Australian Tribunals (26 August 2026)

The tribunals for Wednesday 26 August, reported late and aired with the weekend catch-up. Thirteen decisions, led by the fullest recent treatment of how a working with children clearance is risk assessed.

Features.

• HFL v Children’s Guardian [2026] NSWCATAD 257 — the WWCC framework decision: fact-finding vs predictive risk assessment; the statutory checklist; real and appreciable risk. JADE
• O’Sullivan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 269 — the four-factor extension test with real evidentiary demands; modified fairness for confidential GIPA material. JADE
• Rontogiannis v Victoria Building Authority [2026] VCAT 667 — want of prosecution: three years, twenty-four orders, dismissed on the multi-factor test. JADE
• Stewart v Masterpiece Caravans Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 267 — the appeal costs threshold is measured by the amount in dispute on the appeal. JADE
• Psychology Board of Australia v Ewing (Costs) [2026] VCAT 689 — disciplinary costs proportionately reduced for the failed allegation; capped and taxed. JADE

The rapid file.

• HCX v Children’s Guardian [2026] NSWCATAD 259 — clearance scheme construction. JADE
• QVM v Social Services Regulator [2026] VCAT 664 — regulator decision construed. JADE
• Zhang v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 258 — tax assessment review. JADE
• Connolly v Goh [2026] NSWCATAP 268 — civil appeal. JADE
• Indara Corporation Pty Ltd v Brimbank CC [2026] VCAT — planning permit conditions. JADE
• Scarlett (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWCATGD 16 — guardianship (pseudonym preserved). JADE
• Frances (a pseudonym) [2026] NSWCATGD 18 — guardianship (pseudonym preserved). JADE

Theme music by Michael Green SC.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

The Host's desk [00:06]
From JADE OpenLaw, this is The Petal daily brief for Wednesday the twenty-sixth of August, the tribunals edition, arriving with the weekend catch-up because this one reported late. Thirteen decisions from three tribunal systems, and the lead is the fullest treatment in some time of how a working with children clearance is actually risk assessed. Also tonight, the four factor test for a late appeal, a proceeding dismissed after three years and twenty-four orders, and what an appeal panel counts toward the costs threshold. A note before we begin. Two of tonight's matters concern child protection clearances, and two concern guardianship, all discussed as legal doctrine only. The principles, not the noise, and every citation and link is in your podcast notes. About five minutes. The Tribunals Desk opens.

Tribunals Desk [01:00]
The lead is a clearance review, and its value is the method. The tribunal separated the two tasks that get blurred, finding facts on the balance of probabilities, with the gravity calibration doing its usual work, and then predictive risk assessment, which is not fact finding at all. The statute supplies the checklist of factors, the test asks whether a real and appreciable risk to children exists, and then the reasonable person and public interest limbs run over the top. On evidence, the decision weighs documentary records against oral testimony, values what survived cross examination, and distinguishes professional opinion from tribunal findings. If you appear in clearance reviews on either side, this is the framework decision to carry in.

The Host's desk [01:51]
Same desk, on time and prosecution.

Tribunals Desk [01:54]
The late appeal first. The four factors govern, length of delay, reasons for it, prospects of success, prejudice to the respondent, and the reasons limb wants evidence, not assertion, medical explanations included. The judgment also maps the modified procedural fairness that applies where confidential information is in play in information access review, open justice is expressly abrogated there, and the prospects assessment for internal appeals still asks for a fairly arguable question of law. And in Victoria, a proceeding that had accumulated three years, twenty four orders and no progress was summarily dismissed for want of prosecution, on a multi factor test that weighs inordinate delay, prejudice and the interests of justice. The chronology is the lesson, warnings, adjournments and conditional orders come first, but the power is real, and it was used.

The Host's desk [02:54]
The Practice Desk, on costs.

Practice & Procedure Desk [03:01]
Two costs rulings with daily consequences. On an internal appeal, the costs threshold is measured by the total amount claimed or in dispute on the appeal, not in the proceedings below, no money order need be sought against the applicant for costs, and a successful respondent who took active carriage of the response can recover even without being the primary target of the claim. Consumer status and resource disparity do not displace costs following the event once the threshold applies. And in a disciplinary matter, the prosecuting board recovered its costs proportionately reduced for the allegation it failed to establish, capped at the lower of the two assessment bases, and referred to taxation in default of agreement. Partial success has a price, on both sides of the record.

The Host's desk [03:49]
The rapid file.

Tribunals Desk [03:55]
Eight in brief, handled with care where care is due. A second clearance matter confirms the statutory interpretation of the scheme. A social services regulator decision was construed in Victoria. A land tax assessment survived review in New South Wales. A residential building appeal was determined on conventional grounds. A planning permit dispute in Melbourne's west turned on its own conditions. Two guardianship matters, under pseudonyms which we preserve, dealt with the appointment and review of guardians on ordinary principles. And an occupational division ruling completed the list. Every citation is in your notes.

The Host's desk [04:39]
Thirteen decisions, one reporting day, filed a little late and now squared. The ledger for August is even.

Content Standards [04:51]
A closing word on care. Tonight's list included clearance matters concerning the protection of children and two guardianship matters under pseudonym. We report the doctrine only, every anonymisation is preserved, and nothing in our discussion goes beyond the published reasons. And the standing disclosure. This program is AI-generated, using the latest combobulation technology, from the published reasons of the courts, and every case we mention is cited, with links, in your podcast notes.

The Host's desk [05:20]
That is the tribunals for the twenty-sixth. Travel well, prosecute what you commence, and carry a big stick.