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: Hamill J (as Duty Judge)
Before: Brereton J
Before: Muston J
Before: Williams J
Before: Nixon J
Before: Thawley J, Ubs AM
Before: McCallum CJ, Taylor and Collier JJ
Nova paid Civil $550,000 for work that the primary judge found had been done by Benex, not by the alleged joint venture involving Civil. The majority held that Nova could recover the mistaken payment from Civil, because the payment was made on a mistaken belief and Civil did not establish a defence. Benex’s ostensible-authority estoppel against Nova did not change who received the money or give Civil the benefit of the estoppel. The appeal was dismissed, although Collier J dissented and would have allowed it.
Before: Payne JA at [1] Free JA at [2] Harrison AJA at [3]
The Court of Appeal refused to reopen the order dismissing the appellants’ appeal. Review of a Judge of Appeal’s order was not a second appeal: the appellants had to identify an error of principle or show that the decision was plainly wrong. The Court found they had not done so. It also explained that the earlier decision’s acceptance that some grounds might be arguable did not erase the history of delay and failure to comply with court directions. The motion was dismissed with costs.
Before: McWilliam J
Before: Chen J
Before: Richmond J
Before: Emmett J
Before: Emmett J
Before: Mitchelmore J
Before: Black J
Before: Kunc J
Before: McGuire J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Derrington J
Before: Bennett J, Frank J
Before: Perry J, Abraham J, Kennett J
The Full Federal Court upheld the finding that Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman, was unlawfully discriminated against by the women-only app Giggle. However, the Court changed the legal basis from 'indirect discrimination' to 'direct discrimination' and increased the damages from $10,000 to $20,000. The Court held that Ms Grover's exclusion of Ms Tickle because she appeared male amounted to direct discrimination based on gender identity, even though Ms Grover did not know Ms Tickle was transgender. The Court also ruled that a women-only app cannot use 'special measures' designed to help women as a defence against discrimination against transgender women. Ms Grover’s repeated misgendering of Ms Tickle in court and misleading public statements that portrayed Ms Tickle as a predatory male justified additional 'aggravated damages.'
Before: Mr AJ, Smith J
Before: O'Bryan J
Before: Smith J
Before: Harrison AJA at [1] Sweeney J at [2] Muston J at [89]
Before: Muller J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Yehia J
Before: Parker J