Australian Federal Courts (28 October 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Eight decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Wednesday 28 October 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia and seven from the Federal Court, five with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: a divided Full Court holds that a union permit holder's genuine purpose, even one resting on a mistake, enlivens the right of entry under s 484 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Then the first contested penalty under the AML/CTF Act ($260 million against the Star casino entities), parliamentary privilege meeting a whistleblower's pleading, a migration agent's appeal on who is a "client", and the conduct behind a finding of guilt recorded without conviction in a citizenship decision. The Full Court decision also features in today's Court of Appeal brief. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). ECA Training Pty Limited v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2026] FCAFC 138 (Rangiah, Snaden and Hatcher JJ, 28 October 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 19. By majority (Rangiah and Hatcher JJ), the s 484 right of entry arises where the permit holder genuinely holds the purpose of discussions with employees having the paras (a)-(c) characteristics; those are elements of the purpose, not objective preconditions, so a purpose resting on a mistake of fact or law still supports entry; the s 518(3)(b) declaration is an objective indicator of that purpose; occupiers are protected by proof of no genuine purpose, s 503(1) and ss 490-492A and 500. CEPU v Elecnor [2025] FCA 156 approved. Snaden J dissented (entry depends on the actual existence of the circumstances; Coco v The Queen; Elecnor wrongly decided). Unanimously, the new contention that the belief had to be reasonably held could not be raised on appeal (Coulton v Holcombe). By majority, and not strictly necessary, apprentices in mandatory, paid, employer-disciplined training perform "work". Appeal dismissed. JADE Public Law Desk (an AML/CTF penalty and a citizenship appeal). Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre v The Star Pty Limited [2026] FCA 1606 (Moore J, 28 October 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 23. The first contested pecuniary penalty under s 175 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth). The "primary purpose" of a Part A program (s 85(2)(a)) is the end the program document seeks to achieve, not its effect or objective capability by design; an absent, manifestly inadequate or formulaic risk assessment may support an inference; AUSTRAC ran no fall-back case. Section 36(1) is contravened once per customer not monitored, not per designated service; customers using the same channel are separate contraventions. Capacity to pay is not a cap (Pattinson); insolvency claims need cogent evidence including funders' intentions; prior agreed penalties (Crown) have a limited role. Penalties of $260 million ($195 million Star Sydney, $65 million Star Queensland) in four instalments; declarations; costs. JADE Jamdar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1620 (Rofe J, 28 October 2026) - JL p. 13. Sections 85ZR and 85ZS of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (Pt VIIC) are directed to the fact of a charge, conviction or finding of guilt and do not prevent an administrative decision-maker considering the underlying conduct in a citizenship good character assessment (Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s 21(2)(h)); Pt VIIC confers no immunity from answering questions, so the Administrative Review Tribunal was not obliged to advise a legally represented applicant of it; the deliberate withholding finding was not legally unreasonable. Extension o