Unconscionable conduct - Statutory unconscionable conduct - Australian Consumer Law - Lease of commercial premises - Plaintiff a tenant of commercial premises - Landlord now a deregistered company - Defendants the directors of the deregistered company - Landlord desire to redevelop - Redevelopment notice - Determination of lease - Comprehensive fact-specific analysis of all underlying circumstances surrounding the contention of statutory unconscionable conduct - Whether landlord in breach of the lease - Plaintiff locked-out of the leased premises and prevented from trading - Relative strengths of respective bargaining positions - Removal and damage to plaintiff's property - Destruction of business - Whether the conduct complained of was established - Whether the established conduct was unconscionable - Entire factual matrix - 'Involved in a contravention' - Damages - Whether plaintiff suffered damage because of the defendants - Assessment of damages - Remedial purpose of the statute - Lacuna of documentary evidence - Books and records lost or destroyed - A deliberate wrong caused the position of uncertainty and the difficulty of proof - Qualification of the general proposition that the plaintiff has the onus to prove damages
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading AA Technical Services Pty Ltd v Diedler [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
AA Technical Services Pty Ltd v Diedler [No 2] [2024] WASC 11
Case
[2024] WASC 11
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of AA Technical Services Pty Ltd v Diedler [No 2], the plaintiff, a tenant of commercial premises, alleged that the defendants, who were the directors of the deregistered company that was the landlord, engaged in unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. The dispute arose from the landlord's intention to redevelop the premises, leading to the plaintiff being locked out of the leased premises and prevented from trading, which ultimately resulted in the destruction of the plaintiff's business. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants' conduct amounted to statutory unconscionable conduct, and if so, whether it breached the lease, and what damages were owed to the plaintiff.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants' actions constituted a contravention of the statutory prohibition against unconscionable conduct and if the plaintiff had suffered damages due to the defendants' conduct. The court had to conduct a comprehensive fact-specific analysis of the circumstances surrounding the contention of statutory unconscionable conduct, taking into account the relative strengths of the respective bargaining positions, the removal and damage to the plaintiff's property, and the destruction of the plaintiff's business. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff had suffered damages as a result of the defendants' conduct and, if so, how those damages should be assessed.
The court found that the defendants' conduct did amount to statutory unconscionable conduct, as it was established that the defendants breached the lease and engaged in conduct that led to the plaintiff being locked out of the premises and the destruction of the plaintiff's business. The court concluded that the defendants' actions were unconscionable, considering the entire factual matrix and the significant power imbalance between the parties. The court also found that the plaintiff had indeed suffered damages due to the defendants' conduct and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff damages for the loss of property. The court's decision was grounded in the remedial purpose of the statute and took into account the lacuna of documentary evidence and the lost or destroyed books and records, which were a consequence of the defendants' deliberate wrongdoing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendant
First and second defendant to pay the plaintiff damages for the loss of property