Doiho Pty Ltd v Waycity Pty Ltd

Doiho Pty Ltd, a tenant, sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Fair Trading Tribunal regarding the termination of their lease with Waycity Pty Ltd, the landlord. The dispute also involved the ostensible authority of a real estate agent acting on behalf of Waycity. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether Doiho was entitled to an extension of time to appeal the Fair Trading Tribunal's decision, which had ruled that the lease was terminated due to the tenant's breach of lease terms. Additionally, the court examined whether the real estate agent had ostensible authority to terminate the lease on behalf of Waycity. The question of whether Doiho had acted reasonably in relying on the real estate agent's representations was also considered.

In its judgment, the court found that Doiho was not entitled to an extension of time to appeal. The court held that the Fair Trading Tribunal's decision was final and binding unless there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension. The court further determined that the real estate agent did not have ostensible authority to terminate the lease on behalf of Waycity, as there were no clear indications that Waycity had granted such authority. The court emphasised that Doiho should have sought direct confirmation from Waycity regarding the agent's authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders regarding the extension of time for appeal, as it found that Doiho was not entitled to such an extension. The decision regarding the ostensible authority of the real estate agent reinforced the importance of tenants verifying the authority of agents acting on behalf of landlords.