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: Jones JJ
The High Court majority held that the payments SAPL made to PBS were payments for concentrate, not royalties paid to PepsiCo or SVC. The intellectual property licence was part of a larger commercial arrangement under which SAPL also undertook obligations that benefited the brand owners. PBS, not PepsiCo or SVC, sold the concentrate and received the money. The majority also held that the Commissioner's proposed alternatives for the DPT analysis did not reflect the commercial substance of the arrangement, so there was no DPT tax benefit. The Commissioner's appeals were dismissed. The Court was divided: three Justices would have allowed the appeals, but the four-Justice majority's orders control.
Before: Jagot JJ
The High Court majority held that an online electoral post missing required authorisation details gives rise to one contravention once it has been communicated to at least one person. It does not create another contravention every time another person sees the same post. The case involved three posts, so the primary judge's three-contravention approach was restored. Edelman J dissented, reasoning that digital transmissions received by different people should generally be counted separately, like separately distributed pamphlets.
Before: Slattery J
Before: Black J
Before: Richmond J
Before: Black J
Before: Slattery J
Before: Palmer J
Before: Member J
Before: General Member J
Before: Coroner Archer, Coroner Jane
Before: Senior Member J