Australian Courts of Appeal (2 November 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Five headnoted appellate decisions from the Full Federal Court and the appeal division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court in the edition of Monday 2 November 2026, with the New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and ACT editions of the same day folded in. A director's misleading answer that never moved the share price; accessorial liability and disclosing a counterparty's reasons; ASX answers, drafting help and advice; unacceptable risk on a parenting appeal; orders outside the parties' cases; errors that do and do not change the result; and a pleadings checklist from Victoria's Commercial Court. Children's matters, and a parenting appeal touching on allegations about a child's safety, are reported as legal doctrine only. Commercial Law Desk (opening story) and Practice and Procedure Desk . Southern Cross Payments Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2026] FCAFC 140 - proof of a material share price movement is not an element of a contravention of s 180(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); a representation confirming and perpetuating an existing market misunderstanding suffices, absence of price movement going to seriousness; involvement in a continuous disclosure omission (ss 674(2A), 79) requires actual knowledge of the information, its non-availability and the facts establishing materiality; disclosing a risk of termination is not disclosing that it has materialised, and a counterparty's stated reasons are material whether or not true; under s 1309(2) and (4) an answer omitting a subject the ASX expressly asked about is misleading by omission, and consulting a solicitor who relies on the director for the facts is not reasonable steps; drafting help is not advice on adequacy; relief under ss 1317S(2) and 1318(1) poses three successive questions; an overexpansive s 1317E declaration replaced on appeal, the failure to seek correction below relevant to costs. Appeal allowed only to replace Declaration 6, otherwise dismissed (Stewart, Cheeseman and Neskovcin JJ; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADE FNH United Pty Ltd v United Petroleum Franchise Pty Ltd (Pleadings) [2026] VSC 711 - the amendment test is whether the pleading would be liable to be struck out; particulars may be deferred until after discovery only on a proper basis with the best particulars available; a term implied by law into a class of contract needs its supporting features pleaded, especially when extending franchise good faith authorities to commission agency agreements; corporate knowledge from internal systems scrutinised; leave refused in the current form, leave to replead (Nichols J; Victoria edition, synopsis only). JADE Family Law Desk (legal doctrine only; no party identified). Boleno & Newcombe [2026] FedCFamC1A 191 - an unacceptable risk finding is evaluative and reviewed for correctness, while final parenting orders need House v The King error; risk assessment weighs magnitude and likelihood by reference to past conduct, insight and capacity for change; an inference from a psychologist's notes was open; no complaint on appeal about an order not sought; a fixed transition to unsupervised time may rest on expert evidence; s 65DAAA. Appeal dismissed (Altobelli, Christie and Parker JJ; also today's Federal Courts brief). JADE Rangel & Bird (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 193 - procedural fairness ordinarily requires an opportunity to address orders materially outside the range sought or reasonably anticipated; no denial where an adverse finding is an obvious and natural inference from the issues joined; a procedural ground cannot attack whether a finding was open. Appeal allowed; discretion re