Hika Tarawa Te-Kowhai v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty
[2026] NSWCA 138|Court of Appeal (NSW)|2026-07-20
Before: Bell CJ at [1]; McHugh JA at [1]; Preston CJ of LEC at [4]
The Court of Appeal dismissed Te-Kowhai's challenge to the appointment of an administrator to Cobowra. It accepted that the NSWALC had tacitly approved the appointment, found no basis to disturb the Minister's decision on the evidence or alleged improper purpose, and held that the Cobowra Board's later resolution did not authorise the proceedings. The racial discrimination issue was not decided on its merits because it had not been pleaded below and the relevant procedural ruling was not appealed.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – Minister’s appointment of an administrator to Local Aboriginal Land Council – appeal grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety – appeal against decision to remove Local Aboriginal Land Council as party to proceedings – constitutional challenge requiring s 78B notice
Wright v Kennedy; Wright v Dundooga Pastoral Co Pty Ltd; Reynoldson v Wright; Garlick v Kennedy; Glass v Kennedy; Brown v Kennedy; Wright v Kennedy
[2026] NSWSC 834|Supreme Court of NSW|2026-07-16
Before: Hmelnitsky J
ESTOPPEL — Proprietary estoppel — Encouragement — Where plaintiff is a farmer — Where the farm is made up of three parcels of farmland — Where the first parcel of farmland (First Parcel) was owned by plaintiff’s mother (the deceased) prior to her death — Where plaintiff alleges that the deceased made representations that he would inherit all of the First Parcel if he stayed and worked on the farm — Where plaintiff will inherit 70% of the residue of the deceased’s estate, which includes the First Parcel, and has already received the second parcel of farmland (Second Parcel) as an inter vivos gift — Whether the deceased made the representations as alleged — Whether plaintiff has detrimentally relied on the representations EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Constructive trusts — Where third defendant is the plaintiff’s younger brother and a son of the deceased — Where a company (Trustee Company) conducts a farming business as trustee of a unit trust (Unit Trust) — Where plaintiff and third defendant each held units in the Unit Trust — Where Trustee Company owns the third parcel of farmland (Third Parcel) and plant, stock and equipment — Where third defendant declined to give a guarantee for the refinancing of Trustee Company’s debts — Where plaintiff alleges that this conduct of the third defendant resulted in failure of joint venture between them — Whether the Unit Trust’s assets are held subject to a constructive trust in plaintiff’s favour due to failure of joint venture — Whether plaintiff or Trustee Company paid the purchase price for the Third Parcel — Whether plaintiff or Trustee Company owns plant, stock and equipment RESTITUTION — Nature of restitutionary liability — Unjust enrichment — Where plaintiff claims reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit basis from Trustee Company — Where plaintiff has worked for farming business without deriving any wage — Where there was no contract governing plaintiff’s work — Whether unjust for Trustee Company to retain the benefit of plaintiff’s work — Whether there was an express or implied request by Trustee Company to plaintiff to perform work — Whether Trustee Company accepted plaintiff’s services knowing he expected to be paid — Whether change of position defence applies EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Breaches of trust — Breaches of fiduciary duty — Rule in Barnes v Addy — Where plaintiff is a director of Trustee Company — Where plaintiff caused Trustee Company to transfer its assets to his own family trust — Where plaintiff caused Trustee Company to distribute income to himself and his wife but not the other unitholders — Whether Trustee Company has breached its duties as trustee to third defendant — Whether plaintiff has breached his fiduciary duties to Trustee Company — Whether recipient of trust property is liable under first limb of Barnes v Addy CORPORATIONS — Members’ rights and remedies — Oppression — Where conduct is oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against minority — Where third defendant is a member of Trustee Company — Whether conduct of plaintiff and Trustee Company are oppressive to the interests of third defendant in his capacity as a unitholder in the Unit Trust pursuant to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 232 — Whether a buy-out order is the appropriate remedy SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claims by five adult daughters of the deceased for provision from the deceased’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 — Where each daughter received no provision under the deceased’s will — Where the deceased had purported to make provision for her daughters under her will but gifts failed — Where all except the youngest daughter have lived independent lives from the deceased with their spouses and children — Where youngest daughter lived with the deceased and was the deceased’s carer until her death — Whether adequate and proper provision was made by the deceased to each daughter and if not, what the nature and amount of further provision should be — Whether and how burden of additional provision should be adjusted
Tsakirios v State of New South Wales
[2026] NSWCA 132|Court of Appeal (NSW)|2026-07-16
Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Leeming JA at [2]; Kirk JA at [20]
The Court of Appeal held that a police officer’s statutory duty to disclose relevant investigation material to the DPP can be a public duty for the tort of misfeasance in public office. The officer should have disclosed information about two other persons of interest, and that failure was an unauthorised omission. A claimant does not have to show that the public officer owed them a separate duty not to commit the abuse. But those findings did not establish the tort: the appellant also had to prove malice. The Court accepted that the officer could genuinely, though wrongly, have considered the information irrelevant. The appeal was dismissed. The Court also held that copying a party’s submissions does not, by itself, prove a failure to decide independently, and found that the primary judge’s reasons were adequate on the central issues.
TORTS — misfeasance in public office — elements — public power and meaning of public duty — not necessary to establish tort that there be duty to exercise power, although presence of such duty important in cases involving conduct by omission — not necessary to establish that public officer owed a duty not to commit particular abuse complained of to claimant individually or as member of class — duty in s 15A of Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW) applied to exercise of public power in investigating robbery — investigating officer failed to comply with public duty — officer did not act maliciously CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — prosecution disclosure requirements — disclosures in indictment — statutory and common law obligations of legal practitioners acting as prosecutors — statutory framework intended to be capable of consideration and indirect enforcement by judiciary — framework pursues public interest in fair trial and efficient conduct of criminal proceedings COURTS AND JUDGES — adequacy of reasons — complaint about inadequacy of reasons often inutile in appeal by way of rehearing where correctness of decision also challenged — reasons should in general consider and address core matters of law, fact or discretion in dispute — replication of party’s submissions unwise but does not necessarily render reasons inadequate — no distinct and sufficient criterion of inadequacy of reasons that justice has not been seen to have been done — primary judge brought own mind to bear on issues before him
Golden Rain Development Pty Ltd (ACN 166 672 537) v The Owners – Strata Plan No 97938
[2026] NSWCA 135|Court of Appeal (NSW)|2026-07-16
Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Leeming JA at [93]; Ball JA at [100].
The Court of Appeal held that a freezing order is not ordinarily a means of stopping a company from selling assets at fair market value to pay genuine debts when those debts fall due. Paying a liability reduces assets and liabilities together, which is different from distributing profits or lending money out of the company. The Court varied the order so Golden Rain could sell specified terraces and use the proceeds to pay its current debts as they fell due. The validity of the security arrangements remained for separate proceedings.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Interim preservation — Freezing orders — where owners’ corporation sought to restrain developer from selling its only substantial assets without notice — where developer sought to use proceeds of sale of assets to repay debt incurred from related parties to fund development — where developer granted security over assets to related parties while litigation pending — whether debts incurred in the ordinary course of business — whether sale of assets in order to pay debts as they fell due should have been carved out of freezing order — whether danger that prospective judgment debt would not be paid caused by apprehended payment of existing debts or the financial position of the prospective judgment debtor
Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/s Reward Group v Tackelly No 8 Pty Ltd atf Tackelly No 8 Trust
[2026] NSWCA 133|Court of Appeal (NSW)|2026-07-15
Before: Ward P at [1]; McHugh JA at [119]; Free JA at [124]
The Court of Appeal decided that Western Australia’s one-business-day deadline for giving the other party an adjudication review application is a jurisdictional requirement. Tackelly’s email contained a link to a Mimecast repository rather than the review documents themselves. By majority, the Court held that this did not give the documents by email within the statutory meaning, because the recipient first had to access the link and download them. The Court allowed Reward’s appeal. Ward P agreed that the deadline was jurisdictional but would have found the documents were otherwise provided when the link was sent.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Adjudication Review Application under the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA) — requirement under s 42(3) of that Act for an applicant making an adjudication review application to give a copy of that application to the other party within one business day after the application is made — statutory construction — whether s 42(3) is a jurisdictional precondition — whether the review adjudicator fell into jurisdictional error BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Statutory Construction — interpretation of s 113 of the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA) requiring the giving of a document in the manner provided for in the contract or in s 113(3) of that Act — whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent did not comply with the time requirement in s 42(3) by sending an email with an attached email providing a Mimecast link to the application documents
Zey v State of New South Wales
[2026] NSWCA 134|Court of Appeal (NSW)|2026-07-15
Before: Ward P; Mitchelmore JA
Ms Zey was given extra time to bring her leave application, but the Court of Appeal did not allow an appeal to proceed. It considered her complaints about the stay, the towing of her vehicle, police entry, and the statutory basis for police action. The Court concluded that none justified leave under the applicable threshold. The stay of enforcement of the District Court costs order ended, and the Court set a timetable for submissions about a further gross-sum costs application.
APPEALS — Application for leave to appeal — application filed out of time — claims for trespass to land and goods — application to stay first instance proceedings refused — claim for trespass to land established — nominal damages awarded — claims otherwise refused — indemnity costs ordered on gross sum basis — monetary threshold for appeal not met — no question of general principle — extension of time to file application granted — leave refused