Cohen v Lapin

Cohen v Lapin concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a lease agreement between a lessor, Lapin, and a lessee, Cohen, who was also the hotel licensee. The lease contained a clause allowing the lessor to re-enter the premises if the lessee was convicted of certain offences under the Liquor Act 1912 (NSW) or other relevant legislation, which could lead to the cancellation or forfeiture of the hotel licence or disqualification of the premises. Cohen was convicted of an offence under the Pure Food Act 1908 (NSW) on 30 August 1922.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether Cohen's conviction for selling adulterated rum constituted an offence under the lease agreement that entitled Lapin to re-enter the premises. Secondly, whether a prior judgment in an ejectment action brought by Lapin against Cohen, which had been decided in Cohen's favour, estopped Lapin from bringing a second ejectment action based on the same conviction.

The High Court, by a majority, held that the conviction did entitle Lapin to re-enter. The court interpreted clause 11 of the lease to mean that a single conviction, even if it did not immediately lead to cancellation or disqualification, was sufficient if it was the type of offence that *could* lead to such consequences in conjunction with other convictions. Regarding the prior judgment, the majority found that Lapin was not debarred from bringing the second action. While acknowledging that a judgment in ejectment typically settles the right to possession for a specific period, they held that the appellant should not be permitted to raise for the first time in the High Court the argument that the prior judgment was conclusive for the period in question. The appeal was dismissed.