Case law library
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
Australian case law library
Search court decisions by neutral citation, case name, jurisdiction, court, judges, catchwords, and judgment summary.
Case law entry points
Start with judgments that other decisions keep coming back to, then follow the citations through the case graph.
NCAT Appeal Panel | 2014-04-09
Tenants were terminated for non-payment of rent following an uncontested hearing where the landlord's agent gave evidence and the Member recorded findings in hearing notes. The tenants sought leave to internally appeal under s 80(2)(b) but did not raise any question of law; therefore leave required. Clause 12 Schedule 4 requires showing the appellant 'may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice' because the decision was unfair, against the weight of evidence, or there is significant new evidence. The tenants relied on phone logs and asserted contact and willingness to pay. The Appeal Panel found the record disclosed arrears and necessary findings, the phone logs were not fresh or persuasive, and there was no denial of procedural fairness. Leave was refused, the appeal dismissed, and the stay of the original orders lifted.
1,627 case citations
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Slattery J
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1] Adamson JA at [85] McHugh JA at [267]
The Court of Appeal held that the Civil Liability Act’s intentional-act exception applied because the police officer deliberately sprayed Music and intended to cause physical harm, even though the harm for which she claimed damages included an aggravation of PTSD that he had not specifically intended. It also held that the psychiatric aggravation was the natural and probable consequence of the spray in the circumstances, so the State’s causation cross-appeal failed. The statutory damages award was replaced with the higher common-law assessment, making the judgment $27,000. The majority did not award exemplary damages; Adamson JA would have done so.
Before: Bennett J
Before: Nixon J
Before: Free JA
Before: Pike J
Before: Chen J
Before: Richardson J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Richardson J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Scruby J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Brereton J
Before: Scruby J
Before: Emmett J
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Ward ACJ; Mitchelmore JA
The Court declined to reopen its earlier refusal of leave to appeal. It treated most of Zey’s complaints as attempts to revisit conclusions already reached, not as proof that the Court had misunderstood the case. Although the Court acknowledged that it had not addressed one argument about LEPRA Pt 15, it considered the small amounts at stake and the likely costs of further proceedings decisive against reopening. It also refused to hear proposed witnesses on the underlying events because their evidence was outside the costs application. The State received gross sum costs, discounted from its claim.
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Payne JA and Griffiths AJA
The Court of Appeal refused to let Emad and Ragaie appeal the orders that would replace them as administrators of their parents’ estates with an independent administrator. It considered that they had been warned in advance that removal was possible and had a chance to respond at the hearing. The immediate concern was how they communicated with a beneficiary and her lawyers. Because the replacement orders were stayed while their conduct could be assessed, the Court found no sufficiently arguable injustice to justify an appeal. The related stay motion was dismissed, and no costs order was made.
Before: Slattery J
Before: Faulkner J
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Meek J
Before: Leeming JA
Before: Leeming JA at [1] Fagan J at [4] Emmett J at [13]