Australian Federal Courts (27 October 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Nine decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Tuesday 27 October 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, newly reported, and eight from the Federal Court of Australia, four with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: how the Full Court measures a substantial part of a computer program under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), by the originality of the copied code's expression rather than its importance to the device, so that copying a small proportion of a large program can infringe. Hytera v Motorola (No 2) also features in today's Court of Appeal brief. Then a visa tribunal that treated Direction 110 as exhaustive, the deemed-receipt rule that makes the day an email is sent day one of a review period, and two lessons for litigants in person: AFCA determinations are not judicially reviewable, and appeals from the Administrative Review Tribunal lie only on a question of law. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 122 (Beach, O'Bryan and Rofe JJ, 7 September 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 16. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), substantial part in a computer program asks whether the totality of code copied from each work is a substantial part of that work, assessed qualitatively by the originality with which the copied code expresses its computing functions, including structure and the choice, combination and sequencing of commands; importance to the operation of the device is not the test (Data Access v Powerflex; IceTV v Nine Network applied). The s 10 reference to a device having digital information processing capabilities concerns the processor's computing operations; a but for essentiality test is unhelpful; findings through a segment-by-segment functional materiality lens warrant circumspection. Header code is not of lesser significance than source code; architecture and framework goes to expression; reused antecedent code is not less original; animus furandi rehabilitated as an evidentiary aid, evidence of labour saved admissible; line-count evidence discounted, including for destroyed source code. 45 of about 5,000 and 82 of about 5,866 files were a substantial part of the firmware suites. Entered orders not reflecting the Court's intention varied nunc pro tunc under r 39.05(e), (h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). Appeal grounds 2 to 5 dismissed; cross-appeal allowed on grounds 2, 3 and 4; each party bears its own costs of the patent issues, Hytera to pay Motorola's costs of the copyright issues. Compensatory relief, additional damages and the costs of the trial are left to the primary judge; nothing is predicted. JADE Public Law Desk . Roseingrave v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1602 (McDonald J, 27 October 2026) - JL p. 11. Direction 110 is not exhaustive of the considerations under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); the limits of its primary considerations in cll 8.3 and 8.4 do not relieve the Tribunal of its obligation to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations. The Tribunal treated the absence of the applicant's wife and son from Australia as conclusive and did not evaluate substantial and clearly articulated claims about the impact of non-revocation on them; the error was material and jurisdictional (Plaintiff M1/2021, LPDT applied). A bare, unparticularised assertion of a connection with an Indigenous community, unsupported and not pursued, does not oblige consideration under cl 8.3 (Brownlie distinguished). Certiorari and mandamus; remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted; the Minister to pay costs. Nothing is predicted. JADE EEN25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizen