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: Derrington J
Before: Commissioner P
Before: Payne JA at [1]Kirk JA at [2]Price AJA at [96]
The Court of Appeal said Allan’s detailed allegations about what the school itself should have done were mostly too general to properly plead ordinary negligence. But while the appeal was pending, the High Court decided AA, which changed the relevant position for non-delegable duties: a school may be liable where a person to whom its duty was delegated abuses a student within the duty’s scope, even if the school itself was not at fault. Allan’s pleading alleged enough of that essential case. The Court therefore granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. It also held that the particulars gave adequate notice of the alternative vicarious liability case.
Before: Bell CJ at [1]Mitchelmore JA at [2]Adamson JA at [3]
Boga had to show not only that he transferred money, but that the transfers were loans to 15 Glenburnie and were covered by the written loan agreement. The money went to Anthill Construction, and the evidence did not connect the payments sufficiently to 15 Glenburnie or show that the agreement covered them. The respondents’ account of why the money was paid was not decisive: Boga still had to prove his own claim. The appeal was dismissed.
Before: Ward PHarrison AJA
The Court of Appeal allowed the association to appeal the refusal to use an owl biologist’s report in its judicial review case. It considered there was enough doubt about whether the report was merely a challenge to the merits of Council’s environmental assessment, because the report also identified further inquiries that might have been made. The Court also considered that excluding the report could meaningfully affect the judicial review case. It did not decide whether the appeal will succeed or whether the report will ultimately be admitted.
Before: Commission J
Before: A Tibbey, Senior MemberS Hennings Senior Member
Before: Ainslie-Wallace AM
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Before: Peatman AC
Before: Duggan J
Before: Harrison AsJ
Before: Harrison AsJ
Before: Williams J
Before: Boddice J, Mullins P, Brown JA, Bradley JA
The Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Nguyen's appeal against her conviction for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of unlawfully imported MDMA. The drugs were seized in the Netherlands before the shipment reached Australia, and the AFP used an inert substitute for the planned exchange. The Court held that the statutory defence for a person who did not know the drugs were unlawfully imported could still apply to an attempt, even though the drugs never entered Australia. It also held that the prosecution had to prove the appellant intended to possess the substance, but did not have to prove she intended that it be imported or knew it had been unlawfully imported. The trial judge's directions on the defence and the appellant's evidence were not erroneous.
Before: Boddice JA, Doyle JA, Muir J
The Court of Appeal refused the applicant permission to challenge his sentences. It considered the five rape offences and strangulation together with the violence, degrading conduct, harm, domestic violence context, prior history, and the fact that the offences were committed while the applicant was on parole. The Court explained that other sentencing cases can provide useful comparisons but do not set a fixed scale or decide the sentence in a different case. It found no sentencing error and no basis in the cited cases for concluding that the sentence reflected a misapplication of principle.
Before: Kelly J
Before: Copley J