Australian Courts of Appeal (28 October 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Eight headnoted appellate decisions from seven courts in the edition of Wednesday 28 October 2026, with the New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and ACT editions of the same day folded in. An adjournment refused for want of the client's own evidence; stealing that was never an available alternative verdict; an unreasonable verdict claim after a judge-alone trial; the Crown held to its case and joint commission; discovery and the pleaded case; who pays third parties brought into an appeal, and separate lawyers for an insurer; and the union right of entry. A child sexual offence appeal is reported as legal doctrine only. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). El Youssef v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2026] NSWCA 225 - a party seeking an adjournment to investigate a settlement deed must show some factual basis, and the client's own evidence is the obvious source; where the client could depose and does not, the court may infer the evidence would not have assisted; refusal is reviewable only for House v The King error; an extension of time fails without a fairly arguable appeal; Kirk JA (obiter) on judgments by consent and leave under s 101(2)(c) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). Extension refused; summons and notice of appeal dismissed (Leeming, Kirk and McHugh JJA; also the New South Wales edition). JADE Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd v Cole [2026] VSCA 252 - relevance for discovery is tested by the pleaded case; credit is not a pleaded issue; leave refused for want of substantial injustice, given prior applications, delay and an imminent trial. Leave to appeal refused (Niall CJ, Lyons and Nichols JJA; also the Victoria edition). JADE Saadat v Commonwealth & Ors (No 2) [2026] SASCA 132 - a defendant that files a contingent appeal against third parties and procures consolidation so they are bound is, if the primary appeal fails, in substance unsuccessful against them, and costs follow the event. The Commonwealth to pay the third parties' costs (Livesey P, S Doyle and Bleby JJA; also the South Australia edition). JADE Agokk v Programmed Skilled Workforce Pty Ltd [2026] WASC 464 - the power to allow a defendant more than one set of lawyers comes from the inherent jurisdiction (s 16 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)); dual representation is exceptional and must be shown by evidence to be required by the interests of justice; the usual course is independent representation and third party proceedings against insurers. Application refused (Western Australia edition, first instance). JADE Criminal Law Desk . Wheldon v Tasmania [2026] TASCCA 9 - under ss 332 and 341 Criminal Code 1924 (Tas) stealing is an alternative to aggravated carjacking only if the crime as described or charged necessarily involves it, and s 240A requires no dishonest taking or intent to permanently deprive; an error raised by the Court in a sentence appeal; acquittal, not retrial, on conceded error. Conviction quashed, acquittal entered; a related summary charge to be resentenced (Wood, Estcourt and Cuthbertson JJ; also the Tasmania edition). JADE Gordon (a Pseudonym) v The King [2026] SASCA 126 - after a judge-alone trial, whether the judge must, not might, have had a reasonable doubt, with full allowance for the judge's advantages; weighing a child complainant's inconsistencies; the appellate court is not bound by the trial judge's weight on circumstantial evidence; s 34R Evidence Act 1929 (SA) directions are shaped by the forensic context. Permission granted; appeal