Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd v Le - [2012] NSWADT 223

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd v Le [2012] NSWADT 223
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 31 October 2012
Jurisdiction: Retail Leases Division
Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member
Decision:
Each party is to pay its own costs of these proceedings.

Catchwords: Costs
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Retail Leases Act 1994
Cases Cited: Coogee Bay Village v Profilio (RLD) [2011] NSWADTAP 67
Du Aus Pty Ltd v Riviera Cove Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2010] NSWADT 302
Profilio v Coogee Bay Village Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2011] NSWADT 64
Category: Costs
Parties: Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Chinh Le and Diane Phung (Respondents)
Representation: Bicknell & Monteith Lawyers (Applicant)
Than & Co. Solicitors (Respondents)

File Number(s): 125066

REasons for decision

GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): The Applicant is the lessee of premises at 53 Walker Street North Sydney. The Respondent is the lessor of those premises.

The Applicant applied to the Tribunal pursuant to section 71 of the Retail Leases Act 1994 ("the Act") seeking the following orders:

"1. The Respondent submit the lease document to the Applicant with 14 days

2. The parties execute the lease document within 24 days after submission of the lease document

The Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of the application."

The Applicant identified the following grounds for its application

the Applicant exercised its option for a further term of the lease but agreement could not be reached on the rent for the new term to commence on 1 June 2011.
on 2 August 2011, the Applicant filed an application for the appointment of a specialist retail valuer to assess the rent for the new term.
on 18 August 2011, the Tribunal, by consent, ordered that Mr Phil Barlow of Landmark White be appointed as the specialist retail valuer.
the valuation was provided on 29 November 2011 assessing rent at $36,300.00 per annum plus outgoings and GST as from 1 June 2011.
no objection to the assessment was taken by either party.
following the provision of the valuation, the Applicant sought from the Respondents the new lease.
on 29 April 2012, the Respondents advised the Applicant that their solicitor had drafted the new lease and that it would be sent to the Applicant's solicitor 'soon' but wanted payment of outgoings cleared before the new lease would be sent.
on 1 May 2012, the Applicant instructed its solicitors to seek the submission of the new lease from the Respondents. On the same day, the Applicant's solicitors wrote to the Respondents requesting the submission of the new lease within 7 days.
the new lease was not submitted within such time and the Applicant's solicitor spoke to the Respondent's solicitor but was advised that the Respondent's solicitor had no instructions to submit the new lease.
the Applicant wishes to obtain the new lease to confirm its right to occupy the shop as soon as possible.
the Applicant is entitled to a new lease having exercised its option in accordance…

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 Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd v Le

Details

AGLC: Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd v Le [2012] NSWADT 223
Case: [2012] NSWADT 223
Decision Date: 31 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd v Le involved a dispute over contractual obligations and associated costs. The plaintiff, Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd, sought to enforce a contract against the defendant, Le, but faced challenges in recovering costs. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue for the court was to determine the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, given the outcome of the litigation.

The court was required to consider the statutory provisions governing costs in civil proceedings and the principles that guide the exercise of the court's discretion. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether either party was entitled to an order for costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and whether any exceptional circumstances warranted a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of fairness and proportionality in cost awards. It noted that neither party had secured a complete victory, as the plaintiff's claim was partly successful but did not result in a full recovery of the disputed amount. The court concluded that neither party should be granted an order for costs and that each party should bear its own costs, reflecting the balanced outcome of the litigation.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party was to pay its own costs of the proceedings, ensuring that neither party received an undue financial advantage or disadvantage from the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each party is to pay its own costs of these proceedings.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd v Le [2012] NSWADT 223
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	31 October 2012
Jurisdiction:	Retail Leases Division
Before:	S Montgomery, Judicial Member
Decision:	Each party is to pay its own costs of these proceedings.
Catchwords:	Costs
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Retail Leases Act 1994
Cases Cited:	Coogee Bay Village v Profilio (RLD) [2011] NSWADTAP 67 Du Aus Pty Ltd v Riviera Cove Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2010] NSWADT 302 Profilio v Coogee Bay Village Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2011] NSWADT 64
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Chastel-Roux Pty Ltd (Applicant) Chinh Le and Diane Phung (Respondents)
Representation:	Bicknell & Monteith Lawyers (Applicant) Than & Co. Solicitors (Respondents)
File Number(s):	125066