//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTCA 32
procedural. The 5 November 2026 appeal hearing was vacated. The parties were directed to file proposed directions for evidence and submissions, the matter was listed before the Registrar for directions on 17...
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Court of Appeal did not decide the appeal or any of the three outstanding applications. It had no available date to hear those applications before the appeal date of 5 November 2026. Because of that scheduling conflict, it vacated the appeal hearing and set a process for the parties to propose directions and return for further case management. The arguments about whether security for costs should be ordered, whether the judgment should be stayed, and whether the statutory demand should be set aside were left for later.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,130 words · generated 07/10/2026
In February 2026, Loukas-Karlsson J entered judgment for Theresa Mary Shannon and Jennifer Anne Westacott against Residential Reports Pty Ltd and Scott Maher. The judgment was for $1,113,133.38, together with interest of $372,823.27 and costs ([1]). The underlying claim concerned a termite inspection of a property in Bruce, Australian Capital Territory. Residential Reports had been retained to inspect the property and prepare a pest report for use in its sale. Maher, a director and employee of Residential Reports, performed the inspection and prepared the report. The purchasers relied in part on the report, which disclosed no substantive live termite infestation. A severe infestation was later discovered, and the property was determined to be uninhabitable ([1]). The primary judge accepted that relevant duties had been breached, and that finding formed the basis of the damages award ([2]).
Residential Reports and Maher appealed. The appeal was listed for one day on 5 November 2026 ([3]). By the time of the case-management decision, three applications were also in play. Shannon and Westacott sought security for costs of $130,000. Residential Reports sought a stay of the primary judge's orders. It also sought, by originating process, to set aside a statutory demand served by Shannon and Westacott based on non-payment of the judgment debt ([4]).
The applications and appeal raised an immediate scheduling problem. The stay and statutory-demand applications had already been filed when the appeal was listed for directions on 12 August. Security for costs was then foreshadowed, and the Registrar directed steps for its filing ([5]). The security application was filed on 18 August ([7]). At the next directions hearing, the respondents maintained that the appeal hearing should be vacated. The parties considered that a day would be required if the three applications were heard together ([7]).
At the hearing before Muller J on 10 September, the Court was informed that its current resourcing restrictions made it extremely unlikely that a full day could be found for the applications before the appeal listing ([9]). After consulting the Registrar, Muller J confirmed that the earliest possible listing was the week commencing 16 November 2026, after the appeal date ([16]). The Court therefore vacated the 5 November appeal hearing, directed the parties to propose a timetable for evidence and submissions on the applications, and made further listings for directions and a call over ([18]). Costs were reserved.
The decision is a procedural case-management ruling, not a decision about whether any party was right on the merits of the applications. Muller J identified the immediate issue as how to manage the applications consistently with “the goal of quick, inexpensive and efficient resolution of the dispute” ([15]). That framing matters: the Court had to deal with the practical relationship between pending applications and an appeal that was already listed.
The decisive point was the unavailability of a hearing date for the applications before 5 November. The Court had checked availability and concluded there was “no prospect of a hearing date prior to the current appeal listing” ([16]). If the appeal proceeded first, it would precede the hearing of three applications affecting the proceedings. The Court described vacating the appeal listing as “inevitable” in light of that constraint ([16]). The reason stated in the judgment is thus a concrete sequencing and resource problem, rather than a determination of a general legal rule about when an appeal must be adjourned.
The parties proposed different approaches. Shannon and Westacott argued that proceeding with appeal preparation while the applications remained unresolved could cause unnecessary costs. They also pointed to the possibility that security might be ordered and not provided, and argued that continued appeal preparation might make the stay application nugatory ([10]). They proposed an evidence and submissions timetable, and submitted that the three applications could be heard orally in half a day or less, once written material had been filed ([11]-[12]).
Residential Reports opposed vacating the appeal date and sought a full day for the applications. Its only identified alternative was separate determination of the security application, potentially within two hours. The respondents accepted that estimate but argued that separate hearings would be inefficient because evidence and submissions overlapped ([13]). Muller J did not decide which estimate was correct or whether the applications should ultimately be heard together. The Court's scheduling inquiry established only that even a separate hearing of the security application could not be listed before the appeal date ([16]).
The Court also addressed the appellants' argument that the security application was too late to be entertained if it derailed the appeal. The judgment records several contextual points: the appeal date had been fixed over the respondents' objection; the respondents had indicated that a security application was proposed; the timing was said to be connected to Residential Reports' disclosure of impecuniosity in correspondence dated 5 August; and the Registrar had previously recognised uncertainty about the outstanding applications ([14]). Muller J also noted that Residential Reports had put no evidence before the Court to support its submissions about prejudice from vacating the appeal listing ([14]). These observations explain the procedural context, but the Court expressly left the timing issue open for argument at the security hearing ([14]).
The judgment does not announce a new legal test or state that it changes the law. It records a case-management decision made against the specific procedural background and court listing constraints in this matter. Its central expressed consideration was efficient management of the three applications and the appeal ([15]-[18]).
Before this decision, the appeal was listed for 5 November 2026, while the three applications remained unresolved. The Registrar had earlier maintained the appeal date “at this stage” because there was too much uncertainty to justify missing the Court of Appeal listing period, while also noting that the position might be revisited when it became clearer ([5]-[6]). The security application was later filed, and the respondents continued to seek vacation of the appeal date ([7]).
After the decision, the appeal hearing was no longer set for 5 November. The parties were required to propose directions governing evidence and submissions for the applications, first on a consent basis and, if agreement was not reached, by separate proposals (18-(3)). The matter was listed before the Registrar on 17 September with a view to listing the applications in the week commencing 16 November, and for a Court of Appeal call over on 28 October (18-(5)). Costs were reserved (18).
The reasons refer to Blue Mirror Pty Ltd v Tan & Tan Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] NSWCA 193 and Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 231 because the appellants relied on them in their argument about the timing of security for costs ([14]). The judgment does not set out the holdings of those cases or say that it adopted a rule from either one. It also does not decide the security application. On this judgment alone, therefore, it would be inaccurate to describe either cited case as having been applied to determine the security question.
At [15], Muller J said: “The immediate issue is how the three applications filed by the parties are to be managed consistently with the goal of quick, inexpensive and efficient resolution of the dispute.” In plain English, the Court was deciding how to organise the next steps, not whether the applications should succeed.
At [16], the Court stated: “There is no prospect of a hearing date prior to the current appeal listing. As a consequence, it is inevitable the appeal listing must be vacated.” This is the operative explanation for the order. The applications could not be heard before the appeal, so the appeal date could not be retained on the existing timetable.
At [14], Muller J said that “issues as to the timing of the application will remain open for argument when the application is heard.” This means the Court did not reject or uphold the appellants' lateness argument. The security application was still to be determined, and both sides could address timing at that later hearing.
At [18], the Court ordered that the parties file proposed consent directions by 5:00 pm on 14 September, or separate proposed directions by 5:00 pm on 15 September if they could not agree. The Registrar listing on 17 September was intended to progress arrangements for a hearing in the week commencing 16 November. These are procedural directions, not findings about the parties' substantive rights.
The decision is most directly relevant as an example of appellate case management where multiple interlocutory applications are unresolved and the court cannot list them before the appeal hearing. The key factual combination was: an appeal already listed; three applications affecting the proceedings; overlap or possible overlap in the evidence and submissions; a dispute about hearing time and sequencing; and no available application hearing date before the appeal date ([4], [7], [9], [13], [16]).
It may also be useful when considering the procedural significance of an earlier listing decision that was expressly provisional. Here, the Registrar had maintained the appeal listing while recognising that the position could be revisited as the applications became clearer ([5]-[6]). The Court treated that procedural history as relevant context, rather than as a reason the appeal date could never be changed ([14]).
The decision should not be read as establishing that any pending security, stay, or statutory-demand application automatically requires an appeal to be vacated. The judgment's stated reason was that the applications could not be heard before the particular appeal date and that vacating the listing was consequently inevitable ([16]). Nor did the Court decide that the security application was timely or that any party had suffered legally cognisable prejudice. Those issues remained open or were not determined in this decision ([14]).
The supplied judgment contains no information about later treatment of Residential Reports Pty Ltd v Shannon. It was decided on 11 September 2026, and the text provides no subsequent judgments or citations to it. It is therefore not possible, from this source, to say whether later courts followed, distinguished, or otherwise treated the decision.
The only other decisions identified in the judgment are Blue Mirror Pty Ltd v Tan & Tan Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] NSWCA 193 and Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 231. They are mentioned at [14] as authorities relied on by Residential Reports in its argument about the timing of the security application. The judgment does not describe later treatment of either decision, and it does not state that either supplied the rule deciding the case-management issue.
For research purposes, a distinction should be maintained between the procedural order made here and any eventual ruling on the applications. The order vacated the appeal hearing and created a timetable for further procedural steps; it did not determine the applications for security, a stay, or setting aside the statutory demand ([18]). Any later judicial consideration of those applications would be separate from the ruling analysed here.
The judgment leaves the substantive applications unresolved. First, it does not decide whether security for costs should be ordered, whether the amount sought is appropriate, or whether the timing of the application should affect its determination. Muller J expressly left timing open for argument at the security hearing ([14]). The judgment also does not decide whether the respondents' evidence concerning Residential Reports' financial position satisfies the applicable requirements; it records that Mr Hill attested to concerns about the company's ability to meet the debt ([10]).
Second, it does not decide whether the primary judge's orders should be stayed. The Court records that Residential Reports sought a stay, and that the respondents argued continued appeal preparation might render that application nugatory ([4], [10]). No conclusion on the stay's merits appears in the reasons or orders.
Third, the Court does not decide whether the statutory demand should be set aside. It records that Residential Reports brought an originating process based on the judgment debt ([4]), but makes no finding about the demand's validity or the grounds advanced to challenge it.
Finally, the judgment does not resolve how the applications would ultimately be heard, whether together or separately, or what the eventual appeal hearing date would be. It ordered further directions, with a view to listing the applications in the week commencing 16 November 2026, and reserved costs ([18]). Any analysis of those later events would require the subsequent orders or judgments, which are not included in the supplied text.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: Residential Reports Pty Ltd v Shannon Citation: [2026] ACTCA 32 Hearing Date: 10 September 2026 Decision Date: 11 September 2026 Before: Muller J Decision: See [18] Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – APPEALS – Practice and procedure – directions hearing – multiple interlocutory applications on foot – where appeal presently listed for hearing – where no available dates for applications to be heard – appeal hearing vacated Cases Cited: Blue Mirror Pty Ltd v Tan & Tan Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] NSWCA 193 Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 231 Parties: Residential Reports Pty Ltd (First Appellant) Scott Maher (Second Appellant) Theresa Mary Shannon (First Respondent) Jennifer Anne Westacott (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel R Markham (First and Second Appellants) B Katekar SC (First and Second Respondents) Solicitors Adero Law (First and Second Appellants) Thomsons (First and Second Respondents File Numbers: ACTCA 17 of 2026 SC 347 of 2026 Decision Under Appeal: Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Loukas-Karlsson J Date of Decision: 26 February 2026 Case Title: Shannon & Anor v Residential Reports Pty Ltd & Anor Citation: [2026] ACTSC 66 Court File Number: SC 92 of 2022 MULLER J:
In February 2026 Loukas-Karlsson J made orders giving judgement in favour of Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott against Residential Reports Pty Ltd (“Residential reports”) and Mr Maher in the sum of $1,113,133.38 plus interest of $372,823.27 and costs. The primary litigation concerned a termite infestation at a property in Bruce, ACT. Residential Reports were retained to undertake an inspection of the property with a view to preparing a pest inspection report to be relied upon for the sale of that property. Mr Maher was a director and employee of Residential Reports who undertook the inspection and prepared the report. The property was purchased by Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott in part in reliance on the pest inspection report revealing no substantive live termite infestation issues. Subsequently a severe termite infestation was discovered. The property was determined to be uninhabitable, and it was sold at a price that whilst still a capital gain to Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott would have, but for the failings of Residential Reports and Mr Maher, been greater.
The primary judge accepted there was a breach of relevant duties owed to the property purchasers and that finding is the basis of the award of damages.
Residential Reports and Mr Maher have appealed the decision of the primary judge. The appeal is presently listed for hearing on 5 November 2026 with a one-day estimate.
The matter comes before me as each of the appellants and respondents have filed applications relating to or impacting upon the appeal proceedings. There are three applications in total. They may be summarised as follows: (a) Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott seek security for costs in the sum of $130,000 and consequential orders. (b) Residential Reports seeks a stay of the orders made by the primary judge. (c) By way of originating process, Residential Reports also seek to set aside a statutory demand served upon them by Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott. That demand is based on the non-payment of the judgment debt arising from the decision of the primary judge.
The appeal was set down for hearing at a directions hearing before the Registrar on 12 August 2026. At that time the applications for a stay, and to set aside the statutory demand, were already filed. The application for security was foreshadowed, and directions were made for its filing. The Registrar’s note on the bench sheet of 12 August records: Applications filed seeking statutory demand be set aside and stay have been filed in first instance matter. Respondent submitted that appeal should not go ahead given those applications. Hearing date maintained at this stage. Too much uncertainty to justify missing COA listing period. May be revisited when position becomes clearer.
It is quite clear that although the appeal was listed for hearing, the Registrar was mindful of the uncertainty arising from the various applications and acknowledged the prospect of revisiting the hearing date when the position clarified.
The application for security was then lodged on 18 August 2026 in compliance with the Registrar’s earlier orders. When the appeal proceedings were again listed for directions on 28 August 2026 the position of the respondents, that the appeal hearing date should be vacated, was maintained. It was also the position of the parties that if the three applications were listed together a day would be required for the application hearing.
The Registrar directed the matter be listed before a judge for further directions. With that background, the matter came before me on 10 September 2026.
It is a matter of relevance that the present resourcing restrictions of the court render it extremely unlikely that a single day will be found for a hearing of the applications before the date presently set for the hearing of the appeal. Notwithstanding a clear indication given to the parties when the matter was before me that there were likely no available dates for the hearing of the applications prior to the current appeal listing, Residential Reports remains opposed to vacation of the appeal listing.
The position of the parties as to case management
Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott seek vacation of the appeal listing and directions for the filing of evidence and submissions in relation to each of the applications. They say permitting the appeal listing to remain in tandem with directions for the series of applications will force the parties to undertake preparation and incur costs related to the appeal whilst the outcome of the applications remains unknown. Costs will be incurred in preparation of the appeal which may be unnecessary where the application for security is successful and the security is unable to be paid. That is a relevant matter where Mr Hill attests, in his affidavit affirmed on 9 September 2026, to becoming aware of Residential Report’s inability to meet the debt based on its financial position. Additionally, the continuation of work in preparation for the appeal hearing may simply render the stay application nugatory. They also submit an orderly progression of the applications with a view to listing prior to the end of the calendar year in combination with an appeal listing in March next year is an efficient and orderly means of managing the ongoing dispute between the parties.
In support of Ms Shannon’s and Ms Westacott’s proposal they rely upon a document prepared by their solicitor, Mr Hill, setting out a proposed timetable for evidence and submissions in relation to each of the three applications. Within that table they demonstrate the related difficulties posed by allowing the appeal to run its course in accordance with the current listing. The table is reproduced below.
Date ACTCA 17/2026 – Security for SC 92/2022 – Stay SC 347/2026 – Set ACTCA 17/2026 -costs application application aside application Appeal
18/9/26 First appellant to file and serve Plaintiffs to file and Defendants to file and -any evidence in response serve any evidence serve any evidence in in response response
24/09/26 - - - Appellants’ submissions, chronology and authorities due
25/09/26 Respondents to file and serve First defendant to Plaintiff to file and serve -any evidence in reply file and serve any any evidence in reply evidence in reply
02/10/26 Respondents to file and serve First defendant to Plaintiff to file and serve -submissions file and serve submissions submissions
08/10/26 - - - Respondents’ submissions, chronology and authorities due
09/10/26 First appellant to file and serve Plaintiffs to file and Defendants to file and -any submissions in response serve any serve any submissions submissions in response
15/10/26 - - - Appellants’ submissions and authorities in reply due
22/10/26 - - - Appellants to file and complete Appeal Folder B and Appeal Folder C
05/11/26 - - - Appeal presently listed for hearing
With a view to assisting the court to secure the earliest possible available date for a hearing of the applications Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott submit, with evidence filed and appropriate allowance for written submissions, the parties should be able to deal with an oral hearing of the three applications in ½ day or less.
Residential Reports press for maintenance of the appeal listing. They also press a full day allowance for the hearing of the three applications. Confronted with the lack of availability of a day to hear the applications before the appeal listing Residential Reports offered no mechanism for resolution of the obvious difficulty that the appeal hearing may proceed before the applications. The only possible alternative proposed was a separate determination of the security for costs application on the basis that it may be dealt with in the space of two hours. Counsel for Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott agreed with that estimate but pointed to the overlap in evidence and submissions between the three applications and the inefficiency of proceeding by way of separate hearing.
Counsel for Residential Reports directed some time to the issue of the lateness of the application for security in the context of the appeal, noting the notice of appeal was filed in April. He argues where the application is sufficiently late to derail the appeal hearing, and the appeal date was fixed by consent, the application for security should not be entertained. In that respect he relies upon the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Blue Mirror Pty Ltd v Tan & Tan Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] NSWCA 193 at [20]-[24]. Reliance is also placed on Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 231. There are a few observations to be made concerning the submission. First, the appeal date was fixed over objection by Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott and in circumstances where it was made clear a security for costs application was proposed. Secondly, it is submitted the timing of the application for security was critically related to the disclosure of impecuniosity by Residential Reports in correspondence dated 5 August 2026. Thirdly, the listing occurred in circumstances where the Registrar was mindful there remained considerable uncertainty about the progression of the various applications filed or proposed, and anticipated the need to revisit the listing at a future date when there was greater clarity about the applications. Fourthly, whilst extensive submissions were made from the bar table concerning prejudice where the appeal listing is vacated, Residential Reports elected to place no evidence before me in support of its submissions. Finally, the application for security is yet to be determined and issues as to the timing of the application will remain open for argument when the application is heard.
The immediate issue is how the three applications filed by the parties are to be managed consistently with the goal of quick, inexpensive and efficient resolution of the dispute.
I certify that the preceding eighteen [18] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Muller. Associate: MG Malouf Date: 11 September 2026
Residential Reports Pty Ltd
Shannon
The 5 November 2026 appeal hearing was vacated. The parties were directed to file proposed directions for evidence and submissions, the matter was listed before the Registrar for directions on 17 September 2026 with a view to an applications hearing in the week commencing 16 November 2026, and it was listed for a Court of Appeal call over on 28 October 2026. Costs were reserved ([18]).
As I indicated that I would, at the conclusion of the hearing before me I consulted the Registrar concerning available dates. I understand the earliest possible available listing for the applications, whether they are dealt with as a group or on the basis of a separate hearing of the security for costs application, is in the week commencing 16 November 2026. There is no prospect of a hearing date prior to the current appeal listing. As a consequence, it is inevitable the appeal listing must be vacated.
It will be necessary for directions to be made regulating the filing of evidence and submissions for each of the three applications. I presently have the benefit of proposed directions prepared on behalf of Ms Shannon and Ms Westacott. The submissions received on behalf of Residential Reports did not directly address the proposed timetable. In those circumstances I propose to give the parties an opportunity to reach a consent position concerning those directions now they have a better understanding of the timeframe for the listing of the applications and of the appeal. Orders
I make the following orders: (1) The appeal hearing listed for 5 November 2026 is vacated. (2) The parties are directed to file proposed consent directions for the filing of evidence and submissions in respect of the three applications by 5:00pm on Monday, 14 September 2026. (3) Failing the achievement of a consent position, the parties are each to file proposed directions for the filing of evidence and submissions in respect of the three applications by 5:00pmon Tuesday, 15 September 2026. (4) The matter is listed before the Registrar for directions in relation to the applications hearing on Thursday, 17 September 2026 at 9:00 am, with a view to listing in the week commencing 16 November 2026. (5) The matter is listed before the Registrar in the Court of Appeal call over on 28 October 2026 at 9:00am. (6) Costs are reserved.