Research guide
How to check if a case is still good law in Australia
Before you cite an Australian case in an essay, a problem question, or a brief for a tutorial, you need to know the current status of the authority. A case that was leading when it was decided can be overruled, distinguished into a narrow fact pattern, or overtaken by a legislative change. This guide walks you through the four-step check that a careful researcher runs before relying on any authority.
Last updated 12 April 2026. Written by the CaseSharp team in Sydney. This is research guidance, not legal advice. Consult a qualified practitioner before relying on an authority in a live matter.
Short answer
Open the authority on a case citator and read how later courts have treated it: followed, applied, distinguished, or overruled. Work through the later cases that have cited the authority, and read the judgment itself. Check whether the underlying legislation has been amended or repealed. If everything checks out, cite with confidence. If any step raises a red flag, find a newer authority or escalate to a practitioner.
What does “good law” mean?
An authority is “good law” when the proposition you want to rely on is still accepted by later courts and has not been overturned, distinguished into irrelevance, or superseded by legislation. The test is not whether the case exists. It is whether the point you are citing the case for is still sound.
This matters because an Australian court, a supervising solicitor, and a marker all judge research by whether the cited authorities actually support the proposition. Citing a case that has been overruled on the point you relied on is the fastest way to lose credibility in a submission or an assignment.
The four-step check
Find the case
Open a case citator that covers Australian case law across federal, state, and territory jurisdictions. Search by citation if you have one, by party name if you have the parties, or by plain English if you only have the issue. Once you have the case open, note the citation, the court, and the decision date. You need those three facts for the later steps.
Check direct treatment
Read how later courts have treated the authority, working through the later cases that cite it. There are four core treatments to look for: followed, applied, distinguished, and overruled. Followed means a later court expressly adopted the reasoning for a similar fact pattern. Applied means a later court used the reasoning without needing to adopt it as precedent. Distinguished means a later court accepted the reasoning but held it did not apply to the facts in front of them. Overruled means a higher court expressly rejected the reasoning. A single case can carry more than one treatment depending on which part you are relying on, which is why you read the citing case at the paragraph it turns on rather than trusting a single label.
Read the citing cases at their pinpoints
Scan the list of later cases that cite the authority, and open the ones relevant to your question at the paragraph they turn on. If the later case distinguished on a fact pattern similar to yours, the authority may no longer speak to your matter. If the later case applied the principle across a wide range of fact patterns, you can cite with more confidence. Reading the citing case is the difference between knowing a case was cited and knowing what it was cited for. CaseSharp sorts the citing cases by each case's citation count within its corpus; that count does not decide which case is relevant to your question.
Check legislative overlay
If the case turns on statutory interpretation, check whether the controlling section has been amended or repealed on the official legislation site since the decision. An authority can be good law on the common law point and superseded on the statutory point in the same judgment.
A worked example: Donoghue v Stevenson
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 established the modern law of negligence. A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their product, even where there is no contract between them. The neighbour principle in Lord Atkin’s speech is the part most cited.
Running the four-step check on Donoghue v Stevenson in an Australian research context: step one confirms the case and its citation. Step two shows that later Australian courts have followed and applied the neighbour principle for decades, most recently refined by the High Court in Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 on the duty test and the appropriate salient features for novel categories. Step three, reading the later cases that cite Donoghue, shows the neighbour principle applied across a great many Australian decisions, with distinguishing limited to specific fact patterns. A citator in your law library's databases lists those citing cases. You still need to choose the cases relevant to your question. Step four reveals the statutory overlay: the Civil Liability Acts in each Australian state and territory now govern the duty, breach, and causation analysis for personal injury, so the common law principle is still sound but the statute controls the application.
Before relying on Donoghue v Stevenson for a modern duty-of-care proposition, read the later decisions that address your issue and the relevant Civil Liability Act. A list of citing cases is a research aid, not a final current-law conclusion.
Red flags that should stop you citing
- A later case that overruled the point you want to cite.
- A distinguished treatment in a later case with the same fact pattern as yours.
- A statutory amendment to the controlling section after the decision.
- A High Court decision that revisits the area and narrows or rewrites the test.
- An inconsistent line of intermediate appellate authority on the point, suggesting the area is unsettled.
Frequently asked questions
- How often should I re-check an authority I rely on regularly?
- Before every substantive use. The picture can change overnight when a later case lands, so run the citator again each time and read anything new that cites the case.
- Is an “applied” treatment the same as “followed”?
- Close, not identical. Followed signals a later court expressly adopting the reasoning. Applied signals a later court using the reasoning in practice. A followed treatment carries more persuasive weight, but both indicate the authority still speaks to the area.
- What if I cannot find the treatment I need?
- Absence of treatment is itself a signal. A case with no later treatment in an active area of law may have been quietly set aside by practice. Ask a supervising solicitor or a tutor before relying on a case with a silent citator trail.
- Can CaseSharp check this for me?
- Only step one. CaseSharp does not decide whether a case is still good law and does not label later cases as followed or overruled. It checks that the case citations in your own draft agree with the court records we hold, and links you to each judgment to read. Steps two to four are a citator in your library's databases and your own reading.
Ready to check your next citation?
CaseSharp helps with step one: it checks the case citations in your draft against the court records we hold and links you to each judgment. It uses no generative AI, and the reading is still yours. Check 3 drafts a month, free.