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: Adamson JA at [1]Chen J at [2]R A Hulme AJ at [3]
Before: Ward P at [1], Rigg J at [414], Coleman J at [416]
Before: Ward P, Harrison CJ at CL, N Adams J
Before: Adamson JA at [1]Chen J at [42]R A Hulme AJ at [43]
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Before: Lerve DC
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Before: Preston CJ
Before: Kullen AC
Before: Garling J
Before: McNaughton J
Before: McGrath J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Callaghan J, Wilson J, Boddice JA, Doyle JA
The Court of Appeal dismissed Coronel's application for leave to appeal his sentence. The Court held that the sentencing judge had not misunderstood the consequences of offending while on parole: the judge's concern about uncertainty was whether Coronel would serve the outstanding period in actual custody. The Court also considered the sentence against comparable cases, the totality of the sentences and the sentencing remarks. It found that the seriousness and commercial scale of the offending, the additional offences, and the breach of parole and a suspended sentence supported the conclusion that the sentence was not shown to be manifestly excessive. The Court did not resolve a separate statutory question about whether the Parole Board can reduce the unexpired portion following automatic parole cancellation.
Before: Wilson J, Boddice JA
The Court of Appeal held that the dispute about the caretaking agreement was a complex dispute and that the BCCM Act specified the exclusive routes for resolving it. The District Court could not decide it, even though the applicant asked only for a declaration. The Court did not decide whether QCAT could grant that declaration, because that question was not necessary to resolve the appeal. Leave to appeal was refused, with costs against the applicant.
Before: Boddice JA, Brown JA, Henry J
The applicant argued that his 12-year sentence was too high, relying in part on the sentence upheld in Buchanan and the credit due for his guilty pleas. The Court of Appeal refused leave. It considered the offending materially different from Buchanan: it involved repeated offending over six occasions, multiple serious sexual offences, and the exploitation of a vulnerable complainant within a domestic relationship. The judgment says comparable cases are useful points of reference, not fixed limits. The sentencing judge had treated the pleas as significant mitigation and had given detailed reasons for the sentence. The Court was not persuaded that the sentence showed an appealable error.
Before: Sullivan J
Before: Smith J
Before: Freeburn J
Before: Freeburn J
Before: Freeburn J
Before: Fox J
Before: K Judd J