What the courts actually decided.
Notes on published Queensland decisions, written for practitioners. Each one sets out what the court held, where the reasoning is vulnerable, and what it means on the next file. Every case, statute and section is checked against the primary source before publication.
29 case notes
-
R v Blacket: a jury’s question about unanimity did not justify a majority verdict direction
[2026] QCA 223
A jury note asking what happens without unanimity did not, in that trial, support the s 59A(2) satisfaction needed for a majority verdict direction.
Read the note → -
CAV Gasworks: when an off-the-plan seller ‘cannot’ give notice
[2026] QCA 221
By majority, 'cannot' in this off-the-plan sunset clause was not confined to strict impossibility, so the seller's termination after titles issued stood.
Read the note → -
Reduced culpability, dangerous driving and the bottom of the sentence
[2026] QCA 208
A nine month suspended bottom on dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm was manifestly inadequate despite the offender's reduced moral culpability.
Read the note → -
LK Smith Holdings: amending a pleading when the limitation date is uncertain
[2026] QCA 209
Where the r 376(4) requirements are otherwise met, the effect of leave to amend cannot be deferred simply because limitation expiry is uncertain.
Read the note → -
R v HDE: the s 103ZY direction is not confined to the account of the offence
[2026] QCA 207
A difference in the complainant's account under s 103ZY(1) of the Evidence Act is not confined to the account of the sexual offending.
Read the note → -
The pre-sentence custody declaration must be made even when no time counts
[2026] QCA 195
A s 159A(3B) pre-sentence custody declaration must be made even where the only possible declaration is that no time counts.
Read the note → -
What s 132B actually prohibits, and why the appeal still failed
[2026] QCA 194
Appeal dismissed: the missing Markuleski direction could not realistically have affected the jury's reasoning, so the trial was not unfair.
Read the note → -
The new victim-harm sentencing purpose, and why it did not save this sentence
[2026] QCA 190
Appeal allowed: the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the new victim-harm sentencing purpose added nothing in the context of the other purposes that applied.
Read the note → -
A missing explanatory statement did not unmake the insurer’s mandatory final offer under s 55F(2)
[2026] QSC 219
An insurer's omission of the approved explanatory statement did not stop its offer being a mandatory final offer for the purposes of s 55F(2).
Read the note → -
Electing to prosecute summarily switches on the time limit
[2026] QSC 217
Electing to prosecute an indictable offence summarily engages the statutory time limit, and the clock runs on knowledge of the offence actually charged.
Read the note → -
A concerns notice that names no imputation is not a concerns notice
[2026] QCA 167
A purported concerns notice identifying no defamatory imputation falls outside s 12A(3), so the further particulars cure never engages and commencement is barred.
Read the note → -
A Crown address can require a direction both counsel said was unnecessary
[2026] QCA 164
On these facts a propensity direction was required because the Crown address invited that reasoning, though both counsel said none was needed.
Read the note → -
Greenall v Amaca (No 2): section 318A, costs, and the 2025 Regulation
[2026] QSC 188
Section 318A bars costs only where Division 1's operative provisions apply, and the 2025 Regulation does not reach claims on foot at 1 September 2025.
Read the note → -
Astolfo v OYF: s 19B(6) cannot extend the three-business-day bail stay
[2026] QSC 186
Neither s 19B(6) nor inherent jurisdiction lets the Supreme Court extend the automatic three business day stay of a bail order under s 19CA.
Read the note → -
Farrugia v The King: one silk, two co-offenders, and the evidence a conflict ground now needs
[2026] HCA 28
A specific error or procedural irregularity vitiates a sentence only where the offender proves it could realistically have affected the sentencing judge's reasoning.
Read the note → -
The King v Ko: the direction that must follow a real or significant chance
[2026] HCA 29
A jury told a real or significant chance may support intent to import must also decide, on all the circumstances, whether that intent was proved.
Read the note → -
Huang v Body Corporate for the Dorchester: when a BCCM adjudicator is a tribunal, not a public entity
[2026] QCA 147
A body corporate adjudicator deciding a dispute is a tribunal exercising judicial power, so section 58 of the Human Rights Act does not apply to the decision.
Read the note → -
RNT v QPS: pre-sentence custody and the Magistrates Court limit
[2026] QDC 107
A magistrate may decline to declare pre-sentence custody without exceeding the summary sentencing limit, even when practical custody exceeds that limit.
Read the note → -
Brades Property: the weight of a satisfaction clause
[2026] QCA 141
A buyer’s contractual satisfaction was constrained by honesty and reasonableness, with practical uncertainty relevant to whether the condition was fulfilled.
Read the note → -
Lise v Boulton: discharged adoption and family provision eligibility
[2026] QSC 176
A valid interstate adoption discharge retrospectively restores child status for family provision eligibility, subject to a required parentage declaration.
Read the note → -
Barbina v McKenzie: conflicting medical evidence and the rule in Browne v Dunn
[2026] QCA 134
The rule in Browne v Dunn does not require every point later relied on to be put to a witness, and the remedy is discretionary.
Read the note → -
WorkCover Queensland v CRG Harvesting Pty Ltd: When paperwork does not make a director
[2026] QCA 124
Director status under the worker exclusion turns on functions actually performed, while employment may be inferred objectively from the parties' conduct.
Read the note → -
SHRL Ventures Pty Ltd v Pedro-X Pty Ltd: repudiation, pressured exits and oppression
[2026] QCA 119
Serious early breaches of a cooperative joint venture may justify termination, while unconscionable pressure may invalidate a negotiated exit.
Read the note → -
Boubaris v Commissioner of Police: disqualified driving as defiance of the court
[2026] QDC 90
Driving while disqualified by court order is best understood as offending against the administration of justice because its gravamen is disregard of that order.
Read the note → -
Dennison v Brisbane City Council: the reach of section 36
[2026] QSC 83
Section 36 applies to negligence proceedings concerning a public authority’s exercise of a statutory function and imposes its heightened breach standard.
Read the note → -
Sawtell v State of Queensland: separate injuries need separate gateways
[2026] QCA 62
A separately describable consequential psychiatric injury requires the insurer's decision under s 239A(4), despite assessment of the physical injury.
Read the note → -
Novadeck Pty Ltd v CK & PT Property Holdings Pty Ltd: why an EFT instruction did not pay the deposit
[2025] QCA 170
Where deposit payment was essential and time was of the essence, payment by EFT required receipt by the deposit holder before the deadline.
Read the note → -
R v Ford: the three-year line between parole release and eligibility
[2025] QCA 160
A parole eligibility date was not manifestly excessive where the head sentence was accepted as a proper exercise of sentencing discretion.
Read the note → -
Colagrande v Kim: when anonymity aggravates a defamatory review
[2022] FCA 409
Posting a defamatory review anonymously, so that it reads as the purported complainant's own account, is itself an aggravating circumstance in assessing damages.
Read the note →
No case notes in that area yet.