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: Muller AJ
Before: Rofe J
Before: Payne JA at [1], Stern JA at [2], Ball JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal dismissed 85 Princess’s appeal. It held that the evidence did not adequately establish the details, effectiveness and cost of the proposed crack-monitoring and repair method. However, that did not decide the case in 85 Princess’s favour: the Court accepted that replacing the slab was unreasonable in the circumstances, including because the property was acquired as an investment and the contractual and leasing context pointed towards repairs rather than replacement. The Court also held that the structural-soundness warranty was not breached, while the warranty requiring compliance with the relevant standard was breached. Because 85 Princess had claimed replacement costs and had not proved the cost of repairs on an alternative basis, the nominal damages award remained.
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1]Adamson JA at [2]
The Court of Appeal did not reopen most of the trial judge's findings because, although the proposed challenges were arguable, they did not meet the demanding threshold for leave to appeal. It did grant leave over how damages had been ordered. Henderson and Tilling were responsible for different publications, so the Court accepted that the overall $65,000 should be divided between them. By agreement, each was ordered to pay $32,500 plus interest. The Court did not decide the broader circumstances in which defamation defendants may be jointly liable under s 39.
Before: Ward P, Ball JA, Griffiths AJA
The applicants challenged three procedural decisions made during their still-pending District Court conviction appeals. The Court of Appeal held that it could review those decisions only for jurisdictional error, not simply because the applicants considered them wrong. It found that the hearing could proceed on the motion and material already before the District Court, that the applicants had not established bias or a failure to perform the judicial task, and that the judge could refuse the lengthy stated-case request. The Court extended time because the applicants had periods without legal representation and there had been uncertainty about the correct court, but it dismissed their judicial review application with costs. Their conviction appeals remained undetermined.
Before: Bell CJ at [1], Payne JA at [2], Mitchelmore JA at [80].
The Court of Appeal decided that Colin Peek’s iPhone Note was his will, even though it had not been made with the witnesses required for a formally executed will. The Note’s title, date, initials, wording, coverage of his estate and surrounding evidence persuaded the Court that Colin regarded it as final. His cleaner’s evidence that he said he had “finalised” his will and his later conversation suggesting Wheatley would receive substantial funds supported that conclusion. The Court also held that the absence of publication did not itself prevent probate. It allowed Wheatley’s appeal and ordered the Note admitted to probate.
Before: G Sarginson, Deputy President
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1]Ierace J at [65]Chen J at [66]
Before: Beasley J
Before: O’Neill C
Before: Horton C
Before: Horton C
Before: Galwey AC
Before: Porter C
Before: Porter C