49/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The Court held that the use of the 'Katie Perry' trade mark was not likely to deceive or cause confusion at the priority date or at the time of the rectification application, and that there was insufficient evidence of reputation or wrongful conduct to justify rectification.
- Trade marks
- Rectification of register
- Likelihood of confusion
- Reputation
11 Feb 2026

AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-NewcastleCitation:[2026] HCA 2Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Feb 2026Case Number:S94/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The Court held that the respondent owed the appellant a non-delegable duty of care, which extended to intentional criminal acts by a priest in a position of authority over the appellant, and that the breach of this duty caused the harm suffered. The Court considered whether Lepore should be overruled and found that the circumstances justified recognition of a non-delegable duty in this context.
- Negligence
- Duty of care
- Non-delegable duty
- Historic child sexual abuse
- Liability for intentional acts
- Damages limitations
4 Feb 2026

Obeid v The KingObeid v The KingMacdonald v The KingCitation:[2026] HCA 1Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:04 Feb 2026Case Number:S88/2025, S89/2025, S93/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The Court held that the prosecution must allege and prove an agreement to commit particular acts that amount to misconduct in public office; a general agreement to undertake acts falling within the elements of the offence is insufficient.
- Conspiracy
- Misconduct in public office
17 Dec 2025

Hunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSWHunt Leather Pty Ltd v Transport for NSWCitation:[2025] HCA 53Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:17 Dec 2025Case Number:S20/2025, S21/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The Court held that the respondent's construction activities constituted a private nuisance as they caused substantial and unreasonable interference with the appellants' enjoyment of land, the works were not 'conveniently done', and the respondent could not rely on the defence of statutory authority. Reasonable litigation funding costs were recoverable as damages.
- Private nuisance
- Statutory authority
- Damages assessment
- Litigation funding costs
10 Dec 2025

Bed Bath 'N' Table Pty Ltd v Global Retail Brands Australia Pty LtdCitation:[2025] HCA 50Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:10 Dec 2025Case Number:M32/2025Read more

Citation

Main navigation

The High Court held that the use of 'House Bed & Bath' as a trade mark was likely to mislead or deceive consumers in contravention of s 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law, given the established reputation of 'BED BATH 'N' TABLE' and the similarity in the context of soft homewares retailing. The trader's wilful blindness to the risk of confusion was relevant but not determinative; the objective likelihood of confusion was sufficient to establish contravention.
- Misleading or deceptive conduct
- Trade mark infringement
- Confusion in trade marks