Arys Health Pty Ltd v Le - [2020] NSWSC 45

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Arys Health Pty Ltd v Le [2020] NSWSC 45
Hearing dates: 29 January 2020
Date of orders: 07 February 2020
Decision date: 07 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Henry J
Decision:
Limited interlocutory relief granted. See paragraph [115].

Catchwords: EQUITY — Interlocutory injunction – seeking access to sub-leased premises – where conflicting evidence as to the circumstances in which sub-lease was signed – whether plaintiff has established prima facie case that the first defendant has interfered with rights of quiet enjoyment – whether balance of convenience warrants the grant of an injunction – whether damages are an adequate remedy – delay in seeking relief – limited injunctive relief granted
Legislation Cited: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)
Cases Cited: AF Textile Printers Pty Ltd v Thalut Nominees Pty Ltd (2007) 17 VR 334; [2007] VSC 73
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199; [2001] HCA 63
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618; [1968] HCA 1
Carlton and United Breweries (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bond Brewing New South Wales Ltd (1987) 76 ALR 633
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148; [1986] HCA 58
Esposito v Commonwealth [2013] FCA 546
Glasshouse Investments Pty Ltd v MJP Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 456
Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533
Shercliff v Engadine Acceptance Corporation Pty Ltd (1978) 1 NSWLR 729
Showcorp Pty Ltd v Ashcroft [2001] FCA 1396
Spathis v Hanave Investment Co Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 304
Todburn Pty Ltd v Taormina International Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11,173
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Arys Health Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
David Le (First Defendant)
Sydney Mechanics School of Arts (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J K Raftery (Plaintiff)
R J Pietriche (First Defendant)
K Pierce (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Woods and Day Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Keith Arthur Bagley (First Defendant)
Stewart Cuddy & Mockler (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/219390
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The plaintiff, Arys Health Pty Ltd (Arys Health), operates a medical practice and integrated health care facility known as ARYS Health Medical Centre (Medical Centre) from the ground floor of the building at 280 - 282 Pitt Street, Sydney (Premises).
The first defendant, David Le, owns and operates a pharmacy business, also from the Premises. Mr Le is the lessee of the Premises from the second defendant, Sydney Mechanics School of Arts (SMSA).
On 15 July 2019, Arys Health commenced these proceedings on an urgent basis claiming that Mr Le was restricting access to the Premises in breach of a sub-lease between Arys Health and Mr Le dated 4 November 2017 (Sub-lease). On that occasion, Pembroke J granted urgent ex parte relief requiring Mr Le to provide Arys Health with access to…

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 Arys Health Pty Ltd v Le 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: [2020] NSWSC 45
Decision Date: 07 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Arys Health Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, against Le, the first defendant, concerning an application for an interlocutory injunction to gain access to sub-leased premises. The dispute arose in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to access the premises for maintenance and repairs, alleging that the first defendant had interfered with their rights of quiet enjoyment by locking them out. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of interference with their rights, whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, and if damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court considered the conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances under which the sub-lease was signed. The plaintiff claimed that the sub-lease was entered into under duress and that the first defendant had since refused access to the premises. The first defendant argued that the sub-lease was valid and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any interference with their rights of quiet enjoyment. The court evaluated the evidence and found that while the plaintiff had not conclusively established the invalidity of the sub-lease, there were sufficient grounds to believe that the sub-lease might be unlawful. The court further considered the balance of convenience, noting that the plaintiff's inability to access the premises for maintenance and repairs could cause significant harm to their business operations, whereas the first defendant's position would not be unduly prejudiced by the grant of limited injunctive relief.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the validity of the sub-lease and the potential harm to the plaintiff's business, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also found that damages were not an adequate remedy in this instance, as the harm caused by the plaintiff's inability to access the premises could not be fully compensated by monetary damages alone. The court granted limited injunctive relief, permitting the plaintiff to enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out necessary maintenance and repairs. The court emphasised the importance of the plaintiff proceeding with the main proceedings to resolve the validity of the sub-lease.

Orders