Articles

A Queensland council refused to accept a minor change application (and declined to advise the applicable fee) effectively locking a developer out of the statutory appeals process. Following the hearing of an Originating Application, the Planning and Environment Court has considered the council’s approach to be procedurally flawed. In this article, Partner Fraser Hardman and Solicitor Eliza Burke examine what the outcome means for developers, landowners, and councils administering change applications under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld).

On an otherwise unremarkable Tuesday evening, a 23-year-old cricketer jogs back towards the nets and vaults over a fence. His foot unexpectedly clips the top of the rail, and he falls head-first to the ground. He will never walk again. The fence? Perfectly fine. No defects or irregularities. What was missing, and what has now led to an astounding $15.2 million award for damages, was a conveniently located gate. This simple omission is the centrepiece of the Victorian Supreme Court decision in Woolnough v Whittlesea City Council & Anor [2026] VSC 190.

When is a hazard truly “obvious”? The New South Wales Court of Appeal’s decision in The Owners – Strata Plan No 31337 v Balacco  [2026] NSWCA 50 serves as a timely reminder that the answer is not always straightforward. The case arose from a trip on an unpainted speed hump in a carpark where every other hazard had been marked, and the consequences for the Owners proved significant. In this article, Partner Danielle Skinner, Senior Associate Nina Abangan and Paralegal Emma Woods examine how the selective painting of hazards undermined the obvious risk defence, and what occupiers must consider when managing risk across their premises.

Australia’s first Road Transport Contractual Chain Order came into force on 21 April 2026, introducing mandatory fortnightly obligations that apply across the contractual chain regardless of existing contractual terms. Before businesses move to claim fuel cost recovery, however, there are critical limitations and nuances that warrant careful consideration. In this article, Partner Mark Kenney examines who falls within the scope of the Order, how rate adjustments must be calculated, and where the Order’s reach ends. For any business operating in or adjacent to the road transport industry, this is required reading.

When a student skydiver is seriously injured on landing, the instinct to look skyward for someone to blame is understandable. But what happens when the expert evidence, the video footage, and two independent instructors all point to the student himself as the cause of his own injury? In this article, Partner Stephanie Huestis and Solicitor Amber Boyce investigate this through examining Eyles v Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd.

Few areas of insurance litigation test the outer limits of civil proof more acutely than contested arson claims. Where the very event that is the subject of the dispute consumes most of the available physical evidence, courts are left to draw meaning from conduct, context and character. In this article, Associate Sam Cooper and Partner Rebecca Stevens examine the Supreme Court of Queensland’s decision in PBR Properties Pty Ltd v Chubb Insurance Australia Limited [2026] QSC 47,  delivered on 13 March 2026 by Sullivan J, and explore why it stands as a compelling study in insurance litigation.

In this issue, we examine the Federal Court’s decision in B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (No 3) [2026] FCA 169, which offers practical guidance for principal contractors on managing union right of entry visits and building an evidentiary record for enforcement action. We also consider new NSW legislation imposing expanded WHS obligations on employers who use digital work systems (including algorithms, AI and online platforms) and the significant right of entry powers that accompany those obligations. Finally, we look at the limits of discretionary bonus clauses and the legal risks that arise where a refusal to pay is arbitrary or unreasoned.

The NSW Court of Appeal in Victorian Xray Group v Malouf [2026] NSWCA 5 has reinforced important protections for solicitors, confirming unsuccessful proceedings are not necessarily indicative of negligence. The critical test is whether a reasonably careful solicitor would have concluded the case was “hopeless and doomed to fail” with the information available at the time of filing a pleading – not with the benefit of hindsight.

In this issue, we examine the Fair Work Commission’s significant Full Bench decision to vary all modern awards following the Full Court’s ruling on workplace delegates’ rights, and what the corrected award terms mean for employers managing delegate representation, communication and training entitlements. We also explore recent Federal Court enforcement action highlighting the limits of union right of entry, including practical guidance for site occupiers on managing entry requests lawfully and safely. Finally, we consider proposed federal reforms that would introduce a minimum right to request to work from home, and how these potential changes could reshape employer obligations in responding to flexible work requests.

Australia’s merger control regime will undergo a significant overhaul in 2026, with mandatory notifications set to commence come 1 January. The reforms replace the previous voluntary system, requiring the ACCC to clear transactions that meet certain thresholds. The new regime materially affects how mergers are planned, timed and executed. This article explains what’s changing, why it matters, and how businesses should prepare now.

In Queensland, during the pre-litigation stage of personal injuries claims, one of the banes of defendant lawyers’ lives is responding to lengthy requests for disclosure, many of which seem to increasingly extend beyond the ambit of the disclosure obligations under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (the PIPA). This may partly be explained by the seemingly more liberal interpretation of the disclosure obligations given by the courts in recent times. There are essentially two types of disclosure obligations under the PIPA: a positive obligation to disclose documents; and a reactive obligation to disclose information upon request. This article examines the scope of the obligation to disclose documents ‘about the incident’ and the scope of that phrase.

In this issue, we examine the Fair Work Commission’s recent decision in Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, in which the FWC ordered Westpac to grant a flexible working arrangement after finding the bank had not met its statutory obligations when refusing the request. We also look at the upcoming festive season and provide a timely reminder of the risks, responsibilities and practical steps employers can take to ensure employees are protected at Christmas functions. Finally, we outline the introduction of strengthened paid parental leave protections and what these increased entitlements mean for employers.