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: Bell CJ, Payne JA, Stern JA
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Bolton’s appeal concerning the validity of the steps taken to hold a YGL shareholders’ meeting. It held that the proceedings were about the meeting, not the takeover bid, even though the meeting could affect the bid’s practical course. The Court also upheld the conclusions that the constitution allowed member resolutions to remove and replace directors, that appointing directors did not itself give KCL a financial benefit, and that the evidence supported the finding about YGL’s response to the ASX. Mr Bolton was ordered to pay KCL’s costs.
Before: Adamson JA, McHugh JA, Griffiths AJA
The Deputy President decided the Commission appeal using an approach that asked whether the original Member’s factual findings were open to be made. The Court of Appeal had changed the governing approach in Culhana, requiring a more direct appellate assessment while still giving appropriate weight to the original Member’s evidentiary advantages. The Deputy President’s use of the former approach was an error of law. The Court accepted that the error was material, set the decision aside and sent the matter back to a different Presidential member. The Court did not decide whether the employee did or did not have current working capacity.
Before: Free JA
The Court dismissed Gaynor's appeal because he had not obtained leave and had not shown that the amount realistically at stake reached the $100,000 threshold for appealing as of right. The main claimed additional exposure was a payment to a charity if he failed to comply with other orders. The Court held that s 108(7) did not authorise such a payment: it concerned compensatory damages payable to the complainant, while Burns disavowed any payment to himself. The Attorney General succeeded and received a costs order. This is general legal information, not legal advice; Zoe can make mistakes, and a qualified Australian lawyer should check it before anyone acts on it, relies on it, or uses any draft.
Before: R C Titterton OAM, Senior MemberD Goldstein, Senior Member
Before: P H Molony, Senior MemberJ Redfern PSM, Senior Member
Before: Member Decision
Before: Adamson JA at [1], Garling J at [31], Sweeney J at [32]
Before: Bell CJ at [1], Payne JA at [153], N Adams J at [154].
Before: Wright J at [1], Hamill J at [96], Chen J at [102]
Before: Walsh C
Before: Macken AC
Before: Walsh C
Before: Gray C
Before: Stern J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Bradley JA
The applicants asked the Court of Appeal to pause a warrant that would remove them from their rental premises, mainly so they could have more time to find somewhere else to live. The judge recognised their reported hardship and efforts to find accommodation. However, because they did not intend to challenge the end of the tenancy and appeared unlikely to overturn the warrant order, the judge considered that the application was really asking the Court to grant extra time rather than preserve matters for a promising appeal. The stay was refused. The judgment does not decide the underlying tenancy appeal or make a final ruling on whether the applicants could appeal the QCAT stay decision.
Before: Mullins J, Bowskill CJ, Bond JA, Boddice JA
Blackmore wanted permission to appeal his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The Court did not decide whether that argument was right. It struck out the application because he had not filed the required submissions, did not attend the hearing, and had not otherwise taken steps to move the case forward. The judgment therefore resolves the application on procedural grounds, not the merits of the sentence.
Before: Wood J, Brett J, Cuthbertson J, Act J
Before: Abadee DCJ
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq