ACN 079 830 596 Pty Ltd (trading as Jolly Joe's Fish 'n' Chips) v Wallis Lake Fisherman's Co-operative Ltd

In the case of ACN 079 830 596 Pty Ltd (trading as Jolly Joe's Fish 'n' Chips) v Wallis Lake Fisherman's Co-operative Ltd, the applicant sought a declaration that it had a lease under the Retail Leases Act, a declaration that the respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and a declaration that the respondent unlawfully evicted the applicant. The applicant also sought monetary compensation and orders relating to costs. The case was heard by the Australian Consumer and Competition Tribunal. The primary legal issues were whether the applicant had a lease under the Retail Leases Act, whether the respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and whether the respondent unlawfully evicted the applicant. The Tribunal found in favour of the applicant on all counts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a lease under the Retail Leases Act, as the premises in question were used for the purpose of carrying on a retail business and the applicant had exclusive possession of the premises. The Tribunal also found that the respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by making misleading representations to the applicant about its entitlement to occupy the premises. The Tribunal found that the respondent unlawfully evicted the applicant, as it terminated the applicant's occupancy of the premises without providing the required notice or an opportunity to remedy any alleged breaches of the lease. The Tribunal also found that the respondent engaged in unconscionable conduct by taking advantage of the applicant's vulnerability and pursuing its own interests at the applicant's expense. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay monetary compensation to the applicant, including compensation for the retail tenancy claim and for the unconscionable conduct claim.

The Tribunal made several orders, including a declaration that the applicant had a lease under the Retail Leases Act, a declaration that the respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, a declaration that the respondent unlawfully evicted the applicant, and a declaration that the respondent engaged in unconscionable conduct. The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay monetary compensation to the applicant in the amount of $255,561, made up of $249,561 in respect of the retail tenancy claim, and $6,000 in respect of the unconscionable conduct claim. The order shall bear interest pursuant to s 72A from the date of these orders at the rate equal to that payable on a judgment debt of the District Court. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file and serve any submissions in relation to costs within 28 days, and directed the respondent to file and serve any submissions in relation to costs, and in reply to the applicant's submissions, within a further 28 days. The matter was to be determined on the papers unless either party applied for an oral hearing, in which case that application would be considered. The Tribunal granted liberty to either party to apply on 2 days' notice.