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: Member Chaperon
Before: Owens J
Before: Goodman J
Before: Bell CJ, Leeming JA, Kirk JA
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Bolton's challenge to the chairing of Keybridge's general meeting. The meeting chair's attempted adjournment had already been found invalid, and that finding was not challenged. The Court rejected the claim that Mr Hamilton had first become an interim chair, finding that there was no contested election requiring one. It also rejected the claims that Mr Bolton or Mr Catalano had shown they were willing to chair at the relevant time. Finally, it held that WAM Active's authorised representative could act as chair under Keybridge's Constitution. Several arguments had not been properly raised at trial and were not suitable to be introduced on appeal.
A permanent resident who spent 198 days in Australia during 2023 (two days short of the 200-day requirement) was held liable for surcharge land tax. The Tribunal ruled that the 200-day physical presence requirement is strict and absolute, with no discretion to waive it even where the shortfall was minimal and caused by hospitalisation overseas. The Tribunal also rejected fairness arguments, noting it had no power to grant relief on such grounds. Additionally, the Applicant could not claim an exemption because he stopped living at the property in February 2024, preventing him from meeting the 200-day continuous residence requirement for exemption purposes.
Before: Hamill J at [1]Chen J at [19]McNaughton J at [182]
Before: Ward P at [1], Yehia J at [109], Coleman J at [110]
Before: Ball JA at [1], Yehia J at [27], Coleman J at [28]
Before: Walsh C
Before: Black J
Before: Black J
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Before: Everson SC, DCJ
Before: Noman SC DCJ
Before: McWilliam J