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: Mossop J
Before: Mossop J
Before: Mossop J
Before: Payne JA at [1], Ball JA at [25], Price AJA at [35]
The Court of Appeal majority dismissed Allianz's challenge to a Review Panel decision that Mr Bell's psychological conditions were caused by the events surrounding the attempted theft of his motorcycle and that his WPI was 19%. The majority held that the Panel had to give Bell an opportunity to respond to the motorcycle-gang concern, but it did not have to investigate his credibility or reconcile every earlier account. The reporting inconsistency did not trigger cl 6.41 because it was not relevant to the clinical assessment. The majority also considered the Panel's reasons adequate and read them as treating the closely connected events as one causative incident. The Panel's job was to assess medical causation and impairment, not decide the legal boundaries of a motor accident. Ball JA dissented on Ground 3, reasoning that the attempted theft and the collision could be separate events and that the Panel needed to identify which caused the psychological injury.
Before: Kirk JA, Stern JA, McHugh JA
The Court of Appeal dismissed Smith's attempt to have the District Court's APVO decision set aside for jurisdictional error. It held that an APVO assessment under s 19 includes a jurisdictional assessment of the feared conduct and a separate decision about whether to make an order. The jurisdictional assessment is reviewed for correctness on appeal. Harassment or molestation under s 7(1)(a) does not require proof that the person intended to harass. The Court also held that the provisions' limited and incidental effect on political communication was justified by their purpose of protecting people from intimidation. The decision does not reconsider the merits of the APVO application; it decides whether the asserted legal errors warranted supervisory relief.
Before: Ward P, Leeming JA, Stern JA
Daracon challenged permission for Mr Kelsall to pursue additional allegations about dust exposure and Daracon's role in directing or controlling work. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. It found that Daracon had not shown, with current evidence, that it could not prepare for a fair hearing. The Court also found no demonstrated legal error in the Tribunal's treatment of the relevant procedural rules or its reasons. Separately, the Court warned that a company does not automatically have a right to multiple legal teams just because different insurers may be involved.
Before: Member Decision
Before: Wright J at [1]Hamill J at [2]Chen J at [72]
Before: McHugh JA at [1], Hamill J at [2], Yehia J at [3]
Before: Price AJA at [1], Ierace J at [91], Rigg J at [92]
Before: Scotting DCJ
Before: Peatman AC
Before: Thorpe AC
Before: Targett C
Before: Horton C
Before: Beasley J
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Peden J