Media Bulletin

2026/00194621

Monday, 26 October 2026

LAND AND ENVIRONMENT – between 2006 and 2016, the first respondent lodged four claims pursuant to s 36(2) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (ALRA) in relation to two lots in Narooma – on 22 May 2023, a delegate of the appellant refused the claims insofar as they concerned the eastern portion of the lots on the basis that the land was “lawfully used or occupied” by Narooma Golf Club (Golf Club) for the purposes of operating a golf course and was therefore not “claimable Crown lands” within the meaning of s 36(1)(b) of the ALRA – on 21 September 2023, the first respondent appealed the delegate’s determination, contending (amongst other things) that: (1) the eastern portion of the lots was not “lawfully used or occupied” by the Golf Club pursuant to a lease granted to it on 23 May 2000 (2000 lease) under the Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW) (CLA) as the land was not being used for its reserved purpose of “public recreation”; and (2) the eastern portion of the lots was not lawfully used by members of the public for public recreation – the primary judge concluded that the granting of the 2000 lease to the Golf Club was an invalid exercise of power under the CLA because the eastern portion of the lots was being used by the Golf Club as a source of private profit at the time the 2000 lease was granted – in reaching that conclusion, the primary judge found that the Golf Club’s income from “subscriptions and joining fees” was income derived from the use of the eastern portion of the lots by members of the Golf Club – the primary judge further held that the reservation of the eastern portion of the lots for public recreation did not confer any right on members of the public to use the land – whether the primary judge erred in holding that the grant of the 2000 lease to the Golf Club was invalid – whether the primary judge denied the appellant procedural fairness in finding that the income generated from “subscription and joining fees” was derived from the use of the land by members of the Golf Club – whether the primary judge erred in holding that the reservation of land “for public recreation” under the CLA did not constitute lawful authority for its use by members of the public.

Decision under appeal

New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Ministering Administering the Crown Land Management Act (“Narooma Claim”) [2026] NSWLEC 39

Submissions

1. Notice of Appeal
2. Amended Notice of Appeal
3. Further Amended Notice of Appeal
4. Appellant's submissions
5. Respondent's submissions
6. Appellant's submissions in reply

Coram

• Leeming JA
• Adamson JA
• Price AJA

Counsel

• Appellant: G Wright SC, C Winnett
• Respondent: TBC 

2026/00201325

Tuesday, 27 October 2026

CONTRACT – on 27 May 2022, the appellant (Boardman) entered into a Put and Call Option Deed (the Deed) with the first respondent (Home) and the second respondent (Rawson), under which Home was granted call options (and Boardman corresponding put options) in respect of 20 lots in a subdivision of land owned by Boardman – the Deed annexed a Disclosure Statement that attached a draft plan and a draft s 88B instrument proposed to be lodged with the draft plan. The site classification of the 20 lots were recorded on the draft instrument as “??” – cl 5.3(b) of the Deed relevantly provided that if Boardman served a notice in accordance with cl 5.3(a) as a result of a “Material Change” (defined in cl 1.1), and the Material Change is such that Home: (i) would not have entered into the Deed or the contract had it been aware of the Material Change; and (ii) would be materially prejudiced by the Material Change, Home may, within 14 days after the notice is served, rescind the Deed – on or around 27 May 2024, the final subdivision plan and s 88B instrument were registered. Under the registered s 88B instrument, site classifications had been recorded for the 20 lots, eight of which were classified as “P” (problem) – on 12 June 2024, Boardman issued a notice under cl 5.3(a) of the Deed that the Disclosure Statement had become “inaccurate” by reason of the change to the site classifications for the lots – on 14 June 2024, Home issued a Notice of Recission under cl 5.3(b) of the Deed – on 2 July 2024, Boardman served a Notice of Exercise of Put Option, enclosing executed contracts for the sale of the lots – on 25 July 2024, Boardman commenced proceedings seeking, amongst other things, an order for specific performance of the 2 July 2024 contracts by Home – by amended cross-summons dated 11 March 2025, Home sought several orders, including a declaration that the Notice of Rescission issued on 14 June 2024 validly rescinded the Deed in accordance with cl 5.3(b) – the primary judge found that: (1) Home and Rawson would not have entered into the Deed had they been aware of the change to the site classifications in the Disclosure Statement; and (2) Home and Rawson would be materially prejudiced by the change in the Disclosure Statement – the primary judge accordingly held that, by its Notice of Rescission, Home had validly rescinded the Deed pursuant to cl 5.3(b) – whether the primary judge erred in holding that the Deed was validly rescinded.

Decision under appeal

Boardman Super Fund Pty Ltd v Home & Land Centre Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 433

Submissions

1. Notice of Appeal
2. Appellant's submissions
3. Respondent's submissions
4. Appellant's submissions in reply

Coram

• Payne JA
• Ball JA
• Griffiths AJA

Counsel

• Appellant: N Kidd SC, MT Keene
• Respondent: TBC

2026/00215146

Wednesday, 28 October 2026

TAX – Fort Street Real Estate Capital Funds (FSREC) is a landholder trust whose assets include interest in New South Wales landholdings – on 16 December 2021, ISPT Pty Ltd as trustee of ISPT Retail Australia Property Trust (FSREC Fund) (ISPT) entered into a deed with FSREC’s responsible entity to subscribe between $240 and $320 million for units in FSREC. A condition of the transaction was that existing members of FSREC accept an offer by the responsible entity to redeem units in a “withdrawal offer” to a value at least equal to the minimum amount to be subscribed by ISPT – at the time of the deed’s execution, FSREC was a “public landholder” within the meaning of s 146 of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) (the Act) – on 18 February 2022, following the redemption of units by existing members, new units in FSREC were issued to ISPT equivalent to 75.8% of all units issued in FSREC (February acquisition) – as a result of the February acquisition, FSREC became a “private landholder” within the meaning of s 146 of the Act – it was also common ground that the February acquisition was not subject to landholder duty as it was an acquisition of less than 90% in a “public landholder” and therefore not a “relevant acquisition” for the purposes of s 156 of the Act – on 22 July 2022, following a second withdrawal offer to all members excluding ISPT, new units in FSREC were issued to ISPT equivalent to 19.46% of the total units issued in FSREC (July acquisition) – as a result of the July acquisition, ISPT held a total of 95.26% of the units in FSREC – on 16 February 2024, the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue assessed ISPT’s landholder duty in the amount of $19,893,540, based on its 95.26% interest in FSREC’s landholdings. The Chief Commissioner reasoned that s 155(3) of the Act required the charging of duty on the “aggregate of amounts severally calculated … in respect of each interest required to be disclosed in [an acquisition] statement” – on 12 April 2024, ISPT objected to the Chief Commissioner’s assessment, which the Chief Commissioner disallowed – on 1 November 2024, ISPT commenced proceedings, contending that: (1) s 155(3) of the Act does not require aggregation of the February and July acquisitions in calculating the landholder duty payable on the July acquisition; and (2) if it does, the discretion under s 163H of the Act should be exercised to grant ISPT an exemption from duty for the February acquisition – the primary judge held that, on its proper construction, s 155(3) of the Act required aggregation of the February and July acquisitions in calculating the landholder duty payable on the July acquisition – the primary judge further refused to exercise the discretion under s 163H of the Act on the basis that the aggregation of the February and July acquisitions was neither an unjust nor unreasonable outcome – whether the primary judge erred in his Honour’s construction of s 155 of the Act – whether the primary judge erred in refusing to exercise the discretion under s 163H of the Act.

Decision under appeal

ISPT Pty Ltd (ACN 064 041 283) as trustee of ISPT Retail Australia Property Trust (FSREC Fund) v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWSC 424

Coram

• Ward ACJ
• Kirk JA
• Stern JA

Counsel

• Appellant: FD O'Loughlin, NL Gollan
• Respondent: S Balafoutis, D Stretton