Mohammed Nurul Gani v Raffaele Maiolo

[2013] HCASL 153

MOHAMMED NURUL GANI

v

RAFFAELE MAIOLO & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 153
S100/2013

1. The applicant was the lessee of premises owned by the respondents.  The lease was entered into on 13 April 2010 for a term of five years and two days.  The applicant fell into arrears and was locked out of the premises by the respondents on 3 August 2010 for failure to pay rent.

2. The applicant commenced proceedings in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal ("the Tribunal") before a judicial member (Mr Bluth).  The Tribunal described the applicant's submissions as follows.  First, the applicant argued that there had been an oral agreement to vary the commencement date of the lease.  Secondly, the applicant argued that the respondents were liable for the cost of replacing an awning.  Mr Bluth rejected these contentions, holding that the applicant was in breach of the lease on 3 August 2010 and that he had forfeited the bond money.  The parties were ordered to pay their own costs of the proceedings.   

3. The applicant appealed to the Appeal Panel of the Tribunal, raising the same two issues and a third, that the Tribunal had failed to address the applicant's claim that he was entitled to compensation for the value of certain goods which had not been returned to him after he was locked out of the premises.  On 5 March 2012, the appeal was dismissed.  With respect to the commencement date of the lease, the Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal's findings were entirely correct in law and consistent with the evidence.  With respect to the cost of the awning and compensation for goods not returned, the Appeal Panel found the applicant did not discharge his onus of producing reliable evidence on the matter sufficient for a finding to be made in his favour.

4. On 27 November 2012, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Hall J) granted the applicant an extension of time within which to appeal, but dismissed the appeal.  An appeal was available only on a question of law.  Hall J held that no question of law arose with respect to the findings on the commencement date and arrears, the return of goods, the forfeiture of the bond, or the cost of the awning.  On 2 May 2013, the Court of Appeal (Meagher JA, Basten JA concurring) refused the applicant leave to appeal Hall J's decision.

5. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  He claims that the Court of Appeal erred in calculating the value of his matter for the purposes of leave.  This does not involve any question of principle.  He does not otherwise identify any error by the Court of Appeal and has not raised any question of law or principle.  The applicant does not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  Special leave should be refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
   
   

S.M. Kiefel
4 September 2013 P.A. Keane