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: Pike J
Before: Pike J
Before: Hamill J
Before: Rees J
Before: Nixon J
Before: Kunc J
Before: Rigg J
Before: Ball JA
The Court of Appeal refused to stop completion of the sale while the applicants pursued leave to appeal. The applicants' main point was that the mortgaged property was being sold for too little. Ball JA considered damages an adequate remedy for that kind of complaint, and regarded the prospects of overturning the primary judge's discretionary refusal as poor. The Court also gave little weight to the property's family significance and possible refinancing, and noted that other potential objections to the lender's sale appeared to have been raised too late. The ruling did not decide whether the sale price was below market value or whether the lender breached s 111A.
Before: Payne JA at [1] Adamson JA at [2] Ball JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal held that the SOP Act did not shield Alliance from having its unpaid adjudication judgment considered in a security for costs application. The relevant fact was that the judgment remained unpaid, not that it originated in an adjudication. The primary judge had given adequate reasons for finding the low, preliminary threshold for security satisfied. The appeal was dismissed, although leave to appeal was granted on the statutory interpretation point because a prior District Court decision had taken the opposite view.
Before: McWilliam J
Before: Muller J
Before: Muller J
Before: Payne JA at [1]; Mitchelmore JA at [133]; Harrison AJA at [134]
The appeal concerned factual findings about repeated stormwater overflow between neighbouring properties. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had a sound evidentiary basis for concluding that a badly blocked pipe on the appellants' side caused the flooding and damage. The evidence did not establish that the respondent removed a kerb or that his renovations caused the claimed subsidence. The appellants' arguments about the drainage repair order and their statutory cross-claim also failed. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed and costs were ordered against the appellants.
Before: Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Before: Black J
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Before: Lindsay J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Slattery J
Before: Adamson JA, McHugh JA, Free JA
Mr Bishop won the appeal about Qantas' liability for the shoulder procedure and prosthesis. Qantas argued that it should not have to pay his appeal costs because the successful argument had been brought back into the case at the hearing, after not being pressed in written submissions. The Court rejected that argument. The ground had been in the original appeal notice, and the same interpretation question would have arisen under another ground. The Court also said that the other ground had not failed; it did not need to decide it. Because Mr Bishop succeeded on the main disputed issue, Qantas had to pay his costs.
Before: McWilliam J
Before: Baker J
Before: Payne JA at [1] Ball JA at [2] Free JA at [53]
The policy did not cover these costs merely because asbestos fibres had been released during the work. The costs were incurred because asbestos was found in soil and the law and the Improvement Notice required SWC to manage that hazard and provide a safe system of work. Those obligations would have applied even if no fibres had actually been released. The Policy required the claimed Loss to arise from a defined Pollution Condition, so the distinction between asbestos being present and asbestos being released was decisive. The Court dismissed SWC's appeal with costs.
Before: Mitchelmore JA Hamill J Emmett J
Before: Nixon J
Before: Kunc J