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: Peden J
Before: Payne JA
Before: Leeming JA; Free JA; Griffiths AJA
The Court had already dismissed the appeal, but the parties disagreed about who should pay the appeal costs. The Commonwealth’s successful point had been raised late, after it had previously treated the relevant trial finding as correct. Because that late point was the principal reason the appeal failed and contributed to the hearing taking an extra day, the Court considered that the parties should each pay their own costs. It made the same costs outcome for the separate costs application.
Before: N Adams CJ at CL; Dhanji J; Roberts J
Before: Muller J
Before: McWilliam J
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Chen J
Before: Chen J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Steward, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
The High Court held that wages known to have been received could not be ignored just because the decision-maker could not establish exactly which fortnight the work was done in. Under the version of the youth allowance income-test rule considered by the Court, the income had to be counted in the earliest fortnight in which the decision-maker could establish that it had been earned, derived or received. If the earning date could not be established but receipt could, the income was counted in the fortnight of receipt. Although AAT 2 made an error in deciding when Mr Chaplin earned the wages, the High Court found that the error did not change the result. The appeal was dismissed.
Before: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
The High Court held that Block Earner’s Earner Product was a regulated financial product on two independent bases. Users contributed AUD when they selected an amount to invest, and Block Earner used or intended to use that money to generate the promised fixed return. It did not matter that Block Earner also made a profit or that users had no stake in Block Earner’s later transactions. Separately, the amount users received back in AUD depended on cryptocurrency values and exchange rates, so the product was also a derivative. The Court treated the conversion steps as part of the product rather than a separate exchange service. The matter returned to the Full Court for the penalty appeal.
Before: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
The High Court said that police conducting crowd control can owe a duty to people in the crowd and nearby bystanders, even if they are not immediately beside the police action. The duty includes taking reasonable care to avoid foreseeable physical injury resulting from an intervention. Here, however, police faced a developing and potentially dangerous situation involving an unknown liquid, a flag about to be lit, and a densely packed crowd. The proposed less forceful alternatives were not ones a reasonable person in the officers' position would have taken. Because no breach was established, the Court dismissed the appeal without deciding whether the later criminal conduct affected causation or the scope of liability.
Before: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
The High Court majority held that the Northern Territory’s use of CS gas on the four young detainees had already been determined to be unlawful battery. The earlier trial finding that gas was the least forceful and safest option could not be treated as independent of the mistaken legal assumption that officers were authorised to use it. In deciding whether punishment beyond compensation was appropriate, the Court considered the whole setting, including the appellants’ youth, custody, bystander status, confinement, treatment, and the Territory’s shortcomings in training and systems. Exemplary damages were warranted, but $200,000 each was too much in total, so the Court set the award at $50,000 each. Interest on general damages remained payable and could not be reduced because exemplary damages were also awarded.
Before: Ward P; Cavanagh J; Weinstein J
Before: Kirk JA at [1] McNaughton J at [2] McGuire J at [84]
Before: N Adams CJ at CL at [1]; Lonergan J at [150]; Dhanji J at [151].
Before: Bell CJ, Yehia J, Sweeney J
Before: Ward P at [1]; Leeming JA at [326]; Fagan J at [327]
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Chen J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Muller J
Before: Muller J