Legal Research
Cases
Batiste v Lenin

Batiste v Lenin

Case [2002] NSWSC 233 12 April 2002

Breach of Contract

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

Limitation Periods

Property Law

Consumer Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: BATISTE & 2 ORS v LENIN [2002] NSWSC 233

CURRENT JURISDICTION: EQUITY

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3548 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 11/3/02 - 15/3/02 & 18/3/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 April 2002

PARTIES :

Donna Batiste - First Plaintiff
Hazaran Pty Ltd - Second Plaintiff
Chrysalis Holdings Pty Ltd - Third Plaintiff
Michael Petrovic Lenin - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson J at 1

COUNSEL : L.J. Aitken & P. Rogers - Plaintiffs
M. Walton S.C. & G. Curtin - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Horowitz & Bilinsky - Plaintiffs
Phillips Fox - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: LANDLORD and TENANT - re-entry - breaches of lessee's covenants to pay rent, construct fire stairs, pay outgoings - cross-claim for possession of Great Northern Hotel Newcastle - numerous issues on meaning and effect of lease - lessee claimed right of recoupment out of rent under Lee-Parker v. Izzett [1971] 1 WLR (Goff J) - covenant for payment of rent provided for payment without deduction - on the construction of the lease the lessor had no obligation to do the works for cost of which lessee claimed recoupment - alleged implied term requiring work to be performed by lessor rejected. TRADE PRACTICES - misleading or deceptive conduct - plaintiff claimed that misleading representations were made in negotiations for lease of Great Northern Hotel Newcastle - on the facts it was found that the representations were not made - consideration of time bar in Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s68(2).

LEGISLATION CITED: Fair Trading Act (New South Wales) 1987
Local Government Act 1919
Local Government Act 1993 Ch.7
Conveyancing Act 1919

CASES CITED: Wardley Australia Ltd v. Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v. MGICA (1999) 199 CLR 413
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v. State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Lee-Parker v. Izzet [1971] 1WLR 1688
British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v. International Marine Management (UK) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 137
Sapford v. Fletcher (1792) 4 Term. 511
Debonair Nominees Pty Ltd v. J & K Berry
Nominees Pty Ltd (2000) 77 SASR 261
Lambert Pty Ltd v. Papadatos Pty Ltd (1991) 5 ACSR 468

DECISION: Claim under Fair Trading act rejected - cross-claimant recovers possession. See para [114]

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRYSON J

FRIDAY 12 APRIL 2002

3548/01 BATISTE & 2 ORS v. LENIN

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The litigation and the parties. The defendant Michael Petrovic Lenin is the lessor and the second plaintiff Hazaran Pty Ltd is the lessee in a lease dated 15 November 1996 registered 6201973 of the Great Northern Hotel in Scott Street, Newcastle. The hotel was constructed in 1938 and occupies a prominent position near Newcastle’s principal railway station. It was once the pre-eminent hotel in Newcastle, distinguished for its patronage and decor, but by the time of the relevant events it had long been in hard times and was in a severely deteriorated state. Ms Batiste the first plaintiff described the building by saying “The Great Northern…

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.

Continue reading Batiste v Lenin

Details

AGLC: Batiste v Lenin [2002] NSWSC 233
Case: [2002] NSWSC 233
Decision Date: 12 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Batiste v Lenin involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Batiste, and the defendant, Lenin, concerning the lease of the Great Northern Hotel in Newcastle. Batiste sought possession of the property due to Lenin's alleged breaches of the lease, including non-payment of rent and failure to construct fire stairs. Additionally, Batiste claimed the right to recoup costs from the rent under the precedent set by Lee-Parker v. Izzett [1971] 1 WLR. Lenin cross-claimed for possession of the property, and both parties raised various issues regarding the interpretation and effect of the lease terms. Furthermore, Batiste alleged that misleading representations were made during negotiations for the lease, which was challenged by Lenin.

The court was required to determine the validity of the cross-claim for possession and the right of recoupment by Batiste, as well as the alleged misleading conduct during lease negotiations. Additionally, the court had to consider the time bar under the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s68(2) in relation to the misleading conduct claim. The interpretation of the lease terms, including the covenant for payment of rent and the obligation to perform certain works, was also a central issue in the case.

The court found that the lease did not impose an obligation on the lessor to perform the works for which recoupment was claimed by Batiste. The court rejected the argument that an implied term required the lessor to carry out the necessary works. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged misleading representations were not made during lease negotiations. Consequently, the misleading conduct claim was also dismissed due to the time bar under the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s68(2). The court ruled in favour of Lenin on both the cross-claim for possession and the misleading conduct claim, dismissing Batiste's claims.

As a result of the court's decision, Lenin was not required to pay the costs claimed by Batiste and was not found to have engaged in misleading conduct. The court's ruling also upheld Lenin's right to possession of the Great Northern Hotel in Newcastle. The final orders of the court reflected these findings, dismissing Batiste's claims and affirming Lenin's position.

Orders