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: Leeming JA at [1]; Fagan J at [2]; Emmett J at [78]
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Before: Emmett J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: McGrath J
Before: McGrath J
Before: Rees J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Stewart AJ
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Coleman J
Before: Stern JA at [1] Fagan J at [2] Chen J at [51]
Before: Campbell J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: McHugh JA
Before: Emmett J
Before: McGrath J
Before: McGuire J
Before: Ward P
Before: Kirk JA, Stern JA and McHugh JA
The Court of Appeal refused DLaw permission to appeal. It accepted that whether a costs-assessment application can be amended was an arguable and practically important question, but it did not answer that question. The costs assessment and its review had already occurred, other proceedings raised related issues, statutory review and appeal routes were available, and it was uncertain whether the declaration DLaw sought would have any practical effect. The refusal was procedural, not a final ruling that amendment was permitted or prohibited.
Before: Price AJA
Martinus did not appeal the judgment enforcing the arbitral awards themselves. It sought to appeal only the refusal to pause enforcement while it pursued leave to appeal. The Court considered the proposed appeal arguable, but not strong, and found no evidence that Qube would be unable to repay the judgment debt if Martinus later succeeded. Because the competing considerations were finely balanced, the Court allowed a stay only if Martinus paid the unpaid judgment amount into court within 14 days. This preserved the money for Qube while preventing immediate enforcement against Martinus during the leave process.
Before: Stewart AJ
Before: Ward P at [1] Hamill J at [2] Fagan J at [3]
Before: Campbell J
Before: Roberts J