Case law library
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
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.
1,627 case citations
Before: Emmett J
Before: Mossop J
Before: Berman AJ
Before: Muller J
Before: Muller J
Before: Elkaim AJ
Before: Kunc J
Before: Boulten J
Before: Muller J
Before: Slattery J
Before: Muller J
Before: Faulkner J
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1]; Chen J at [2]; Sweeney J at [60].
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Nixon J
Before: McNaughton J
Before: Sirtes J
Before: Lonergan J
Before: Coleman J
Before: Schmidt AJ
Before: Payne JA at [1]; Ball JA at [2]; Griffiths AJA at [66]
The Court of Appeal did not decide the final amount the client must pay. It held that the District Court had to conduct a real rehearing of the costs dispute and decide for itself whether the legal costs were fair and reasonable. The primary judge had instead reinstated the assessor's figure without carrying out that assessment. Because the Review Panel had identified reasons that could have led to a lower figure, the omission could have affected the result and amounted to jurisdictional error. The Court set aside the District Court orders and sent the dispute back for reconsideration.
Before: McCallum CJ
Before: Nixon J
Before: Harrison AJ
Before: Black J
Before: Richmond J
Before: Black J
Before: Bell CJ at [1] Kirk JA at [2] Free JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Reece was responsible for a significant part of the delay that meant no occupation certificate was obtained by the Lease deadline. Council had required a BCA report before Reece lodged its application, and the required report needed to assess both the existing building and the proposed fit-out clause by clause. Reece’s report did not do that, and the later correction process took time. The Court found that the Fire Safety Order did not explain the initial report requirement or establish an independent cause of the missed deadline. Other information requests were not enough to change the result, and the construction program could have been achieved in time. The appeal was dismissed, and Reece was ordered to pay Alamdo’s costs.
Before: Ward P at [1] Leeming JA at [10] Kirk JA at [29]
The Court of Appeal had to decide whether an ESO application could continue after Benshabir’s prison sentence was set aside on appeal. The majority read the 2018 amendment as allowing the custody or supervision requirement to be met when the application was filed, even though Benshabir had since ceased to be an eligible offender. Kirk JA disagreed, finding that interpretation required too many additions to the statute and conflicted with its wider structure. The appeal was allowed by majority and the proceedings sent back to the Common Law Division. All judges rejected the argument that an ESO application requires a sentence or supervision period of at least 12 months.
Before: Black J