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: Ward P at [1], Payne JA at [2], Adamson JA at [105]
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Mr Paule owed fiduciary duties to Dr Kambouris and DJD in the particular circumstances of the restructure and capital raising. The case did not establish that directors always owe fiduciary duties directly to shareholders. The Court also found that the appellants had a fair opportunity to contest the claim concerning DJD, that their proposed alternative version of events was speculative, and that the evidence did not establish that BWT UK could claim the same loss. The appeal was dismissed and the appellants were ordered to pay costs.
Before: Payne JA at [1]Stern JA at [2]Free JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal upheld the family provision order for Arthur. Con's final will deliberately excluded him, but the family provision assessment required consideration of the broader circumstances, including Arthur's financial position, his former relationship with Con, the earlier succession plan, and Voula's relative position. The appeal court found that Voula's comparison of the parties' financial outcomes did not accurately account for how the orders operated, including the notional estate and costs. Because she did not show that the result was plainly unjust or affected by a reviewable error, the appeal was dismissed.
Before: Bell CJ at [1], Kirk JA at [2], Price AJA at [123]
The Court of Appeal dismissed the State’s appeal. It held that a school’s responsibility is not automatically limited to the final bell or the school boundary. In the circumstances here, Fairvale High School needed to have a responsible adult available to help students for a reasonable time after school. T2 returned to school seeking help shortly after 3:15pm, but the office was closed and no teacher was available. The Court found that keeping an adult available was a low-burden precaution and that T2 probably would not have been assaulted if one had been available. The Court did not uphold every part of the primary judge’s reasoning: it rejected the conclusion that the school breached its duty by not requiring XY to complete the RAGE Program, and it did not decide whether the failure to document a risk assessment was a breach because causation was not proved for that omission.
Before: Bell CJ at [1], Adamson JA at [2], McHugh JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Locke had requested QFS’s post-Phase 1 work and that the amount charged was fair and reasonable. It rejected the argument that every inference from the records had to be put to Locke in cross-examination: he had not given evidence denying the requests, and QFS’s case and supporting material were apparent. The Court also considered his knowledge of the work, his failure to dispute the detailed invoices, assurances about payment and payments made when deciding whether the charges were reasonable.
Before: Garling J at [1]Ierace J at [2]Dhanji J at [3]
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Before: Barrow SC DCJ
Before: Neilson DCJ
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Before: Walsh C
Before: Galwey AC
Before: Galwey AC
Before: Pepper J
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Before: Weinstein J
Before: Cavanagh J
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Peden J
Before: Adamson JA
Before: Richmond J
Before: Mullins P, Bradley JA, Callaghan J
The Court of Appeal held that the buyer could not cancel the rent-roll sale merely because owners of 11 properties had given notice to end their appointments. The contract anticipated that appointments might end and set out how that risk would affect the final payment. The appointments could still be assigned while the owners’ notice periods were running. Since the buyer did not complete, it breached the contract. The seller was awarded damages of $104,678, assessed at 26 August 2024. Costs and interest remained to be determined.
Before: GARDE J