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.
1,764 case citations
Before: P H Molony, Senior MemberDr K George, Senior Member
Before: Payne JA at [1], McHugh JA at [143], Free JA at [144]
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. It concluded that the Supreme Court had dealt with the properties under its own trust and land-law powers, consistently with the earlier family-law property orders. The applicant had not shown that he held a caveatable interest in the properties, that a share of sale proceeds could reliably be calculated before settlement, or that the chattels, fairness or costs decisions involved an appealable error. The related motions were also dismissed with costs.
Before: Harrison JA
This judgment did not decide whether Mr Montenegro should receive a compliance certificate or succeed in a judicial review. It resolved who would participate in the proceedings and how. Once the Law Society was to leave, the Court considered the LPAB the proper respondent and allowed it to participate as an active contradictor, while remaining subject to the Hardiman principle. The applicant retained the ability to object to evidence and submissions at the final hearing.
Before: Member Decision
Before: Pain J
Before: Horton C
Before: Young AC
Before: Douglas AC
Before: Peden J
Before: Pike J
Before: Yehia J
Before: Treston J