Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies-Bond & Associates Pty Ltd (RLD)

Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd, the lessor, appealed against decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning two related proceedings. The first proceeding (055169) was the lessor's claim for termination of a retail lease for non-payment and the second proceeding (065015) was the lessee's counterclaim for termination of the lease due to alleged pre-lease misrepresentations and unconscionable conduct. The AAT had set aside the lessor's claim and dismissed the lessee's claims in both proceedings. The lessor sought to overturn these decisions.

The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the AAT had correctly interpreted and applied sections 10 and 11 of the Retail Leases Act 1994, and whether the AAT had properly exercised its discretion in relation to relief and mitigation of damages. The court also needed to determine whether the AAT had erred in its consideration of the lessee's unconscionable conduct claim.

The court found that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of sections 10 and 11 of the Retail Leases Act 1994. In relation to section 10, the court held that the AAT had misapplied the requirement for authority and reliance on a pre-lease disclosure statement. The court also found that the AAT had not correctly interpreted section 11 in relation to the omission of a representation. Furthermore, the court held that the AAT had not properly considered the lessee's unconscionable conduct claim. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the AAT were set aside. In substitution, the court upheld the lessor's retail tenancy claim and dismissed the lessee's claims. The court also outlined the process for determining the amount of damages and costs.