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: Carter J
Before: Collins AM, Abraham J
Before: Shariff J
Before: O'Sullivan J
Before: Kennett JJ
Before: Horan JJ
Before: Mossop J
Before: Baker J
Before: Bell CJ at [1], Payne JA at [18], McHugh JA at [95]
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Scott Street was not beneficially owned solely by the person who paid its purchase price. The primary judge found that the parties deliberately bought it in joint names as part of a shared investment endeavour, and that Costaras had made substantial financial and non-financial contributions to their common wealth. When the relationship and endeavour ended, equity could account for those contributions and the parties’ circumstances. The two-thirds/one-third division was not shown to be erroneous. The Court also noted that AI-generated legal submissions can contain irrelevant material and invented cases, and stressed the need for careful verification.
Before: Ward P at [1]Kirk JA at [2]Free JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Justine had been partly dependent on her grandmother as a baby and that her circumstances warranted bringing a family provision claim. But those findings did not establish that she should receive more from the estate. The primary judge had found that Justine's claimed needs were not proved, that she would receive a substantial inheritance and that other beneficiaries had significant needs. The Court of Appeal concluded that the extra award effectively relieved Justine of the consequences of having to repay money obtained from Margaret through unconscionable conduct and undue influence, without being tied to any demonstrated financial need. The appeal was allowed and Justine's family provision summons was dismissed.
Before: Free JA, Griffiths AJA
Paulson had been dismissed from his government-sector employment in 2014. After the Industrial Relations Commission found the dismissal harsh in 2017, but considered reinstatement or re-employment impracticable, he pursued a District Court claim seeking damages based on alleged implied terms in his employment contract and a later duty to re-employ him. The District Court gave him time to amend his pleading, but he missed the deadline. It later refused an extension, reasoning that the proposed claim remained legally unsustainable and was statute barred. The Court of Appeal held that leave was needed to appeal the summary dismissal. It found that Paulson had not shown the kind of principle, public importance, or more-than-merely-arguable injustice required for leave. It also agreed that any claim based on terms governing termination would accrue when the employment was terminated, and found no sensible basis for a separate duty to re-employ him after the Commission's decision. Leave was refused with costs.