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: Riethmuller J
Before: Davis J
Before: Freeburn J, Flanagan JA, Bradley JA
The Court of Appeal held that a material change under s 47B is not limited to permanent physical changes or changes in how a lot is used. Changes in body corporate expenses can also be relevant, but the change must have a significant effect on the contribution regime. QCAT had evidence about four expense categories that appeared to benefit the residential lots more than the commercial lot. The Court held that the evidence was not absent merely because the body corporate described it as weak. Leave was confined to two grounds, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Before: Kelly J, Brown JA, Boddice JA
The Court of Appeal did not reconsider whether the burial assistance limits were discriminatory or whether the funding decision was correct. It considered whether the proposed grounds could be appealed from QCATA's final decision and whether any legal error justified leave. Most proposed grounds had not been decided by QCATA, and one alleged factual error rather than a question of law. The Human Rights Act ground was legally arguable in form, but the Act did not apply to the earlier decision and proceedings because of its transitional provision. Leave was refused.
Before: Campbell J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Walsh C
Before: Miller AC
Before: AC Coetzee
Before: Miller AC
Before: Peatman AC
Before: Porter C
Before: Walsh C
Before: Peatman AC
Before: Porter C
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Before: Griffiths AJA
The Court did not decide the appeal’s merits. It decided that the appellants had to provide $60,000 security for the respondent’s appeal costs, in three instalments. The appellants had proposed an additional undertaking tied to equity in a property, but the evidence did not adequately address concerns about costs, debts, mortgages, valuation, and a newly added joint tenant. Because the appellants had already had an opportunity to provide evidence and the appeal was approaching, the Court did not give them more time. The appeal proceedings were stayed until the first instalment was paid. The respondent’s request to have the appeal dismissed if security was not provided remained adjourned.
Before: Bell CJ at [1], McHugh JA at [2], Griffiths AJA at [174].
The Court of Appeal confirmed that a court can stay enforcement of a judgment created by a security-of-payment adjudication. The Act's preference for prompt payment to contractors is important, but it does not automatically prevent a stay. A court may consider the homeowner's case in separate proceedings, what the adjudicator did not decide, the consumer context, and the practical balance of convenience. The primary judge was entitled to consider those matters and to require the judgment money to be paid into court while the dispute continued. The appeal was dismissed.
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Before: Hindman J