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: Parker J
Before: Moore J
Before: Harris J
Before: Shanahan CJ, Estcourt J, Jago J
The Full Court dismissed Poulton's appeal against the finding that he was liable in detinue and conversion concerning Bitcoin Conrad had funded. Two judges considered that Poulton could not revive an argument that Bitcoin could not be possessed after abandoning it on the intermediate appeal. Estcourt J, with Jago J agreeing on the substantive issue, also concluded that control of Bitcoin through the relevant key could amount to possession, despite the asset being intangible. The judgment does not settle every question about the legal classification of crypto assets.
Before: Smith J
Before: Smith J
Before: Williams J
The Court of Appeal dismissed BMA's appeal against safety directives governing heavy mobile equipment during lightning alerts. The Industrial Court had required the equipment to stop at Level 3 alerts, while allowing it to continue through Level 2. The appeal focused on whether the Industrial Court wrongly treated the legislation as excluding consideration of commercial interests, and whether it ignored evidence about operational and commercial impacts. The Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Court had decided whether the risk was within acceptable limits, not whether it was as low as reasonably achievable. Since the latter question did not arise, the alleged failure to consider evidence relevant to that question did not establish an error affecting the result. The Court noted that costs are likely relevant to the as-low-as-reasonably-achievable assessment, but did not decide the full legal test.
Before: Sullivan J
The Court of Appeal interpreted s 35(1)(a) by focusing on the actual land proposed for each grant, rather than on how that land was labelled in survey descriptions when the native title determination was made. The section requires native title to have been determined to exist over all or a physical part of the proposed grant land. It does not add a separate rule requiring the grant land to fall within the external boundary of the determination area. Applying that interpretation, the Court allowed the Chief Executive’s appeal but made a declaration that the specified proposed conduct was for a decision of a kind not permitted by ss 34 and 35. It also ordered the appellant to pay the Regional Council’s appeal costs.
Before: Bell CJ
Before: Peden J
Before: Galwey AC
Before: Macken AC
Before: Horton C
Before: Dixon SC
Before: Kullen AC
Before: O’Neill C
Before: Pullinger AC
Before: Gray C
The Council had refused a house-alteration and swimming-pool application. During a court conciliation, the parties agreed on consent for an amended design. The Commissioner checked that no jurisdictional obstacle prevented the Court from making those agreed orders, then upheld the appeal and granted consent subject to conditions. The judgment does not decide whether the original contested planning concerns were resolved correctly on their merits.
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Before: Gibson DCJ
Before: G K Burton SC, Senior MemberJ Gatland, Senior Member
Before: Mitchelmore JA, Adamson JA
The State had registered title to the land and obtained a possession judgment after the primary judge found that the applicant’s proposed defences did not raise a legally arguable answer to that title. The Court of Appeal did not decide the application as a full appeal. It considered whether there was a sufficient basis to grant permission to appeal and concluded there was not. It rejected the claims of jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, identity error, bias, and improper handling of the cross-claim. It also held that the applicant’s arguments for a distinct Indigenous title surviving registered fee simple title could not overcome binding High Court authority. Leave was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.
Before: Derrington J