COMPETITION – alleged attempts to enter into contracts, arrangements or understandings with companies in the coal seam gas industry that would be contraventions of s 44ZZRJ/45AJ of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – alleged attempts to induce entry into the same contracts, arrangements or understandings – cartel provisions to allocate customers, limit bids and prevent, restrict or limit the supply of services in competition with the first respondent – whether subjects of the attempts were or were likely to be in competition with the first respondent at the relevant times – whether conduct unilateral or amounted to an attempt to arrive at an understanding or induce arrival at an understanding – HELD: five of six attempts alleged by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission established, with respect to both the first and second respondents
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – s 45AC of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – scope of deeming provisions – whether broader definition of “party” in s 45AC applied to attempt or attempt to induce cases
↧
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qteq Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 371
↧
DGD17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 383
MIGRATION – protection visa application refused by a delegate of the Minister – review by the Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed the decision – judicial review application to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dismissed – appeal from that dismissal – where appellant sought leave to assert new grounds of error by the Authority – whether new grounds have clear merit so as to justify leave in the interests of justice – whether the Authority failed to consider relevant considerations – whether the Authority erred in not seeking further information – whether the Authority’s decision was legally unreasonable – where none of the new grounds of appeal has clear merit – leave refused – appeal dismissed
↧
↧
Lottah Mining Pty Ltd (in liq) v Campbell-Wilson (Liquidator), in the matter of Forward Mining Limited (in liq) [2025] FCA 378
CORPORATIONS – orders sought by liquidators under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that liquidators are justified and would be acting reasonably in giving effect to settlement deed – where settlement deed was entered into by the parties prior to obtaining Court approval – where settlement is conditional upon the liquidators obtaining orders from the Court pursuant to s 90-15 – whether liquidators were justified and acting reasonably in giving effect to settlement deed
↧
McDonald v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 380
REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – application for court approval of settlement under s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – claim for non-payment or under-payment of wages to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers in the Northern Territory between 1933 and 1971 – whether the settlement is fair and reasonable – whether proposed deductions are fair and reasonable – deductions for legal costs and funding commission – priority of payments – directions to the administrator – settlement approved
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLES – outreach program – remote communities – best practice principles for law firms operating outside the communities in which their clients are living – expertise and use of locally experienced cultural advisers, interpreters, community engagement staff or community development staff
↧
Harris v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2025] FCA 381
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for review under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – application for review under ss 5 and 6 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth) – application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in finding s 181(1) of the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2004 (Cth) founds a discretion to deem a person with actual earnings different from income actually earned –appeal dismissed – no error – s 44 appeal dismissed as not competent – Tribunal decision not final in nature
↧
↧
Freeman, in the matter of Regional Express Holdings Ltd (administrators appointed) (No 4) [2025] FCA 385
CORPORATIONS – application for limitation of administrators’ personal liability pursuant to s 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and directions under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) being Sch 2 to the Corporations Act – where relevant liabilities arise from contracts currently entered into or contracts proposed to be entered into by conduct of the administrators – where some of the contracts proposed to be entered into will be by way of novation from the sixth plaintiff to the second plaintiff in connection with the ongoing sale process of the business – relief granted
↧
DZJ25 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 386
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain removal of applicant from Australia – statutory duty to remove as soon as reasonably practicable – power of court to make interlocutory orders to preserve the status quo and subject matter of the proceeding – power of the court to protect the integrity of its process and ensure utility of final relief – futility of declaratory relief if removed – serious question to be tried – balance of convenience MIGRATION – notification of visa refusal decision requirement to ‘state’ the matters in s 66(2)(d)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether notification set out the time in which application for review may be made completely and clearly or otherwise crystallised that time by reference to objective facts – jurisdiction under s 476A of the Migration Act – jurisdiction under s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether declaratory relief ‘in relation to a migration decision’ or ‘matter’ ‘arising under any laws made by the Parliament’
↧
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 58
CORPORATIONS – where primary judge held that a product that allowed customers to “loan” specified cryptocurrency in return for interest paid at a fixed rate was a “financial product” because it involved the respondent/cross-appellant: (i) operating a managed investment scheme as defined in s 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act); and (ii) offering a financial investment facility as defined in s 763B of the Act – where primary judge made declarations that the respondent/cross-appellant contravened ss 911A(5B) and s 601ED(8) of the Act (the primary judgment) – where primary judge ordered pursuant to s 1317S(2) of the Act that the respondent/cross-appellant be relieved from liability to pay a pecuniary penalty for the contraventions (the penalty judgment) – where ASIC appealed from the whole of the penalty judgment – where respondent/cross-appellant cross-appealed contending that the primary judge erred in the primary judgment in finding that the provision of the product constituted a “financial product” for the purposes of the Act, as it was neither a managed investment scheme nor a facility by which a person made a financial investment – where ASIC relied on a notice of contention, to the effect that if the primary judge was wrong to find that the provision of the product constituted a financial product on the basis that it involved the respondent/cross-appellant operating a managed investment scheme or offering a financial investment facility, then it was a “derivative” within the meaning of s 761D of the Act – whether the arrangements were to be treated as if they together constituted a single arrangement pursuant to s 761B of the Act – appeal dismissed – cross-appeal allowed
↧
Hassan v Minister for Home Affairs [2025] FCAFC 57
TORT – where appellant medically evacuated to Australia from offshore immigration detention in Papua New Guinea – where appellant requested removal to Papua New Guinea under s 198(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where appellant remained in detention until removal to United States of America over 500 days after request made – where appellant pleaded respondents owed him a duty of care to limit the duration of his detention to that required for the purpose of removal – where appellant pleaded respondents breached that duty by failing to establish system for administering requests for return to regional processing country – whether primary judge erred in concluding respondents did not owe pleaded duty – whether primary judge erred in finding respondents had a system to administer requests for return to regional processing countries – whether primary judge erred in finding that border restrictions in response to Covid-19 pandemic broke chain of causation – whether primary judge erred in assessment of quantum of damages
↧
↧
Merchant v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCAFC 56
TAXATION – schemes to reduce tax pursuant to Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – where vendor incurs a substantial capital loss on related party share sale but there is no effective alteration of control – whether primary judge erred in considering s 177D matters by considering the subjective intent of the scheme participants – whether primary judge failed to consider all objective purposes in the s 177D(2) analysis – held no error established. DIVIDEND STRIPPING – s 177E – whether primary judge erred in concluding that two debt forgiveness schemes entered into between related companies were schemes having substantially the effect of a scheme by way of or in the nature of dividend stripping – whether the schemes had the requisite tax avoidance purpose – whether the schemes had the requisite substantive effect – appeal allowed in part. TAXATION OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS (TOFA) – meaning of the expression “contingent only on the economic performance of the business” in s 230-460(13) Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) – application to expired rights to receive certain milestone payments in a share sale agreement – no error demonstrated.
↧
Xu v Salter Brothers Asset Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 379
COSTS – whether costs should be awarded on a party and party or indemnity basis – whether refusal of Calderbank offers unreasonable – no order for indemnity costs – costs ordered on a lump sum basis
↧
Save Wallum Incorporated v Clarence Property Corporation Limited (No 4) [2025] FCA 389
EVIDENCE –application under r 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to set aside evidential ruling excluding the opinion evidence of an expert witness – where expert witness cross-examined on their independence, impartiality and objectivity in light of prior advocacy in opposition to the Development the subject of the proceedings – whether evidential ruling made under a misapprehension of the law by reason of the parties not having drawn relevant authority to the Court’s attention– consideration of Rush v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 5) – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to re-open the ruling – whether expert’s opinion evidence should be excluded because his prior advocacy means the criteria in s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 are not met or under s 135 because the respondents would be unfairly prejudiced – whether decision in Guy v Crown should be distinguished – leave to re-open granted and evidentiary ruling set aside
↧
Rimfire Energy Pty Ltd v BSF Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 384
CONTRACTS – whether, under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for the construction of two facilities in the Northern Territory and the supply of electricity from those facilities, the Owners gave to the Buyer valid notices of extension of time to the Target Commercial Operation Date of the facilities – whether the Buyer was entitled to liquidated damages – held that the notices of extension of time were invalid and the Buyer is entitled to payment of liquidated damages and interest calculated under the PPAs
↧
↧
Quickstep Holdings Limited, in the matter of Quickstep Holdings Limited (No 2) [2025] FCA 397
CORPORATIONS – scheme of arrangement – second court hearing – where orders sought under ss 411(4)(b) and 411(12) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for approval of scheme of arrangement and exemption from compliance with s 411(11) of the Act – orders made
↧
Burt v University of Sydney [2025] FCA 393
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal interlocutory judgment dismissing application to strike out a strike out application – whether decision attended by sufficient doubt to warrant its reconsideration by Full Court – whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused supposing decision to be wrong – where allegation of actual bias made – where
↧
Millynn, in the matter of Sagerland Pty Ltd v Sagerland Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 391
CORPORATIONS – application to wind up company pursuant to s 233 or s 461 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where sole director and shareholder is deceased – where plaintiff is administrator of sole director’s deceased estate – whether winding up of company is just and equitable and should be ordered pursuant to s 461(1)(k) of Corporations Act
↧
De Grey Mining Ltd, in the matter of De Grey Mining Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 396
CORPORATIONS – application for approval of scheme of arrangement under s 411(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – script takeover scheme – post-first court hearing communications with scheme members – pre-scheme meeting substantial shareholder announcement of voting intentions – Securities Act 1933 (US) notation
↧
↧
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MyWealth Manager Financial Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2025] FCA 400
CORPORATIONS – receivers and managers – release of receivers and managers following completion of receivership – service of interlocutory application – persons located extraterritorially – failure to provide any address for service – obligation to effect service dispensed with
↧
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 399
CORPORATIONS – receivers and managers – release of receivers and managers – service of interlocutory application – recipient is incarcerated – receipt of documents established – appropriate to dispense with requirement to effect service in accordance with the Rules
↧
Commissioner of Taxation v White (No 3) [2025] FCA 392
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – objection to tendency evidence – where applicant seeks to admit evidence for non-tendency and tendency purposes – where evidence is directly relevant to a fact in issue and the applicant also seeks to rely on the evidence for tendency purposes – whether the evidence can be admitted for tendency purposes
↧