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: Commissioner P
Before: Magistrate Temby
Before: Chief Magistrate Walker
Before: Baker J
Before: Kelly AJ
Before: Snaden J
Before: Mr J, Wheatley J
Before: D Robertson, Principal MemberD Goldstein, Senior Member
Before: J Ledda, Senior Member
Before: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy PresidentH J Dixon SC, Senior Member
Before: Blake AM
Before: Stern JA at [1], Garling J at [129], Sweeney J at [130].
Before: Pullinger AC
Before: Brereton J
Before: Garling J
Before: Boddice J, Bond JA, Sullivan JJ, Freeburn J
The Court of Appeal refused Mr Freemantle leave to challenge his 10-year sentence for drug trafficking. The trafficking was substantial, lasted about 10 months and escalated from storing drugs and cash to taking an active role in transactions. The sentencing judge took account of the guilty plea and personal circumstances, as well as the seriousness of the offending and the consequences of the serious violent offence declaration. Earlier cases helped frame the assessment but did not dictate a fixed sentence. The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the sentence fell outside the permissible range or that the sentencing judge had made an error warranting appellate intervention.
Before: Williams J, Doyle JA, Bond JA
Tan appealed the sentences imposed for manslaughter and helping conceal a murder. He argued that the sentencing judge should have given greater effect to his guilty pleas when deciding how long he had to serve before becoming eligible for parole, and that the overall sentence was excessive. The Court of Appeal said the pleas were considered, but were late, and that sentencing is an overall judgement rather than a precise mathematical calculation based on provisional percentages. The judge had considered the combined sentence and parole period. The Court found no demonstrated error or manifest excess and refused leave to appeal.
Before: Boddice JA, Bond JA
The applicant’s sentence for stalking his former partner was not reduced on appeal. The Court considered the offending serious because he used repeated threats and disclosures of private information to punish and humiliate her after she ended the relationship. It concluded that the sentence was within a sound exercise of sentencing discretion, despite the mitigating matters. It also rejected the claim that the sentencing judge wrongly attributed to the stalking harm that came from the complainant’s later conviction. The Court refused leave to appeal and made a non-publication order.
Before: Bradley J, Mullins P, Hindman J
The Court of Appeal dismissed Wright’s challenge to his murder conviction. It found that the jury had been adequately directed on provocation even though the judge did not repeat the evidence that Wright was angry. The jury knew he was angry; the contested question was what that anger meant. The Court also held that criminal-negligence manslaughter was not a proper additional option in the way this trial was run: the Crown alleged a deliberate act, and the defence argued that if the act was not deliberate Wright should be acquitted. Finally, although a warning about drug-related evidence could have been prudent, the evidence was introduced by Wright to explain his actions and there was no realistic risk that the jury used it improperly.