On 26 February 2026, the NCAT Appeal Panel upheld an appeal in FZP v Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network [2026] NSWCATAP 55, a privacy rights case raising ‘questions of public importance, with potential ramifications for the organisation and management of multi-center medical research.’

The first ground of appeal turned on the proper construction and application of the ‘research exemption’ to the restrictions on use and disclosure of private health information under HPPs 10 and 11 of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW). The Appellant argued the decision at first instance hinged on an unduly narrow construction of ‘the public interest’ for the purpose of the research exemption. The Appeal Panel agreed, adopting a broader conception of the public interest consistent with the stated objects of the Act, which include ‘balancing the public interest in protecting the privacy of health information with the public interest in the legitimate use of that information’.

The Appellant was also successful in the contention that the same course of conduct may constitute both a ‘use’ and a ‘disclosure’ of health information, thereby offending both HPP 10 and HPP 11 concurrently.

The Appeal Panel further affirmed that the research exemption demands strict compliance, and not merely substantial compliance, with the Privacy Commissioner’s Statutory Guidelines on Research.

Dr Katherine Fallah appeared unled for the successful Appellant.

The full decision is available here.

Downer Utilities Australia Pty Ltd v Murra Warra Asset Co Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 48

6 St James Hall senior counsel Dr Christopher Ward SC, leading Callista Harris of 7 Wentworth Selborne (instructed by Eliza Danby of Pinsent Masons), appeared successfully for Murra Warra Asset Co Pty Ltd in novel proceedings before the Victorian Supreme Court in relation to the construction of a hybrid arbitration clause.

The case involved competing arbitrations commenced with the ICC and the Resolution Institute.  The Court concluded that the hybrid arbitration clause required arbitration conducted by the Resolution Institute applying the ICC Rules in part.

The decision can be found at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2026/48.html

GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 5) [2026] FedCFamC2G 204

On 18 February 2026 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia delivered a landmark judgment in GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 5) [2026] FedCFamC2G 204.

The Court held that certain conditions attached to the applicant’s Bridging Visa R are constitutionally invalid. The Court held that "the categories of punishments that can only be imposed by the Chapter III courts are not necessarily confined to interference with life, limb or liberty (in the narrow sense). Other punishments, such as unreasonable restrictions on work, may also infringe Chapter III, even though there is no common law right to work.”

The applicant had argued that conditions placed on his visa by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs deprived him of his liberty, were punitive, and exceeded the constitutional limits of the executive arm of government. The applicant argued that the executive has a very narrow remit to deprive a person of their liberty, and that no restriction on a person’s liberty can be executed by the executive pursuant to any executive prerogative or by statute if it does not facilitate the ends of deportation, trial, the execution of a court’s criminal sentence, or extradition. This is because any such other deprivation, whether it be custody or another restriction of liberty, is tantamount to executive punishment which violates Chapter III of the Constitution.

The Court agreed and declared that conditions 8622 and 8623, and the words “violence of” in condition 8624 in the Migration Regulations 1994 are invalid, infringing Chapter III of the Constitution. The Court held that those conditions were prima facie punitive, did not have a legitimate and non-punitive purpose and were excessive.

Madeleine Bridgett appeared for the applicant led by Quintin Rares and instructed by Alison Battisson.

The full judgment can be read here.

2026 Doyle’s Guide Leading Employment Law, Workplace Health and Safety Law Counsel NSW

Doyles Guide have released their 2026 listing of leading Employment Law and Workplace Health and Safety Law, Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel in NSW.

6 St James Hall Senior Counsel Ian Neil SC and Junior Counsel Michael Seck, Bronwyn Byrnes, Ken Brotherson, Maurice Baroni, Martin Watts, Liam Meagher and Peter Willink have all been recognised in their respective areas of law, employment and industrial relations.

Our recognised counsel have extensive experience in providing strategic advice to public and private sector employers, unions and individuals and are also recognised experts in conducting workplace investigations. They appear throughout Australia in all courts, the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission, as well as a wide range of tribunals and mediations.

Enquiries to retain any of our barristers including availability and urgency, can be discussed with the chambers’ Clerk and Practice Manager, Nora Faulua.

Althuis & Paz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 653

In the recently published decision of Althuis & Paz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 653 the FCFCOA (Division 1) considered whether Australian property proceedings should be permanently stayed where the parties entered a “pre-marital contract” and a “divorce agreement” in a foreign jurisdiction.

Behrens J found both that Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum and also that the Australian proceedings constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the Australian proceedings were permanently stayed.

Behrens J noted that the determination that proceedings are an abuse of process is a very high bar.  Key considerations included the fact that if the Australian proceedings were not stayed, the husband would face litigation of matters which were resolved between the parties in 2023. Additionally, the husband would face having to litigate not only in the foreign jurisdiction (seeking to enforce and implement the Divorce Agreement) but also in Australia. Her Honour further noted that so far as the wife’s interests were concerned, any orders made in Australia will not be enforced in the other jurisdiction leading to the risk of inconsistent orders which could be made as between the two jurisdictions. Another factor was that the wife’s maintenance of the Australian proceedings may constitute fraud in the in the other jurisdiction and may result in an award of damages to the husband.

Sandrine Alexandre-Hughes appeared, led by Michael Kearney SC, for the applicant husband (instructed by Lachlan Donaldson of Galt Kenway Family Law).

A copy of the judgment is available here: Althuis & Paz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 653

Yufeng v Guo [2026] NSWCA 3

In Yufeng v Guo [2026] NSWCA 3, the Court of Appeal delivered an important judgment about admissions, and the requirements applicable to withdrawing admissions. This clarifies the position under UCPR 12.6, which had been the subject of differing trial court rulings.

At [41], Kirk JA (Bell CJ and Adamson J agreeing) held that an admission is statement which is responsive to something – so generally, allegations in a statement of claim will not be ‘admissions’.

Thus, where a plaintiff seeks to amend its Statement of Claim, this does not require it to comply with the rules governing withdrawal of admissions. If the defendant does not oppose the amendment, it cannot later complain that the plaintiff failed to follow the rules about withdrawing admissions. It might seek leave to reopen the grant of the amendment during the trial, but it bears the onus of establishing that it made a mistake in not opposing the amendment earlier.

At [60], Kirk JA said the defendant certainly may not do so on appeal ‘when the issue is raised not at the heel of the hunt but when the hunt is over’.

Tim Castle SC and Dana Levi appeared for the successful respondent on the appeal, which was dismissed with costs, instructed by Ge Wu at Legal Point Lawyers.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19c25a2fcadcc6a6ab4fe07c

Legal 500 Rankings 2026

6 St James Hall is delighted that its members have once again been recognised in the Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2026.

Dr Christopher Ward SC, Tim Castle SC and Alexander Flecknoe-Brown have been individually recognised in one of their areas of expertise, Commercial Disputes.

The barristers of 6 St James Hall have expertise in a wide range of disputes, including commercial, corporate and industrial matters, financial services, insolvency, franchising and international law.  This recognition in Commercial Disputes reflects the breadth as well as depth of our barristers’ commercial experience, enhanced by complementary skills in related practice areas.

Enquiries to retain any of our barristers, including as to availability and urgency, can be discussed with the chambers’ Clerk and Practice Manager, Nora Faulua.

ACAT Presidential Member

6 St James Hall Chambers, congratulates associate member, Marcus Hassall on his appointment as an ACAT Presidential Member, as announced today by the ACT Government and the ACT Bar Association. 

Marcus has over 25 years of advocacy experience, in a range of jurisdictions and courts, practicing in the areas of commercial, Commonwealth crime, financial crime and proceeds of crime. He has also been a part-time Special Magistrate with the ACT Magistrates Court since April 2024.

The members and associate of chambers, congratulate Marcus on his appointment.

Bushell v George [2025] NSWSC 1347

This morning, Hmelnitsky J delivered reasons in Bushell v George [2025] NSWSC 1347.

The case concerned a valuable farm, which had been transferred to the youngest of three adult children. Each of the plaintiffs claimed a one third interest in the land on the basis of an asserted proprietary estoppel and, in the alternative, sought further provision under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

The Court dismissed each plaintiff’s proprietary estoppel claim, dismissed the first plaintiff’s claim for further family provision and allowed some further provision for the second plaintiff.

David Rayment SC appeared with Andrew Smorchevsky for the defendants (instructed by Costin Stan of Chambers Russell Lawyers). 

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Inadvertent Failure to Register a PMSI

Recently, Tim Castle SC of 6 St James Hall and Ingrid King of 10 St James Hall were successful in obtaining orders from Black J, to extend the time to register two PMSIs, over $10m worth of mining machines.  

The plaintiff hired two underground mining machines for use in the Dartbrook Coal Mine. A company officer registered the two machines on the PPSR, following a precedent used in a prior transaction. Unbeknown to the company officer, the hire agreements gave rise to ‘PPS Leases’ under s.13 of the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA) and PMSIs under s.14. A clear case of inadvertence.

When the mine went into administration and receivership, the primary secured creditor claimed priority under its ALLPAP. One of the plaintiff’s registrations took effect as an ordinary security interest. The other had not been registered in time and vested in the administrator. However the primary secured creditor did not show either prejudice or reliance on the plaintiff’s erroneous registrations.

The Court was persuaded to exercise the extension powers under PPSA s.293 to extend the PMSI time, and Corporations Act s.588FM to extend the time to lodge a new, correct registration. Both powers were needed as there is no power in the PPSA to amend an existing registration, and new registrations were required.

Marcus Connor of Connor & Co was the instructing solicitor with assistance from Amanda Johnston and Ena Kennedy Yoshitani. Additional counsel assistance provided by Dana Levi of Ground Floor Wentworth Chambers and Stephanie Erian of 6 St James Hall.

The case will be of interest to all lawyers practicing in the area of finance and PPS securities: In the matter of Dartbrook Commercial Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1075

International Court of Justice issues Advisory Opinion on aid in Gaza

Yesterday the ICJ delivered its Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court advised the General Assembly of the United Nations as to the content of Israel's obligations as an occupying power and a member of the United Nations to facilitate aid within Gaza, including by co-operation with UNRWA.

Significantly, the Court also accepted the submission that Article 2(5) of the United Nations Charter was a source of obligation.

Dr Christopher Ward SC represented the Plurinational State of Bolivia, assisted by 6 St James Hall members Madeleine Bridgett and Lucy Geddes.

The Advisory Opinion can be found here.

ACT Bar President

6 St James Hall Chambers is delighted to announce that Associate Member Prue Bindon has been elected as President of the ACT Bar Council.

Prue was called to the ACT Bar in 2016 and has been a valued Associate Member of 6 St James Hall since 2018.

 A full list of the ACT Bar Council can be found here.

In support of Sculpture by the Sea

Last week, 6 St James Hall Chambers were delighted to host an event in support of Sculpture by the Sea, a not-for-profit organisation who have held annual exhibitions in Bondi since 1997 and in Cottesloe since 2005 entirely free to the public. The cost of mounting the exhibitions is not underwritten by government funding. Much of what they do is funded by corporate sponsorship, philanthropy and the artists.

We thank all our professional colleagues and judicial members who attended our function in support of the arts, with particular thanks to the Honourable A.S. Bell Chief Justice of New South Wales for speaking at our event.

In our continued support, please click here for a full list of the sculpture catalogue available for purchase or here if you would like to donate or become more involved with Sculpture by the Sea.

Licha v Joseph [2025] NSWCA 192

NSW Court of Appeal dismisses application for judicial review of costs orders made by the District Court against the applicants. The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had relied upon the correct costs power, had afforded procedural fairness to the applicants and had otherwise acted within jurisdiction.

David Rayment SC and Richard Reynolds, instructed by Prandium Legal, appeared for the successful respondents. 

The judgment can be found here.

DHI22 v Qatar Airways Group QCSC (No 1) [2025] FCAFC

6 St James' Hall Counsel Dr Christopher Ward SC, Richard Reynolds and Stephanie Erian, instructed by Marque Lawyers, have successfully represented a group of women who were subjected to non-consensual examinations in Doha in 2020, whilst travelling to Australia on board a Qatar Airways Flight.

The Full Federal Court unanimously upheld the women’s appeal against an earlier decision that the proceedings be struck out on grounds that included consideration of the exclusivity provisions of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air.  The claims against Qatar Airways and the airport operator will now proceed to a final hearing before the Federal Court.

Separate proceedings against the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority were dismissed on grounds of foreign State immunity.

The matter has received significant press attention, including in the ABC and BBC.

Reasons for judgment can be found on the links below.

DHI22 v Qatar Airways Group QCSC (No 1) [2025] FCAFC 91

DHI22 v Qatar Airways Group QCSC (No 2) [2025] FCAFC 92

GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1051

On 9 July 2025, in a historic judgment concerning a writ of habeas corpus, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) in GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 4) [2025] dismissed an application by the Minister and Secretary for Home Affairs for summary dismissal. 

In dismissing the application, the Court accepted that “it is reasonably arguable that the writ of habeas corpus is not confined to cases of physical detention, but extends to restrictions on liberty that are not faced by members of the public generally” and that “it is reasonably arguable that at least some of the particular conditions imposed on the applicant’s visa constitute restrictions on the applicant’s liberty sufficient to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and the injunctions that he seeks.” The Court accepted that the “ambit of the writ of habeas corpus is a triable issue”.

The Court said that it is “arguable that restrictions on any liberty, as opposed to restrictions on freedom of movement, that are not faced by members of the public generally, may be sufficient to found a writ of habeas corpus. Whether the particular conditions imposed on the applicant’s visa are sufficient to justify a writ of habeas corpus are triable questions of fact or law. Arguably, they are serious restrictions of the applicant’s liberties that are not faced by members of the public generally. It seems to me that the applicant has a reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting his substantive claim.”

Madeleine Bridgett represented the applicant led by Quintin Rares. 

The decision can be found here.

2025 Doyle’s Guide Leading Arbitration Senior Counsel in Australia

Dr Christopher Ward SC has again been ranked as a Leading Arbitration Senior Counsel by Doyles Guide in Australia. Dr Ward works in Australia, Europe and Asia in international investor-state and international commercial arbitration matters and related enforcement and sovereign immunity proceedings before domestic Courts.

Enquiries about Chris' availability and rates can be made to Chris' Clerk and Practice Manager, Nora Faulua.

Minister and Secretary for Home Affairs ordered to pay indemnity costs in habeas corpus case

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has ordered the Minister and Secretary for Home Affairs to pay the applicant’s costs on an indemnity basis in a habeas corpus claim. The applicant in GKX18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 718 had been held in immigration detention since 2018. In August 2024 he made an application to the Court to be released forthwith on the basis that his detention was unlawful following the landmark decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37. On the last day of the hearing on 16 October 2024, and before the conclusion of the hearing, the Minister issued the applicant a bridging visa which was due to expire four months after the date it was issued. The applicant successfully opposed the Minister’s oral application to dismiss his habeas claim and the matter remains before the Court.

In this costs judgment the Minister for Home Affairs sought to set-off the costs order in favour of the Minister from previous proceedings. The applicant was also successful in opposing this application. The Court accepted the applicant’s submission that a set-off would discourage lawyers from acting on a conditional costs basis and that it would be contrary to the public interest. The Court concluded that “there is a public interest in people challenging governmental decisions being adequately legally represented, and allowing a set-off in circumstances such as the present may discourage appropriate lawyers from acting. This factor weighs particularly heavily in the present case, where, on the material presently before me, the respondents have behaved unreasonably. Consequently, I will order that the costs ordered in the present proceeding not be set-off against the costs in previous proceedings.”  

In ordering costs to be paid on the indemnity basis, the Court found that the Minister and Secretary for Home Affairs had acted unreasonably in that they “ought to have released the applicant from detention following the High Court’s decision in NZYQ”. The Court also found that the respondents ran their case “in wilful disregard of known facts or clearly established law” or made “allegations which ought never to have been made” or unduly prolonged the case by “groundless contentions”.

The respondents have sought leave to appeal the decision.

Madeleine Bridgett represented the applicant.

The decision can be found here.

Leading Mediators of NSW 2025

6 St James Hall Senior Counsel, Robert Angyal SC has been recognised in the recent publication of Doyle’s Guide of Leading Mediators – New South Wales, 2025.  Robert has been listed as a leading NSW mediator every year since Doyles started its listing in 2018.

Robert was one of the first NSW barristers to embrace mediation.  Since 1992, he has mediated hundreds if not thousands of commercial, contractual and real property disputes.  In 1987, he was instrumental in the formation of the Law Society of NSW’s Dispute Resolution Committee and a foundation member of that committee.  In 1992 and 1993, Robert helped set up the first two NSW Settlement Weeks.  He also was a foundation member and former Chair of the NSW Bar Association’s Mediation Committee. Robert is an accredited mediator and an approved arbitrator for the NSW Bar Association.

Robert also is a thoughtful commentator on the law and practice of mediation.  Unusually for a practising mediator, Robert has published scholarly articles on aspects of mediation in The Australian Law Journal, the Australian Bar Review, the Australasian Dispute Resolution Law Journal and US and Australian law journals. Copies are available on request.  He has spoken many times at Law Society, Bar Association and CPD seminars on mediation.

Enquiries about Robert’s availability and rates can be made to Robert’s Clerk and Practice Manager, Nora Faulua.

2025 Doyle's Listing of Insolvency Law Barristers

David Edney of counsel has been recognised in the Doyles Guide published list of Leading Insolvency & Restructuring Junior Counsel – New South Wales, 2025.   

David practices in the areas of Commercial Law, Corporations Law, Equity and Trusts, Insolvency and Bankruptcy, and Real Property. David has particular expertise acting in respect of complex insolvency litigation, including statutory recoveries, security interest disputes, claims against directors in respect of alleged breaches of duty, and cross-border matters.  

David appears for clients ranging from small to medium enterprise, large corporates, high net worth individuals, and a wide selection of insolvency practitioners in both the corporate and personal insolvency spaces.

Enquiries about availability and urgency, can be discussed with our Clerk and Practice Manager, Nora Faulua.