Awarki v Danny Met Sally Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2G 1124

This case concerns an interlocutory dispute in a Fair Work underpayment proceeding. The applicant sought to join additional parties and amend his pleadings. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to proceed against a company in liquidation under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act and therefore refused joinder of that entity. However, it permitted the joinder of two directors, finding the claims of accessorial liability under the Fair Work Act were reasonably arguable and raised common issues.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd

The High Court held that Block Earner’s Earner Product was a financial product and a derivative. Users contributed AUD, which Block Earner used to generate a fixed return (APY). The Court rejected the Full Court’s view, finding returns can be generated for both investor and provider. It also held the final payout depended on crypto value and exchange rates. As a result, the product fell within Chapter 7 regulation and required an AFSL.

Harridan & Harridan [2026] FedCFamC1A 104

This appeal concerned a property settlement under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975, including treatment of superannuation held in a jointly controlled fund. The Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by assessing contributions in a segmented manner rather than holistically. The parties’ superannuation was held in an SMSF, with both acting as trustees. The Court ordered a clean separation: each party retained their own balance, the appellant’s interest was rolled over to another complying fund, she exited the fund, and the respondent indemnified her against future liabilities. Superannuation formed part of the asset pool but was relatively minor compared to the appellant’s inheritance, which comprised about half the total assets. On re-assessment, contributions were set at 65:35 in the appellant’s favour, with no further adjustment. 

Commissioner of Taxation v Bendel [2026] HCA 18

The High Court has dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal in Commissioner of Taxation v Bendel, confirming that unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) are not “loans” under Division 7A. The Court found that while UPEs create a debtor-creditor relationship, they lack the advance and repayment obligation required for a loan. This rejects the ATO’s long-standing position and has significant implications for private trust structures and deemed dividend exposure. This has prompted questions for SMSFs due to similar “loan” definitions in the SIS Act. The case emphasises that statutory interpretation depends on the specific context of each Act, meaning the SIS Act could be applied differently. Until further ATO guidance or judicial clarification emerges, the prudent approach for SMSFs is to continue following existing ATO guidance.

Bulie and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 1003

The Tribunal set aside income tax and Division 293 assessments issued to a taxpayer who was a dual resident of Australia and Singapore. The ATO had treated the taxpayer as an Australian resident and included his Singapore employment income in his assessments. Applying the Australia–Singapore tax treaty tie-breaker, the Tribunal found that the taxpayer had a permanent home and habitual abode in both countries, meaning the decisive question was where his personal and economic relations were closest. 

The Tribunal placed primary weight on economic ties, finding that the taxpayer’s substantial employment income (approximately $700,000 per year) was earned in Singapore and constituted the centre of his economic life. While he maintained significant Australian connections including a Sydney family home, superannuation contributions and financial accounts these were largely non-income-producing assets and therefore carried less weight. Although the taxpayer’s personal ties to Australia were stronger (with his spouse and child living in Sydney), he also had meaningful personal and social connections in Singapore and spent the majority of his time there. On balance, the Tribunal concluded that his strongest economic and overall connections were with Singapore, and he was therefore a Singapore resident for treaty purposes. As a result, his Singapore employment income was not taxable in Australia, and the income tax and Division 293 assessments were set aside in full.

HFX v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAD 168

The Tribunal considered whether the NSW Trustee & Guardian was required to disclose legal advice obtained by a court-appointed financial manager before approving legal costs to recover funds allegedly taken by the applicant. The applicant had withdrawn significant funds from accounts linked to his father’s business and/or SMSF, claiming they belonged to the super fund and were separate from the estate.

The Tribunal held the advice was protected by client legal privilege, as it was provided confidentially to support a statutory approval process and had not been waived. It emphasised that the financial manager had authority to act across all of the father’s financial affairs, and that the dispute over whether the funds were from the SMSF or other assets did not affect the privilege analysis.

The Tribunal declined to summarily dismiss the proceedings, finding there remained a real dispute (including over ownership of the withdrawn funds) to be determined at a final hearing.

Dexus Capital Investment Services Pty Ltd v Australia Pacific Airports Corporation Limited [2026] NSWSC 600

Dexus Capital Investment Services Pty Ltd v APAC [2026] NSWSC 600 concerned whether Dexus breached a Shareholders’ Deed by disclosing confidential airport information during a partial stake sale. Dexus provided highly sensitive data, including its long-term financial model, to bidders via a virtual data room without obtaining confidentiality deeds agreed by all shareholders as required. APAC issued a Default Notice triggering a forced sale of Dexus’ shares. The Court held the disclosure was a material and irremediable breach, given the volume, sensitivity and loss of control over information, and that it destroyed trust between shareholders. The Default Notice was valid and applied to the entire Dexus bloc. Affected institutional investors included super-related trustees: IFM Investors (industry super funds), REST Nominees (REST Super), and SAS Trustee Corporation (NSW public sector fund), who were exposed to governance and ownership changes and potential acquisition of the Dexus stake.

Nikolaos Tzoutzidis v Xenon Events Group Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1885

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the employer’s jurisdictional objection, finding the applicant was an employee and had been dismissed, so the claim could proceed.

This conclusion was based on evidence including messages, rostering records and payment arrangements, which showed the applicant worked under the employer’s control, without genuine ability to subcontract and for an hourly rate.

Although the applicant was paid in cash and no superannuation was provided, these factors were not decisive. The Commission did not order superannuation the decision only addressed jurisdiction, with entitlement issues to be determined later.

Ghosh v Newton [2026] NSWSC 571

The case centres on a dispute over a residential property that the plaintiff claimed was an asset of her superannuation fund (SMSF) and therefore improperly dealt with following her bankruptcy. The property, held by a corporate trustee linked to the plaintiff, was subjected to recovery action under the Bankruptcy Act and ultimately sold by the trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to court orders. The plaintiff alleged that the sale breached trust and fiduciary duties and unlawfully removed superannuation assets, and that the purchasers (eighth and ninth defendants) knew, or should have known, that the property was SMSF property caught up in ongoing disputes. The Court struck out the plaintiff’s pleading against the purchasers because it lacked sufficient factual detail to support these superannuation-based allegations, but refused to dismiss the claim entirely, finding there were arguable issues about what the purchasers knew regarding the nature of the property, alleged “administrative stops,” and the circumstances of the sale. The Court therefore allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to replead her case.

Brady v NULIS Nominees (Australia) Limited in its capacity as trustee of the MLC Super Fund [2026] FCAFC 68

The case concerned a class action by superannuation members alleging that the trustee improperly charged administration fees that were partly used to pay ongoing adviser commissions after a successor fund transfer. The key issue was whether those fees were authorised under the trust deed and whether continuing the commission arrangements breached trustee duties.

The Full Federal Court held that the trustee had power to charge the fees, as they were valid administration fees for operating the fund, and their legality did not depend on how the funds were later used. The Court also found no breach of statutory duties, as the trustee had considered member interests and relevant risks before deciding to continue commissions during a transitional period.

The appeal was dismissed, with only minor variations to earlier orders and costs awarded against the applicant.

Challenor v QSuper Board [2026] FCA 617

The case involved a class action by superannuation members concerning 2016 insurance changes, where members were required to elect into lower “occupationally rated” premiums but were not clearly informed of this requirement or its benefits. The applicant alleged inadequate disclosure, misleading communications, and breaches of trustee duties.

Before trial, the parties agreed to a $67 million settlement. The Court assessed whether both the settlement and the distribution to members were fair and reasonable, taking into account litigation risks, differences between member cohorts, and administrative practicality.

The Court approved the settlement, finding it fair overall, but reduced the litigation funder’s total deductions to ensure the outcome remained proportionate for members, while allowing legal and administration costs.

Poulton v. Conrad Case No. H1/2026

This High Court appeal will test whether cryptocurrency can be classified as property capable of legal possession, marking an important development in private law and the digital economy. The Commissioner of Taxation has sought leave to intervene due to significant tax implications, as Bitcoin is currently treated as property for CGT and trading stock purposes.

In 2013, Jeff Conrad invested $10,000 in Bitcoin through Adam Poulton’s company. A dispute arose when Mr. Poulton retained about 10% of the Bitcoin as a “service fee” and refused to return the remainder on demand.

Caldwell & Caldwell [2026] FedCFamC1A 81

In this case Full Court considered whether assets held in three discretionary family trusts were “property” of the husband for the purposes of s 79 of the Family Law Act. The trial judge had found they were not, relying on factors such as the trusts’ purpose (to preserve intergenerational family wealth) and the origin of the assets. On appeal, the majority allowed the appeal, holding the trusts were property of the husband because he had effective control, including the ability to remove co-appointors, control trustee companies and ultimately benefit himself from the trust assets. The Court held it was not necessary for the husband to actually exercise that control having the capacity was sufficient and that the trial judge erred by conflating the question of whether the trusts were property with whether they should be adjusted in a settlement. Factors such as the origin or purpose of the trusts were relevant only at the adjustment stage, not classification.

K J Cooke ATF Cooke Investment Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 130

The case concerned whether a trust was a“fixed trust” or “special trust” for NSW land tax purposes, which affects access to the tax-free threshold. The trustee amended the trust deed to convert the trust from discretionary to fixed. The key issue was whether the amended deed satisfied statutory criteria requiring beneficiaries to have present entitlement to income and capital, and the ability to require the trust to be wound up. The Tribunal carefully interpreted the deed and found that beneficiaries had immediate, vested and indefeasible rights, even though payments might occur later in practice.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Oztures Trading Pty Ltd trading as Binance Australia Derivatives [2026] FCA 509

ASIC v Oztures Trading Pty Ltd (Binance Australia Derivatives) [2026] FCA 509 concerned widespread compliance failures in offering crypto derivatives. Oztures misclassified 524 retail clients as wholesale or sophisticated investors due to inadequate onboarding processes, allowing 437 clients to trade high-risk products without required protections. It failed to provide Product Disclosure Statements, make target market determinations, and maintain adequate systems, training and dispute resolution processes.

ASIC commenced proceedings, and Oztures admitted all contraventions. Clients incurred trading losses and fees, but the company later compensated them approximately $13.1 million and ceased operations. The Court found the breaches serious and systemic, exposing retail clients to risk without safeguards imposed by the Corporations Act. It imposed a $10 million penalty, emphasising
general deterrence and the need for robust compliance, even where misconduct is not deliberate.

Lin v Yim [2026] QSC 57

The case concerned whether funds withdrawn from an SMSF shortly before death retained their character as “superannuation benefits” under the deceased’s will. The plaintiff, who claimed to be the deceased’s de facto partner, alleged the executors (the children of the deceased with another mother) breached fiduciary duties by failing to distribute $2.5 million to her under a clause giving discretion over such benefits. The Court determined that, prior to death, the deceased had fully withdrawn his superannuation into his personal bank account, leaving no benefits payable from the fund at death.

Judge held that, on the ordinary meaning of the will, the relevant clause only applied where superannuation benefits were paid to the executors as a consequence of death. As the funds had already been paid to the deceased personally, they were not “payable” at death and had lost their superannuation character. Accordingly, the clause was not engaged, no fiduciary duty arose, and the plaintiff’s claim had no real prospect of success. Summary judgment was therefore granted in favour of the executors.

Carrello (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Jones (deceased) [2026] FCA 468

In Carrello (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Jones (deceased) [2026] FCA 468, the Federal Court dismissed an application to appoint the trustee in bankruptcy as receiver and manager of a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF). The application arose because the sole remaining trustee was an undischarged bankrupt and the former corporate trustee was in liquidation, leaving no person able to lawfully wind up the fund. The applicants sought to sell the fund’s main asset and distribute half of the proceeds to the deceased member’s bankrupt estate.

The judge accepted the Court had power under s 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act to appoint a receiver, but refused relief due to serious shortcomings. These included inadequate disclosure about the intended use of the deceased member’s superannuation, failure to address whether creditors had any lawful claim on those benefits, limited engagement with the fund deed, and lack of clarity about potential beneficiary claims (including adult children). The Court was also concerned about the absence of evidence of independent advice and unexplored alternatives under the SIS Act. The application was dismissed, with liberty to apply again.

Deemhire Pty Limited as trustee of the Vartuli Family Trust v No Defendant [2026] NSWSC 318 (2 April 2026)

The NSW Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Bruno and Nancy Vartuli against land tax assessments for the 2007–2013 land tax years, confirming that their Edmondson Park property was not exempt under s 10AA of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW). Although the land was used for cattle grazing and accepted to be primary production, it was not rural land following rezoning and therefore required satisfaction of additional statutory tests.

The Court held that the cattle operations did not have a significant and substantial commercial purpose or character. While the activities were genuine and not a hobby or token operation, they were small-scale and generated ongoing losses or only minimal profits over a long period. Any profits made did not contribute in a real (as opposed to trifling) way to the income of the taxpayers or their related entities.

The Court confirmed that assessing “significant and substantial” commerciality requires an evaluative judgment, considering scale, intensity, profitability, and contribution to income. As this threshold was not met, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Maietta and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 534 (9 April 2026)

The Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner of Taxation’s decision to disqualify Roberto Maietta from acting as a responsible officer of the corporate trustee of his selfmanaged superannuation fund (SMSF) under **s 126A(2) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth).

The Tribunal found that the trustee contravened the sole purpose test (s 62) by advancing almost all SMSF assets to a related overseas property development company controlled by Mr Maietta. Although the arrangement was documented as a commercial investment, the Tribunal concluded that one purpose was to accelerate completion of the company’s project, meaning the fund was not maintained solely for retirement purposes.

The Tribunal also found serious and repeated breaches of s 35D, as no SMSF annual returns were lodged for multiple years. Reliance on advisers and disputes over fees did not excuse noncompliance.

Given the seriousness of the contraventions, ongoing noncompliance, and future compliance risk, the Tribunal held that disqualification was appropriate and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

Di Trapani & another v Di Trapani & others [2026] QSC 20 (2 March 2026)

Supreme Court of Queensland held a will cannot dispose of discretionary trust assets not owned by the testatrix. Trust property gifts failed, share gift to executors stood, loanforgiveness clause unenforceable, and $400k gifts were separate.

The Court found that Mrs Di Trapani’s will was not drafted by a lawyer and was instead prepared by an accountant known to the family. The accountant stated he had “retyped” an earlier draft will, but the Court noted evidence suggesting he went further than mere transcription. His invoice referred to “assistance for new wills, discuss same and make recommendations and draft same”, and he charged for work relating to wills, company structure and the family trust. There was no evidence Mrs Di Trapani received legal advice before executing the will, and the accountant did not have legal qualifications.

The Court treated the document as a laydrafted will, which influenced its approach to construction and explained why multiple clauses were legally ineffective despite appearing deliberate.

Hunt, in the matter of Hunt (Bankrupt) [2026] FCA 389

Stephen Hunt, an undischarged bankrupt, applied to the Federal Court for leave to manage SB Hunt Super Pty Ltd, the corporate trustee of his self managed superannuation fund (SMSF), and for an order that he not be treated as a disqualified person under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. His bankruptcy automatically disqualified him from managing corporations and acting as a superannuation trustee, which would have caused the SMSF to lose its complying status and suffer significant adverse tax consequences.

The Court accepted that SB Hunt Super’s sole activity was acting as trustee of the SMSF, of which Mr Hunt was the sole member and beneficiary. Mr Hunt’s bankruptcy arose from substantial unpaid tax liabilities following an ATO audit, rather than dishonesty or fraud. He had cooperated with both the ATO and his trustee in bankruptcy and had taken steps to meet settlement obligations before adverse market conditions prevented further payments.

The Court granted the relief sought, subject to strict conditions. Mr Hunt was permitted to manage only SB Hunt Super, which was restricted to acting solely as trustee of the SMSF. He was also relieved from being a disqualified person under the SIS Act, limited to that specific fund until his discharge from bankruptcy. The Court held these conditions adequately protected the public and preserved the integrity of the regulatory regime while avoiding disproportionate consequences for the SMSF.

Sherallene Alicer and Joshua Ramos and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 342 (21 February 2026)

Ms Sherallene Alicer and Mr Joshua Ramos applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review of the Commissioner of Taxation’s decision to disqualify them from acting as trustees of their self managed superannuation fund (SMSF), Jiskt Super Fund, and to only partially remit administrative penalties.

Between 2017 and 2023, the applicants repeatedly withdrew SMSF funds and treated them as loans to Ms Alicer to meet personal expenses, including mortgage payments and home renovations. Over extended periods, these loans represented almost 100 per cent of the fund’s assets, leaving the fund largely depleted. Although the withdrawals were later repaid with interest, the Tribunal found the arrangements were not genuinely commercial and lacked arm’s length discipline.

The applicants admitted multiple breaches of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, including lending to members, breaches of the inhouse asset rules, failure to satisfy the sole purpose test, non arm’slength investments and repeated late lodgement of annual returns. In total, there were 244 contraventions over six years.

The Tribunal rejected arguments that personal hardship, relationship breakdown or remediation of the fund justified a lesser outcome. It held that the scale and seriousness of the contraventions exposed members’ retirement savings to significant risk and demonstrated ongoing compliance concerns. Disqualification was therefore affirmed. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner’s decision not to remit penalties further, concluding that full remission would be inconsistent with the penalty regime’s purpose.

Aitken v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCAFC 18 

The case is about Whether the exercise of a put option and a subsequent novation in a forestry managed investment scheme gave rise to one or multiple CGT events “in relation to” a forestry interest for the purposes of Division 394 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and how those events affected assessable income.

In this appeal case to the decision  of Aitken v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 372, it confirms that multiple CGT events can arise under Division 394 when exiting a forestry managed investment scheme. The Full Federal Court held that exercising a put option was a CGT event “in relation to” a forestry interest because it reduced its market value, even though the option was a separate asset. A later novation disposing of the interests triggered a further CGT event. The taxpayer failed to prove the assessment was excessive due to a lack of evidence on market value and retained rights. The appeal was dismissed.

Sanjiv v Shah [2026] NSWSC 139

The case concerns a former spouse attempting to relitigate family law property and superannuation issues through a civil negligence and fiduciary duty claim.

It is an attempt to recover an alleged failure to pay $4,000 into a superannuation fund, as required by Family Court consent orders. The plaintiff sought to reframe the alleged nonpayment as negligence and breach of fiduciary duty and to involve the SRI Services Superannuation Fund as a party. The NSW Supreme Court held the obligation arose solely from family law orders and had already been dealt with in enforcement proceedings. Relitigating the issue via a civil claim and a superannuation fund was an abuse of process. The plaintiff was restrained from bringing further proceedings, including through her super fund, without leave.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MWL Financial Services Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 199 (5 March 2026)

The Federal Court granted ASIC leave to proceed against a financial advice firm in liquidation. ASIC alleges MWL provided inappropriate personal advice, including directing clients’ superannuation into the Shield Master Fund under a “low cost advice” model. The Court held there is a strong public interest in allowing regulators to pursue serious misconduct despite liquidation, particularly where ASIC undertakes not to enforce penalties without further leave.

Hay and Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2026] ARTA 268 (27 February 2026) 

Hay v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2026] ARTA 268 concerned the effective date of Mr Hay’s reclassification for invalidity benefits under the DFRDB Act. Mr Hay, a former Navy member, suffered PTSD, major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder arising from service-related abuse. Although these conditions existed at discharge in 1984, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of large incapacity before 1996, noting sustained employment and study during that period. The Tribunal held Mr Hay was Class B (30%) from 1984 and Class A (60%) from 1 March 1996, varying the decision accordingly.

Steele v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2026] FCA 170 (26 February 2026) 

Steele v AFCA [2026] FCA 170 concerned an appeal against the summary dismissal of Mr Steele’s challenge to an AFCA determination affirming a superannuation trustee’s decision to pay 100% of a death benefit to the deceased member’s spouse. The Federal Court held the appeal was incompetent because the notice of appeal failed to identify any error of law in the primary judge’s decision, instead advancing new evidence, merit-based arguments and allegations beyond the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed with costs. 

Commissioner of Taxation v S.N.A Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 10 (17 February 2026)

The Full Federal Court unanimously overturned a first instance decision allowing deductions for related party “service fees” within the Coronis real estate group. Written license and service agreements governing use of intellectual property and a rent roll expired in 2015, yet payments continued in later years. The taxpayers claimed the payments were deductible under inferred contracts requiring payment of “fair and reasonable” fees. The Full Court held that no such contracts existed. Applying the objective theory of contract, the Court found no outward manifestation of mutual assent between the operating companies and the trustee entities. Subjective intentions of common directors, accounting assumptions, internal coding of payments, arm’s length benchmarking, or the mere fact payments were made were insufficient. There was no evidence of communicated acceptance of liability, agreed methodology, consistent fee structure, or conduct demonstrating that the parties regarded themselves as contractually bound. As no enforceable contractual obligation existed, the service fees were not incurred for tax purposes and were not deductible.

ASIC v Keystone Asset Management Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) (No 4) [2026] FCA 89

The Federal Court (Moshinsky J) dismissed an application by Paul Chiodo to partially set aside subpoenas issued to banks at the request of court appointed receivers of Keystone. While the Court rejected the argument that the subpoenas were relevant to resolving fund intermingling issues in an interim distribution application, it accepted that they were properly issued to assist the receivers in identifying, tracing and securing Keystone’s property, including possible misapplied trust funds. The subpoenas were therefore upheld and costs reserved appointed receivers of Keystone.

Nicholson v Sheils [2026] VSC 18

The Supreme Court of Victoria considered the distribution of an intestate estate where the deceased was survived by both a legally married spouse and an unregistered domestic partner. Although still married to the defendant, the deceased had been informally separated from her for about 20 years and they had no ongoing personal or financial relationship. From 2018 until his death in 2023, the plaintiff lived with the deceased in a committed domestic relationship and jointly acquired property.

The Court found the plaintiff was the deceased’s unregistered domestic partner under the Administration and Probate Act 1958. It was noted that the plaintiff had already received the deceased’s superannuation death benefits, valued at about $170,000, which passed outside the estate. After considering this, along with the modest size of the estate, the long separation from the defendant, and the plaintiff’s financial need, the Court held it was just and equitable under s 70ZD to allocate the entire residuary estate to the plaintiff.

Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees v [2026] FWC 127 (14 January 2026)

The Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees sought paid primary caregiver leave for two Aurizon employees whose partners had caesarean births, arguing the men became primary caregivers and were entitled under clauses 27.24 and 27.29 of the Aurizon Coal Enterprise Agreement 2022. Aurizon rejected the requests because neither employee gave birth nor adopted, and the birth parents had not returned to work, which the Agreement requires for partner access to paid leave. The Fair Work Commission held the clauses were clear, not discriminatory, and did not entitle the employees to paid primary caregiver leave. The Commission found the National Employment Standards were irrelevant because the National Employment Standards (NES)  governs unpaid, not paid, parental leave. The applications were refused.

Petrovic and Australian Securities & Investments Commission (Taxation and business) [2025] ARTA 2717 (11 December 2025)

The Administrative Review Tribunal reviewed ASIC’s decision banning financial adviser Milutin Petrovic for six years over failures while implementing United Global Capital’s “limited advice” model. ASIC found he breached multiple financial services laws, including best interest duties, appropriate advice requirements, conflict management duties, and misleading conduct, largely due to relying on templated documents and inadequate client investigation. Though he argued he acted in good faith and was misled by his employer, the Tribunal held the obligations were personal, his conduct serious, and he lacked sufficient insight. The ban was reduced to three years, starting 24 January 2025, but otherwise left unchanged.

Mr QSFT and Mrs WKXH and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2514 (24 November 2025)

The Tribunal upheld Centrelink’s calculation of Mr QSFT and Mrs WKXH’s age pension. As controllers and attributable stakeholders of their family trust, they were correctly assessed on both the trust’s dividend income and deemed income from a $143,201 loan they had made to the trust. The applicants argued this amounted to double counting, but the Tribunal found the two income sources were legally distinct: dividends earned by the trust and deemed income on a financial asset (the loan). Since the loan still existed and had not been repaid or forgiven, deeming rules applied. The Tribunal concluded the legislation required both amounts to be assessed and affirmed the decision.  

XBRK & RKYV and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Practice and procedure) [2026] ARTA 17 (8 January 2026)

The Tribunal dismissed the applications by XBRK & RKYV for lack of jurisdiction. The applicants sought review of Centrelink’s alleged failure to revalue listed securities between 2017 and 2022 and claimed entitlement to pension arrears. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that Centrelink had made any “decision” within the statutory meaning no officer had turned their mind to the revaluation issue or refused to act. Without a reviewable decision under the Social Security and Administrative Review legislation, the Tribunal could not conduct a second review. Earlier authorised review officer’s decisions already reviewed and affirmed were not challenged by the applicants. As no valid jurisdictional foundation existed, the applications were dismissed under section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

McLennan v McLennan [2025] NSWSC 1603 (23 December 2025)

McLennan v McLennan involved an elderly father, John, seeking to unwind past estate planning transactions that gave his son, Ruskin, control of family trusts and ownership of the Bombi Road home. The Court found that over many years John and his late wife Karen intentionally structured their affairs on professional legal advice to place Ruskin in control, largely due to concerns about their daughter Susannah’s long term vulnerability. After Karen’s death, John changed his mind and claimed unconscionable conduct, saying Ruskin had overborne him. The Court rejected this, finding John’s affidavit evidence unreliable, the solicitor’s evidence credible, and the transactions rational and voluntary. All challenges failed except that Ruskin must account for past expenditure from his parents’ bank accounts.