News

The Federal Court of Australia (Anderson J) has delivered judgment in The Owners – Strata Plan No 87231 v 3A Composites GmbH (No 10) [2026] FCA 351, in which Sam Adair appeared (lead by Nicholas Owens SC, now a Judge of the Federal Court, and instructed by Wesley Rose of Wotton Kearney Lawyers) for the successful second respondent, Halifax Vogel Group (HVG).

This was a funded class action concerning the supply and use of two aluminium composite products (ACPs) in the Australian building industry between 2009 and 2019. The applicants claimed that the ACPs did not comply with consumer law guarantees, and also advanced causes of action for misleading conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law and predecessor legislation.

The Court dismissed both actions, rejecting the applicants’ claims that the ACPs were inherently unsafe due to pleaded “risks” and accepting the respondents’ contentions that any of the pleaded “risks” depended on the particular use of the product on any given building.

The case provides useful guidance on matters including the scope of consumer law guarantees, identification of the “reasonable consumer” in consumer guarantee claims, assessment of whether conduct is misleading or deceptive, causation and limitation periods for purposes of s 236(2) of the ACL.

See the full judgment here.

The Federal Court of Australia (Hespe J) in 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘌𝘹𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘷 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘮 [2026] FCA 147 dismissed an appeal by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) from a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal.

The primary ground of appeal centred around the construction of s 34(1) of the 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘚𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘵 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act). The NDIA contended at supports funded under the NDIS must relate only to the specific impairments for which a participant would meet the Scheme's access requirements.

Her Honour held that the impairment in relation to which a participant is granted access to the Scheme need not be the sole cause of the need for a support. Rather, it is sufficient if the relevant impairment is a cause of the need for the support.

The Court’s decision has received national media coverage.

Amir Chowdhury, led by Tom Liu (7 Wentworth Selborne), appeared for the successful participant, Mr Eastham. Tom and Amir were instructed by the Justice and Equity Centre.

A copy of the judgment is available at this link.