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: Seaward J
Before: O'Bryan J
Before: M Osborne J
Before: Barrett AsJ
Before: Croft J
Before: Finanzio J
Before: M Osborne J
Before: Mr P
Before: Mr J
Before: Boddice JA, Bradley JA, Doyle JA
The Council asked for half its appeal costs because it obtained leave and the appeal was partly allowed. Genamson asked for its costs, pointing to the Council's change in position and the costs it said had been wasted. The Court ordered neither side to pay the other's appeal costs. It reasoned that the Council had abandoned its earlier argument, but Genamson's interpretation was also incorrect. The preliminary question was not properly equipped to resolve the relevant issues, and answering it would not have moved the case forward. The appeal displaced the Land Appeal Court's answer but sent the proceedings back to the Land Court for determination.
Before: Bowskill CJ, Bradley JA, Wilson J
The Court of Appeal did not find a basis to interfere with the six-year sentence or the serious violent offence declaration. Although the offender was young, had no criminal history, pleaded guilty early and showed remorse and rehabilitation prospects, the Court considered the knife attack especially serious. The complainant was already on the ground and vulnerable when stabbed, and the injuries threatened his life. The earlier interaction did not make the stabbing justified or place it in a meaningfully less serious category than the relevant comparable cases. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused. The Court also suggested that the existing six-to-seven-year range for this kind of offence may warrant future reconsideration.
Before: Boddice JA, Doyle JA, Muir J, Act J
The Court of Appeal held that a one-day delay was adequately explained and that the Attorney-General had good reason to bring the appeal. Because the offences were sexual offences against a child under 16, the legislation required actual imprisonment unless exceptional circumstances justified an exception. The Court concluded that the respondent's mitigating circumstances, considered together, did not justify immediate suspension of every sentence, given the seriousness and persistence of the offending and its continuation into adulthood. It allowed the appeal and ordered concurrent prison terms, with suspension only after 12 months' imprisonment.