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: Baker J
Before: Mossop J
Before: Kelly AJ
Before: Berman AJ
Before: Leeming JA at [1], Kirk JA at [26], Adamson JA at [163].
The Court of Appeal majority found that growing crops using tramlines across the access route made it materially harder to identify and use the route, and that the combined effects substantially interfered with the appellant's right of way. It protected a five-metre track from crops and tramlines and allowed limited grading to smooth the ruts. It did not allow the appellant to build the larger proposed road and drains, and kept a 14-day written notice requirement for significant works. The appellant's damages challenges failed. Leeming JA dissented on whether the substantial-interference issue had properly been raised at trial.
Before: Kirk JA at [1], McHugh JA at [2], Price AJA at [108]
The deed used broad release language, but the Court read that language in the context of what the parties were settling. The deed arose from disputes about Mr Millichamp’s Apotex employment, not his separate employment with Pharmacy Platform. The reference to services for Group Companies therefore covered services connected with his Apotex relationship, not every service he had ever provided to a company that later became part of the group. The LTI claim was outside the release, and Pharmacy Platform’s appeal was dismissed.
Before: S Westgarth, Deputy PresidentH Woods, Senior Member
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Before: Curran J
Before: Christie J
Before: Christie J
Before: Austin J