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: Slattery AJ
Before: Slattery AJ
Before: Free JA at [1]; Campbell J at [2]; McNaughton J at [30].
Before: Adamson JA
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Campbell J
Before: N Adams CJ at CL at [1] Dhanji J at [3] Roberts J at [4]
Before: Ward P; Harrison AJA
The Court of Appeal refused permission to challenge a temporary order stopping Mr Jaworski's new proceedings until he paid costs from earlier proceedings. It accepted that the new proceedings sought different forms of relief, but considered that they were based on substantially the same underlying conduct and followed an earlier opportunity to establish a prima facie basis for the allegations. It also rejected the contention that the presiding judge should step aside because of former work relationships involving court researchers and respondent's counsel. The judgment decides only the leave and recusal applications, not the truth of the underlying allegations.
Before: Muller J
The Court of Appeal did not decide the appeal or any of the three outstanding applications. It had no available date to hear those applications before the appeal date of 5 November 2026. Because of that scheduling conflict, it vacated the appeal hearing and set a process for the parties to propose directions and return for further case management. The arguments about whether security for costs should be ordered, whether the judgment should be stayed, and whether the statutory demand should be set aside were left for later.
Before: N Adams CJ at CL
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Nixon J
Before: Leeming JA
Bolton had placed $25,000 in court to secure costs connected with Keybridge's administration during a stay pending appeal. Keybridge established that the full security could be paid to it, and Bolton's proposed set-off did not defeat the purpose of that security. However, Keybridge's application for the money was supported initially by evidence with errors and omissions, which caused extra procedural work. Although Keybridge succeeded on payment, it did not recover all the costs it claimed. The judge fixed recoverable costs at $6,500, excluding the costs of material supplied in reply, because the amount claimed was disproportionate to the straightforward task and the sum at stake.
Before: Muller J
Before: Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Before: Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Before: Bennett J
Before: Nixon J
Before: Richardson J
Before: Kunc J
Before: Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Before: Muller J
Before: Coleman J
Before: Edelman, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
The High Court set aside the Court of Appeal's order extending Dale Haines's forensic-patient status. The statutory test required two separate conditions to be established. The Court of Appeal had accepted an argument about only one condition, then proceeded as if the other condition was agreed. The High Court recorded that it was not agreed and that counsel's comments did not give up Haines's position on it. The Attorney-General conceded that Haines's appeal should succeed, and the Court accepted the concession without deciding the remaining appeal issues. This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this explanation, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
Before: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
The first respondent asked the High Court to explain the procedural effect of its earlier orders or, alternatively, change them. The Court considered that the evidence did not show a live legal dispute requiring a declaration, and that the request was effectively for an advisory opinion. It also stressed the importance of finality and found no basis to reopen the earlier judgment. The application was dismissed with costs.
Before: Gageler CJ, Gordon, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot JJ
The majority held that the long service leave scheme uses two different routes to eligibility. Under one, the employer must be engaged in the black coal mining industry. Under the other, the employee's work must be closely connected with a mine and carried out at or about where black coal is mined. The Award's exclusion for certain explosives suppliers applies to the employer-based route, not the location-based route. Orica's shotfirers could therefore qualify under the location limb if they met its work and location requirements. Gordon J agreed. Steward and Gleeson JJ dissented, taking the view that the exclusion applied to the location limb as well.
Before: Gageler CJ, Steward, Jagot JJ
The High Court considered whether the visa delegate had to give GXT25 another opportunity to explain why he raised his sexual-orientation claim late, whether the delegate had to disclose general country information about fraudulent documents in Kenya, and whether the delegate's credibility reasoning was irrational. The Court rejected all three grounds. It considered the timing of the claim and the truth of the supporting documents obvious issues on the material already before the delegate. It held that general country information did not become information specifically about GXT25 merely because the delegate used it when assessing his documents. It also held that the delegate's combined credibility reasoning was open on the evidence. As the grounds lacked merit, the Court refused more time to bring the application, dismissed it and ordered GXT25 to pay the Minister's costs.
Before: Gordon, Steward, Gleeson JJ
The High Court found no legal error in the delegate’s refusal to restore EGH19’s cancelled protection visa. EGH19’s forms pointed generally to information already held by the Department, but did not identify particular documents for the delegate to consider. The delegate had considered the Tribunal decision he referred to. The Court also found that the delegate understood EGH19 could not then be removed to PNG, that there was no present prospect of removal to a third country, and that he would be released on a bridging visa. The decision was not unreasonable merely because removal was not then possible. Because the challenge was late and disclosed no jurisdictional error, the Court refused an extension of time and dismissed the application with costs.