Court of Appeal practice

2026/00109946

Monday, 2 November 2026

LAND & ENVIRONMENT – Leverton Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (Leverton), of which the appellant is the sole director, conducts farming operations on land situated near Moree, known as “Luellan” – on 17 September 2002, the Director-General of the then Department of Land and Water Conservation issued to Leverton a Direction to Carry out Remedial Work (the Remediation Order) pursuant to s 47 of the (repealed) Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW) (NVC Act) – the Remediation Order was issued in circumstances of Leverton pleading guilty on 18 September 2002 to a charge of clearing native vegetation on Luellan without development consent to do so, in contravention of s 21(2) of the NVC Act – in about March 2024, the respondent released a Draft Native Vegetation Regulatory map (Draft Map), which applied to Luellan – for the purposes of the Local Land Services Act 2013 (NSW) (LLS Act), a portion of Luellan known as “Sandy’s Paddock”, and other parts of Luellan, were classified as “Category 2– Regulated Land” under s 60I of the LLS Act due to their being the subject to the Remediation Order, that order imposing “a requirement to take remedial action to restore or protect the biodiversity values of the land within the meaning of s 60I(2)(f) – on 31 August 2024, pursuant to s 60L of the LLS Act, the appellant requested that the respondent review the classification of parts of Luellan as Category 2 land – following the review, all of Sandy’s Paddock remained classified as Category 2 land – the appellant commenced Class 1 Appeal proceedings pursuant to s 60M of the LLS Act challenging that determination on the basis that Sandy’s Paddock was not subject to a requirement imposed by the Remediation Order “to take remedial action to restore or protect the biodiversity values of the land” within the meaning of s 60I(2)(f) – the appellant contended that the land should instead be classified as “Category 1 – Exempt Land” under s 60H of the LLS Act – the primary judge held that the Remediation Order applied to the whole of Sandy’s Paddock and imposed a requirement “to take remedial action to restore or protect the biodiversity values of the land”, such that Sandy’s Paddock was properly designated as Category 2 land – the primary judge therefore dismissed the proceedings – whether the primary judge erred in misconstruing the Remediation Order.

Decision under appeal

Manchee v Secretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water [2026] NSWLEC 15

Counsel

• Appellant: P Herzfeld, D Wilcox
• Respondent KC Morgan, E Dunlop

2026/00220392

Wednesday, 4 November 2026

ADMIN LAW (other) – on 14 October 2025, the second respondent, the Chinese Medicine Board of Australia (the Board), refused the appellant’s application dated 11 April 2025 for registration as a Chinese Medicine practitioner (in the divisions of Acupuncturists, Chinese Herbal Dispensers, and Chinese Herbal Medicine) – the Board’s reasons for refusal included that the appellant had not established that he satisfied either the Registration Standard: English Language Skills (English Language Standard) or the Registration Standard: Recency of Practice (ROP Standard) required for registration – on 30 October 2025, the appellant sought a review of that decision in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal), arguing that the Board’s decision was “completely unacceptable”, “ridiculous”, biased, procedurally unfair, and inconsistent with the “Charter of Human Rights” and public materials provided by the first respondent, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which he said collectively created a “legitimate expectation” that he should be granted registration – the English Language Standard provides for an “advanced education” pathway for applicants to satisfy the Board of their English language competence – the “advanced education” pathway requires that applicants complete six years “full-time equivalent” education (including qualifications for the applicant’s profession and tertiary education at a degree level) solely in English with a maximum of two years break – the Tribunal found that the appellant chose to pursue this “advanced education” pathway but that he had only completed, at most, 5.5 years of full-time equivalent education over a 9.5 year time frame so had not satisfied the “advanced education” pathway requirements – the Tribunal also found that the appellant had not satisfied the requirements in the ROP Standard – the Tribunal affirmed the Board’s decision and ordered that the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal – whether the Tribunal misapplied and misconstrued the applicable registration standards and erred as to costs.

Decision under appeal

Chen v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2026] NSWCATOD 53

Counsel

• Appellant: Self-represented
• Respondent: L Dargen

2025/00497134

Thursday, 5 November 2026

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Qantas Airways seeks leave to appeal from a decision of Deputy President Snell, which in turn dismissed an appeal from a Senior Member of the Personal Injury Commission. The proceedings relate to the respondent’s claim for a lump sum payment of compensation for sustained aggravation of melanoma suffered during his employment with the applicant. The applicant alleges that the Deputy President erred in failing to: (1) give any reasons for his rejection of important aspects of the medical evidence of several doctors; and (2) have regard to relevant evidence, namely the opinion of those doctors.

Submissions

1. Summons
2. Appellant summary of argument
3. Respondent's submissions
4. Second respondent's submissions
5. Appellant's submissions in reply

Counsel

• Appellant: S Maybury SC, L Robison
• Respondent: C Tanner, B Necovski

2026/00229410

Friday, 6 November 2026

ADMIN LAW (judicial review) – in October 2011, Mr Michael Riashi, an officer of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), issued 13 court attendance notices (CANs) alleging offences committed by the applicant – of the 13 charges, one was withdrawn, nine involved offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and related to conduct which had been the subject of an investigation by ICAC into corrupt conduct (the Crimes Act Offences), and three involved offences under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) (ICAC Act), being two charges of giving false/misleading evidence at public inquiry, and one of making false statements to an officer of ICAC (the ICAC Act Offences) – on 9 December 2024, the applicant was convicted in the Local Court on all 12 sequences, and sentenced for the Crimes Act Offences – on 30 April 2025, the Court of Appeal held that ICAC and its officer lacked authority to issue the CANs in respect of the Crimes Act Offences but did not lack authority to commence proceedings in relation to the ICAC Act Offences – the Court set aside the convictions and sentences for the Crimes Act Offences – on 3 October 2025, the applicant was sentenced in respect of the ICAC Act Offences – on 27 October 2025, the applicant appealed to the District Court against his convictions and sentences for the ICAC Act Offences – on 24 March 2026, the District Court (Sutherland SC DCJ) dismissed an application made by the applicant seeking to have the proceedings relating to the ICAC Act Offences dismissed on the basis that those proceedings were not commenced “in accordance with written advice given by the Director of Public Prosecutions” pursuant to Sch 4, Pt 18, cl 46(1)(b) of the ICAC Act (that clause having been inserted in response to the decision of this Court on 30 April 2025) – on 27 March 2026, the District Court (Hanley SC DCJ) dismissed as lacking merit an application made by the applicant seeking that the District Court state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to s 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – the applicant did not appear at the hearing of that motion – by Summons filed in this Court, the applicant now alleges jurisdictional error on the part of the District Court and seeks: (1) that the order made by Sutherland SC DCJ be quashed; (2) that the proceedings relating to the ICAC Act Offences be declared a nullity and the District Court be prevented from determining them; (3) that any further proceedings in this matter in the District Court be heard by a judge other than Sutherland SC DCJ or Hanley SC DCJ on the ground of apprehended bias; and (4) a stay of the District Court proceedings pending the outcome of these judicial review proceedings – whether the Local Court proceedings were validly commenced in light of cl 46(1)(b) – whether Sutherland SC DCJ and Hanley SC DCJ denied the applicant procedural fairness and should be disqualified on the ground of apprehended bias.

Counsel

• Appellant: Self-represented
• Respondent: J Davidson