Coshott & Anor v Shipton Lodge Cobbitty Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 316

Coshott & Anor v Shipton Lodge Cobbitty Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 316

Leave to appeal was refused because the claimants did not identify any error of law or mixed law and fact in Justice Johnson's conclusions upholding the magistrate's findings that an agistment contract arose from the parties' course of dealing and that the opponent had discharged the reasonable skill and care standard in the bailment claim. The appeal was also incompetent because the substantive amounts in issue, excluding costs and not accumulated, did not reach the $100,000 threshold required by s 101(2)(r) of the Supreme Court Act 1970.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Dismissal of Appeals From Two Local Court Decisions / Court of Appeal Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal and appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'competency of Appeal' 'agistment of Horses' 'contract by Conduct' 'standard of Care in Bailment' 'costs Excluded From Appeal Value Threshold']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'bailment'] ['leave to Appeal' 'competency of Appeal' 'agistment of Horses' 'contract by Conduct' 'standard of Care in Bailment' 'costs Excluded From Appeal Value Threshold']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Dismissal of Appeals From Two Local Court Decisions / Court of Appeal Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claimants should have leave to appeal from the dismissal of their appeal in the agistment case on the ground that the magistrate failed to identify the terms of a contract and breach.' 'Whether the claimants demonstrated error of law or mixed law and fact in relation to the magistrate allowing increases in the quantum claimed for continuing agistment fees.' 'Whether the claimants should have leave to appeal in the bailment case concerning the death of Silver Palm 96 on the ground that the magistrate failed to determine the applicable standard of care.' 'Whether the notice of appeal was incompetent because the matter at issue did not involve a value of $100,000 or more, excluding costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the claimants did not identify any error of law or mixed law and fact in Justice Johnson's conclusions upholding the magistrate's findings that an agistment contract arose from the parties' course of dealing and that the opponent had discharged the reasonable skill and care standard in the bailment claim. The appeal was also incompetent because the substantive amounts in issue, excluding costs and not accumulated, did not reach the $100,000 threshold required by s 101(2)(r) of the Supreme Court Act 1970.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal and appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal and the appeal are dismissed.' "The claimants are to pay the opponent's costs in this Court."]