Australian Courts of Appeal (27 October 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Six headnoted appellate decisions from four courts in the edition of Tuesday 27 October 2026, with the Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. A parole term that needs its own reasons; relief from a guillotine consent order when the pleading was served but not filed; substantial part in software copyright; a failed joint endeavour between mother and daughter, and adequacy not equality in family provision; group costs order returns at a class action settlement; and bail before a murder retrial. A domestic violence sentence appeal is reported as legal doctrine only. Public Law Desk (opening story). President of the Parole Board Queensland v Anderson [2026] QCA 216 - the public interest in s 175I(4)(a) Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) is not confined to the s 175H(2) matters (offences, risk, victims) but is construed by the text, scheme and s 3 purposes, including the dignity and special needs of offenders arising from age and disability; failing to consider the prisoner's health, disabilities and medical reports in fixing the term of a restricted prisoner declaration was an error of law; the term is a separate decision and not a jurisdictional fact; s 48 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) affects construction only where there is a constructional choice. Appeal dismissed with costs; the end date of the declaration to be reconsidered according to law (Mullins P, Brown and Bradley JJA; also the Queensland edition). JADE Practice and Procedure Desk . Millinium Capital Managers Limited v Mount Cathay Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 217 - the r 7(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) power to extend time under a self-executing consent order needs good reason for depriving the other party of that benefit, whether or not the order records an agreement (Chavez v Moreton Bay Regional Council); whether relief is available where the agreement promises not to seek it was left open; a pleading settled and served, but not filed, before the deadline was substantial compliance; the primary judge failed to address the client's reliance on its former solicitors. Appeal allowed and time extended; leave to file the deficient pleading refused; indemnity costs confined; remitted to the Commercial List (Mullins P, Doyle JA, Henry J; also the Queensland edition). JADE Gawler v FleetPartners Group Ltd (No 2) [2026] VSC 698 - at settlement the Court evaluates of its own motion under s 33ZDA(3) Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) whether a group costs order rate remains appropriate and necessary; the return must be proportionate to the risk; law practices should provide return on investment and internal rate of return calculations on actual labour and overhead costs plus external disbursements, not fees charged; unregistered group members face a high bar under s 33ZF and need affidavit evidence of the cause. Settlement approved; rate maintained (Craig J; Victoria edition). JADE Commercial Law Desk . Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 122 - substantial part in a computer program asks whether the totality of code copied from each work is a substantial part of it, measured by the originality with which it expresses its computing functions (structure, and the choice, combination and sequencing of commands), not its importance to the device; a "but for" test is unhelpful; header files, architecture and framework, and antecedent versions; evidence of labour saved is admissible (animus furandi as an evidentiary aid); quantity only where reliably comparable. Appeal grounds dismissed, cross-appeal allowed in part; compensat