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 P, Colvin J
Before: Taylor J
Before: Bell CJ, Leeming JA, McHugh JA
The Court of Appeal refused Dr Nguyen’s request to reopen its earlier dismissal of his appeal. It said the reopening rule is for correcting clear, inadvertent errors, not for having another attempt at arguments already decided. The Court had considered the employment and grant-loss arguments. It found that the evidence did not establish that further employment would have been offered, and that the grant-loss material relied on either stated claimed amounts or was a report that had not been admitted into evidence. The application was dismissed, with no further costs order.
Before: Leeming JA at [1]Mitchelmore JA at [2]Adamson JA at [63]
The Court of Appeal did not decide the case afresh or reconsider whether Spillane was guilty. It examined whether the District Court’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error. The court found that the guard had been sufficiently questioned, that the appeal judge’s reasons showed consideration of the applicant’s evidence and submissions, and that the challenged evidence and findings did not establish reviewable error. The amended summons was dismissed.
Before: G Blake AM SC, Principal MemberJ Ledda, Senior Member
Before: E Bishop SC, Senior MemberPH Molony, Senior Member
Before: Washington C
Before: Targett C
Before: Pain J
Before: Kunc J
Before: Ms J