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: McNaughton J
Before: Yehia J
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Before: Jones JJ
The High Court dismissed the ACCC’s appeals. The majority held that a company does not arrive at an understanding with a union merely because it acts in response to the union’s threat. There must be communication, by words or conduct, of a commitment, unless the party making the demand has dispensed with the need for a response. Hutchinson did not communicate assent to the CFMEU, and the ACCC did not establish that the CFMEU had waived that requirement. Edelman J agreed with the result on a reciprocity analysis. Steward J dissented, reasoning that in the specific context of s 45E, capitulation to a union threat could itself evidence the relevant arrangement or understanding.
Before: Jones JJ
The High Court did not decide whether ZT was guilty or whether his conviction was unreasonable. It decided that the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal had not properly assessed the jury's possible advantage in hearing and watching the recordings that contained the main alleged admissions. Because the appellate majority doubted the admissions but had not reviewed any recordings, it could not properly conclude that the jury's advantage could not resolve that doubt. The conviction appeal must therefore be reconsidered by the Court of Criminal Appeal under the High Court's explanation of the law.
Before: Jones JJ
The High Court distinguished detention while the government processes a pending visa application from detention whose purpose is removal. The rule from NZYQ about there being no real prospect of removal applied to detention for removal, not automatically to these claimants while their applications were still being decided. Neither claimant had made the written removal request required by s 198(1), and neither application had reached the stage that engaged the relevant removal duty in s 198(6). The Court also found that detention facilitated actual visa-processing enquiries and addressed risks that the claimants might abscond. It therefore answered No to both legal questions. It did not decide whether the processing time was unreasonable. Edelman J considered that mandamus, rather than release, would be the remedy if a decision had not been made within a reasonable time.
Before: Nicholas J
Before: Button J
Before: Abraham J
Before: Ms J
Before: Gaudron J
Before: Buss P
Before: Mr J
Before: Magistrate Stanton
Before: Member Hon J
Before: Black J