New judgments

Latest judgments from the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

• High Court of Australia – [HCA]
• Supreme Court of Tasmania – Full Court [TASFC]
• Supreme Court of Tasmania – Court of Criminal Appeal [TASCCA]
• Supreme Court of Tasmania – [TASSC]

High Court of Australia – [HCA]

• Dale Haines by his litigation guardian Barbara Ramjan v Attorney General of NSW [2026] HCA 34 (09 September 2026) (Edelman, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Mental health – Forensic patient – Extension of status as forensic patient – Where making of extension order subject to Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), s 122(1) – Where s 122(1) requires satisfaction both that forensic patient poses unacceptable risk and that the risk cannot be adequately managed by other less restrictive means – Where primary judge not satisfied to requisite standard of either matter – Where Court of Appeal allowed appeal on basis that satisfaction of unacceptable risk was common ground – Where respondent concedes satisfaction of unacceptable risk was not common ground – Where determination of remaining issues would have no practical utility – Whether to accept concession.
  
  Words and phrases – "common ground", "extension order", "forensic patient", "high degree of probability", "interim order", "less restrictive means", "no practical utility", "satisfied to the requisite standard", "unacceptable risk of causing serious harm", "unfit to be tried".
  
• EGH19 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2026] HCA 33 (09 September 2026) (Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Administrative law – Judicial review − Where plaintiff's Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa cancelled on character grounds ("Cancellation Decision") − Where plaintiff made representations to Minister seeking revocation of Cancellation Decision referring to material already held by Department − Where no real prospect of plaintiff being removed from Australia in reasonably foreseeable future − Where delegate decided not to revoke Cancellation Decision ("Non-revocation Decision") − Where plaintiff granted Bridging R (Subclass 070) visa ("BVR") − Whether Non-revocation Decision affected by jurisdictional error − Whether failure to have regard to information provided by plaintiff in connection with previous decision-making – Whether cancellation of protection visa would remove risk posed by plaintiff to Australian community in circumstances where plaintiff would be released on BVR.
  
  Words and phrases – "cancellation decision", "character grounds", "constitutional writ", "extension of time", "illogically", "irrationally", "judicial review", "jurisdictional error", "legal consequences", "non-revocation decision", "no real prospect of removing", "protection visa", "reasonably foreseeable future", "risk to the Australian community", "unlawful non‑citizen", "unreasonably".
  
• GXT25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] HCA 32 (09 September 2026) (Gageler CJ; Steward and Jagot JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Administrative law – Judicial review – Where delegate refused application for Protection (Subclass 866) visa – Where plaintiff claimed protection on basis of fear of harm by reason of religion –Where plaintiff subsequently raised fear of harm by reason of sexual orientation – Where delegate found sexual orientation claim fabricated – Whether denial of procedural fairness – Whether delegate required to notify plaintiff of adverse inference arising from delay – Whether delegate failed to comply with s 57 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by failing to provide particulars of country information and invite comment – Whether delegate's decision illogical, irrational or unreasonable – Whether extension of time should be granted.
  
  Words and phrases – "adverse inference", "constitutional writ", "country information", "extension of time", "fabricated claim", "illogicality", "irrationally", "judicial review", "jurisdictional error", "merits review", "opportunity to comment", "procedural fairness", "protection visa", "request for further information", "sexual orientation", "significant harm", "unreasonableness".
  
• R Lawyers v Mr Daily [No 2] [2026] HCA 31 (09 September 2026) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ)
  Orders:
  Application dismissed with costs.
  
• Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation v Orica Australia Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 30 (09 September 2026) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Industrial law (Cth) – Coal industry – Statutory interpretation – Portable long service leave scheme – Where employers required to make payments in respect of "eligible employees" defined in s 4(1) of Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992 (Cth) – Where respondent provided shotfiring services to black coal mines through employees – Where definition of "eligible employee" bifurcated into "employer limb" and "location limb" – Where location limb required employee be "employed in the black coal mining industry" – Where "black coal mining industry" defined to have meaning in Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010 ("Award") – Where cl 4.3(g) of Award excluded "supply of shotfiring or other explosive services by an employer not otherwise engaged in the black coal mining industry" from "black coal mining industry" – Whether cl 4.3(g) of Award applied to location limb – Whether respondent otherwise engaged in black coal mining industry.
  
  Words and phrases – "at or about a place", "award", "award modernisation", "bifurcated limbs", "black coal", "black coal mine", "black coal mining industry", "construction", "contrary intention", "definition", "directly connected with the day to day operation of", "eligible employee", "employed in", "employer limb", "engaged in", "location limb", "not otherwise engaged in", "portable long service leave", "qualifying service", "shotfirer", "shotfiring or other explosive services", "status quo", "substantial character".
  
• The King v Ko [2026] HCA 29 (12 August 2026) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal practice – Trial – Adequacy of jury directions – Attempted importation of commercial quantity of border controlled drug – Fault element – Intent to import substance – Where respondent alleged to have facilitated customs clearance and delivery of consignment – Where consignment intercepted prior to departure – Where consignment contained border controlled drugs – Where trial judge directed jury it was "open" to infer intent to import substance if satisfied respondent perceived a real or substantial chance of substance being present in consignment – Whether jury directions amounted to miscarriage of justice – Whether real risk jury would conclude respondent's awareness of that real or significant chance sufficient to establish intent.
  
  Words and phrases – "attempt", "aware of", "beyond reasonable doubt", "border controlled drug", "conditional intention", "directions", "fault element", "inference", "intended to import", "intention", "intention to import", "intermediate facts", "jury", "knowledge or belief", "link in a chain of reasoning", "material", "meant to", "miscarriage of justice", "nevertheless persisted", "only reasonable conclusion", "open to infer", "perceived", "physical element", "preliminary facts", "real or significant chance", "recklessness", "state of mind", "substance".
  
• Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28 (12 August 2026) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal law – Sentencing – Where Senior Counsel appeared at sentencing hearing for both appellant and co-offender – Where Senior Counsel submitted, contrary to Crown submissions, that appellant's offending more serious than co-offender's offending – Where Senior Counsel submitted that both appellant's offending and co-offender's offending less serious than Crown's characterisation of offending – Where no evidence of advice or instructions between appellant and Senior Counsel – Whether threshold of materiality must be satisfied before court concludes that specific error or procedural irregularity vitiates exercise of sentencing discretion – Whether procedural irregularity established – Whether Senior Counsel placed in position of conflict between duty to appellant and duty to co-offender – Whether appellant should have been separately represented – Whether submission should have been made on appellant's behalf that his offending similar to or less than co-offender's offending.
  
  Words and phrases – "actual conflict", "apparent conflict", "assumed obligations", "best interests", "client's instructions", "co-offender", "conflict", "conflicting duties", "demonstration of error", "duty of loyalty", "imposed obligations", "legal professional privilege", "materiality", "objective seriousness", "parity", "position of conflict", "potential conflict", "practical injustice", "procedural fairness", "procedural irregularity", "real or substantial possibility of a conflict", "remittal", "scope of duties", "sentence", "sentencing discretion", "separately represented", "specific error", "standard of competency".
  
• Mpwerempwer Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Minister for Territory Families and Urban Housing as delegate of the Minister for the Environment [2026] HCA 23 (05 August 2026) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Administrative law – Judicial review – Water extraction licence – Where 30-year water extraction licence granted under s 60 of Water Act 1992 (NT) ("Water Act") – Where Minister required to be satisfied under s 60(4)(b) of Water Act that special circumstances justified grant of licence for period exceeding ten years – Where Minister required to take into account protection of Aboriginal cultural values associated with water – Where condition of licence was that licensee develop and submit Aboriginal cultural values impact assessment – Whether Minister satisfied that special circumstances justified grant of licence for period exceeding ten years – Whether Minister failed to take into account mandatory relevant consideration of Aboriginal cultural values – Whether Minister failed to accord procedural fairness to prescribed body corporate for relevant native title holders.
  
  Words and phrases – "Aboriginal cultural values", "Aboriginal cultural values impact assessment", "adverse conclusion", "condition", "condition precedent", "cultural and biodiversity values", "discharge of statutory function", "groundwater", "groundwater dependent ecosystems", "interpretation of reasons", "judicial review", "jurisdictional error", "jurisdictional fact", "mandatory relevant consideration", "must take into account", "native title holders", "procedural fairness", "requirement of reasons", "requirement to manifest satisfaction", "review panel", "satisfied", "special circumstances", "state of mind", "state of satisfaction", "water allocation plan", "water extraction licence", "water extraction licence decision".
  
• The King v HCZ [2026] HCA 24 (05 August 2026) (Gageler CJ; Edelman, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal law – Sentence – Child offender – Where offender committed offences including murder – Where murder "a particularly heinous offence" under s 176(3)(b)(ii) of Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) – Where offender sentenced to term of detention – Where s 227 of Youth Justice Act prevented release until offender had served 70 per cent of that term unless sentencing judge considered that "special circumstances" exist – Where sentencing judge concluded that "special circumstances" did not exist – Where appellate court held that sentencing judge allowed seriousness of offending to overwhelm mitigating factors – Whether open to appellate court to interfere with sentencing judge's conclusion that "special circumstances" did not exist.
  
  Words and phrases – "ability to rehabilitate", "appellate review", "correctness standard", "deprived upbringing", "discretion", "judicial restraint", "manifestly excessive", "mitigating factors", "murder", "open-ended evaluative criteria", "particularly heinous offence", "period of detention", "personal circumstances", "pleas of guilty", "range of outcomes", "sentencing", "seriousness of the offending", "special circumstances", "standard of appellate review", "statutory default", "statutory interpretation", "unreasonable or plainly unjust".
  
• Potter (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] HCA 25 (05 August 2026) (Gageler CJ; Gordon, Steward, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal practice – Admissibility of evidence – Sexual offences – Where complainant was appellant's wife – Where complainant made covert recording without appellant's knowledge – Where appellant admitted to previously sexually assaulting complainant while she was asleep in covert recording – Where complainant made covert recording to remind herself not to resume relationship with appellant and risk being further sexually assaulted – Whether covert recording admissible – Whether covert recording reasonably necessary for protection of complainant's lawful interests.
  
  Words and phrases – "bodily autonomy", "bodily integrity", "covert recording", "discretionary exclusion", "evidence", "lawful interests", "legal right, title, duty or liability", "legitimate interests", "listening device", "personal privacy", "private conversation", "protection", "qualified privilege", "reasonably appropriate and adapted", "reasonably necessary", "surveillance device", "unlawfully obtained".
  

Supreme Court of Tasmania – Full Court [TASFC]

• State of Tasmania v Pearson [2026] TASFC 11 (06 August 2026) (Wood, Brett and Cuthbertson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Workers' Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Determination of claims – Appeals, judicial review and stated cases – Question of law – Generally – Obligation of employer to continue to make weekly payments after gap in provision of medical certificate and operation of s 69(13) of Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – Gap in certification of more than 14 days does not interfere with employer obligation to comply with s 69(1) – Obligation to continue making weekly payments for incapacity subsequently certified applies irrespective of election under s 69(13) and even if period of incapacity supported by certificate relates to retrospective period – Appeal dismissed.
  
• Papoutsakis v Tenbensel [2026] TASFC 10 (02 July 2026) (Shanahan CJ; Pearce and Jago JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Appeal and New Trial – Procedure – Tasmania – When appeal lies – From Supreme Court – Other matters – Matter arising under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Tas) required appeal to be determined by Full Court of Federal Court.
  
• Gandini v Judges [2026] TASFC 9 (04 June 2026) (Shanahan CJ; Brett and Jago JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Appeal and New Trial – Appeal: General principles – Interference with discretion of court below – In general - Other matters - Appeal of primary judge decision which reviewed sentence of Magistrate – Appellant contended matter should not have been remitted to sentencing magistrate – No specific error attached to decision to remit – Lots of material about the appellant and his circumstances available to sentencing magistrate - Decision to remit well within primary judge’s discretion – Appeal dismissed.
  
• McMahon v State of Tasmania (No 2) [2026] TASFC 8 (02 June 2026) (Estcourt, Pearce and Cuthbertson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Costs General rule: costs follow event – Partial
  
• Resources Australasia Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] TASFC 7 (23 April 2026) (Shanahan CJ; Estcourt and Jago JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Appeal and New Trial – When appeal lies – Error of law – Generally – Where appellant seeks relief from forfeiture of leasehold interest on basis of unconscionability under the Australian Consumer Law, in equity or pursuant to Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884 (Tas) – Lessee erected fixture on property without seeking or obtaining written permission from the Lessor or Council – Lessor contended lease no longer in force – Primary judge held lease was terminated – Lessor to recover possession of the leased premises –No express consideration of factors under s 22(1) of Australian Consumer Law (Cth) by the primary judge – Failure to expressly analyse non-mandatory, non- exclusive factors, not a prima facie substantive legal error – Applying those factors expressly does not reveal any substantive error below – Nothing in primary judge's findings suggests fraud, accident, mistake or surprise or any other form of unconscionable conduct – Ground dismissed.
  
• Atileo v Public Trustee [2026] TASFC 6 (22 April 2026) (Estcourt, Pearce and Brett JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Torts – Civil liability legislation: modifications to torts and law of negligence – Liability excluded from scope of legislation – Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) inapplicable – Intentional act done with intent to cause injury.
  
• McMahon v State of Tasmania [2026] TASFC 5 (22 April 2026) (Estcourt, Pearce and Cuthbertson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Appeal and New Trial – Right of appeal – Real Property – Torrens title – Certificates of title, folios and crown grants generally – Parcels and descriptions – Error in description of land – Title mistakenly included crown land – Land in title sold to appellants – Crown land never for sale – Evidence that appellants never intended to purchase crown land – Crown entitled to be registered proprietor of land mistakenly included in appellants’ title – Appeal dismissed.
  
• Jones v Jones [2026] TASFC 4 (26 March 2026) (Pearce, Brett and Cuthbertson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Succession – Family provision – Criteria for determining application – Generally – Principles of exercise of discretion – Applicant's obligation to make full and frank disclosure of financial position – Applicant's financial circumstances sufficiently disclosed to enable exercise of discretion.
  
• Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v Everllence SE [2026] TASFC 3 (06 March 2026) (Shanahan CJ; Estcourt and Brett JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Appeal and New Trial – Procedure – Powers of court – Generally – Where the matter is also being heard in a foreign jurisdiction – Where substantially same claim – Judge at first instance ordered permanent stay on Tasmanian proceedings – Judge at first instance found this Court an inappropriate forum for the dispute – Proceedings vexatious, oppressive and egregious example of forum shopping – Reliance on court's inherent jurisdiction and legislation to prevent abuse of processes – A matter of judicial discretion – Impact of case management – Court should not disturb the decision of an Associate Judge unless clearly attended by error – Ground dismissed.
  
• Williamson, Williamson v Recorder of Titles [2026] TASFC 2 (18 February 2026) (Shanahan CJ; Estcourt and Pearce JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Appeal and New Trial – Right of appeal – When appeal lies – Error of law – What is – Generally – First respondent reinstated six easement statements– Amendment made without notice to the appellants – Primary judge held that first respondent was justified in reinstating the six easement statements – Whether s 143C empowers first respondent to correct an error made by the first respondent where no plan or document deposited or lodged with the first respondent contained an error – Error committed by first respondent cannot be characterised as a relevant error for the purposes of s 143C of the Act – First respondent's reinstatement of the easement statements cannot be justified – Appeal allowed.
  

Supreme Court of Tasmania – Court of Criminal Appeal [TASCCA]

• RBAY v Tasmania [2026] TASCCA 6 (11 August 2026) (Shanahan CJ; Brett and Jago JJ)
  Catchwords:
  miscarriage - Other irregularities – Prosecution comments to jury – Prosecutor had repeatedly invited jury to consider evidence was unchallenged in circumstances where it had been challenged – Jury invited to consider "unchallenged" evidence as supportive of credibility of complainant - Where jury invited to embark upon impermissible reasoning process – Trial judge failed to direct jury to avoid such impermissible reasoning – Departure from fair trial - Error was material and constituted miscarriage of justice – Proviso inapplicable.
  
• Farboh v Tasmania [2026] TASCCA 5 (07 July 2026) (Wood, Estcourt and Brett JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Particular grounds of appeal – Misdirection and non-direction – Expression of judge's own opinion – Generally – Where trial judge intended to correct myths and misconceptions in summing up – Comments in summing up went beyond that authorised by legislation – Jury to call on its own experience – Trial judge not permitted to fill gaps arising from absence of expert evidence – Fundamental obligation of a trial judge is to ensure a fair trial – Defendant deprived of opportunity to address comments – Significant denial of procedural fairness – Error was material and constituted a miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed.
  
• Sherriff v Tasmania [2026] TASCCA 4 (25 June 2026) (Wood, Pearce and Cuthbertson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Trafficking in methylamphetamine – Business of trafficking involving import and sale for six months – Imprisonment for three years with non-parole period of one year and six months, not manifestly excessive.
  
• LS v State of Tasmania [2026] TASCCA 3 (19 May 2026) (Estcourt, Pearce and Cuthbertson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing of juveniles – Relevant factors – General principles – Assault committed by offender aged 16 – Rehabilitation primary sentencing aim.
  
• Hammer v The King [2026] TASCCA 2 (23 April 2026) (Wood, Estcourt and Brett JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – One charge of possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service – Child abuse material consisted of 212 images and 6 videos – Sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment with release on recognisance after 12 months and order for name on Community Protection Register for 2 years - Sentencing judge correctly concluded circumstances were not ‘exceptional’ for the purpose of s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)– Pre- meditated offence committed within a consistent pattern of behaviour – Sentencing judge correctly assessed objective seriousness of the offence as high – Appellant’s mental health did not significantly reduce his moral culpability or eliminate the need for general deterrence – Only appropriate sentence was sentence of immediate imprisonment – Length of sentence and recognisance release period imposed within the sound exercise of sentencing discretion – Appeal dismissed.
  
• Director of Public Prosecution v Woolley [2026] TASCCA 1 (26 March 2026) (Pearce, Brett and Jago JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Arson – Instigated others to set fire to former wife's home and shed – Motivated by retribution – Family violence – Term of imprisonment of fifteen months with three months suspended with eligibility for parole after six months manifestly inadequate.
  
• Adelegan v Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 16 (17 December 2025) (Wood J; Marshall and Porter AJJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Miscarriage of justice – Particular circumstances amounting to miscarriage – Misdirection or non-direction – Non-direction – Prosecutor led evidence that police left calling cards at accused's home, he failed to attend appointments and declined to speak to police – Integrity of police investigation not in issue and evidence inadmissible – Jury may have reasoned accused was avoiding police and acted out of consciousness of guilt – Prosecutor relied on accused's failure to speak to police as providing opportunity to tailor his evidence – Trial judge failed to direct jury no adverse inferences could be drawn from exercise of right to silence – Departure from trial according to law – Miscarriage of justice established – Other irregularities in trial process – Proviso inapplicable.
  
• King v State of Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 15 (17 December 2025) (Pearce, Brett and Cuthbertson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Stealing a firearm and burglary – Appellant with lengthy criminal history – Term of imprisonment of twelve months with eligibility for parole after six months not manifestly excessive.
  
• Rainbird v Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 14 (22 October 2025) (Shanahan CJ; Estcourt and Jago JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Appeal dismissed – Appellant submits evidence contradicts complainant's testimony – Submits jury could not have reconciled the two accounts – Submits insufficient evidence to uphold finding of intention to engage in unlawful sexual act – Open to jury to be satisfied of guilt on complainant's credibility – Jury entitled to conclude the appellant was grooming the complainant for the purposes of procuring a sexual act – Grounds dismissed.
  
• Bailey v Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 13 (16 October 2025) (Pearce, Brett and Cuthbertson JJ)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Other matters – Error of fact – Need to establish material error – Error capable of having affected the outcome.
  

Supreme Court of Tasmania – [TASSC]

• Director of Public Prosecutions v Harrison [2026] TASSC 60 (26 August 2026) (Brett J)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Sentence – Post-custodial orders – Other types of post-custodial orders – Other matters – Application for High Risk Offender Order – Satisfied to high degree of probability that the offender would pose unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if order not made – Risk factors and potential for rapid escalation to serious violence – Long history of substance abuse and mental illness – Behavioural problems and compliance issues with interim High Risk Offender Order – Close supervision and support necessary to obviate risk of potential for rapid escalation to serious violence – 20 month order made.
  
• Baird v Goodwin [2026] TASSC 61 (26 August 2026) (Brett J)
  Catchwords:
  Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters –– Review of global
  
  sentence of 4 months imprisonment wholly suspended for two years imposed for number of dishonesty gives rise to inference of undefined error – Motion to review upheld – Sentence for dishonesty offences set aside.
  
  offences committed between 25 April and 21 September 2025 – Appeal against sentence on grounds
  
  manifestly excessive and insufficient reasons provided – Magistrate discharged obligation to provide
  
  reasons – Sentence manifestly excessive – Offences committed during relatively confined period –
  
• Arrowsmith and Sherriff v Carter [2026] TASSC 58 (21 August 2026) (Brett J)
  Catchwords:
  Equity – Trusts and trustees – Implied trusts – Constructive trusts – Unconscionable conduct –
  
• Tasmulch Pty Ltd v Minister for Business, Industry & Resources [2026] TASSC 59 (21 August 2026) (Wood J)
  Catchwords:
  Administrative Law — Judicial review — Grounds of review — Generally — Security deposit scheme with
  
  respect to mining leases — Security deposit supplied by third party in discharge of lessee's obligations
  
  — Safety hazard caused by mining operations — Decision by Minister to call upon security deposit —
  
• Rosewarne and Rosewarne v Rosewarne (No 3) [2026] TASSC 56 (20 August 2026) (Daly AsJ)
  Catchwords:
  Procedure - Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Costs - Indemnity costs – Particular cases – Indemnity costs awarded.
  
• Tasmania v BAH [2026] TASSC 57 (12 August 2026) (Pearce J)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal law – Procedure – Jurisdiction – Supreme Courts – Generally – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to deal with non-indictable charges against a youth.
  
• Strand Group Pty Ltd v Waratah Wynyard Council [2026] TASSC 55 (07 August 2026) (Shanahan CJ)
  Catchwords:
  Administrative law – Judicial review – Observance of Procedures – Orders to quash decision – Respondent granted planning permit for redevelopment by Council – Application required to include declaration that the owner has been notified of the intention to make the application – Actual notification required – Notification to a company’s registered office – Respondent failed to send notification to the applicant’s registered office – Declaration of notice inaccurate – Respondent not provided opportunity to participate in planning process – Application allowed.
  
• Tas Investco Pty Ltd as trustee for Tasmania Property Trust v Sultan &; Anor (No 2) [2026] TASSC 54 (07 August 2026) (Estcourt J)
  Catchwords:
  Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Costs – Time for costs orders to be made – Reservation of costs until after particular event – Application for costs following determination of separate questions resulting in orders for specific performance and damages to be assessed – Damages claim in addition to specific performance remains inchoate – Application premature – Adjourned to a date to be fixed.
  
• Howrah Hills Landcare Group Inc v Tasmanian Planning Commission [2026] TASSC 51 (31 July 2026) (Shanahan CJ)
  Catchwords:
  Administrative Law – Judicial review – Grounds of review – Procedural fairness – Hearing – Nature of hearing – Refusal of adjournment – Where extended notice of hearing given – No breach of duty to afford natural justice established.
  
• Director of Public Prosecutions v Kefalianos [2026] TASSC 52 (31 July 2026) (Jago J)
  Catchwords:
  Criminal Law – Sentence – Post custodial orders – Other types of post custodial orders – Other matters - High risk offender – Respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence unless a high risk offender order is made – Order made for five years.