Australian Tribunals (2 November 2026)

Send us Fan Mail The Patent Office, the Trade Marks Office and three state tribunals, twenty two decisions, in the Tribunals edition of Monday 2 November 2026, four with headnotes. What the hearing rule does and doesn't require when a tribunal weighs hardship evidence in a social housing termination; a facial recognition entry system that is a manner of manufacture but not inventive; a logo that changed shape and lost its registration; an extension for the right error; and frameworks on unlicensed builders, building contract damages, a private buyer's claim against a manufacturer, residential park filing gates, costs on a withdrawn appeal and view sharing. Tribunals Desk: social housing and the hearing rule (lead). Postchild v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 338 - the Kioa v West hearing rule has no application where an issue is squarely contested; under SZBEL an adverse conclusion need be disclosed only where not obviously open, and provisional views on weight need not be exposed; an unchallenged witness need not be believed; reasons read fairly and as a whole (will and likely); s 154D(3)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) is evaluative, with no mandatory relevant considerations. Appeal dismissed; possession order suspended three months by agreement. JADE Tribunals Desk: a facial recognition patent (headnote). Todd Martin [2026] APO 32 - an AI classifier that alters the system's computational operation and solves a technical problem makes conventional hardware a manner of manufacture (s 18(1)(a) Patents Act 1990 (Cth)); post-filing evidence cannot supply what the specification lacks; AI augmentation of facial recognition was common general knowledge, so no inventive step (s 7(2)). Three months to amend, failing which revocation. JADE Tribunals Desk: trade marks, non use and a late filing (headnotes). Opposition by Trilogy Funds Management Limited to application under section 92 of the [2026] ATMO 220 - a ring device embedded in the owner's name substantially affects identity (s 7(1) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)); no exhibit dated in the relevant period; s 101(3) discretion not exercised. Marks removed; costs against the owner. JADE Application by JSCAN PTY LTD for an extension of time to file a Statement of Grounds and Particulars to oppose trade mark application number 2601666 (class 38) – Rollerz – in the name of Belinda Schwerdt [2026] ATMO 221 - the error or omission must precede and cause the failure to file; an error of judgment can qualify; declarations must address the right error (regs 5.9(4)(a), 5.10 Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth)). One-month extension granted; the opposition proceeds. JADE Tribunals Desk: unlicensed builders and building contracts (frameworks from synopses; no outcome stated). McDonald v Allemande Pty Ltd t/as Cosmopolitan Shutters and Blinds [2026] QCAT 506 - synopsis: s 42 QBCC Act 1991 (Qld) unlicensed contractor principles; a non-compliant level 1 regulated contract has no effect (sch 1B s 13). JADE English v Vaquero [2026] QCAT 505 - synopsis: the sterilising effect of s 42(3), the s 42(4) exception, onus on the unlicensed builder, the homeowner's right to recover; Bellgrove v Eldridge rectification. JADE Vision Group (Qld) Pty Ltd v Bayley & Anor [2026] QCAT 504 - synopsis: BP Refinery implied terms where a contract is silent on a finish; pre-litigation legal costs as damages, invoice by invoice; physical inconvenienc