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: Richmond J
Before: Campbell J
Before: N Adams CJ at CL at [1]; Dhanji J at [2]; Muston J at [3].
Before: Leeming JA at [1]; Ball JA at [72]; Price AJA at [73]
The Court of Appeal held that NCAT had gone wrong by relying on a criminal sentencing concept to treat Thaler’s separate Code breaches as one episode in a way that affected its decision about discipline. It also considered the Tribunal’s non-suspension orders far too weak for the serious, repeated and deliberate abuse shown by the evidence before it. The Court did not itself decide what sanction should ultimately apply. It sent the appeal back to NCAT for a fresh decision, based on further and more up-to-date evidence.
Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Mitchelmore JA at [3]; Muston J at [4].
Before: Nixon J
Before: Lonergan J
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Bell CJ; Payne JA; N Adams CJ at CL; Hamill J; Roberts J
Before: Muller J
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Muller J
Before: Richardson J
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Before: Chen J
Before: Muller J
Before: Ball JA
Before: Muller J
Before: Emmett J
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Before: Lonergan J
Before: Leeming JA at [1] Kirk JA at [2] Ball JA at [3]
The employer's appeal could not succeed merely by arguing again that the PIC Member gave too little weight to surveillance and other evidence. The Court of Appeal's role under s 353 was to examine whether the ADP made a legal error in dealing with the appeal grounds she had been given. The employer's amended grounds did not identify such an error. One ground attacked the ultimate work-capacity finding, but that issue had not been put to the ADP as a ground of appeal. The appeal was dismissed, with the specified costs orders.
Before: Richardson J
Before: Adamson JA; Ball JA; Price AJA
The Court rejected the applicant’s challenges to the LPAB’s refusal to support his readmission. It held that the Board’s minutes did not have to provide a detailed account of meeting discussions, and that an omitted record of a conflict declaration did not by itself invalidate a decision. Ms Ball declared a conflict and abstained from discussion and voting; the Court saw no realistic risk that her presence affected the other members. The LPAB had considered the applicant’s self-represented legal activity, but was entitled to give it little weight. The summons was dismissed with costs.
Before: Scruby J
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Payne JA and Griffiths AJA
The Court did not postpone the applicants’ leave hearing just because they had recently received a transcript. It considered that they had enough time to review it and that further delay risked reducing the value of the estates. But the first respondent later provided a medical certificate after reporting an accident, and the Court accepted it as enough to justify postponing the hearing. As a result, both pending applications were moved to 28 September 2026. The Court did not decide whether leave to appeal should be granted or whether the orders should be stayed.
Before: Price AJA at [1]; Cavanagh J at [2]; Rigg J at [89]
Before: Adamson JA at [1] Lonergan J at [189] Roberts J at [190]