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: Mr J
Before: Gray J
Before: Croft J
Before: Watson J
Before: Mr P, Ms J
Before: Bond JA, Cooper JJ
The Court of Appeal did not decide what the correct risk of harm was in Ms Wolfs’ injury claim. It decided that her pleading had to state that risk clearly enough for Cootharinga to know the case it had to meet. Her pleading described the events and said a risk existed, but did not identify the risk itself in a way that exposed the disagreement between the parties. That made the pleading potentially unfair and liable to delay the trial. The Court therefore struck out the relevant paragraphs but allowed Ms Wolfs to replead them. It also declined to hear a separate challenge to costs from another application because Cootharinga had not obtained the leave required for that costs-only appeal.
Before: Williams J, Mullins P, Bond JA
Anderson argued that a partly unintelligible recording should have been kept from the jury because jurors might guess what could not be heard and give the recording too much weight. The Court of Appeal accepted that parts were difficult to understand, but found much of it intelligible and useful to both sides. Her counsel had made a considered choice not to object and used some passages to support the defence case. The Court regarded that choice as rational and found no unfairness or miscarriage of justice. The conviction appeal was dismissed.
Before: Ierace J
Before: Pike J
Before: Horton C
Before: Targett C
Before: Washington C
Before: Davidson AC
Before: Davidson AC
Before: Gibson DCJ
Before: Kirk JA at [1], Davies J at [2], Wright J at [3]
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1], Rothman J at [2], Yehia J at [104]
Before: Adamson JA at [1]Hamill J at [4]Ierace J at [54]
Before: Kirk JA at [1]Davies J at [2]Wright J at [94]
Before: Price AJA
The Court let Joseph make some changes to his challenge to the development consent, including several grounds alleging jurisdictional error. It did not let him add most of the allegations that the respondents acted dishonestly, colluded or abused court processes. The documents he relied on did not, in the Court’s view, provide an arguable evidential basis for those serious allegations. The Court allowed a procedural-fairness ground to remain arguable, without deciding whether it would succeed. Joseph had to pay the respondents’ costs of both motions.