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: Ward P at [1] Mitchelmore JA at [2] Stern JA at [84]
The Court of Appeal held that voiding an unfair commission clause did not automatically prevent the agent from seeking reasonable payment for services through restitution. Here the agent's services were lawful, the agreement did not provide an enforceable payment right for the relevant situation once the clause was void, and the evidence supported the amount awarded. The decision is fact-specific: it does not establish that an agent can always recover the amount of a void commission term.
Before: Peden J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Muller J
The Commissioner sought security for appeal costs from two corporate appellants and permission to file a notice of contention late. The Court concluded that government representation did not prevent the Commissioner from recovering legal costs. It ordered GRE Sales to provide $40,000, rejecting the higher estimate sought, because the company's own capacity to pay was not established and assets elsewhere in its corporate group could not simply be treated as its assets. The Court refused security against GB because GB had largely succeeded in the proceedings below and was appealing only the costs order. The Court also permitted the Commissioner to file the late notice of contention, noting the absence of demonstrated prejudice, the lack of a fixed appeal date, and that the issue was not settled by the authorities discussed. The underlying appeals were not decided.
Before: McGrath J
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Baker J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Lonergan J
Before: Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Before: Muller J
Before: Griffiths AJ
Before: Richmond J
Before: Griffiths AJ
Before: Richardson J
Before: Bennett J
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: McGrath J
Before: Black J
Before: Black J
Before: Bennett J
Before: Black J
Before: Bennett J
Before: Nixon J
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Leeming JA
Keybridge sought the $25,000 that Mr Bolton had paid into Court to secure his undertaking to pay administration costs during a stay pending appeal. The Court calculated that the administrator’s relevant costs established on Keybridge’s initial evidence exceeded $18,500 after dealing with particular time entries, GST and a global discount. The Court also considered further evidence of legal costs, despite accepting it was not strictly reply evidence, because excluding it could lead to delay and further expense. Mr Bolton was given seven days to respond. Although the reasons say the further evidence showed costs above $25,000, the formal orders did not direct release of the full security: they recorded the minimum established on the evidence in chief and made further procedural orders.
Before: Leeming JA; Free JA; Preston CJ of LEC
The applicants won only after changing ground 3 partway through the appeal hearing. The Court considered that they had lost on all the grounds they originally advanced, and that the Council had prepared and argued the case on those original grounds. Because no additional hearing time could readily be attributed to the amendment, the Court left in place the order that the applicants pay the Council’s costs of the appeal. The applicants also had to pay the Council’s costs of the unsuccessful review application.
Before: Leeming JA at [1]; Kirk JA at [12]; Ball JA at [13]
Mr He tried during the appeal hearing to add a new allegation that the primary judge had appeared biased. The Court found that the application came without notice or an explanation for its lateness, and that the passages Mr He identified did not support the allegation. The Court refused the amendment. The ruling concerned that procedural request, not the outcome of the underlying appeal.
Before: Payne JA, Free JA and Griffiths AJA
The appeal concerned a trial that had to pause after the judge raised concerns about how a witness obtained computer records and about what that could mean for the appellants’ lawyers. The lawyers withdrew, saying they could not continue. The Court of Appeal said s 138 allows a judge to weigh whether improperly or illegally obtained evidence should nevertheless be admitted, and that lawyers are not implicated just because they ask the judge to admit it. Given the misunderstanding and the limited time offered to replace the legal team in a complex trial, the refusal of a longer adjournment could not stand. The Court did not itself set a new adjournment period. It sent the application back to the trial judge to reconsider.
Before: Taylor J