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: Mr J
Before: Wheatley J
Before: Moshinsky J
Before: Mr J, Vandongen J
Before: Wilson J
Before: Delany J
Before: Goulden AsJ
Before: Bond JA, Brown JA, Freeburn J
The Court of Appeal dismissed Hasem’s conviction appeal. It held that the evidence did not provide a logical basis for finding that the complainant assaulted her before she stabbed him, so the jury did not need a self-defence direction. It also held that the judge identified the alleged lies about her route and the knife clearly enough, and adequately explained when the jury could use a lie as evidence of guilt. The court treated the unproved ownership of the knife as irrelevant to the identified lies and found no material omission in the directions.
Before: Burns J, Mullins P, Bradley J, Crowley J
Roser argued that the jury might have taken Ms Graham’s removal from their trial as a sign that his case was being conducted improperly or that they should think adversely of him. The Court of Appeal considered what the jury had been told, the directions given about the evidence, and the rest of the trial. It concluded that the judge’s explanation for separating the trials did not invite that reasoning and that the possible risk was not real in the circumstances. The conviction appeal was dismissed.
Before: Meek J
Before: McNaughton J
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Before: R C Titterton OAM, Senior MemberM Tyson, Senior Member