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: Taylor J
Before: Adamson JA, Ball JA, Free JA
Grapple argued that Jarrod Conroy transferred property to his mother to keep it beyond Grapple's reach when Prana entered administration. The Court of Appeal found that the arrangement was, in substance, a sale for value: Ingrid paid to discharge the mortgage and reimburse Lucas, who had funded most of the original purchase. Those payments broadly matched the property's value and left Conroy with no benefit. Although the transaction favoured Lucas and Sempre over Grapple, that preference alone did not prove an intent to defraud creditors under s 37A. The nil-consideration wording on the transfer form did not outweigh the evidence of payment. The appeal was dismissed. The court also gave alternative reasons about Ingrid's lack of notice, while stating that s 37A(3) did not need to be decided.
Before: Ward ACJ, Mitchelmore JA, Kirk JA, Adamson JA, McHugh JA
The Court of Appeal held that, for payroll-tax purposes, Uber received services from drivers under their driver contracts when drivers transported riders and rated them. The fact that riders also received the transport service did not prevent Uber from receiving a service. Referrals were different: they arose under separate incentive contracts, although that distinction did not change the overall result. The vehicle-use exemption did not apply because driving was inseparable from using the car and vehicle use was not the dominant characteristic of the driver contracts. Payments Uber collected from riders and passed on to drivers were both related to the drivers’ work and “paid or payable” by Uber for the statutory scheme. The appeal succeeded, the cross-appeal failed, and the Court allowed no further remission of premium interest beyond what had already been agreed.
Before: Ward P at [1], Mitchelmore JA at [78], Harrison JA at [79]
The solicitors were found to have breached their duty by not identifying and addressing a problem with the life-estate arrangements in the sale contract. That did not establish that the breach caused the appellants’ loss. The evidence did not show that the vendor would probably have agreed to change the life estate in 2012. Nor did it show that the life estate caused the failure to complete in 2017: Mr Fussell did not use available finance while seeking a better deal. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Before: Stern JA, Free JA
The Court of Appeal refused the applicants permission to appeal. It held that the primary judge’s decision to reopen the case had to be assessed using the whole hearing record, not one phrase taken from a short concluding statement. The record showed that the judge considered whether the respondent had an arguable case, why he missed the hearing, the applicants’ asserted prejudice, the importance of finality and a payment condition directed to costs. The Court also held that the medical evidence was open to consideration even though the judge regarded the certificates as poor. The applicants did not establish the kind of error needed to challenge a discretionary decision.
Before: Leeming JA at [1], Free JA at [8], N Adams J at [9].
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1], Ierace J at [48], Coleman J at [51]
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Before: Pullinger AC
Before: Targett C
Before: Pullinger AC
Before: Nichols AC
Before: Targett C
Before: Espinosa C
Before: Douglas AC
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Rees J
Before: McGuire J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Williams J, Brown JA, Boddice JA
The Court of Appeal held that a worker is not “available to work” merely because they are physically able to work: legal restrictions also matter. But the relevant work is not limited to the worker’s usual job. It includes reasonable alternative duties the State could lawfully assign. Johnston’s suspended teacher registration prevented him from teaching, but did not prevent him from doing administrative work for the State. The State’s appeal was dismissed, even though the Court disagreed with part of the Industrial Court’s reasoning.
Before: Treston J
Before: Quigley J
Before: Schonell J