| Forever FREE | Student FREE | Student PLUS | Sole Business PLUS | Enterprise PLUS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing |
upon registration AUD$ 0 AUD$ 0 per/mo |
upon registration AUD$ 0 AUD$ 0 per/mo |
upon registration AUD$ tba AUD$ tba per/mo |
upon registration AUD$ tba AUD$ tba per/mo |
upon registration AUD$ tba AUD$ tba per/mo |
| Court List | |||||
| Basic case search Instant search, self-service. Includes Case Name, Parties, Court Location, Court Room Number, Judicial Officer's name. |
|||||
| Search cases since 2017 Civil case primarily within the NSW and Federal Court systems. NB: lawlink.nsw.gov.au searches typically only list cases over the last seven (7) days. |
|||||
| Links to profile of each of the litigation parties E.g. Applicant / Plaintiff v Respondent / Defendant |
|||||
| Corrections If there is ever some information that we've published that you believe is incorrect, you can always 'update' or correct that information, free. |
|||||
| Updated case statuses We update about 230,000 case status so you don't have to. But if we've missed something you're able to send us an update which we'll incorporate if it appears that status is correct. |
|||||
| Add a photo - to a litigant profile A photo can be helpful to subscribers to identify for instance which 'Mark Smith' it is that is the subject of litigation |
|||||
| Add a social link A social link can be helpful to subscribers to identify for instance which 'Mark Smith' it is that is the subject of litigation |
|||||
| Add an employer An employer can be helpful to subscribers to identify for instance which 'Mark Smith' it is that is the subject of litigation |
|||||
| Add a job description A job description can be helpful to subscribers to identify for instance which 'Mark Smith' it is that is the subject of litigation |
|||||
| Add contact details Contact details can be helpful to subscribers to identify for instance which 'Mark Smith' it is that is the subject of litigation |
|||||
| FREE Debt Collection service We offer a free (no win/no fee) debt collection service. T&Cs apply. |
|||||
| FREE Creditor Negotiation service We offer a free (no win/no fee) creditor negotiation service. T&Cs apply. |
|||||
| FREE Small Business Restructuring service We offer a free introductory Small Business Restructuring service. Where Small Business' have unmanagable debts and need to restructure, where it would appear that creditor negotiations may not be sufficient and the Small Business is at risk of insolvency, we offer to introduce you to our professional network. T&Cs apply. |
|||||
| FREE Refinancing service We offer a free introductory Refinancing service. Where (typically Small Business' or sole traders) have unmanageable debts and need to refinance, we offer to introduce you to our professional network. T&Cs apply. |
|||||
| 14 day trial Test out our service FREE for 14 days, cancel if your not completely happy to continue to use the service |
N/A | N/A | |||
| Secure sign-in For added security - sign-in with Google, Apple or other credentials. |
N/A | N/A | |||
| Links to Case Law / Judicial decisions Here where possible we include links to the judicial decisions particularly where that decision is available publicly (subject to copyright). |
|||||
| Links to the relevant legislation Here where possible we include links to the legislation cited in a judicial decisions particularly where that decision is available publicly (subject to copyright). |
|||||
| Advanced search - Court hearing date/s Here we give you access to a list of all known court mentions including hearings back to 2017. |
|||||
| Advanced search - Listing Type Here we give you access to a list of the listing type for each of the relevant court mentions including hearings back to 2017, e.g. directions hearing, mentions, conciliation, examination, decisions, etc. |
|||||
| Advanced search - Court hearing date/s Here we give you access to a list of all known court mentions including hearings back to 2017. |
|||||
| Digital Mark J Smith Legal Reference Answer Engine & Digital Agent (Tier 1) Here you get 5 chat streams/sessions to ask Digital Mark J Smith every curly legal question you can think of concerning your specific issues regarding Australian Law and receive High Distinction, fully sourced and referenced case law and legislation citations. Unlimited follow-up questions about any specific legal topic but within the same stream / chat session included. |
|||||
| Cancel anytime - no lock in contracts Month to month plans, cancel if and when our service is no longer required (or move to the Forever FREE plan). |
|||||
| Story telling (bespoke pricing) | |||||
| Litigant research Where you're story is complex, our associate markjsmith.com can undertake world class research with a view to potential story telling |
|||||
| Story telling Our associate and founder markjsmith.com may be willing to help you to tell your story. If you have a story, go to https://www.markjsmith.com/got-a-story |
|||||
| Litigation funding | |||||
| Introductory service We will, if we believe in your case, introduce you to an appropriate 3rd party to, if necessary, help you to prosecute your case and achieve a suitable financial outcome. |
|||||
Price Comparison Table
A great template to show off all of your various packages.
Let's find the right plan for you.
Select an option below:
- Compare FREE & Paid plans
- FREE plans
Add-on packs - PLUS Answers
Add-on packs - PLUS Answers (Tier 3)
FAQ's
-
This website has a 1 star rating on Google Reviews, why should I trust you?
Yes, our Google rating reflects a handful of 1-star reviews—almost all from people named in public court records who dislike the publicity. It’s an occupational hazard for anyone publishing factual court data.
Take this recent example (22 October 2025): a Parramatta lawyer, sued by his own former client, demanded we remove his name or face a “nuclear-level” Google review. The court file is clear—the client was plaintiff, the lawyer defendant, no cross-claim. Yet the threat was explicit: delete the record or be punished with a false review claiming we “lied” and “owed money.” (Redacted screenshot attached below for transparency.)
Here’s why that doesn’t shake our credibility:
- 100 % of our data comes from official court daily law lists—publicly posted by the courts themselves since we started monitoring in 2017. No secret sources, no paid leaks.
- Free, same-day corrections. If we ever get a detail wrong, email us and it’s fixed immediately—no charge, no questions. Accuracy is our only asset.
- Satisfaction guarantee. Try any search. If you’re not happy, full refund, no quibbles.
- Eight years and counting. If what we do were unlawful, we’d have been shut down years ago. Instead, Australia’s top law firms, banks, and insurers quietly rely on us—discreetly, because the data is sensitive, not because the service isn’t trusted.
- Published under my real name. I’m Mark James Smith, sole publisher of CourtList.com.au. My reputation is on the line with every record.
Negative reviews are loud; satisfied users are silent. The ultimate proof is in the product. Run a search, verify the court file yourself, and decide. If it’s not valuable, use the guarantee.
Regards, Mark James Smith CourtList.com.au

-
Can I pay you to remove the case from the internet? I suffer from PTSD and seeing my name online is causing me severe stress.
Dear [Name],
I’m truly sorry to hear the listing is adding to your distress—mental health is no small matter.
Unfortunately, we cannot accept payment to delete or hide any record. Every entry on CourtList.com.au is taken verbatim from the court’s own public daily law list. Removing it for money would:
- Breach the open-justice principle upheld by every Australian superior court.
- Expose us to contempt proceedings or ACCC action for misleading conduct.
- Create an unethical “pay-to-suppress” loophole that wealthy litigants could exploit.
What we can do (free, same-day):
- Correct any factual error (wrong case number, misspelled name, etc.).
- Add a short public note if the court has since made a non-publication order—send us the sealed order and we’ll suppress the record instantly.
- Link to your own statement (max 100 words) alongside the entry, e.g. “The matter was resolved by consent on [date]; I received counselling and have moved forward.”
If the stress is acute, I strongly recommend:
- Contacting Lifeline (13 11 14) or Beyond Blue ( be (1300 22 4636) for immediate support.
- Asking your lawyer to apply for a suppression order—courts routinely grant them for genuine safety/mental-health grounds. Once granted, the listing vanishes from our site within hours.
You’re not alone, and the system does allow exceptions—just not via private payment.
Kind regards, Mark James Smith
Publisher, CourtList.com.au
-
Take it down in 7 days or I sue for defamation and privacy breach. I’ll pay $1,000 to avoid the hassle.
Dear [Name],
- No payment will be accepted—it would constitute an illegal attempt to suppress public court records.
- Defamation/privacy claims fail because:
- We republish only what the court itself publishes.
- Truth is a complete defence (Defamation Act 2005, s 25).
- No “private” facts are disclosed—only party names from open dockets.
Next steps we will take (free):
- Verify the listing matches the official court PDF.
- Offer you a 100-word public rebuttal beside the entry.
- Remove instantly if you obtain a valid suppression order.
Litigation threats are common; none have succeeded in eight years because the data is 100 % public. Save your legal fees—apply to the court for suppression if grounds exist.
Regards, Mark James Smith Publisher
-
What is your satisfaction guarantee?
Read the policy here:
-
Do you have a right to publish private information?
Yes and no.
Open justice is a pillar of our legal system, dating back to the 12th century. It provides visibility and accessibility to all, instilling trust in our legal institutions and preventing potential misconduct. Our websites serve as a testament to this principle.
So actually some details a person may consider "private" are actually clearly enshrined as being in the public.
To request correction of our web record go to:
-
What is No Win, No Fee Debt Collection?
-
How does the Risk-Free Service work?
Clients pay only when their debt is successfully collected. There are no upfront costs or financial risks involved - unless clearly quoted and accepted by the client upfront.
Similarly, if we undertaking a savings fee for you as the debtor, negotiating with the creditor (for instance if you want us to negotiate a reduction in your tax payment for instance), we only charge in proportion to the discount obtained.
-
Are the recovery strategies customized for each case?
Absolutely, we tailor our approaches to suit the unique circumstances of each debt, whether it's an individual/sole trader or business debt. This involves you the creditor giving us access to all the necessary supporting documentation up front to access the nature of the debt or dispute and the prospects of success.
-
What is Advanced Skip Tracing?
We use technology, these databases and other sources including crowd sourcing to locate debtors who may have changed their contact information. We also have access to a crowd sourced pool of contacts through this website which is receiving meaningful traffic from unique user visits per day (many of whom know the debtor) including from people who may also know the whereabouts of particular debtor and who do provide us with tip-off information regularly.
-
How does Negotiation Expertise benefit clients?
-
How do you manage conflicts of interest? Do you ever charge a fee for debt collection and creditor negotiations?
We’re completely transparent about what we do—and what we don’t do on the same case. Here’s the plain-English version:
1. CourtList.com.au = Public Court Archive (Neutral)
- We publish only what the courts themselves make public: party names, case numbers, hearing dates.
- We never edit, hide, or favour one side.
- My own case (Newpoint Reinsurance v Mark James Smith) is listed just like anyone else’s.
2. Separate Help Service (Optional, Disclosed, One-Sided Only)
Sometimes people who appear on court lists reach out for help with:
- Collecting money they’re owed
- Negotiating with creditors to save money
- Refinancing or restructuring a struggling business
- Finding litigation funding or a better lawyer
If you ask for this help, here’s how it works:
What We Do What We Never Do Refer you to a trusted external partner (lawyer, funder, debt specialist) Act for both sides of the same dispute Earn a success fee only if you win or save money Take upfront fees just to make a referral Disclose in writing any fee we’ll earn — before you agree Work against someone whose case is on our site Example:
“Mark, I’m the plaintiff in a $200k debt case. Can you help me collect?” → We connect you with a specialist collector. → If they recover your money, they take their cut, and we get a pre-agreed success fee (e.g. 5%). → We do NOT help the debtor in the same case.
3. Why This Started (Our Roots)
- In 2017, we were business consultants doing coaching, litigation funding, and debt recovery.
- We built CourtList to spot opportunities and help clients early.
- Today, the site gets thousands of visitors weekly—too many for us to help one-on-one.
- So we built a vetted partner network to scale support safely.
4. Conflict Firewall – Simple Rule
We only ever help one side of a dispute — and we tell you upfront if we stand to earn a fee.
- If you’re a creditor, we won’t help the debtor.
- If you’re a debtor, we won’t help the creditor.
- If we can’t help without a conflict, we say no — or refer you to someone independent.
5. Litigation Funding (Rare, Fully Disclosed)
- Occasionally, we (or a partner) fund strong cases.
- You’ll get a clear funding agreement upfront: “We cover costs; we get X% if you win.”
- We never fund the opponent in the same matter.
Bottom Line
- CourtList = public truth, no bias.
- Help service = optional, one-sided, success-based, fully disclosed.
- No double-dipping. Ever.
If you're in a case and need support, just ask — we’ll tell you straight:
✅ “Yes, we can help — here’s who, here’s the cost if you win.”
❌ “No conflict — we can’t take this one.”
Regards, Mark James Smith
Publisher, CourtList.com.au mark@courtlist.com.au
-
Why are you breaching my privacy (the litigant) by publishing historical information about my case?
First off, we're not breaching your privacy—far from it. Court proceedings in Australia, including those in the Federal Court, are fundamentally public by design under the principle of open justice. This means that details like party names, case numbers, and hearing dates from official court lists are published openly by the courts themselves to ensure transparency and accountability in the justice system. We simply aggregate and archive that same public data; we don't access sealed files, private documents, or anything beyond what's already out there for anyone to see.
To put it plainly: If it's on the Federal Court's daily list or public docket, it's fair game for reporting. Historical cases stay listed because they form a vital record—removing them retroactively would undermine the very transparency the courts uphold. (And yes, even my own ongoing matter—Newpoint Reinsurance Company Limited v Mark James Smith (NSD 887/2024)—is fully listed on our site. No one's exempt, including the publisher. That's consistency, not hypocrisy.)
Why We Publish Court Lists
CourtList.com.au exists to make this public information more accessible. Since 2017, we've monitored daily court lists from federal, state, and territory courts across Australia, pulling in data on civil, criminal, and family matters (where public). Our goal? Democratize access to the justice system. Not everyone has the time, tools, or know-how to sift through court websites or visit registries in person. We provide a searchable archive so businesses, journalists, researchers, and everyday people can quickly verify if someone (or a company) has a litigation history—without the hassle.
Think of it like a public records index: We don't judge, sensationalize, or add commentary. It's raw, factual data to help users make informed decisions, whether that's a lender checking a borrower's disputes or a family vetting a new partner.
Why It's in the Public Interest
Open access to court lists serves the broader good in several key ways:
- Transparency and Accountability: Courts aren't secret clubs. Publishing who's involved—who's suing, being sued, or facing charges—holds powerful players (corporations, officials, individuals) to account. It prevents hidden patterns of abuse, like serial litigants clogging the system or companies dodging debts through endless appeals. The High Court has long affirmed this: "The application of the open justice principle... is a matter of public interest" (Attorney-General (NSW) v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1260).
- Informed Decision-Making: In a connected world, people rely on each other—hiring, lending, partnering. Knowing someone's court history (e.g., a history of unpaid judgments) protects the public from risks. Banks use it for due diligence; journalists for stories on systemic issues like family violence trends or corporate fraud. Without it, we'd be flying blind.
- Deterrence and Efficiency: Public visibility discourages frivolous claims and encourages settlements. It also helps courts manage caseloads by spotlighting repeat players. Studies from the Australian Law Reform Commission show that access to court data reduces overall litigation costs for society by promoting early resolutions.
- No Privacy Invasion—It's Selective Transparency: Personal privacy matters, but it's balanced against public interest. That's why courts redact sensitive details (e.g., kids' names in family cases) before publishing lists. Historical data stays public because erasing it would rewrite history—imagine airbrushing a CEO's past fraud conviction from the record, Prince Andrew's involvement at Epstein Island or Donald Trump's public past? If a case is truly private (e.g., suppressed by order), it never hits our site. In the meantime no one is above the law - that's the principle that the Rule of Law protects with open justice being a core element for about 800 years.
In short, we're not "breaching" anything; we're amplifying what's already public for the collective benefit. If our listing of your case feels intrusive, that's the raw edge of open justice—uncomfortable for some, essential for all. You're welcome to request a correction if any fact is off (we fix errors same-day, free), or use our satisfaction guarantee for a refund if a search doesn't meet your needs.
If you'd like to discuss suppression orders, data removal (where legally possible), or how to navigate your Federal Court matter, just reply—I'm here.
Regards, Mark James Smith
Publisher, CourtList.com.au
Email: mark@courlist.com.au
-
It’s an old case from about 10 years ago?
Hello,
Age doesn’t erase public record status. Once a case appears on a court’s daily list, it remains part of the permanent public archive—just like ASIC company searches or land-title records.
We cannot delete it for payment, but here are three free, lawful options:
Option How it works Timeframe Court suppression order Apply under relevant legislation; send us the sealed order. Same-day removal Free annotation Add “Case finalised 2016 – no orders against me” 24 h Factual correction If any detail is wrong (e.g. wrong party name) Immediate Historical data actually helps most users: it shows the matter is long resolved, not current.
Happy to add your clarification note—just reply with the text.
Best, Mark
-
Are legal references from Digital Mark J Smith legal advice, can I rely on it?
No — it is not legal advice, and you must not rely on it alone for any decision.
Plain English:
1. What “Digital Mark J Smith” Is
- A fast, JD-trained chatbot that scans:
- Every public Australian case & statute
- My (Mark James Smith’s) University of Sydney JD notes + 15 years funding 100+ real disputes
- Answers general questions in seconds: “What’s a freezing order?” → “Mareva injunction – s 23 Federal Court Act – stops assets leaving before judgment.”*
2. What It Is Not
❌ Never Legal advice I’m not admitted (stepped back from being admitted after a heart attack many years ago) Your lawyer No file, no duty to you, no privilege Final word AI can hallucinate; facts win cases
3. My Background
- JD, University of Sydney – same legal education as top barristers
- Litigation funder – backed winners, spotted losers
- Today: Run CourtList, blog, fund the occasional slam-dunk case
- Not practising law – no current practising certificate, no advice you can take to the bank.
4. Mandatory Disclaimer (Every Reply)
⚠️ General info only — not legal advice. Check with your own admitted lawyer.
5. Safe Use Guide
✅ Do ❌ Don’t Learn fast File based only on bot Print → give your lawyer Skip solicitor review Ask: “Cite the case?” Assume 100 % fit
6. Example
Bot: “Suppression possible – s 37AF FCA; mental health = valid ground (Hogan v Hinch [2011]).” ✅ Perfect starter – hand to your lawyer. ❌ Not the application.
7. Why Pay for CourtList.com.au Instead of ChatGPT or Your Lawyer?
Option Cost Speed Depth Reality Check ChatGPT Free 10 sec Shallow, often wrong citations No Australian court lists, no daily updates Your lawyer $400–$800/hr Days Gold standard Most can’t afford 15 mins CourtList + Digital Mark $49–$199/month Instant 2017–today, every court, searchable Steers you to the right lawyer question Real Barriers to Justice
- Court websites: Clunky, PDF-only, no search, vanish after 30 days.
- Lawyer first call: $500 just to hear your story.
- Average Australian: Can’t pay $5k to “find out if I have a case.”
CourtList Fixes This
You Get Why It Beats Alternatives 8-year archive ChatGPT has zero daily lists Exact party names Google misses 90 % $49/month < 1 lawyer hour Bot steers you “Ask your lawyer about s 37AF suppression” → saves $1k in research Bottom line: Digital Mark J Smith = GPS for the legal maze. Shows the path, flags the potholes — but your admitted lawyer still drives.
Need a bot answer checked? Email mark@courtlist.com.au — I’ll confirm accuracy in general, then push you to your solicitor.
Regards,
Mark James Smith JD (USyd) | Litigation Funder | Publisher, CourtList.com.au
Not admitted · Not giving legal advice
- A fast, JD-trained chatbot that scans:
-
How long does it take for the profile to go live?
-
How anonymous is the information provided?
Mark Smith, in this particular context, is a reputable Blogger and accomplished journalist complete with a legal education from the University of Sydney - one of Australia's best Universities.
The law in NSW provides utmost protection to those invaluable sources and informants who play a vital role in, in this context, the world of journalism.
To explore the legal safeguards in detail, kindly click on the following link:
Evidence Act - Journalist Privilege.
Furthermore, to gain a comprehensive understanding of Mark's unwavering dedication towards journalistic principles, we invite you to peruse our policy, readily available in the footer or via this link.
-
Who makes up the Professional Debt Recovery Team?
Our team consists of experienced business debt collectors supervised by Mark Smith from around Australia each of whom is well-versed in both the legal and ethical aspects of debt collection. The team member selected may be Mark himself or another competent professional.
Mark has taken on some of the toughest debt collection tasks in the world including Steve Papermaster.
-
Is the service legally compliant?
-
Do you report unpaid debts to credit bureaus?
-
What happens if legal action is needed for a debt?
-
More FAQ's
Any other thoughts ... send us an instant chat - bottom right corner or complete the form below:
-
Your site stopped me getting a job last week. The recruiter Googled me and saw the old case. I’ll pay whatever it takes to delete it.
Hi [Name],
I understand how frustrating that must feel—background checks can be brutal.
Short answer: we cannot take money to remove public court data. Doing so would be illegal, unfair to other litigants, and would collapse the entire open-justice framework.
What actually happened (and what you can do):
- The recruiter saw a public Federal/State court record, not “our” invention.
- You can counter the narrative by:
- Sending the recruiter the final judgment or settlement (proving resolution).
- Adding a free 100-word note on our site (e.g. “Case NSD123/2020 was discontinued without admission; I have a clean employment history since 2021.”).
- Asking the court for a non-publication order if the matter meets s 37AF criteria (mental health, safety, etc.).
Pro tip for job applications: Include a short cover-note: “A historical court listing may appear online; the matter was resolved [X years] ago with no adverse finding.” Most employers value transparency over secrecy.
We’re here to correct errors or add your statement—free, within 24 h.
Regards, Mark James Smith
Get started today!
It only takes a few moments to signup.









