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: McGuire J, Guire J
Before: Howard J
Before: Dr P
Before: Gething J
Before: Strk J
Before: Whitby J
Before: Vaughan JA
Before: Crowley J, Mullins P
The Court of Appeal refused the appellants’ urgent request to pause possession and demolition activities at the property. The respondents had already taken possession, and an earlier consent order had dealt with a limited opportunity to collect belongings. Mullins P considered that the appeal had very poor prospects insofar as it challenged possession, because at least some debt appeared to remain secured by the mortgage. The court also considered that it might not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, but did not decide that question because it found no utility in granting a stay. The judgment does not decide the substantive appeal. The application was refused with $5,000 in costs, and the respondents’ solicitor undertook to pass on a list of potentially remaining items supplied by the stated deadline.
Before: Beach J
Before: Gleeson JJ
The loan agreement required Crown Global to repay into an account nominated by both lenders. It paid into Mr Peng's personal account instead. Ms Shao could accept that the loan debt had been paid off while still suing Crown Global because the payment was made in breach of a separate promise about how repayment had to occur. Her earlier attempt to recover the money from Mr Peng did not waive that claim, and bringing the claim later was not an abuse of process.
Before: Pearce J
Before: Pearce J
Before: Harrison AsJ