Dover v Lewkovitz (RLD)

Case [2013] NSWADTAP 22


Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dover v Lewkovitz (RLD) [2013] NSWADTAP 22
Hearing dates:4 March 2013
Decision date: 17 May 2013
Jurisdiction:Appeal Panel - Internal
Before: M Chesterman, Deputy President
D Bluth, Judicial Member
M Foldi, Non-judicial Member
Decision:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Any application by the Respondent for the costs of the appeal must be filed and served within 21 days, along with supporting submissions. Any submissions in reply by the Appellant must be filed and served within a further 21 days. The matter of costs will then be determined 'on the papers', pursuant to section 76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, unless the Appeal Panel decides that a hearing is required.

Catchwords: Retail lease - validity of assignment of lessor's claim for amount due from lessees following termination of lease - whether claim was for debt or damages - when termination of lease occurred
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Conveyancing Act 1919
Retail Leases Act 1994
Cases Cited: Arnold v Mann (1957) 99 CLR 462
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper [1981] HCA 1; (1981) 148 CLR 337
In the Marriage of Ashton [1986] FamCA 20; (1986) 11 Fam LR 457
Re Atkinson [1971] VR 613
Australian Securities & Investments Commission, Re Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey [2006] FCA 814
Beatty v Brashs Pty Ltd [1998] 2 VR 201
Campbell's Cash & Carry Ltd v Fostif Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 386; [2006] HCA 41
Craig v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1945] HCA 1; (1945) 70 CLR 441
In Marriage of Davidson (No 2) (1990) 101 FLR 373
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Vegners (1989) 90 ALR 547
In the Marriage of Goodwin (1990) 101 FLR 386
Janos v Chamas Motors Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 238
Kumaragamage v Rallis [2001] NSWSC 466
Lewkovitz v Dover [2012] NSWADT 227
Monk v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 148
National Mutual Property Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Citibank Savings Ltd (1995) 132 ALR 514
Project 28 Pty Ltd v Tim Barr Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 240
Rickard Constructions Pty Ltd v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Ltd (2004) 220 ALR 267
Sarker v World Best Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 15
Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd (1978) 141 CLR 378
Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245
Re Timothy Pty Ltd and the Companies Act [1981] 2 NSWLR 706
Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679
Vimblue Pty Ltd v Toweel [2009] NSWSC 494
World Best Holdings Ltd v Sarker [2009] NSWADTAP 13
World Best Holdings Ltd v Sarker [2010] NSWCA 24
Texts Cited: Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (ed JD Heydon and MJ Leeming, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2006)
Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrine and Remedies (4th edn, ed RP Meagher, JD Heydon and MJ Leeming, Butterworths Nexis Lexis, 2002)
Young P, Croft P,…

Continue reading Dover v Lewkovitz (RLD)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dover v Lewkovitz (RLD) [2013] NSWADTAP 22
Case
[2013] NSWADTAP 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dover and Lewkovitz appeared before the court in a dispute concerning the assignment of a claim for amounts due from lessees following the termination of a retail lease. The court was required to determine whether the claim assigned by the lessor to the assignee was a debt or damages, and to decide when the termination of the lease occurred. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

The central issue for the court was whether the claim assigned by the lessor to the assignee was a debt or damages, and when the lease was terminated. The court had to establish whether the assignment was valid and, if so, whether the assignee could recover the amounts due from the lessees. The court also had to determine when the lease was terminated and whether the assignee was entitled to recover the amounts due from the lessees.

The court examined the terms of the lease agreement and the assignment of the claim, and concluded that the claim assigned was for damages, not a debt. The court found that the termination of the lease occurred when the lessees breached the lease by failing to pay rent. The court held that the assignment of the claim was valid, but the assignee was not entitled to recover the amounts due from the lessees as they had not breached the lease agreement. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that any application for costs must be filed and served within 21 days, along with supporting submissions. Any submissions in reply by the appellant must be filed and served within a further 21 days. The matter of costs will then be determined 'on the papers', pursuant to section 76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, unless the Appeal Panel decides that a hearing is required.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Any application by the Respondent for the costs of the appeal must be filed and served within 21 days, along with supporting submissions. Any submissions in reply by the Appellant must be filed and served within a further 21 days. The matter of costs will then be determined 'on the papers', pursuant to section 76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, unless the Appeal Panel decides that a hearing is required.

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.