Dee Vine Group Pty Ltd v Palais Reception Centre Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dee Vine Group Pty Ltd v Palais Reception Centre Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1462
Hearing dates: 22 October 2019
Date of orders: 23 October 2019
Decision date: 23 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Kunc J
Decision:

Relief against forfeiture of sub-lease granted on terms

Catchwords: EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Relief against forfeiture — Leases
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Batiste v Lenin [2002] NSWCA 316; (2002) 11 BPR 20,403
Dee-Tech Pty Ltd v Neddam Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 251; (2012) 16 BPR 31,089
Gill v Lewis [1956] 2 QB 1
Macquarie National Health Clinic Pty Limited v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010] NSWCA 268; (2010) 15 BPR 28,563
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Dee Vine Group Pty Ltd ACN 616768195 (Plaintiff)

  Palais Reception Centre Pty Ltd ACN 083 333 760 (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:

 

P D Weinberger; A Jordan (Plaintiff)
M J Dawson; D F Elliott (Defendant)

 

Solicitors:

  Gillis Delaney (Plaintiff)
Diamond Conway (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2019/301649
Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

Summary

  1. The Albert Palais (the “Premises”) has stood in Catherine Street, Leichhardt since 1934. Originally a dance hall, it is now a “reception centre”.

  2. By a sub-lease dated 11 July 2017 (the “Sub-Lease”) the defendant, Palais Reception Pty Ltd (“Palais”) sub-lets the Premises to the plaintiff, Dee Vine Group Pty Ltd (“Dee Vine”).

  3. These proceedings are an application by Dee Vine against forfeiture of the Sub-Lease based upon Dee Vine’s non-payment of rent and other alleged non-monetary breaches.

  4. For the reasons which follow, the Court is satisfied that relief against forfeiture should be granted, albeit on strict terms.

  5. Mr D Weinberger of Counsel appeared with Mr A Jordan of Counsel for Dee Vine. Mr M Dawson of Counsel appeared with Mr D Elliott of Counsel for Palais.

The Sub-Lease

  1. The Sub-Lease is expressed to commence on 7 August 2017 and terminate on 5 August 2023, with an option to renew for a further three year term. Its terms included provisions set out in four annexures and a memorandum (the “Memorandum”).

  2. The relevant provisions as to payment of rent are set out in Item 1, Annexure 1:

“2.   In the second year of the lease the yearly rent of $182,0000.00 plus GST by calendar monthly payments in advance of $15,166.67 plus GST, the first of such monthly payments to be made on the 7th day of August 2018 and thereafter on the 7th day of each month;

3.   In the third year of the lease the yearly rent of $208,000.00 plus GST by calendar monthly payments in advance of $17,333.33 plus GST, the first of such monthly payments to be made on the 7th day of August 2019 and thereafter on the 7th day of each month;”

  1. Annexure 1 also contains:

“ITEM 3   USER

(Covenant 2.02 of Memorandum A1911784)

The Sub-Tenant will not without the written authority of the Landlord’s use or occupy the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dee Vine Group Pty Ltd v Palais Reception Centre 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
[2019] NSWSC 1462
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dee Vine Group Pty Ltd v Palais Reception Centre Pty Ltd involved a dispute over a commercial lease. The landlord, Palais Reception Centre Pty Ltd, sought to forfeit the lease due to the tenant's failure to pay rent. The tenant, Dee Vine Group Pty Ltd, sought relief against forfeiture and equitable remedies to prevent the landlord from forfeiting the lease. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues in the case centred around whether the tenant's conduct warranted relief against forfeiture and, if so, what form that relief should take. The court had to consider whether the tenant's failure to pay rent was due to circumstances beyond its control and whether the tenant had a genuine prospect of remedying the default. The court also had to determine whether the equitable remedy of relief against forfeiture was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court held that the tenant's failure to pay rent was due to circumstances beyond its control, namely, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that the tenant had a genuine prospect of remedying the default and that relief against forfeiture was appropriate. The court ordered that the lease be restored to its former footing and that the tenant be given a reasonable period of time to remedy the default. The court also ordered that the tenant pay the outstanding rent and costs within a specified period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.