Cases - Level Twenty Seven Chambers

Top

Judicial Review & Administrative Cases

Garlick v KALX Capital Securities Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 808

24-6-26 / Rob Anderson KC — Corporate Insolvency & Bankruptcy, Judicial Review & Administrative

Rob Anderson KC appeared on behalf of the respondent, instructed by Watson Webb. In summary, the applicant sought review of a Judicial Registrar’s refusal to set aside a bankruptcy notice, arguing that he had a cross-demand exceeding the judgment debt because money had been paid into the Supreme Court in…

Ross v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 666

26-5-26 / Sarah Spottiswood — Judicial Review & Administrative

Sarah Spottiswood (Pro Bono) instructed by DWF (Australia) (Pro Bono), appeared for the Applicant. The judgment concerned an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal to affirm the Minister’s decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act…

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Hitchcock [2026] QCAT 88

19-2-26 / Oliver Cook — Judicial Review & Administrative

Oliver Cook appeared for the respondent, instructed by Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers. This case concerned costs in a disciplinary matter involving a veterinary surgeon. The Tribunal considered the relevant statutory framework empowering it to make costs orders (ss 100 and 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act…

Nam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2026] FCA 72

12-2-26 / Kristi Riedel — Judicial Review & Administrative

Kristi Riedel appeared for the respondent, instructed by Litigation, Investigations and Enforcement Branch, Civil Aviation Safety Authority. This case involved an appeal of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which affirmed a decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to refuse to issue the applicant a medical certificate. The…

Allen v Gold Coast City Council [2025] QCAT 555

17-12-25 / Oliver Cook — Judicial Review & Administrative

Oliver Cook appeared for the applicant, instructed by Bespoke Legal Group. The respondent declared the applicant’s dog to be a dangerous dog and simultaneously ordered its destruction. The applicant sought to set aside the destruction order. The Tribunal ultimately concluded it had no jurisdiction to confirm the destruction order. In any case,…