A note on R v Welton [2026] QCA 164, in which the Court of Appeal set aside three convictions and ordered a new trial because no direction was given about the use of uncharged wrist and waist touching. The prosecution had disavowed reliance on that evidence as showing sexual interest, then addressed the jury on the accused testing the waters. The Court held that the disavowal did not govern, because the way the evidence was put to the jury invited it to reason that way, and that the trial judge’s obligation was not answered by both counsel saying after the address that no direction was necessary. The conclusion is expressly confined to this trial. The Court accepted that there is no absolute rule about tendency directions before distinguishing Hamilton on its features.
Tag: Case Note
Notes on published court decisions
A missing explanatory statement did not unmake the insurer’s mandatory final offer under s 55F(2)
A note on McMillan v Trad (No 2) [2026] QSC 219, in which the Supreme Court held that an insurer’s failure to attach the explanatory statement required by s 20 of the Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2018 (Qld) did not prevent its offer constituting a mandatory final offer for the purposes of s 55F(2) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The point was raised by the insurer rather than the claimant, who advanced no submission on costs. The conclusion is confined to s 55F(2), and the judgment does not decide what a breach of s 20 does attract.
A concerns notice that names no imputation is not a concerns notice
A note on Dorante-Day v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 167, in which the Court of Appeal held that a purported concerns notice identifying no defamatory imputation is not a notice that fails to particularise adequately within s 12A(3), so the further particulars machinery never engages and the document is not a concerns notice at all. The test applied is substantial compliance, the Court describing the s 12A(1) requirements as not onerous. The consequence is that s 12B(1) bars commencement and the defamation claim is liable to summary dismissal. The appeal was dismissed with costs, though the orders below were varied to preserve a possible copyright damages claim. Whether leave under s 12B(3) could be granted nunc pro tunc to validate proceedings already commenced was expressly left open.
Greenall v Amaca (No 2): section 318A, costs, and the 2025 Regulation
A note on Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] QSC 188, in which the Supreme Court held that s 318A of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) bars a costs order only where the operative provisions of Division 1 are engaged, so where neither side made a written final offer it did not bar an order and the general costs powers remained available. The Court also held that the 2025 Regulation does not remove counsel’s fees from a claim already on foot when it commenced on 1 September 2025.
Astolfo v OYF: s 19B(6) cannot extend the three-business-day bail stay
A note on Astolfo v OYF [2026] QSC 186, in which the Supreme Court held that neither s 19B(6) of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) nor the Court’s inherent jurisdiction permits the automatic three business day stay in s 19CA to be extended, so a prosecutor who cannot get the review listed inside that window cannot hold the defendant on the stay. Whether the powers s 19E preserves could produce a different result was not argued or decided.
Farrugia v The King: one silk, two co-offenders, and the evidence a conflict ground now needs
A note on Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28, in which the High Court settled the materiality threshold for specific error and procedural irregularity on a sentence appeal, but dismissed the appeal five to two because the offender, maintaining privilege, led no evidence of the advice and instructions that would have shown whether his counsel was conflicted.
Colagrande v Kim: when anonymity aggravates a defamatory review
A note on Colagrande v Kim [2022] FCA 409, in which the Federal Court treated the anonymity of a fake online review as an aggravating circumstance and made a single award of damages for non-economic loss against both posters, with special damages assessed separately.
The King v Ko: the direction that must follow a real or significant chance
A note on The King v Ko [2026] HCA 29, in which the High Court dismissed the Crown’s appeal because a jury invited to infer intent to import from a perceived real or significant chance was never directed to go on and decide whether intent itself was proved.
Huang v Body Corporate for the Dorchester: when a BCCM adjudicator is a tribunal, not a public entity
A note on Huang v Body Corporate for the Dorchester CTS 10749 [2026] QCA 147, where the Court of Appeal held that a body corporate adjudicator exercises judicial power and that section 5(2)(a) imposes no freestanding human rights obligation on a tribunal.
Sawtell v State of Queensland: separate injuries need separate gateways
The Court treated a consequential psychiatric injury as a separate injury requiring its own passage through the statutory decision-making process.