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: Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Before: Leeming JA at [1], Stern JA at [258], Griffiths AJA at [259]
The Court held that the trust deed did not let one unit holder end the trust on their own. The tax-related clause was read collectively, alongside the deed’s unanimous termination provision. The Court also held that the oppression provisions can reach the trust-related affairs of a corporate trustee, but found that the Carrs had not established oppression. Finally, the court’s power to supervise trusts and appoint receivers did not give it a general power to terminate this trust just because the families’ relationship had broken down. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Before: Stern JA at [1], Ball JA at [14], Griffiths AJA at [15]
The Court of Appeal held that the Dicksons had sole use of the garden area for the activities listed in the registered instrument and sole use of the shed for the specified storage and laundry purposes. That did not mean Petrie lost all meaningful ownership or possession of the land. She retained other rights, the burdened area was relatively small, and the rest of her lot was unaffected. The easement was therefore valid. The Court also clarified that reasonable use does not decide what an easement grants; it governs how each owner exercises rights after those rights have been construed.
Before: Kirk JA at [1], Free JA at [2], Griffiths AJA at [3]
Before: Davies J at [1]Cavanagh J at [73]Yehia J at [74]
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Before: Neilson DCJ
Before: Pullinger AC
Before: Porter C
Before: Rees J
Before: Stevenson J
Before: Stevenson J
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Before: Crow J
Before: Mossop J
Before: Mr J, Derrington J
Before: Shariff J
Before: McDonald J