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: Free JA
The Court had earlier paused enforcement of a possession judgment because the applicants promised to pay $850,000 into court within a limited period. They did not pay. They then asked for more time, offering to pay a larger amount by 2 February 2026, but the evidence did not show a reliable path to that payment. The Court also remained concerned about other debts secured over the property and the resulting uncertainty about its equity. It refused to change the undertaking and dismissed both motions. The applicants were ordered to pay specified parts of the respondent's costs.
Before: Free JA
The Court had previously paused enforcement of costs orders against Mr Kearney until the Court dealt with whether a tutor should be appointed or recognised to conduct the proposed appeal. Mr Kearney asked for the pause to last until the appeal was finished. The Court said he had not shown a material change that justified deciding that question earlier. The tutor issue could affect whether an appeal proceeded and how it was conducted, so the duration of any further stay was better considered after that issue was resolved. The Court removed the respondents’ earlier permission to apply to lift the stay because the tutor hearing had been listed and the respondents said they would not seek to lift the stay before then. The Court dismissed Mr Kearney’s motion for the longer stay and made the motion’s costs costs in the appeal if one is instituted.
Before: G Sarginson, Deputy President
Before: Price AJA at [1], Yehia J at [126], Coleman J at [130]
Before: Preston CJ
Before: Pain J
Before: Gray C
Before: Galwey AC
Before: Targett C
Before: Miller AC
Before: Rees J
Before: Williams J
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Before: Kunc J
Before: Pike J
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Brown JA, Hindman JJ, As Hindman J
The jury could be sure that some of the repeated conduct alleged in count 1 occurred while still having a reasonable doubt about a separate incident charged in counts 3 and 4. The acquittals did not automatically mean that the jury disbelieved the complainant altogether. The Court of Appeal found rational reasons for the different verdicts, concluded that the conviction on count 1 was open on the evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
Before: Crowley J, Bond JA
Regatta claimed that Wow owed a break fee because Wow did not accept a later financing document. The dispute turned on whether that document was the kind of “formal Funding Offer” described in the earlier agreement. The supplied extract says the later document had the same “Indicative Funding Offer” title as the earlier document and was very similar to it. The District Court decided it was not the formal offer contemplated by the break-fee clause. The Court of Appeal dismissed Regatta’s application for leave to appeal, with costs. The extract identifies authorities the Court followed or cited, but does not reproduce the Court’s reasons, so it is not possible to give a reliable account of the detailed reasoning or the precise legal rule applied.
Before: Justice Bradley
Before: Kelly J
Before: Goulden AsJ
Before: Burgess JR
Before: Finanzio J