News
![๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฆ๐ง ๐๐น๐ฆ๐ค๐ถ๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐๐ง๐ง๐ช๐ค๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ช๐ด๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฏ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐บ ๐ท ๐๐ข๐ด๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ฎ [2026] FCA 147](https://9selborne.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/9Selb-Amir_Chowdhury_10_Low_Thumb.jpg)
![Yeng & Sun [2025] FedCFamC1A 106](https://9selborne.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/9SC_Giles-Stapleton_001-BG_Thumb.jpg)
![Andrews & Andrews Construction Pty Ltd v Yao; Yao v Andrews & Andrews Construction Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 322](https://9selborne.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/NMM-ARZ-Linkedin.jpg)
![Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited & Ors [2025] HCA 1](https://9selborne.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/High-Court.jpg)
![Liprini v Thirdi William Street Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1375](https://9selborne.com.au/wp-content/plugins/wp-latest-posts/img/default-image.svg)
We are delighted to announce the inclusion of our barristers in the Legal 500 Asia Pacific Guide 2026.
Katrina Howard SC is recognised for her expertise in Intellectual Property, while Andre Zahra SC and Thomas Bagley are ranked in Commercial Disputes.
Clients and peers have highlighted Andreโs sharp analytical skills: โHe has a very quick mind and the ability to summarise the strengths and weaknesses of a client's case quickly.โ
Thomas is celebrated for his clarity and persuasiveness: โThomas' ability to condense complex and difficult legal concepts to an understandable and persuasive submission (written and oral) is extremely impressive.โ
Congratulations to Katrina, Andre and Thomas on this well-deserved recognition.
Congratulations to Michael Swanson for his inclusion in the Doyle's Guide rankings for Leading Transport Law Junior Counsel โ Australia, 2026.
The Federal Court of Australia (Hespe J) in ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฆ๐ง ๐๐น๐ฆ๐ค๐ถ๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐๐ง๐ง๐ช๐ค๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ช๐ด๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฏ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐บ ๐ท ๐๐ข๐ด๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ฎ [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 ๐๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ช๐ด๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฏ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐๐ค๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐๐ค๐ต 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 Courtโs 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.
On Friday, 4 April 2025, the Supreme Court of NSW (Stevenson J) delivered judgment inย Andrews & Andrews Construction Pty Ltd v Yao; Yao v Andrews & Andrews Construction Pty Ltdย [2025] NSWSC 322, in which Andre Zahra SC and Nicole Maddocks appeared (instructed by Chris Freeman of Christopher C Freeman & Co) for the successful plaintiff/cross-defendant, Andrews & Andrews Construction Pty Ltd.
The case concerned a construction dispute in relation to a high quality residential development and in which the defendants/owners sought to avoid payment for part of the works.ย The judgment considered the proper construction of the building contract and, in particular, a special condition which obliged the parties to cooperate to obtain the most competitive price for works to be undertaken and for a minimum of two quotations to be obtained for each item of work.ย The defendants/cross-claimants argued that the plaintiff had breached the special condition by failing to obtain two quotations for each item and that they were entitled to damages/set-off against the amount owing to the plaintiff.ย The defendants/cross-claimants also sought to invoke the โfacilitation principleโ to assist them in seeking to prove their alleged loss, relying on the High Courtโs recent judgment inย Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltdย [2024] HCA 17.
Stevenson J found that, on the proper construction of the special condition, the obligation to obtain two quotations was a joint obligation on all parties, not amenable to suit by one against the other, and that the special condition was merely exhortatory rather than a promissory condition which could be enforced by damages.ย His Honour otherwise concluded that the defendants/cross-claimants' attempt to rely upon the facilitation principle (had the Court found that the special condition was breached - which it did not) could not be justified in the circumstances, which included the defendants belatedly first seeking to invoke it in opening submissions made shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing, despite the proceedings having been on foot for a number of years.ย His Honour concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the full amount claimed, together with interest and costs.
See the full judgment here.
