Australia: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Judgment creditors in Queensland can recover unpaid debts through garnishee orders that redirect money held by third parties, including bank accounts, customer payments, and employee wages. The enforcement process involves specific warrant procedures under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, with distinct requirements for one-off debt redirection, regular payment interception, and earnings deductions.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Zoo Property Wealth Builder Pty Ltd v Australia Red Hill Real Estate Group Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 509) has reaffirmed principles of kompetenz-kompetenz...

Receiving a summary judgment application can be daunting for defendants, with potential consequences ranging from enforcement warrants to bankruptcy proceedings. But does such an application mean the case is already lost? Understanding the legal requirements under Queensland's Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and knowing what evidence can demonstrate a real prospect of successfully defending a claim may make the difference between judgment and proceeding to trial.

A prisoner made an application to Queensland Corrective Services seeking to have some of her eggs extracted and frozen so that she may undergo ‘assisted reproductive technology’ upon her release from imprisonment.

In our earlier article, we examined the Full Federal Court’s decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15, which rejected the ATO’s long-standing position that unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) owed to corporate beneficiaries could constitute “loans” for the purposes of Division 7A.

Summary judgment offers Queensland creditors a powerful tool to resolve debt recovery litigation without a full trial, but success requires more than proving an unpaid debt. Courts demand clear evidence that the defence has no real prospect of success and that judicial determination of factual disputes or credibility issues is unnecessary. Understanding when to apply, what evidence strengthens your case, and which common mistakes undermine otherwise strong applications can mean the difference between swift

On 26 June 2026, the Federal Court of Australia delivered judgment in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited [2026] FCA 832, ordering Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited (MSAL) to pay $10.3 million in penalties and $1.2 million in costs.

A case on appeal in NSW focused on whether a sentence handed down for drug supply charges was excessive.

The High Court confirmed that an institutional defendant cannot escape exemplary damages simply because its agents honestly believed their conduct was lawful. Where institutional failures expose callous disregard for vulnerable people in their custody, exemplary damages remain available.