Batson Holdings Pty Ltd v Rose - [2002] NSWADT 110

CITATION: Batson Holdings Pty Ltd v Rose [2002] NSWADT 110

DIVISION: Retail Leases Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Batson Holdings Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
John Emmanuel Rose

FILE NUMBER: 025027

HEARING DATES: 10/04/02

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/10/2002

DATE OF DECISION:
06/28/2002

BEFORE: Molloy GB - Judicial Member

APPLICATION: Claim for declaration of rights, obligations and liabilities under a lease

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Retail Leases Act 1994

CASES CITED: Commissioner of Taxation v Montgomery (1999) HCA 34
Burns Philp Hardware Pty Limited v Howard Chia Pty Limited 1986 8 NSWLR 621
Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Trustee Savings Bank Central Board (1986) 278 Estates Gazette 162

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
R Gye, barrister
RESPONDENT
G Vardas, solicitor

ORDERS: 1 Leave granted to restore matter to list within 28 days; 2 Absent any such application the orders of the Tribunal will be:; (a) Declare the rights and liabilities of the parties in accordance with this judgment; (b) Declare that the valuations provided by each of the parties are not prepared in accordance with the relevant principles that apply to the calculation of current market rent having regard to the terms of this judgment; (c) Otherwise Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

1 The Applicant is the Lessee of part of the land in Folio Identifier 45/867758 being the whole of the ground floor of premises known as 724 Darling Street Rozelle (the premises) pursuant to a registered Lease 0542508. The Respondent is the Lessor.

2 The initial Lease period was for four years commencing 13 March 1995 and terminating 12 March 1999. The Lease contained three option periods, each for three years. The first period commenced 13 March 1999 and terminated 12 March 2002, the second commenced 13 March 2002 and terminates 12 March 2005 and the third commences 13 March 2005 and terminates 12 March 2008. The maximum period of tenancy under the Lease and permitted renewals was therefore 13 years.

3 It appears that the Lessee exercised its option for the first renewal period commencing 13 March 1999 and I assume that no difficulties were occasioned in agreeing or fixing the rent for that first option term. The Lessee then exercised its option for the second option term commencing 13 March 2002 but no agreement has been reached as to the rent payable for that second option term.

4 Relevantly, the Lease contained the standard terms in accordance with the 1994 Law Society Lease. I shall deal with these later in this Judgment. There were also various additional clauses on some of which the parties placed some reliance.

5 Clause 5.4 of the Law Society Lease conditions provided that (relevantly) “The rent is to be reviewed on the rent review dates stated in item 15 in the Schedule”. Item 15 provided (relevantly) that rent review at the “commencement of renewal Lease under Part A, Item 11” was to be the current market rent. Unfortunately, due to what appears to have been an error in drafting, “Part A” in…

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 Batson Holdings Pty Ltd v Rose 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: [2002] NSWADT 110
Decision Date: 06/28/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Batson Holdings Pty Ltd v Rose, the primary dispute revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant principles for calculating current market rent in the context of a lease agreement. The matter was brought before the court with the objective of determining the respective rights and liabilities of the parties involved. The case was adjudicated by a judicial officer who was tasked with interpreting the terms of the lease agreement and applying the appropriate legal principles to ascertain the current market rent.

The central legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the lease terms and the application of the principles for calculating current market rent. The court needed to determine whether the valuations provided by the parties adhered to the relevant principles and if there were any discrepancies in the calculations. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of any non-compliance with the prescribed principles and how it affected the rights and liabilities of the parties. The court's task was to provide clarity on these matters and ensure that the valuation of the current market rent was in line with the applicable legal standards.

The court began by examining the lease agreement and the principles that govern the calculation of current market rent. It was found that neither party's valuations were prepared in accordance with the relevant principles. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to these principles to ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the current market rent. After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that neither party's valuation was in compliance with the relevant principles. Consequently, the court declared that the valuations provided by both parties did not meet the necessary standards. The court dismissed the application with no order as to costs and granted leave to restore the matter to the list within 28 days, pending any further applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Leave granted to restore matter to list within 28 days; 2 Absent any such application the orders of the Tribunal will be:; (a) Declare the rights and liabilities of the parties in accordance with this judgment; (b) Declare that the valuations provided by each of the parties are not prepared in accordance with the relevant principles that apply to the calculation of current market rent having regard to the terms of this judgment; (c) Otherwise Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

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:	Batson Holdings Pty Ltd v Rose [2002] NSWADT 110
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Batson Holdings Pty Ltd RESPONDENT John Emmanuel Rose
FILE NUMBER:	025027
HEARING DATES:	10/04/02
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/10/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	06/28/2002
BEFORE:	Molloy GB - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Claim for declaration of rights, obligations and liabilities under a lease
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED:	Commissioner of Taxation v Montgomery (1999) HCA 34 Burns Philp Hardware Pty Limited v Howard Chia Pty Limited 1986 8 NSWLR 621 Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Trustee Savings Bank Central Board (1986) 278 Estates Gazette 162
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT R Gye, barrister RESPONDENT G Vardas, solicitor
ORDERS:	1 Leave granted to restore matter to list within 28 days; 2 Absent any such application the orders of the Tribunal will be:; (a) Declare the rights and liabilities of the parties in accordance with this judgment; (b) Declare that the valuations provided by each of the parties are not prepared in accordance with the relevant principles that apply to the calculation of current market rent having regard to the terms of this judgment; (c) Otherwise Application dismissed with no order as to costs.