Australia’s national courts and tribunals heard thousands of cases in 2025. We’ve pulled together 10 cases across all practice areas that have challenged thinking, made headlines and could set new legal precedents for years to come. These cases demonstrate:
- the risks of using public artificial-intelligence tools for legal research;
- the consequences facing directors who fail to fulfil their duties;
- the importance of procedural fairness in workforce decisions; and
- the multi-million-dollar fines listed companies risk for not taking whistleblowers seriously.
1. Lawyer referred to Legal Practice Board for citing AI-generated fake cases
JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314
On 15 August 2025, Judge Gerrard of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) referred a lawyer to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (LPBWA) for submitting AI-generated fictitious case citations. Judge Gerrard found that placing false authorities or evidence before the court constituted improper conduct and a breach of a lawyer’s duties to both the client and the court.
The proceedings concerned an application for judicial review of a 9 October 2024 decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The court asked the applicant’s lawyer to explain how four fictitious cases were included in submissions he filed on 22 May 2025, and whether those false citations were the result of AI-generated research.
The lawyer explained that he had researched the cases through the internet, books and articles, and said that he must have erred in applying them to his submissions. The court was not satisfied with this explanation and directed the lawyer to serve an affidavit addressing how the submissions were generated and provide written submissions as to why he should not be referred to the LPBWA.
The lawyer subsequently filed an affidavit stating that that he had relied upon the AI tool Claude AI “as a research tool to identify potentially relevant authorities and to improve my legal arguments and position”. He had then used another AI tool, Microsoft Copilot, to validate the submissions. He said he had “developed an overconfidence in relying on AI Tools and failed to adequately verify the generated results”.
The court noted that the lawyer’s behaviour demonstrates the inherent dangers associated with relying solely on the use of AI in preparing court documents. The court stated that, while there is nothing inherently impermissible about using AI programs to assist with research, they are not an appropriate substitute for legal research and come with considerable risks that can lead to lawyers being held in contempt of court.
The court referred the applicant’s lawyer to the LPBWA for improper conduct but refrained from naming him following his candour, embarrassment and apology. He also ordered the lawyer to personally pay the first respondent’s costs. The lawyer had already repaid the applicant in full for all costs paid in relation to the litigation.
2. ABC fined $220,000 for firing journalist over ‘political opinion’
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669; Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Penalty) [2025] FCA 1174
The Federal Court of Australia (FCA) found that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) unlawfully terminated the employment of freelance journalist Antoinette Lattouf in December 2023 for reasons including her political opinion on the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
Lattouf, a casual radio presenter of the Sydney Mornings programme, was advised by the ABC against posting anything on social media that would suggest she was not impartial about the Israel/Gaza war. That advice was qualified by an indication that it would be fine to post fact-based material from a verified source.
On Tuesday 19 December 2023, Lattouf reposted on her personal Instagram account a Human Rights Watch video that had already been the subject of an ABC News story. The next day, she was informed by the ABC that she had shared a post that could be considered controversial and had breached organisational policies. The policies she was alleged to have breached were not identified and she was not given any opportunity to defend herself against the allegations. She was told her services would no longer be required.
In a judgment issued on 25 June 2025, Justice Rangiah found that the ABC contravened section 772(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by terminating Lattouf’s employment. The court also declared that the ABC contravened section 50 of the FWA by contravening the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2022–2025.
The court found that the ABC failed to:
- advise Ms Lattouf in writing of the nature of the alleged misconduct;
- advise her that she may choose to be accompanied or represented by a person of her choice;
- advise her in writing of the process to be undertaken by the ABC to determine whether the alleged misconduct was substantiated; and
- give her an opportunity to respond and/or explain her actions and any mitigating factors that she may have sought to have taken into consideration.
The court ordered the ABC to pay Lattouf compensation of $70,000 for non-economic losses. In a subsequent judgment on 24 September 2025, Justice Rangiah also ordered the ABC to pay Lattouf $150,000 in penalties.
3. Employer’s ‘off the record’ threat in settlement negotiations admitted into evidence
Evans v Electro Data & Generation [2025] FedCFamC2G 1682
Judge Brown of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) decided on 15 October 2025 that an employer’s “off the record” threat in settlement negotiations could be admitted into evidence in a general protections claim.
The court dismissed an interlocutory application by Electro Data & Generation (EDG) to strike out affidavit material on “off the record” negotiations held in August 2024 with union representatives of former employee Jessica Evans. The Communications, Electric, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) represented Evans in the negotiations.
The EDG contended that CEPU had impliedly agreed in a meeting on 23 August 2024 to speak “off the record” about Evans’ income insurance payments. It claimed that CEPU’s affidavit evidence in the FCFCOA proceedings concerning what was discussed at that meeting should be struck out in accordance with section 131(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (EA 1995), which broadly requires settlement negotiations to be kept privileged.
According to CEPU’s affidavit evidence, EDG threatened that, if Evans did not accept redundancy, she would be dismissed for disciplinary reasons and EDG would seek to recover the income protection insurance payments she had received, purportedly because her claim had been falsified. Evans did not accept the redundancy and was subsequently terminated on grounds of serious and wilful misconduct.
Judge Brown considered that the privilege created by section 131(1) of the EA 1995 is founded on the public interest. He noted that it would not be in the public interest to suppress settlement negotiations if it would be unfair, or would result in the court being misled, or would otherwise allow an employer to escape liability for a civil remedy provision under applicable laws.
He also found that EDG had essentially sought to unilaterally change what was being discussed at the settlement conference as “off the record” without prior notice to those advising Evans. As such, the parties were not in a position to negotiate on equal terms. Judge Brown declined to rule the relevant evidence inadmissible and dismissed EDG’s interlocutory application.
4. Male employees ‘dismissed’ in attempted to address gender pay gap
Lovini v Youturn Ltd [2025] FWC 3757; McDonald v Youturn Ltd [2025] FWC 3758
On 9 December 2025, Commissioner Hunt of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that the reclassification of three male employees at Youturn Ltd to address concerns over gender pay disparities amounted to demotion and dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA).
The three male case officers were reclassified from Level 5 to Level 4 under the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Award 2010 (the Award) after female case officers who were hired at Level 4 raised concerns over gender pay gaps.
Commissioner Hunt found that Youturn had a common law contract with the three male employees to grandfather their classification and pay rate. She noted that an employer can pay employees at a higher pay grade if it wishes, and that there would have been no breach of the FWA or the Award by continuing to categorise the applicants as Level 5.
“One does not break the proverbial glass ceiling by amputating the legs of the men above,” reflected Commissioner Hunt. “The applicants are entitled to have their employment contract enforced which specifies their classification and rate of pay. The Respondent is not entitled to arbitrarily decide that it will no longer be held to its end of the bargain.”
The FWC is Australia’s workplace relations tribunal and registered organisations regulator. It is responsible for administering the provisions of the FWA.
5. Compensation ordered for ‘cruel’ email dismissal of remote-working employee
Cartarrasa v Smart Tech Retail Group Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3326
On 5 November 2025, Commissioner Hunt of the Fair Work Commission held that the purported redundancy of a remote-working employee by email caused psychological injury and amounted to unfair dismissal.
Steven Cartarrasa was working remotely from Italy for the business trading as Aussie Batteries and Solar (ABS) when he received in April 2025 an email stating that his position had been made redundant. No verbal or written warning had been given regarding his performance or the redundancy. He did not receive any further payment for work undertaken, annual leave or the purported redundancy.
Commissioner Hunt found that, under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the dismissal of Cartarrasa was “harsh, unjust and unreasonable” and did not amount to a genuine redundancy. She also found that the dismissal was “curt and cruel” and had caused Cartarrasa to suffer from a mental health condition.
Commissioner Hunt ordered ABS to pay Cartarrasa the equivalent of 20 weeks’ pay as compensation, minus the workers’ compensation he had already received.
6. Qantas fined $90 million for unlawful outsourcing decision with deliberate poor recordkeeping
Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited (Penalty) [2025] FCA 971
On 18 August 2025, Justice Lee of the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) fined Qantas Airways $90 million over the largest and most significant contravention of the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Justice Lee held that concerns over Qantas Airways’ culture, including its deliberate avoidance of recordkeeping on its unlawful outsourcing decision, were a key factor in setting the penalty amount, which is intended to deter future contraventions.
The court ordered that $50 million of the total be paid to the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia to help increase the detection and prosecution of future contravening conduct by very large employers.
The penalty follows findings of contravening conduct by Qantas in Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Ltd [2021] FCA 873; (2021) 308 IR 244 and Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Ltd [2024] FCA 1216; (2024) 334 IR 187.
In July 2021, Justice Lee found that Qantas Airways had engaged in unlawful adverse action when it decided in November 2020 to outsource its ground handling operations at ten Australian airports and dismiss 1,820 employees. Qantas had forecast that, by the end of FY23, the outsourcing would deliver annual savings of $125 million.
7. TerraCom fined $7.5 million in ASIC’s first whistleblower enforcement outcome
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v TerraCom Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 1017
On 26 August 2025, the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) issued a $7.5 million penalty to TerraCom Ltd in the first enforcement outcome by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for contraventions of whistleblower provisions. TerraCom, an ASX-listed company in the mining sector, was also ordered to pay ASIC’s legal costs of $1 million.
In August 2019, Justin Williams, then a general manager at TerraCom, raised allegations that certain coal quality records had been unjustifiably manipulated to report more favourable results, which were then used to invoice customers. His employment was terminated on the same day that he raised his concerns with TerraCom’s then CEO Daniel McCarthy and CFO Nathan Boom.
A subsequent PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) investigation into the whistleblower allegations, commissioned by TerraCom’s legal counsel, identified a similar pattern of inconsistencies. The PwC report did not exclude any involvement by TerraCom or any of its employees or officers in the alleged misconduct.
In December 2019, Williams commenced legal proceedings against various TerraCom directors and officers under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). In February 2020, he disclosed to ASIC the concerns that he had raised with McCarthy and Boom.
TerraCom lodged two announcements with the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), in February and April 2020, categorically denying Williams’ allegations. The announcements claimed that Williams had raised false allegations after he was made redundant, and that TerraCom had the conduct of its employees independently investigated. TerraCom also caused an open letter to be published in the Australian Financial Review and The Australian in March 2020, in which TerraCom represented Williams as someone willing to make unfounded accusations for personal gain.
In May 2025, TerraCom admitted that its publication of these three announcements amounted to one contravention of section 1317AC(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and that Williams was an eligible whistleblower under section 1317AAA of the Act. The company also admitted that the announcements had damaged Williams’ reputation and detrimentally affected him.
On 7 July 2025, in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v TerraCom Limited [2025] FCA 726, the FCA dismissed ASIC’s separate case against TerraCom’s current managing director Daniel McCarthy and former officers Nathan Boom, Wallace King and Craig Ransley.
8. Legal advice not a mitigating factor in penalty for director’s breach of duties
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v iSignthis Limited (Penalty) [2025] FCA 917
On 8 August 2025, Justice McEvoy of the Federal Court of Australia found that a former director’s reliance on external legal advice could not serve as a mitigating factor to reduce the penalty for breaching his duties as a director. The court imposed a $10 million penalty on the company, and a $1 million penalty and six-year disqualification from managing corporations on its former director.
The court held that payments operator iSignthis Ltd (now known as Southern Cross Payments Ltd) and its former managing director and CEO, Nickolas John Karantzis, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, continuous disclosure failures, and breaches of directors’ duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Justice McEvoy noted that, as a general proposition, the taking and following of legal advice, reasonably and in good faith, even when that advice is subsequently found to be incorrect by a court’s subsequent findings, may be a mitigating factor in considering the conduct taken.
However, in deciding the penalties, the court did not give any weight to Karantzis’ asserted reliance on external legal advice regarding whether further information should be disclosed to the market. The court found that one of the legal advisers was not retained to and did not advise on the market disclosures, and the other was not provided with complete or accurate information for their advice.
Justice McEvoy found that a director who does not provide the relevant legal advisor with complete and accurate information and a basis for the legal advisor’s assumptions cannot subsequently rely on that advice to seek a reduction in the penalty.
9. Trustee company directors found personally liable for causing breaches of trust
Lin v Chu [2025] FCAFC 130
On 12 September 2025, the Federal Court of Australia Full Court (FCAFC) unanimously agreed that directors of trustee companies can be personally liable if they intentionally cause a breach of trust. The court held that directors can be liable in equity for either knowingly procuring or inducing the breach, or knowingly assisting in a dishonest and fraudulent design.
The decision was on an appeal of Chu v Lin [2024] FCA 766, in which Justice Jackman held that two directors of Gold Stone Capital Pty Ltd (Gold Stone), which was the trustee of unregistered managed investment scheme Gold Stone Secured Income Mortgage Fund, were personally liable for Gold Stone’s breaches of trust by making three imprudent loans.
Justice Jackman found that Louise Carol Lin, a de facto director, and her husband Hai Zhong Cai, a director of Gold Stone, knowingly procured or induced those breaches of trust, including by negotiating and agreeing to the loans and signing documents to give effect to them.
10. Statutory oppression can extend to corporate partnership context
WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd, [2025] FCA 622
The Federal Court of Australia for the first time examined the application of statutory oppression provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to limited partnerships managed or conducted by a company through which members were allegedly oppressed.
The case arose from the irretrievable breakdown of a business relationship between Alexandra Commins (the managing director of Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd and Goldstone Fund Management Pty Ltd) and James Angelis (an entrepreneur and major investor) and their respective corporate vehicles. The dispute concerned the parties’ interests in Goldstone Private Equity Fund, a venture capital private equity business.
At the heart of the case was a claim that the conduct of the affairs of Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd and Goldstone Fund Management Pty Ltd was contrary to the interests of members as a whole and oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against Commins’ corporate vehicle WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001.
Justice Jackman held on 13 June 2025 that statutory oppression for the purposes of section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) can extend to the affairs of a company in its capacity as a general partner of a limited partnership. He also found that the court’s powers to remedy oppression under section 233 of the Act could extend to the buy-out of partnership interests in such a case.
Found this article interesting? Check out Five legal changes Australian lawyers can’t ignore in 2026.
