Pacific Current Group Ltd v Fitzpatrick (No 2) [2025] FCA 1152

Justice Beach dismissed Pacific Current Group Ltd’s (PAC) proceedings against its former CEO, Mr Andrew McGill, concerning alleged breaches of directors’ duties during a 2014 merger with Northern Lights Capital Partners LLC. The merger involved transferring assets into a unit trust (Aurora Trust), with PAC holding 61% and Northern Lights 39%.

PAC alleged that Mr McGill and other directors breached statutory and equitable duties—particularly under s 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)—by failing to conduct proper due diligence, withholding key financial models, and not obtaining shareholder approval. PAC pursued a “no transaction” damages claim, arguing the merger would not have occurred but for the breaches.

Justice Beach found:

• Mr McGill breached s 180 by failing to disclose risks associated with WHV Investment Management Inc., including uncertainties around dividend entitlements and flawed financial modelling.
• However, PAC’s “no transaction” scenario failed. The evidence showed that the merger would likely have proceeded, albeit potentially on renegotiated terms.
•  PAC did not plead or prove an “alternative transaction” scenario, nor did it establish causation or quantifiable loss.
•  As no damages flowed from the proven breach, the Court dismissed the case against Mr McGill.
• Mr McGill’s cross-claim against Mr Fitzpatrick was also dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Justice Beach emphasised the importance of precise pleadings and procedural fairness. He noted that PAC’s board, despite criticisms, demonstrated strong governance and intellectual diversity. The judgment also clarified that directors are not liable for hypothetical losses unless causation and damage are properly pleaded and proven.

PAC was ordered to pay 80% of Mr McGill’s costs, reflecting limited success on the WHV issue.

Key Points – PAC v Fitzpatrick (No 2)

• Background: PAC sued its former CEO, Mr McGill, alleging breaches of directors’ duties under s 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) during a 2014 merger with Northern Lights Capital Partners LLC.
• WHV Issue: Mr McGill failed to disclose risks tied to WHV Investment Management Inc., including dividend uncertainties and flawed financial modelling. This breached his duty of care.
• Causation & Damages: PAC ran a “no transaction” case, arguing the merger would not have occurred but for the breaches. The Court rejected this, finding the merger would likely have proceeded—possibly with renegotiated terms.

• No Alternative Scenario: PAC did not plead or prove an “alternative transaction” case. Without causation or quantifiable loss, no damages were awarded.
• Outcome: The case against Mr McGill was dismissed. His cross-claim against Mr Fitzpatrick was also dismissed. PAC was ordered to pay 80% of Mr McGill’s costs, reflecting limited success on the WHV issue.
• Judicial Commentary: Justice Beach praised PAC’s board for its intellectual diversity and governance, and emphasised the importance of precise pleadings and procedural fairness.

Ekermawi v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 1141

Justice Perry summarily dismissed two proceedings brought by Mr Samir Ekermawi against Services Australia (SA) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), alleging racial discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) and international law.

Mr Ekermawi, a Palestinian-born Australian citizen, claimed that the Commonwealth’s refusal to allow “Palestine” to be recorded as his country of birth in official systems (Centrelink and passport databases) constituted unlawful racial discrimination and breached his human rights. He sought declarations, damages, and orders requiring the Commonwealth to insert “Palestine” into its systems.

The Court found:

• There is no human right to have a particular place of birth recorded in government records. The RDA does not confer such a right, nor does the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

• The evidence showed Mr Ekermawi could record “Palestine” in hard copy applications and that DFAT allowed options such as “Occupied Palestinian Territories” or “British Mandated Palestine” in its internal systems.
• The inability to select “Palestine” did not affect eligibility for social security or passport renewal. Citizenship, not birthplace, determines entitlement.
• Mr Ekermawi failed to identify any specific act that breached ss 9, 10, 17, or 18C of the RDA. His claims were vague, lacked legal foundation, and did not raise any substantial factual or legal dispute.
• The relief sought—requiring recognition of Palestine—was non-justiciable and fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction, as recognition of foreign states is a matter for the Executive under Chapter II of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court held that the applications had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed them under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), with costs awarded to the Commonwealth.

Key Points

Mr Ekermawi alleged racial discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) after Services Australia and DFAT refused to record “Palestine” as his country of birth in official systems. He claimed this breached his human rights and caused marginalisation.

Justice Perry summarily dismissed the case, finding:

• No human right exists to have a specific birthplace recorded in government databases.
• The RDA does not guarantee such a right, nor does ICERD.
• Evidence showed Mr Ekermawi could write “Palestine” on hard copy forms and request internal codes like “British Mandated Palestine.”
• His eligibility for services or passports was unaffected by the birthplace listing.
• The relief sought—requiring recognition of Palestine—was non-justiciable and outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
• No actionable breach of ss 9, 10, 17 or 18C of the RDA was identified.

The Court held the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed both proceedings under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court Act, awarding costs to the Commonwealth.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

XKTK v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 115 Appeal from: XKTK v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 14

File number: NSD 206 of 2025 Judgment of: WHEELAHAN, STEWART AND NEEDHAM JJ

Date of judgment: 19 September 2025

The appellant, a Sri Lankan citizen holding a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV), had his visa cancelled by the Minister under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) following a conviction for a child sexual offence. Although the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had earlier revoked the cancellation, the Minister personally set aside that decision, citing national interest grounds.

The appellant challenged the Minister’s decision, arguing it was legally unreasonable, illogical, or irrational—particularly because he could not be removed from Australia due to non-refoulement/extradition obligations and would remain in the community.

The Full Court (Wheelahan, Stewart and Needham JJ) dismissed the appeal, holding:

• The Minister’s satisfaction that cancellation was in the national interest was a valid jurisdictional fact, even though removal was not practicable.
• The Minister provided intelligible justification: the seriousness of the offence, risk of reoffending (even if low), and community expectations that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should not hold visas.
• The Minister acknowledged the appellant would remain in the community and would likely be issued a Bridging Visa R (BVR) with conditions tailored to mitigate risk (e.g., curfews, monitoring, restrictions on contact with minors).
• The Court rejected the argument that cancellation lacked protective effect merely because removal was not imminent. The cancellation rendered the appellant liable to removal and subject to stricter visa conditions.
• The Minister’s reasoning did not offend logic or legal standards for administrative decision-making. The threshold for establishing jurisdictional error was not met.

The Court also distinguished the High Court’s recent decision in Plaintiff S22/2025, finding it did not undermine the Minister’s reasoning in this case.

Core Legal Principles

1. Ministerial Power under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act

• This provision allows the Minister to personally set aside a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to revoke a visa cancellation.
• Two jurisdictional facts must be satisfied:
  • The person does not pass the character test (e.g. conviction for child sexual offences under s 501(6)(e)).
  • Cancellation is in the national interest.

2. 2. Nature of the “National Interest”

The “national interest” is a broad and evaluative concept, largely political in nature.

It includes considerations such as:

• Protection of the Australian community.
• Community expectations regarding non-citizens who commit serious crimes.
• The symbolic and legal consequences of visa cancellation.

The Minister’s satisfaction must be formed reasonably and in accordance with legal standards, but courts give wide latitude to the Minister’s evaluative judgment.

3. Legal Unreasonableness and Jurisdictional Error

• A decision may be challenged if it is legally unreasonable, illogical, or irrational.
• However, the threshold is high: the reasoning must “completely offend logical thinking” or lack any intelligible justification.
• The Court found the Minister’s reasoning—emphasising community protection and expectations—even in the absence of actual removal, was intelligible and lawful.

4. Impact of Non-Refoulement/Extradition Obligations

• Due to protection findings, the appellant could not be removed to Sri Lanka.
• The Minister acknowledged this, but the Court held that cancellation still served a lawful purpose: rendering the person liable to removal and subject to stricter visa conditions (e.g. Bridging Visa R with curfews, monitoring, and restrictions).

5. Distinction from Plaintiff S22/2025

• The Court distinguished this case from Plaintiff S22, where the Minister’s reasoning lacked clarity on how cancellation protected the community.

In XKTK, the Minister clearly considered giving a visa with safety conditions, which made the decision understandable.

My work experience at F & G has been nothing but eye-opening in these past few days. Being quite indecisive surrounding what I wanted to pursue in the future, I first entered this workplace with many doubts as this would be the week that determined whether I would take Law in the future. On top of it all, I was exposed to the stereotype that lawyers are often stern and scary people – Cher’s dad from Clueless anyone?

However, I was taken by surprise when I entered the firm from the very first day. Everyone, especially Julia, Ankita and Ketharan, greeted me very warmly and was always approachable whenever I had a doubt about the tasks I was assigned. Furthermore, Mittu would constantly check in with me every now and then, making sure I was settling in well and was comfortable.

Throughout the week, I undertook several activities such as writing articles on topics that interested me, as well as creating scripts and social media posts to accompany them, scanning and destroying old files, sending client emails, and other small errands. Although they were only minor roles, they allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of what was necessary for the smooth handling of cases from start to finish.

On top of it all, I was lucky enough to hear client calls and look through certain matters from time to time on an online platform known as Smokeball, which proved to be extremely interesting and subsequently increased my interest in pursuing law in the future.

Overall, I believe that my work experience at F & G was highly valuable as it showed me how law could be put into practice in the real world. I am truly grateful to have been presented with this opportunity and would recommend anyone who’s looking to pursue law or even interested in legal matters to undertake their work experience here.

Siri (Work Experience Student – 15.9.25-19.9.25)

What Happened

• In July 2023, a lunch at Erin Patterson’s home in Victoria, turned deadly when guests were served Beef Wellington allegedly laced with death cap mushrooms, a known lethal fungus.
• Three people died, Patterson’s estranged in-laws.
• A fourth guest, Heather’s husband, survived after extensive hospitalisation.

The Trial

• Erin Patterson was charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.
• She pleaded not guilty, insisting the poisoning was a terrible accident, not intentional.
• The trial took place in Victoria, before the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Christopher Beale.
• The trial lasted for approximately 9 to 10 weeks.

Key Evidence & Contentions

• Prosecution accused Patterson of foraging or sourcing death cap mushrooms, drying them (evidence of a food dehydrator), and knowingly including them in the meal.
• Defence argued there was no intent to kill, being that the inclusion of the mushrooms was accidental, that she “panicked” after the deaths, and lied about a cancer diagnosis (allegedly to lure victims) and the dehydrator because she was overwhelmed.
• There were also issues about how she handled evidence and phone data, delays, and possible attempts to cover up.

Verdict & Sentence

• On 7 July 2025, the jury found Erin Patterson guilty of three murders and one attempted murder.
• On 8 September 2025, she was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 33 years.

Legal & Public Interest Issues

• The case hinged heavily on proving intent, being whether Erin Patterson intentionally served death cap mushrooms or whether it was accidental. This involves examining her actions before, during, and after the lunch.
• The existence and disposal of a food dehydrator, claims about sourcing the mushrooms, and inconsistencies in her testimony played major roles.
• The effect on family, the relationship strain with her estranged husband, and statements from her children were part of the narrative, both for prosecution and defence.

The processes of separation and divorce can often be touch emotionally, with  nowadays a lot of our lives being documented online. From Instagram stories and Facebook status updates to TikTok videos and direct messages, what you upload onto the internet has the potential to be admissible in court.

In Australia, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) obliges courts to take into account all the available evidence when making a decision regarding property settlement, parenting and spousal maintenance. That goes for social media post as well.

So Can Social Media be Evidence?

Yes. Courts throughout Australia have received and accepted social media posts, photos, and messages as evidence in family law proceedings. Examples include:

• Posts on reckless expenditure or gambling, applicable in property disputes.
• Images or posts proving drug or alcohol abuse, relevant in parenting cases.
• Intimidatory messages/posts are used to demonstrate family violence or intimidation.

Even things you believe or perceive as “private” may be screenshotted, subpoenaed, or posted if they are relevant to the case.

Common Issues that are Raised Online

• Badmouthing and ex-partner online: This can be raised as evidence of hostility, particularly in parenting disputes.
• Deleting accounts or posts – these practices can be perceived as attempt to hide evidence.
• Sharing Children’s photo’s or details publicly: Such incidences can raise questions about judgement or safeguarding.

Practical Tips

• Think before you post: Assume anything you share on the internet has the ability to show up in front of a judge due to the public nature of the internet.
• Avoid discussing a Case online: Never post about any ongoing proceedings.
• Get Legal Advice: If your concerned about posts made by yourself or your ex-partner, make sure you seek legal advice as soon as possible.

Conclusion

Australian Family Law has the ability to take into account social media in proceedings. This could be a challenging ordeal for many. So if you have any legal enquiries on this topic don’t be afraid to contact us.

Within the evolving 21st century, technology infiltrates human lives. From aiding in basic necessities such as reminders to help bridging the justice gap, technology is often perceived as helpful and revolutionary in improving processes.

However, a darker aspect that is often overlooked is the capacity for technology to facilitate abuse and violence. Coercive control has become more common place as a result of various technological advancements, such as deepfakes and hacking.

But what does coercive control look like? And why is our justice system failing to grapple and manage the implications and consequences of it on victims?

What does tech-based coercive control look like?

Coercive control is understood as patterns of abusive behavior which focus on the deprivation of a person’s independence and autonomy. Often, this dynamic is observed under family and domestic violence situations, where a dominating presence restricts and monitors another person’s actions meticulously.

However, unlike physical coercive control, technology facilitated coercive control is more subtle and targeted- to the extent in which the victim may not realise that they are coerced or controlled. Some signs of tech-facilitated coercive control include:

• Making repeated abusive, threatening or unwanted messages or calls.
• Restricting access to Wi-Fi, email, banking service or another telecommunication.
• Using cameras or recording devices to spy on the victim.

With the advent and widespread use of social media, technology-based coercive control has shifted subtly in how it looks. Some other signs of tech-facilitated coercive control include:

• Creating harmful, fake posts about victims
• Making, sharing, or threatening to share intimate images or videos of victims without the victim’s permission to control, blackmail or humiliate the victim.
• Tracking the victim’s social media usage or location.
• Restricting who the victim follows or messages.

Changes to the Privacy Act 1988 introduced a statutory tort for serious privacy invasions as of 10 June 2025- in which the misuse of information such as fake social media posts and images may be addressed in courts. This change may provide an avenue for victims to pursue justice for technology-facilitated coercive control. However, there is a gap in the justice system addressing these issues.

Issue with the justice system in handling tech-based coercive control.

A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology in October 2024 reported significant barriers in accessing the justice system. Key barriers that were identified:

• A lack of understanding of Technology-facilitated Coercive Control amongst first responders such as police and emergency responders
• Inconsistent and poor police response such as victim-blaming and inaction in reducing the harms and risks
• A focus on individual incidents rather than tracking patterns
• Lack of access within services to technological capability

These barriers often limit victims in recognising and accessing help- thus placing psychological distress upon them, requiring long-term recovery that is currently not provided by the justice system. This often creates more complex issues as illustrated by the report, where physical and financial abuse become commonplace in such situations. As a result, there is a call for greater support and awareness in the elements of technology-based coercive control.

What can you do?

If you think you or someone you know might be experiencing technology-based coercive control, here are steps to take:

• Contact a confidential support service:
  1. Please contact:
     • 1800RESPECT
       • 1800 737 732 (available 24/7)
       • 1800respect.org.au
     • eSafety Commissioner
       • https://www.esafety.gov.au/report/what-you-can-report-to-esafety
       • You can report the most serious online abuse and harmful content to eSafety. The eSafety website also has detailed information on tech-facilitated coercive control and on how to create an online safety plan.
     • Men’s Referral Service
       • 1800 943 539
       • mrs.org.au
     • Kids Help Line
       • https://kidshelpline.com.au/
       • 1800 55 1800

Australia wide free 24/7, confidential and private counselling service specifically for children and young people aged 5 to 25 years.

• Gather evidence:
  1. Save, screenshot, record, take photos and backup any evidence of the abuse. Have multiple copies available in different locations and track a timeline of events. This will help you if you wish to pursue charge against the person.

• Contact directory services.
  1. Technology-based coercive control is a vague, undefined area, where it has been recognised as an area where some victims do not recognise that they are subjected to such abuse. If you are doubtful as to whether you require help, there are services which explore your situation in confidential and non-responsive places. These services can be found at women-based services in universities, counselling at schools or these services:
     1. FULLSTOP AUSTRALIA:
        • https://fullstop.org.au/
        • info@fullstop.org.au
        • 180038557
     2.  Knowmore
        • https://knowmore.org.au/
        • 1800 605 762

Remember – in an emergency, always call 000 for urgent help.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

Introduction

Over the past decade, the world and in particular Australians have turned to digital investments such as cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFT). While these investments can be lucrative to individuals, they raise new and complex issues when relationships break down. Australian family law requires all assets which includes digital assets to be disclosed and considered during a property settlement.

Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court assesses the total asset pool of the parties. This includes traditional property such as homes or cars as well as emerging classes of digital property.

What are Digital Assets?

Digital assets are:

• Property: This means they are treated as capable of ownership, value and transfer.
• Part of the Asset Pool: They must be disclosed and included in the calculation of net assets.
• Subject to Division: The same principles applied to bank accounts or shares are applied to digital assets.

Challenges in Valuing Digital Assets

Although treated the same as other assets they present unique difficulties such as:

1. Volatility – The value of Bitcoin can fluctuate dramatically within days and as a result courts require expert evidence or a valuate at a specific point in time.
2. Proof of Ownership – Digital assets tend to be stored in digital wallets and a lot of these are concealed which tend to raise complexities and issues in terms of non-disclosure or asset hiding.
3. Tracing Transactions – Digital assets have the unique ability to be transferred to other accounts very quickly, in some cases, instantly. This could make it hard to track such assets.

Consequences of non-disclosure

Any individual who fails to disclose any digital assets risks significant penalties. In extreme cases, hiding digital assets can even amount to criminal conduct, such as fraud or contempt of court.

What Should Parties Do?

For those going through a separation or divorce, there are a few considerations such as:

• Full Disclosure – Both parties must disclose all digital assets such as crypto holdings, wallets and NFTs.
• Legal Advice - Engage with family lawyers like us to get experienced advice on how to navigate the disclosure and division of digital assets.

Conclusion

In Australia, Cryptocurrencies and NFTs are considered property under Australian Family Law. They must be disclosed, valued and divided within a property settlement just like traditional assets.

Cryptocurrencies are becoming increasingly popular and utilised all over the world and especially in Australia. It has become something that can be purchased or transacted in a click of a button and in just a few seconds. With large amounts of businesses and individuals becoming involved in this space it is ever important for everyone to know and understand the legal obligations of using cryptocurrencies. In Australia cryptocurrencies are not recognised as legal tender but rather a form of property or investment asset.  Hence, they are subject to Capital Gains Tax when sold or exchanged, just like taxes paid when a share is bought or sold.

Regulatory Frameworks

1. ASIC
   ASIC has a large influence in regulating and enforcing cryptocurrency legislation. They mainly attend businesses that provide cryptocurrency services, specifically in relation to businesses that facilitate crypto transactions and have ICO’s or initial coin offerings.
2. Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)

AUSTRAC is more focused on any criminal activity that is conducted though the use of cryptocurrencies. It enforces legislation in regard to issues such as Anti-Money laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing laws.

Cryptocurrency Mining Laws

Aside from transacting cryptocurrencies, crypto mining has also become prevalent within society and so has more legal questions in relation to this. It is legal to mine crypto in Australia, however miners must recognise and be aware of tax, electricity and environmental legislation.

Future for Cryptocurrency Regulation

In mid-2025 ASIC will publish an updated INFO 225 sheet which will provide substantial information and clarification on how financial services laws will apply to financial assets. This will be supported by Digital Asset Platform (DAP) licensing framework which would essentially make crypto exchanges obliged to the same legislation and supervision as traditional financial entities. As seen the Australian government is acknowledging the increasing prevalence of Cryptocurrencies and are addressing the rising legal issues to predominantly ensure that consumers are kept safe and free from potential fraudulent activities.

Conclusion

Australian crypto regulations put a strong emphasis on legal compatibility on platforms to ensure they provide safe practices. This in turn has ensured consumer safety and these future plans will continue to make the entire cryptocurrency environment even safer.