Cohen & Anor v Blair & Anor [2001] NSWCA 332

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Cohen & Anor v Blair & Anor [2001] NSWCA 332 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40395/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 September 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 September 2001

Phillip Lawrence Cohen & Jennifer Anne Cohen (Claimants) PARTIES : v Robert Charles Blair & Susan Lucy Blair (Opponents) JUDGMENT OF : Davies AJA at 1; Ipp AJA at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT 12573/00 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Hidden J JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Cs: Mr Cohen in person Os: Mr Blair in person SOLICITORS : Cs: For Self Os: For Self CATCHWORDS : Application for leave - Small Claims Division of Local Court - breach of tenancy - damages small CASES CITED: No cases cited DECISION : Application for leave dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40395/01 S C 12573/00 DAVIES AJA IPP AJA 10 SEPTEMBER 2001 PHILLIP LAWRENCE COHEN & ANOR v ROBERT CHARLES BLAIR & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 THE COURT: This is a claim for leave to appeal from the judgment of Hidden J, given on 22 November 2000, in which his Honour dismissed an appeal from a judgment of Magistrate J Swanson in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court at Gosford. In this matter, the amount involved before the Magistrate was small. The sum of the judgment was only $866.45 plus costs. 2 The issue before the Magistrate went to the quantum of damages rather than liability because it is not in dispute that Mr and Mrs Cohen, the claimants, left the premises before the termination of the lease. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether there was an agreement to terminate but, in any event, the claimants remained liable for fulfilment of their obligations as tenants. 3 The matters in issue, therefore, before the Magistrate were as to the amount allowable for breach of tenant obligations and the amount that should be offset having regard to the landlord's obligations. 4 The circumstances before the Magistrate and as put to this Court by Mr Cohen, who appeared on behalf of the claimants, raise no point of principle justifying the grant of leave in such a small matter. In this circumstance, the application for leave must be dismissed with costs. That is the order of the Court. **********