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: Hamill J at [1], McNaughton J at [3], Emmett J at [4].
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Before: Galwey AC
Before: Pritchard J
Before: Robson J
Before: Williams J
Before: Lonergan J
Before: Rees J
Before: McNaughton J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Sweeney J
Before: Blokland J
Before: Muir J, Mullins P, Bond JA, Doyle JA, As Doyle JA
The Court of Appeal dismissed Nguyen’s appeal. He admitted trafficking but argued that the evidence did not establish the required criminal organisation and that the jury should have been expressly told that every participant had to be associated with every other participant. The Court held that the evidence could support a finding of a group involving Nguyen, Tran and Lo, including because they worked together under Nguyen’s direction. The relevant circumstance needed to exist at some time after 9 December 2016, not throughout the whole trafficking period. The jury directions were adequate in context, and any possible defect would not have been material.
Before: Henry J, Bowskill CJ, Brown JA, Doyle JA
The appellant was late in seeking to appeal several procedural orders and did not show a sufficient reason for the delay, a reasonably arguable error, or substantial injustice. The Court rejected his arguments that the respondents’ standing had to be determined through a notice to admit, that the orders were invalid because a deputy registrar issued and sealed them, and that the 10 March hearing was procedurally unfair. The appeal from the January case-management orders also identified no error. The extensions were refused, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs on the standard basis.
Before: Mullins P, Bradley JA
The Court of Appeal accepted that the District Court used the wrong method when it heard the appeal from the Magistrates Court’s final summary judgment. But that error did not change the result. The loan documents and the applicant’s electronic acceptance form showed, on the facts the parties did not dispute, that he had accepted the loan offer. His not signing the Offer, Schedule or Terms did not undo that acceptance. The magistrate’s short reasons were sufficient. The respondent’s failure to get leave before making its second summary judgment application was a procedural irregularity, not an automatic nullity. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Before: Muir J
Before: Davis J
Before: Mr J
Before: COSGRAVE J