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: Jagot JJ
The High Court held that an unexpired Crown lease does not automatically make land 'used' for the Aboriginal land claim test. The question is whether the land was actually being used for a purpose when the claim was made. That use can be passive, but it cannot be merely notional or based only on the existence of legal rights over the land. The Court set aside the NSW Court of Appeal's decision and restored the result reached by the Land and Environment Court. The judgment was divided: Gordon and Steward JJ would have dismissed the Land Councils' appeal, while Gageler CJ, Edelman J and Jagot J formed the majority allowing it.
Before: Jones JJ
The High Court held that the Tribunal had to apply the ministerial direction in force when it made its own decision, not the direction that had applied when the visa delegate made the earlier decision. Because Direction 65 had been revoked and Direction 90 was in force in October 2022, the Tribunal was required to follow Direction 90. The appellant did not have an accrued right to have Direction 65 applied to his pending review. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Before: Jones JJ
The High Court held that deciding whether a catastrophically injured person can claim for care at home is not simply a matter of comparing the extra cost with the health benefits. The court must ask whether home care is a reasonable way to repair the consequences of the injury, considering the person's circumstances before the injury and all relevant circumstances. If that choice and its cost are proved reasonable, the defendant must show that the person unreasonably failed to take a less costly alternative. Mr Stewart's proposed home care more closely restored his former living situation, brought identified benefits, and was not shown to be unreasonable. The appeal succeeded, but the case was sent back for assessment of damages.
Before: Jones JJ
The High Court held that the Act can apply when a culturally protected object was unlawfully exported from another country before 1987, as long as it was imported into Australia after the Act commenced and the other statutory requirements are met. The decisive date under s 14(1) is the import into Australia, not the earlier export from the country of origin. The Court therefore dismissed Palmanova's appeal, leaving the artefact forfeited.
Before: Keogh J
Before: Waller J
Before: Gorton J
Before: Habib SC DCJ
Before: Price AJA at [1], Cavanagh J at [2], Yehia J at [5]
Before: Garling J
Before: Lonergan J
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment for the injured worker. Although the trial judge’s detailed account differed from the worker’s evidence in some respects, the essential accident mechanism was the issue tried, and the parties had an opportunity to address the evidence and photographs. The photographic evidence supported the trial judge’s findings. The risk was adequately described as the danger of tripping on rubbish bags left on the ground. The damages assessment was not shown to be outside the range of reasonable judgment. Finally, s 316 did not prevent Civeo from being ordered to pay costs connected with the claim against Hays, because that order was made against Civeo in the proceedings against Civeo.
Before: Palmer J
Before: Respondent Mr P