Australian Federal Courts (29 October 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Eight decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Thursday 29 October 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, none with a Judicial Ledger headnote and two with a Signal synopsis. A quiet day, and a loud lead: security for costs against a company that sues, where the company claiming that security would stifle its claim must prove that the people who stand to benefit from the litigation are also without means, with a staged, testable method for fixing the amount and a stay, not dismissal, as the usual consequence of non-payment. Then leave to plead an oppression case, where the express terms of the shareholders' deed and the constitution defeat a pleaded expectation. Neither synopsis states the final orders, so none are given here. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). Hudson Global Investments Pty Ltd v Elkerton [2026] FCA 1577 (Moore J, 29 October 2026) - two checklists: the non-exhaustive factors for leave for a non-lawyer to represent a corporation under rr 1.34 and 4.01(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (conflict of interest, the witness and representative dual role, a more liberal approach for defendant corporations); and security for costs under s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including the Bell Wholesale Co Pty Ltd v Gates Export Corp (No 2) (1984) 2 FCR 1 requirement that, to establish stultification, the plaintiff prove that those who will benefit from the litigation are also without means. A worked quantification: a staged task-based estimate, an assumed 70% party/party recovery, then a further discount because security is not a complete indemnity (Brundza v Robbie & Co (No 2) (1952) 88 CLR 171). A stay, not automatic dismissal, is the usual consequence of failing to provide security; dismissal is available on a later application. Collateral purpose and personal benefit to a shareholder bear on both discretions. No final orders are stated in the edition. JADE Commercial Law Desk . Marlton Investments Pty Ltd v Villawood Management Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1613 (O'Callaghan J, 29 October 2026) - leave to file a statement of claim in oppression proceedings under s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 2.4 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth): the pleading must disclose an arguable cause of action that would survive strike-out (General Steel; Spencer), assessed against the overarching purpose in ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); legitimate expectation and "foundational understanding" pleas fail where they contradict the express terms of the shareholders' deed and the constitution (majority voting clauses); lack of good faith and improper purpose must be pleaded with specificity, including the scope of the power and the alleged purpose (Pharm-a-Care Laboratories (No 3) (2010) 267 ALR 494); no incorporation by reference of allegations made in other proceedings; annexed procedural chronologies are of no assistance and will be disallowed; costs follow where the applicant fails on most contested paragraphs. No final orders are stated in the edition. JADE Also on the docket (list only; no outcome stated in the edition). Saywell v Comcare (No 2) [2026] FCA 1614 (Anderson J, 29 October 2026) - extension of time (civil appeal). JADE FDB17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1612 (O'Callaghan J, 29 October 2026) - judicial review. JADE Majak v State of Victoria (No 2) [2026] FCA 1634 (O'Sullivan J, 29 October 2026) - costs orders. JADE Barnd