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: McCallum CJ
Before: McCallum CJ
Before: Mossop J
Before: Kirk JA at [1], Adamson JA at [78], Stern JA at [80]
The Court of Appeal held that skin can fall within the Act’s definition of soft tissue. The key is whether connecting, supporting or surrounding other body structures or organs is a significant and characteristic physical function of the tissue. The parties accepted that skin met that test under Allianz’s construction. Because there was no evidence of nerve injury, the wrist lacerations were soft tissue injuries on the facts before the Court. The Court restored the medical assessor’s decision and set aside the Review Panel’s contrary decision.
Before: Griffiths AJA
The Club wanted to prevent money held in Court from being paid out under an order made after its challenge to a construction adjudication had been dismissed. Griffiths AJA considered that the payment-out order was interlocutory, so the Club needed leave to appeal it. The proposed appeal appeared to turn on a calculation that did not account for payments made to the Sub-Contractor and the resulting reductions in the certified debt. As the Builder remained unpaid and the balance of convenience favoured it, the Court refused a stay and dismissed the motion with costs.
Before: Griffiths AJA
The Court of Appeal temporarily protected Mrs Musumeci from specified orders while her appeal is decided. The judge considered it arguable that the original trial was unfair because medical evidence indicated she could not participate meaningfully or instruct lawyers, and her tutor could not readily fill that role. The risk of bankruptcy before the appeal was resolved outweighed the identified prejudice to Westpac, especially because the appeal was listed soon. The companies did not receive the same protection: they had not appealed the money judgments against them, and the judge was not satisfied that their challenge to a related property order was arguable.
Before: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member
Before: Member Decision
Before: Harrison CJ at CL at [1]Dhanji J at [2]McNaughton J at [70]
Before: Davies J at [1]Wright J at [2]Dhanji J at [3]
Before: Davies J at [1], Wright J at [2], Sweeney J at [189]
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Before: Thorpe AC
Before: Byrne AC
Before: Byrne AC
Before: Gray C
Before: Byrne AC
Before: Weinstein J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Campbell J
Before: Pike J
Before: Williams J, Boddice JA
The Court of Appeal did not find that the trial judge had been shown to be wrong to discharge the juror whose wife was in hospital. But the court unanimously found a more important problem with what happened next. Once the jury had 11 members, it asked how many jurors made a majority. That question did not prove that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The judge gave a majority-verdict direction without first establishing that unanimity was unlikely after further deliberation. The court held that this procedural failure caused a miscarriage of justice. It set aside the guilty verdicts on counts 1 and 2 and ordered a new trial on those counts. It did not decide the separate appeal ground about access to the recording of preliminary complaint evidence.
Before: Members Dr P, Dr P
Before: Magistrate Court