Gani v Maiolo [2013] NSWCA 107

Gani v Maiolo [2013] NSWCA 107

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant repeated arguments already rejected by the Tribunal, the Appeal Panel and the primary judge and did not identify any arguable error by the Appeal Panel or the primary judge on any question of law; his claims were worth less than $100,000 and the interests of justice did not require a further appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Judgment of Hall J of 27 November 2012 Dismissing an Appeal From a Decision of the Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'questions of Law' 'commencement Date of Lease' 'termination of Lease for Non Payment of Rent' 'bond Forfeiture' 'claimed Awning Loan' 'compensation for Stock and Equipment Left on Premises']
['appeals' 'administrative Law' 'retail Leases' 'property Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'questions of Law' 'commencement Date of Lease' 'termination of Lease for Non Payment of Rent' 'bond Forfeiture' 'claimed Awning Loan' 'compensation for Stock and Equipment Left on Premises']

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 / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Judgment of Hall J of 27 November 2012 Dismissing an Appeal From a Decision of the Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had sufficient prospects of successfully challenging the judgment of Hall J to justify a grant of leave to appeal.' 'Whether there was arguable error of law in the conclusion that the commencement date of the lease and date for payment of the first rental instalment had not been deferred.' "Whether there was arguable error of law in rejecting the applicant's claim for repayment of $4,500 said to have been advanced for replacement of an awning." "Whether the lease termination was ineffective because 14 days' notice to rectify had not been given." "Whether there was arguable error of law in rejecting the applicant's claim to compensation for items left on the premises after 3 August 2010."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant repeated arguments already rejected by the Tribunal, the Appeal Panel and the primary judge and did not identify any arguable error by the Appeal Panel or the primary judge on any question of law; his claims were worth less than $100,000 and the interests of justice did not require a further appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Hall J of 27 November 2012.' "Order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings in this Court."]