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: Brereton J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
The High Court majority held that a jury must not treat awareness of a real or significant chance that a consignment contains drugs as automatically proving that an accused intended to import them. The jury must still decide, from all the circumstances and beyond reasonable doubt, whether the accused meant to import the substance. Because the directions in Ko's trial left a real risk that the jury would skip that further question, the conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered. The Court did not require proof of further acts after awareness: the relevant intention must coincide with the attempted importation conduct. Two Justices dissented and considered the directions adequate in the context of the trial.
Before: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
The High Court majority held that a sentencing appeal based on a specific procedural error requires proof that the error could realistically have affected the sentencing judge's reasoning. Farrugia alleged that the Senior Counsel representing him and Kanmaz was conflicted because counsel argued that Farrugia's offending was more serious. The majority considered that the relative seriousness issue could have mattered to sentencing, but held that Farrugia had not proved a conflict or a real or substantial possibility of one. Evidence about his instructions and the advice he received was missing, and statements made for him in the Court of Criminal Appeal weakened the claim. The appeal was dismissed. The majority did not resolve whether the appellate court could remit a case for resentencing in the circumstances discussed.
Before: Bell CJ; Payne JA; Stern JA
The Court of Appeal refused Christina permission to appeal the refusal to file her latest proposed pleading. Her senior counsel had clearly accepted at the earlier hearing that almost all the alleged statements by her father were contextual, not promises capable of supporting the estoppel claim. The Court held that she should be bound by those concessions and, in any event, agreed that only two alleged promises could potentially support the claim, one of them only if reformulated. This left much of the pleaded reliance case without a foundation. The respondents were awarded their costs.
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Before: Chen J
Before: Coleman J
Before: Nixon J
Before: Muston J
Before: Williams J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: McCallum CJ
Before: Kunc J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Kirk, McHugh and Free JJA at [1]
The appeal had already been dismissed, with Conway ordered to pay Leeroy's costs. When the parties could not agree on the amount, Leeroy asked the Court to fix costs directly instead of having them formally assessed. Conway accepted $62,000 for the appeal costs but disputed paying the costs of Leeroy's application. The Court ordered her to pay both amounts: $62,000 for the appeal and $11,000 for the application. It relied on costs evidence, the lack of engagement with Leeroy's settlement offer, and the time and expense that a separate assessment could involve. The total was $73,000, with interest from the date of the order subject to the statutory 28-day provision.
Before: Leeming JA; McNaughton J; Sweeney J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Roberts J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Williams J
Before: Price AJA
Before: Peden J
Before: Faulkner J
Before: Harrison AsJ
Before: Brereton J
Before: Hmelnitsky J