Alramon Pty Ltd v Lifuli Pty Ltd (No 2)[ - [2010] NSWADT 49

CITATION: Alramon Pty Ltd v Lifuli Pty Ltd (No 2)[ [2010] NSWADT 49

DIVISION: Retail Leases Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Alramon Pty Limited
REPSONDENT
Lifuli Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER: 095013

HEARING DATES: On the papers

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 21 December 2009

DATE OF DECISION:
16 February 2010

BEFORE: Molloy G - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Costs

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

CASES CITED: Alramon Pty Limited v. Lifuli Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 270
Alramon Pty Limited v. Jonamill Pty Limited (No. 2) [2009] NSWADT 302
Barsoum v. Glebe Administration Board (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 174 at [18-25]
Council of the Law Society of NSW v. Dimitriou (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 37
Cripps v. G & M Dawson Pty Limited [2006] NSWCA 81
Jonamill Pty Limited v. Alramon Pty Limited (No 2) (RLD) [2010] NSWADTAP 3
Potier v. Department of Correctional Services [2009] NSWADT 143
Salon Today Pty Limited v. MMIR Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 71
Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Limited v. Satchithanantham [2009] NSWADT 70

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
S Laface, solicitor
RESPONDENT
P Wood, solicitor

ORDERS: The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs with respect to the issue of costs as assessed or agreed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 By Decision delivered 16 October 2009 (Alramon Pty Limited v. Lifuli Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 270) the Tribunal determined that the Respondent Lessee pay to the Applicant Lessor $5,060.00 which the Tribunal determined was the cost of the damage caused by the Respondent to the leased premises owned by the Applicant.

2 There is no need to trawl through the Decision itself, except to make these salient points:

a) The Tribunal held that on the material before it there was a clear prima facie case presented by the Applicant which would normally have entitled it to a Judgment by default, alternatively, a clear Judgment in its favour on a ex parte hearing.

b) Consequently, the onus or burden of proof then fell to the Respondent to satisfy the Tribunal that somehow the Applicant was not entitled to such a finding.

c) The Respondent raised numerous arguments, all of which were rejected. Some of those arguments clearly had absolutely no merit at all – and this is plain from the Decision 16 October 2009.

d) Some of the arguments required some attention to detail, but even on those arguments they were rejected by the Tribunal.

e) It is in those circumstances that the Applicant applies for an order that the Respondent pay its costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

Applicant’s Submissions

3 The Applicant, understandably, was somewhat put out by the fact that it had to go to the Tribunal for relief over a relatively small amount of $5,060.00 yet was confronted by numerous arguments, all of which were rejected. It was submitted, understandably, that the Applicant “wholly succeeded on the claim for relief that it sought”.

4 The Applicant based its arguments on Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (“the Act”) Section 88;…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alramon Pty Ltd v Lifuli Pty Ltd (No 2)[ and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWADT 49
Decision Date: 16 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alramon Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Lifuli Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around a breach of contract and the consequential damages claimed by the applicant. The applicant sought an order for specific performance of a contract, along with damages for the breach. The court was also required to determine the issue of costs following the conclusion of the proceedings. The central legal issues for the court were whether there had been a breach of contract by the respondent, the extent of the damages, and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

In assessing the breach of contract, the court found that the respondent had indeed breached the contract by failing to complete the agreed works. The court then considered the appropriate measure of damages. The applicant argued for specific performance and damages for the cost of completing the works, while the respondent contended that the applicant had failed to mitigate its losses. The court found that specific performance was not a suitable remedy and awarded damages to the applicant for the cost of completing the works. Regarding the costs, the court determined that the respondent had acted unreasonably in various respects during the proceedings, leading to the applicant incurring additional costs. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs related to the issue of costs as assessed or agreed.

The court's decision highlighted the importance of conducting proceedings in a reasonable manner, as unreasonable behaviour could result in an adverse costs order. The final orders required the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings, reflecting the court's view on the conduct of the parties during the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs with respect to the issue of costs as assessed or agreed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Alramon Pty Ltd v Lifuli Pty Ltd (No 2)[ [2010] NSWADT 49
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Alramon Pty Limited REPSONDENT Lifuli Pty Limited
FILE NUMBER:	095013
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	21 December 2009
DATE OF DECISION:	16 February 2010
BEFORE:	Molloy G - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Costs
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
CASES CITED:	Alramon Pty Limited v. Lifuli Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 270 Alramon Pty Limited v. Jonamill Pty Limited (No. 2) [2009] NSWADT 302 Barsoum v. Glebe Administration Board (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 174 at [18-25] Council of the Law Society of NSW v. Dimitriou (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 37 Cripps v. G & M Dawson Pty Limited [2006] NSWCA 81 Jonamill Pty Limited v. Alramon Pty Limited (No 2) (RLD) [2010] NSWADTAP 3 Potier v. Department of Correctional Services [2009] NSWADT 143 Salon Today Pty Limited v. MMIR Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 71 Zeaiter Corporate Holdings Pty Limited v. Satchithanantham [2009] NSWADT 70
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT S Laface, solicitor RESPONDENT P Wood, solicitor
ORDERS:	The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs with respect to the issue of costs as assessed or agreed.