EMAPTA Group v Woodville Diagnostics and Imaging Pty Ltd

The case of EMAPTA Group v Woodville Diagnostics and Imaging Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the plaintiff, a body corporate and registered proprietor of certain premises, and the defendant, a body corporate that occupied the premises under a lease. The plaintiff, represented by Mr Tim Vorbach, sought damages from the defendant, represented by Dr Jacqueline Kew, for breach of lease and failure to restore the premises to their original condition. The court had to determine whether the defendant breached the lease, failed to execute a new lease, and abandoned the premises, leading to costs incurred by the plaintiff in making the premises re-lettable.

The court identified several legal issues, including whether the lease of 2008 had ended and a new lease was formed in 2013, whether the defendant was in breach of the lease, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the defendant's failure to restore the premises and ongoing rent, interest, and costs. The court had to interpret the terms of the lease, particularly clauses 31.1, 31.2, 31.3, and 47, which outlined the defendant's obligations to make good the premises and the plaintiff's entitlement to damages for breach of lease.

The court found that the lease of 2008 had indeed ended, and a new lease was formed in 2013. The defendant was in breach of the lease as it failed to execute the proffered lease document and abandoned the premises without making good the alterations and fixtures. The court held that the defendant's failure to restore the premises to their original condition constituted a breach of the lease, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the costs incurred in making the premises re-lettable, ongoing rent, interest, and costs. The court relied on the evidence provided by the plaintiff and found that the defendant had not led any evidence to contradict the plaintiff's assertions.

Based on the above findings, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $661,037.63 in damages, plus interest of $39,663 and costs. The court held that the defendant was liable for the breach of lease and failure to restore the premises, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs incurred in making the premises re-lettable, ongoing rent, interest, and costs. The court did not find it necessary to determine whether Kew could be said to have acted as a director of the defendant company or whether de facto control of the affairs of the company were vested in others.