Australian Federal Courts (2 November 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Twelve decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Monday 2 November 2026: one from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, seven from the Federal Court and four from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) appellate jurisdiction, six with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: discharge from bankruptcy releases the bankrupt but does not end the administration while proofs of debt remain to be adjudicated, so vested property (including an unregistered interest in land) stays with the trustee. Then a unanimous Full Court on answering ASX queries and disclosing a counterparty's reasons, worked examples on discrimination leave, a student visa, self-executing orders and adjournments pending special leave, and one pass over four family appeals. The Full Court decision and the four family appeals also feature in today's Court of Appeal brief. This episode includes a parenting appeal touching allegations of child sexual abuse, reported as legal doctrine only. Commercial Law Desk (opening story). Thompson v Lane (No 4) [2026] FCA 1599 (Collier ACJ, 30 October 2026) - JL p. 11. Discharge releases the bankrupt personally but does not end the bankruptcy; the definition of "end of an administration" in s 5-5 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) applies only for the purposes of that schedule; ss 152 and 129AA of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) presuppose continuation; unadjudicated proofs of debt and a s 102 dividend are a continuing purpose; vested property does not revest on discharge. An equitable interest under an executed but unregistered transfer vested in the trustee under ss 58 and 132, so the trustee could be registered after discharge. A discharged bankrupt whose estate is under administration has standing under IPS s 90-20 to seek removal, but on broad misconduct allegations must first show substantial grounds; a breakdown caused by the bankrupt's non-cooperation is no ground; removal refused. The s 30(1)(b) possession power is not confined by discharge. Declarations; possession and liberty to sell; the bankrupt's proceedings dismissed. JADE Public Law Desk (the Full Court, and two worked examples). Southern Cross Payments Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2026] FCAFC 140 (Stewart, Cheeseman and Neskovcin JJ, 2 November 2026) - Signal: Doctrine; JL p. 15. Unanimous. Under s 1309(2) and (4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) an ASX query and its answer are read together, and an answer omitting a subject the ASX expressly raised is misleading by omission; consulting a solicitor who relied on the officer for the facts was not reasonable steps. Disclosing a risk of termination is not disclosing that it has materialised (s 674(2)); a counterparty's stated reasons are material whether or not true, and may be attributed with the company's disagreement. A material share price movement is not an element of s 180(1). A s 1317E declaration must state the conduct precisely and not enlarge the findings; Declaration 6 was replaced under s 28(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); appeal otherwise dismissed with costs. JADE Tutoveanu v State of New South Wales [2026] FCA 1624 (Markovic J, 2 November 2026) - Signal: Illustrative. Leave under s 46PO(3A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth): the James v WorkPower checklist; a reasonably arguable case is a threshold, onus on the applicant; direct discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth); when police investigation and report writing is a "service"; claims must arise from the same acts as the terminated complaint. No outcome stated in the synopsis. JADE <