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: Collier J
Before: Free JA at [1]Griffiths AJA at [83]Price AJA at [84]
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Busa’s appeal against the rejection of his negligence claim concerning an eye procedure. The trial judge had found that Dr Andric made no more than three attempts to obtain fluid, that the evidence did not prove he failed to make notes, and that the alleged failures were not shown to cause the claimed harm. The appeal court found no demonstrated error in those conclusions. It also held that Mr Busa could not introduce an unpleaded consent allegation for the first time on appeal and refused his applications to rely on an excluded expert report and further evidence. The Court did not decide whether doctors have a specific duty to make notes of procedures.
Before: Stern JA at [1], McHugh JA at [2], Free JA at [164]
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the solicitor’s successful defence of a negligence claim. The alleged breach was narrowly framed: the appellants had to show that, before particular documents were filed, a reasonably careful solicitor would have concluded that the relevant case was hopeless, not merely risky or in need of more information. The Court found that the material available at the relevant times did not compel that conclusion. It also held that an order giving liberty to apply about costs did not extend the UCPR’s 14-day period, and that the primary judge had not denied fairness by making a costs order without a separate hearing when no specific request to defer costs had been made.
Before: Bell CJ at [1], McHugh JA at [100], Free JA at [101].
The agreement promised Ceramics a cap on the spot price of gas. The Court of Appeal read 'price insurance' in cl 1.8 as the mechanism by which Weston itself provided that cap, not as a promise that Weston would buy a separate insurance policy from a third party. The surrounding tender, emails and accepted phone-call evidence did not change that meaning. The Court also considered it wrong to rely on alleged deliberate ambiguity where intent was not the legal test and had not been put to Weston's witnesses. It allowed Weston's appeal, restored the unpaid invoice and refused Ceramics leave to appeal the separate, small restitution claim.
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1], Ierace J at [112], McNaughton J at [113]
Before: Scotting DCJ
Before: Pepper J
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Before: Tang AM
Before: Mr J
Before: Croucher J
Before: Black J, Niall CJ, Leish JA, Kenny JA