Crawford v Demertjis & Ruhs Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWSC 48

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Crawford v Demertjis & Ruhs Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 48
Hearing dates: 31 January 2024
Decision date: 06 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson JA
Decision:
(1)   Grant leave to appeal.
(2)   Dismiss the amended summons and the appeal.
(3)   Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs.

Catchwords:
APPEALS — leave to appeal — whether leave required — whether grounds of appeal contain question of mixed fact and law — principles governing grants of leave to appeal — leave to appeal granted
CORPORATIONS — effect of deregistration of lessee on obligations of indemnifier under lease — whether reinstatement of lessee a necessary pre-condition to recovery against the indemnifier
LEASES AND TENANCIES — lease term — expiration of lease — whether lease terminates upon deregistration of lessee — operation of holding over provision where lessee is deregistered — automatic renewal of lease where notice to terminate is not provided in accordance with terms of the lease
GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY — scope of liability of guarantor/indemnifier — construction — guarantee of lessee’s obligations under a lease — whether guarantee also contained an indemnity — whether the guarantor assumed primary liability — whether guarantor could be held liable following deregistration of lessee — commercial purpose of the guarantee

Legislation Cited:
Companies (New South Wales) Code, ss 381, 382, 458
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459P, 462, 601AD, 601AH
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 29, 39, 40
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1

Cases Cited:
Be Financial Pty Ltd as trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Canty v PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 309
Electricity Generation Corporation v WoodsideEnergy Ltd; Woodside Energy Ltd v Electricity Generation Corporation (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7
Gallagher Bassett Services NSW Pty Ltd v Murdock (2013) 86 NSWLR 13; [2013] NSWCA 386
GIO General Ltd (Agent for NSW Workcover Scheme) v Sabko Pty Ltd (2007) 70 NSWLR 743; [2007] NSWSC 251
In the matter of BMT & Associates Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1082
Partners v Sampson [2002] NSWSC 383
Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 17; [1985] HCA 14
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256; (2009) 199 A Crim R 199
Re Austral Family Homes Pty Ltd (in liq) (1992) 28 NSWLR 247
Re Morton; Ex parte Mitchell Products Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 828; (1996) 21 ACSR 497
Re Silverline Technologies Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2005] NSWSC 620; (2005) 192 FLR 261
Sweeney & Vandelaur Pty Ltd v BNY Australia Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 356
Williams v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278; [1986] HCA 88

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Crawford (Plaintiff)
Demertjis & Ruhs Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Pokoney (Plaintiff)
B Smith (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Celtic Legal (Plaintiff)
Ignify Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/296388
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

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 Crawford v Demertjis & Ruhs Pty Ltd 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: [2024] NSWSC 48
Decision Date: 06 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Crawford v Demertjis & Ruhs Pty Ltd, the dispute centred around the rights and obligations of the parties under a lease agreement and the implications of the deregistration of the lessee. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the deregistration of the lessee from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) terminated the lease, and if so, whether this termination impacted the obligations of the indemnifier under the lease. The court was also required to determine the scope of the indemnifier's liability, particularly whether the indemnifier could be held liable following the deregistration of the lessee and whether the guarantee included an indemnity.

The High Court considered the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal and assessed whether the grounds of appeal contained questions of mixed fact and law. The court held that the grounds of appeal did not purely involve questions of fact or law but rather a mix of both, which necessitated the court’s intervention. The Court examined the effect of the lessee's deregistration on the lease's obligations and the indemnifier's liability. It concluded that the deregistration of the lessee did not automatically terminate the lease and that the holding over provision could still apply. Furthermore, the court held that the indemnifier's liability was not necessarily extinguished by the deregistration of the lessee and that the indemnifier could still be held liable under the terms of the guarantee. The commercial purpose of the guarantee was also considered, reinforcing that the indemnifier assumed primary liability under the terms of the guarantee.

Ultimately, the High Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the appeal raised significant legal issues concerning the interpretation of lease agreements and the obligations of indemnifiers. The Court's decision clarified the effect of a lessee's deregistration on lease obligations and the continued liability of indemnifiers, providing guidance on the scope of guarantees and indemnities in similar future cases. The Court's judgment provided a definitive interpretation of the parties' rights and obligations under the lease agreement and the implications of the deregistration of the lessee.

Orders