Gani v Maiolo

Case [2013] NSWCA 107


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gani v Maiolo [2013] NSWCA 107
Hearing dates:2 May 2013
Decision date: 02 May 2013
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [2]
Decision:

1. Dismiss the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Hall J of 27 November 2012.

2. Order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings in this Court.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: APPEAL - application for leave to appeal from decision in Common Law Division dismissing an appeal from decision of Appeal Panel of Administrative Decisions Tribunal - underlying dispute as to commencement date of lease and for payment of first rental instalment - primary judge held no error of law on part of Appeal Panel in upholding Tribunal's decision - no arguable error by primary judge on any question of law - application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, ss 113, 119
Retail Leases Act 1994, s 17
Supreme Court Act 1970, ss 48, 51, 101
Cases Cited: Gani v Maiolo (RLD) [2012] NSWADTAP 10
Gani v Maiolo [2011] NSWADT 219
Gani v Maiolo [2012] NSWSC 1417
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mohammed Nurul Gani (Applicant)
Raffaele Maiolo (First Respondent)
Maria Maiolo (Second Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (Applicant)
M Tibbey (First and Second Respondents)
File Number(s):2012/380651
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
Gani v Maiolo [2012] NSWSC 1417
Date of Decision:
2012-11-27 00:00:00
Before:
Hall J
File Number(s):
2012/214069

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: On 2 May 2013 the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal in this matter and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the application. The Court reserved its reasons. I join in the reasons of Meagher JA for making those orders.

  1. MEAGHER JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of Hall J: Gani v Maiolo [2012] NSWSC 1417. That judgment dismissed the applicant's appeal from a decision of the Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales: Gani v Maiolo (RLD) [2012] NSWADTAP 10. That appeal was brought under s 119(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 and was limited to questions of law. By reason of s 48 of the Supreme Court Act 1970, that appeal should have been heard by the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, it was commenced, continued and disposed of in the Common Law Division of the Court as permitted by s 51(1)(d) of the Act.

  1. Leave is required to appeal from a final judgment or order of the Court in a Division which does not…

Continue reading Gani v Maiolo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gani v Maiolo [2013] NSWCA 107
Case
[2013] NSWCA 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Gani, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales from a decision of Hall J in the Common Law Division. Hall J had dismissed Gani's appeal from a decision of the Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The underlying dispute concerned the commencement date of a lease and the payment of the first rental instalment.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Hall J had erred in law by upholding the Appeal Panel's decision, which in turn had upheld the Tribunal's decision. Specifically, the court considered whether there was any arguable error of law in Hall J's determination that the Appeal Panel had not erred.

Basten and Meagher JJA found no arguable error of law on the part of the primary judge. Their Honours concluded that Hall J had correctly determined that the Appeal Panel had not made any error of law in its decision regarding the lease commencement date and rental payment. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dismiss the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Hall J of 27 November 2012.

2. Order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings in this Court.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.