The hearing rule of procedural fairness applies to coroners' investigations and the findings made by coroners. Decisions by Australian and New Zealand appellate courts starting from the 1980s and early 1990s suggest that this will require interested parties to be accorded the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings, and probably comments, which a coroner is minded to make by being alerted in advance to what is proposed by the coroner. This editorial scrutinises decisions by the Victorian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the issue between 2016 and 2018 against the backdrop of appellate decisions in South Australia and New Zealand, as well as in the context of the development of modern administrative law in both Australia and New Zealand. It identifies conceptual challenges that exist as a result of the recent case law for coroners' courts, pointing to the uncertainty of what are "adverse" findings and comments for these purposes, a lack of clarity as to who is entitled to procedural fairness in the inquisitorial context of a coronial investigation, the uncertain parameters of reputation for such purposes, vagueness as to what is required for coroners to discharge their obligations, and the logistical difficulties that compliance with such obligations will pose for timeliness of coronial findings.