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: Price AJA at [1] Sirtes J at [2] Roberts J at [89]
Before: Muston J
Before: Black J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Parker J
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Pike J
Before: Bell CJ; Mitchelmore JA; Griffiths AJA
The Court of Appeal held that Procent needed permission to appeal because its request to change ASIC’s register did not itself have a readily measurable value of at least $100,000. The possible transactions Procent said it had lost were not the value of the rectification claim. The Court also considered that the register, read alongside the Corporations Act definitions and the linked forms describing the Kurnell property, was not shown to be misleading. Because the proposed appeal raised no issue of principle or public importance and showed no reasonably clear injustice, the Court refused more time and leave to appeal. It did not decide the broader question of whether a correct but misleading register entry can be rectified under s 1322(4)(b).
Before: Coleman J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Payne JA at [1] Adamson JA at [2] Ball JA at [122]
The Court of Appeal held that a solicitor’s general retaining lien can cover all client money in the solicitor’s trust account, not merely an amount matching the solicitor’s outstanding bill. The lien is a right to hold the money, not a right to pay the solicitor without the client’s direction. The Court also held that the lien can cover reasonable costs the solicitor incurs to quantify or enforce the costs claim. An issued costs assessment certificate could meet the statutory test of costs being reasonably due and owing even though it had not been filed as a judgment. Studio B obtained leave to appeal, but lost the appeal.
Before: Campbell J
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Payne JA; Price AJA
The Court of Appeal refused to pause enforcement of its earlier orders while the applicants pursued special leave in the High Court. The governing test required exceptional circumstances. The Court considered the proposed special leave grounds weak and the claimed refinancing too uncertain to justify a delay. It also accepted that continued interest and sale costs were likely to cause further loss to the lender. The motion was dismissed with costs.
Before: Muller J
Before: Parker J
Before: Muller J
Before: Leeming JA; McHugh JA
The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the alleged AliExpress scheme existed. It decided whether there was a sufficient basis to let the applicant appeal procedural and pleading decisions. The proposed claim against Alipay Australia relied on allegations that were not properly particularised, and its role as a custodian of payments did not, without more pleaded facts, connect it to alleged misrepresentations by others. The 61-page draft also had serious form and clarity problems. Given earlier unsuccessful attempts to produce a proper claim, the Court found no reasonably clear injustice in refusing another opportunity to replead or in dismissing the case against Alipay Australia. Leave to appeal was refused with costs.
Before: Faulkner J
Before: Taylor J
Before: Nixon J
Before: Kirk and Free JJA at [1]
The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the second respondent's affidavits could ultimately be admitted or what weight they should receive. It decided that an appeal was too early. The affidavits had not yet been put into evidence, the hearing had not concluded, and the primary judge could reconsider the ruling if the circumstances changed. The Court also found no issue of principle or public importance and no established error in the primary judge's exercise of discretion.
Before: Fagan J
Before: Parker J
Before: Muston J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Price AJA
CharterLaw wanted the Court of Appeal to hear its appeal before a Federal Court bankruptcy hearing and also sought a stay relating to costs that the District Court had not yet ordered. Price AJA refused both forms of relief. The Court considered that the primary judge should determine costs and that CharterLaw could still pursue the practical consequences of a successful appeal later. The motion was dismissed, with its costs to be dealt with in the cause.
Before: Slattery J
Before: Balla AJ