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: Brereton J
Before: N Adams CJ at CL
Before: McGrath J
Before: Muston J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Roberts J
Before: Pike J
Before: Mitchelmore JA
The Court of Appeal refused to suspend Gazal's indefinite committal while his appeal was pending. It assumed his appeal grounds were arguable and accepted that custody caused some prejudice, but was not satisfied that continuing custody would make the appeal pointless. It also considered the public interest in the contempt order, the procedural history, the lack of a clear timetable for further evidence and the possible consequences of release followed by renewed custody. The Court did not decide whether it could grant bail without a stay. The appeal from the penalty judgment remained unresolved.
Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Kirk JA at [47]; McHugh JA at [48].
The Court of Appeal read Article 9 as allowing arbitration only if both parties agreed to arbitrate and agreed on the process. If they did not reach that agreement, the clause directed the substantive dispute to litigation. The fact that one party wanted arbitration did not, by itself, bind the other party. The Court therefore upheld the refusal to stay Polar Air’s contractual cross-claims.
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Bennett J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Parker J
Before: Leeming JA at [1] Payne JA at [2] Ball JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to undo two transactions that gave Ruskin control of a family trust and ownership of his parents’ home, subject to their lifetime right to remain there. The Court accepted that the transactions favoured Ruskin and that John relied on him in managing affairs. But the evidence did not show that Ruskin pressured his parents or exploited an inability by John to understand or assess the transactions. John had access to professional advice and the transactions’ effects were apparent. The Court said advice need not always include an evaluation of the transaction’s merits. Because the unconscionability case failed, the family provision appeal grounds did not change the result. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Before: Muller J
Before: Muller J
Before: McHugh JA at [1]; Sweeney J at [75]; Emmett J at [76].
Before: Nixon J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Chen J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: McGrath J
Before: Faulkner J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Mossop J
Before: McWilliam J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: McNaughton J