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: Payne JA at [1]Adamson JA at [2]Stern JA at [82]
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Panel’s decision that the claimant’s accident-related lumbar injury was not a threshold injury. The Panel had found that the accident caused lumbar symptoms and that a medical assessor later detected radiculopathy. Read fairly as a whole, the Panel’s reasons sufficiently explained how those findings led to a non-threshold classification. Its certificate’s description of the injury as “soft tissue” did not invalidate the result, because the statutory and regulatory context made the radiculopathy significant. The Panel also had later evidence correcting Allianz’s understanding about when the claimant first sought treatment. The appeal was dismissed, with Allianz ordered to pay the claimant’s costs.
Before: Adamson JA
The Court of Appeal decided that the money held in Court should be released to Builtcom rather than remain frozen while its appeal proceeded. Builtcom’s appeal concerned items the adjudicator had not assessed on their merits, but it did not challenge the approximately $8.5 million already awarded to Builtcom. VSD had not appealed the dismissal of its own challenge to that amount. The Court recognised that the parties disputed whether the Act would allow the unchallenged amount to be revisited after a remitter, but did not decide that question on this motion. It held that the Act’s payment-flow and risk-allocation policies favoured payment to Builtcom, with VSD bearing the interim risk of difficult restitution. The merits of the appeal and the meaning of s 32A remained unresolved.
Before: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy PresidentD Robertson, Principal Member
Before: Adamson JA at [1]Hamill J at [47]Ierace J at [64]
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Before: Anderson SC DCJ
Before: Neilson DCJ
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Before: Kullen AC
Before: Davidson AC
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Before: Brereton J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Mr P
Before: Johns J
Before: Mr J, Ms J
Before: Gillard J, Bell J