The Petal — Federal Courts Edition: 12–14 June 2026

A weekly run through the Federal Court of Australia for 12–14 June 2026 — twelve decisions reported, five aired. The lead holds that a Territory statutory power to enter Aboriginal land and muster straying stock operates concurrently with the Commonwealth land rights scheme and is not the grant of a licence or interest. Plus: the general-protections threshold for a "complaint" — declining an advance, without communicating a grievance, is not a complaint; the Court may supervise a liquidator on its own initiative where a clear conflict is asserted, regardless of standing; low turnout at a scheme meeting is not, by itself, a bar to approval; and a mandatory interlocutory injunction runs on the ordinary tripartite test, with its mandatory character weighed inside the balance of convenience. Produced by BarNet OpenLaw, the creators of JADE, from The Petal. The voices are AI-generated. Nothing in this program is legal advice.In this episode:Yalpirakinu Aboriginal Land Trust v Mount Denison Proprietors Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 732 — a Territory entry-and-muster power operates concurrently with the Commonwealth land rights scheme and is not a grant of a licence or interest (application dismissed). https://jade.io/article/1232690Clarke v Beiler Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 734 — declining an unwelcome advance, without conveying a grievance, is not a "complaint" under the general protections. https://jade.io/article/1232678Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Nararra Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 730 — the Court may supervise a liquidator on its own initiative where a clear conflict is asserted, bypassing standing objections. https://jade.io/article/1232684Amaero Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 736 — low turnout at a scheme meeting is not, by itself, a bar to approval absent procedural irregularity; a route to support the US securities exemption. https://jade.io/article/1232686EOS Defence Systems Pty Limited v Pahlavani [2026] FCA 688 — a mandatory interlocutory injunction runs on the ordinary tripartite test, its mandatory character weighed inside the balance of convenience. https://jade.io/article/1232673— CASE NOTES —Yalpirakinu Aboriginal Land Trust v Mount Denison Proprietors Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 732O'Sullivan J · 11 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232690Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Constitutional Law — Constitutional Validity (Territory vs Commonwealth land rights).Held (application dismissed): Inconsistency principles apply by analogy to Territory laws — a Territory law is inoperative only to the extent it alters, impairs or detracts from a Commonwealth law, the question being whether a real conflict exists. The Territory entry-and-muster power regulated entry onto Aboriginal land for a specific, limited purpose and operated concurrently with the land rights Act; no direct inconsistency. A statutory authorisation of entry is not the creation of an estate, interest or licence and effects no unilateral grant. "Reasonable attempts" to reach agreement is a mandatory precondition, assessed objectively as at the date of the notice; engaging the Land Council as the Trust's representative satisfied it, attempted contact with a single Traditional Owner did not. Non-compliant departures engage a strict-liability offence with a reasonable-excuse defence, not invalidity ab initio.Why aired: The lead — a statutory entry-and-muster power operates concurrently with the Commonwealth land rights scheme and is not the grant of a licence or interest, changing how Territory laws are tested against the scheme and how entry onto Aboriginal land is structured.Clarke v Beiler Constructions Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 734McDonald J · 12 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232678Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Industrial and Employment — General Protections.Held: Verbally declining a sexual advance, without conveying a substantive grievance or accusation, does not meet the threshold for a "complaint" under the general protections, so a refusal alone is not an actionable complaint for adverse-action purposes. "Conduct of a sexual nature" requires an expressly sexual character. Offsetting flat hourly rates against award entitlements requires clear prior contractual attribution and cannot net shortfalls across pay periods. The standard-of-proof provision demands actual persuasion given the gravity of the allegations, and accessorial liability requires actual knowledge — individuals are liable only after explicit notification of the breach.Why aired: Clarifies the threshold for a "complaint" — declining an advance, without communicating a grievance, is not a complaint — changing how adverse-action claims are framed and advised.Caution: Sexual-harassment matter — reported in a survivor-sensitive register: principle and consequence only, parties unnamed on air.Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Nararra Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 730Moore J · 12 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232684Signal: Practice & Procedure · 5 stars · Company Law — External Administration (liquidator supervision).Held: The Court may act on its own initiative under the supervisory provision to supervise liquidators where a clear conflict is asserted, bypassing standing issues. A litigation conflict for liquidators on both sides of a proceeding can be resolved by a clear undertaking to discontinue the action against the company in liquidation. An asserted conflict from common liquidators across related entities must be real and crystallised, not hypothetical, to warrant the cost and disruption of removal. Applications based on anticipated future conflicts may be stood over rather than dismissed, preserving the right to re-agitate.Why aired: Confirms the Court may supervise a liquidator on its own initiative where a clear conflict is asserted, regardless of a standing objection — changing how conflict-and-removal applications against insolvency practitioners are run.Amaero Ltd, in the matter of Amaero Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 736Owens J · 10 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232686Signal: Practice & Procedure · 5 stars · Company Law — Scheme of Arrangement.Held: Low voter turnout at a scheme meeting will not typically prevent approval at the second-court hearing absent evidence of procedural irregularity in the despatch of materials or notice. For cross-border schemes, practitioners can ask the Court to record the procedural steps and fairness assessment undertaken to support the US securities exemption, even though the Court will not formally determine compliance with foreign law. Where a scheme does not modify the constitution, apply for the constitutional-annexure exemption to avoid the administrative burden of annexing the approval order.Why aired: Confirms low scheme-meeting turnout is not, by itself, a bar to approval absent procedural irregularity, and gives a practical route to support the US securities exemption — useful for everyone who runs schemes, particularly cross-border.EOS Defence Systems Pty Limited v Pahlavani [2026] FCA 688Stellios J · 2 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232673Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Intellectual Property — interlocutory injunctions; confidential information.Held: Applications for mandatory interlocutory injunctions are governed by the standard tripartite test (serious question to be tried, balance of convenience, adequacy of damages); there is no separate higher threshold, but the mandatory character of the relief must be specifically weighed in the balance of convenience. An applicant can rely on a respondent's detailed responsive engagement with the affidavit material to overcome objections that confidential information was insufficiently identified. A failure to adduce a specific document will not automatically found an adverse inference, and equitable defences of delay or unclean hands are diminished where the party resisting relief contributed to the delay by withholding requested information.Why aired: Confirms a mandatory interlocutory injunction runs on the ordinary tripartite test, with the mandatory character weighed inside the balance of convenience rather than as a separate hurdle — changing how these urgent applications are pleaded and resisted.Also reported: ASIC v Keystone Asset Management (No 5) [2026] FCA 729; Universal Music v TPG Internet (No 2) [2026] FCA 731; Kandos Development v Cement Australia [2026] FCA 743; Brushe v Stanton [2026] FCA 740; Kelly v Commonwealth (Services Australia) (No 3) [2026] FCA 735; Pheonix A v Spring UT [2026] FCA 728. Full docket and per-decision links at ledger.jade.io.Produced by BarNet OpenLaw — the creators of JADE — from The Petal (Australia Federal Courts Edition, 12–14 June 2026), reviewed under OpenLaw's content and podcasting standard. The voices are AI-generated. Sexual-harassment matters are reported in a survivor-sensitive register. Nothing in this program is legal advice.