Case law library
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
Ward P decided that another formal costs assessment would likely prolong an already protracted costs dispute. The affidavits and submissions gave the Court enough information to make a fair broad-brush assessment. The Court considered the objections to particular costs, allowed counsel fees in full and reduced the solicitor costs by 5% for possible assessment contingencies. The operative orders set the total at $32,300 and preserve Mr Amirbeaggi’s joint and several liability. Interest on the identified summary dismissal costs runs from 24 November 2025. There is an apparent numerical difference in the judgment: [56] says the amount calculated and rounded down was $32,000, while [59], the operative order, states $32,300.
Before: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member
Before: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy PresidentH J Dixon SC, Senior Member
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Before: Galwey AC
Before: Rees J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Rigg J
Before: Sirtes J
The Court decided who should pay the Plaintiff’s costs after the defendants failed to participate in the hearing. It concluded that the First Defendant’s conduct created most of the work and expense, so that company had to pay the general costs on an indemnity basis. The Second Defendant was not sufficiently active in the case to share those general costs, but had to pay the costs specifically connected with attempts to serve him and the substituted service motion. Rather than send the parties to a separate costs assessment, the Court fixed the amounts using the solicitor’s evidence. It also varied the principal and pre-judgment interest orders.
Before: Muston J
Before: Grant CJ