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: Palmer J
Before: Mr J
Before: Ms J
Before: Dr J
Before: Middleton J
Before: Nichols J
Before: Matthews J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Kunc J
Before: Garling J
Before: N Adams J
Before: Leeming JA
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Before: Pritchard J
Before: Pain J
Before: Mitchelmore JA
The Court of Appeal dismissed Byrne's appeal because he had not obtained leave to appeal. The District Court had struck out his pleading and dismissed the case after considering whether it was adequately pleaded and disclosed a cause of action, not after deciding the underlying negligence claims on their merits. Those orders were therefore interlocutory for the statutory appeal rules, even though they ended the case in practical terms. The Court also rejected the argument that a separate statutory provision about summary judgment made this kind of summary dismissal appealable as of right.
Before: Adamson JA at [1]Stern JA at [127]Price AJA at [128]
The Court held that the Larsens' claim was not defeated simply because they had not shown that their house would be worth more with the cladding they originally contracted for. The relevant loss was the contractual right to have Maxline 340 installed, which they gave up after misleading or deceptive conduct led them to agree to a variation. The starting point for measuring that loss was the cost of installing the promised cladding. The respondents did not establish that this was unreasonable. The Court allowed the appeal, but did not set a final damages amount in the orders reproduced here. It directed further steps so the Court of Appeal could decide quantum.
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Christensen AJ