11. Leave to appeal will only be granted where there are substantial reasons to allow an appellate review: Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd t/as Bennetts Green Bowl  NSWCA 69; Rodi v Gelonesi  NSWCA 424 at ; Collier v Lancer (No 2)  NSWCA 186 at . In Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission  NSWCA 262, Bathurst CJ (Macfarlan and Barrett JJA agreeing) said, at , that in the usual case:
“… it is only appropriate to grant leave concerning matters that involve issues of principle, questions of general public importance or where it is reasonably clear there has been an injustice in the sense of going beyond it being reasonably arguable that the primary judge was in error: Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd  NSWCA 69; Zelden v Sewell  NSWCA 56 at ; Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo  NSWCA 284 at ; GKD v Director of Department of Family & Community Service  NSWCA 219 at ; Be Financial Pty Ltd v Das  NSWCA 164 at -.”
12 The quantum of damages awarded is also relevant to the question whether the Court will grant leave, the Court being disinclined to do so where the amount at issue is significantly below the statutory threshold: see Bushby v Dixon Holmes du Pont Pty Ltd  NSWCA 90; The Entrance Plaza Pty Ltd v Davids  NSWCA 362; Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc v Farrell  NSWCA 256; HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Clements  NSWCA 212. Where there is no question of principle and the amount at issue is small, leave to appeal will usually be refused: Rodi v Gelonesi at .