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: Commission J, Perry J
Before: Re J, Wigney J
Before: Leeming JA at [1], Mitchelmore JA at [239], Free JA at [240].
Scott claimed that his father's repeated assurances meant he should receive most of the family farms, despite his father's final will leaving most of the estate to Scott's siblings. The Court of Appeal accepted that the trial judge's finding about Scott's understanding of the testamentary assurances should not be disturbed. But Scott did not prove that he relied on the relevant assurances when he made the farming and property commitments that were said to cause his loss. The Court also held that the remedy could not properly require Scott to transfer his own farm to Craig, who had made no claim for it. The appeal was allowed, the estoppel relief was set aside, and the remaining claims, including family provision, were sent back for further hearing.
Before: Stern JA, Ball JA, Griffiths AJA
The Court of Appeal did not decide whether Netdeen was ultimately entitled to refuse renewal. It clarified that cl 4.7 required an honestly and reasonably held opinion, based on grounds connected to Lindfield’s performance, that renewal was not in the specified parties’ best interests, and that those grounds had to be the substantial reason for refusal. The trial judge had not made sufficiently clear findings on whether Netdeen proved those requirements, and the Court could not resolve the credibility issues itself. The expert valuation reports were admissible, but the $20 million damages assessment was inadequately reasoned. The case was sent back for a retrial on the contractual refusal and, if necessary, damages. The unconscionability claim was not remitted because it added no useful separate issue on the way it had been pleaded and decided.
Before: Ward P at [1]Stern JA at [2]Free JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal held that the Owners Corporation had to keep paying for the level 8 parking spaces while the 1999 Deed remained in force. The deed's initial 10-year period did not end the fee obligation because its holdover clause continued the deed's terms month to month until termination in January 2024. After termination, the roller door materially and unreasonably restricted Council's ability to use its own spaces as part of its public carpark. The Court upheld damages based on potential long-term parking revenue, reduced for commercial uncertainty. The older electricity claim was out of time because the evidence did not show a running account.
Before: Leeming JA
Ms Marium’s appeal from the dismissal of her judicial review case required permission because it did not concern a claim or civil right worth at least $100,000. The Registrar gave her until noon on 16 May 2025 to file a summons seeking that permission. She said she posted it the previous day, but the Court received it on 21 May. The Court held that posting was not filing. The 14 April order therefore dismissed the appeal automatically when the deadline passed. The later order merely recorded that result. Leeming JA dismissed the motion challenging those procedural orders and ordered Ms Marium to pay Constable Darley’s costs.
Before: Dr R Dubler SC, Senior MemberJ Ledda, Senior Member
Before: P H Molony, Senior MemberN Kennedy, Senior Member
Before: Member Decision
Before: Armstrong J
Before: Scotting DCJ
Before: Judge Tupman
Before: Dickson C
Before: O’Neill C
Before: Dickson C
Before: Nichols AC
Before: Pepper J
Before: Beasley J
Before: Beasley J
Before: Rothman J