Exeter Nominees Pty Ltd v Roar Marketing Concepts Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] QCATA 118
•4 August 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Exeter Nominees Pty Ltd v Roar Marketing Concepts Pty Ltd [2020] QCATA 118
[2020] QCATA 118
4 August 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Exeter Nominees Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal against a decision that required it to pay Roar Marketing Concepts Pty Ltd a sum of money in relation to electricity usage and internet server costs after vacating a commercial tenancy. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court had to determine whether the appeal was valid and whether the decision on the merits was correct. The central issue was whether the appellant was liable to pay for the electricity and internet server costs.
The court found that the appeal was valid and set aside the earlier decision. The court held that the appellant was liable for the costs of electricity usage and internet server costs. The court found that the appellant had failed to give notice of exercising an option to renew the lease, which resulted in it being responsible for the ongoing costs. The court held that the tenant's vacating of the premises did not absolve it of responsibility for these costs. The court also found that the appellant was liable for the costs of electricity usage, which was measured by a meter that also measured usage by an adjacent tenancy. The court held that the appellant was liable for its proportional use of electricity. The court found that the appellant was liable for the sum of $2,878.34.
The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The order made on 17 July 2019 was set aside. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent the sum of $2,878.34 within 14 days of the order.
The court found that the appeal was valid and set aside the earlier decision. The court held that the appellant was liable for the costs of electricity usage and internet server costs. The court found that the appellant had failed to give notice of exercising an option to renew the lease, which resulted in it being responsible for the ongoing costs. The court held that the tenant's vacating of the premises did not absolve it of responsibility for these costs. The court also found that the appellant was liable for the costs of electricity usage, which was measured by a meter that also measured usage by an adjacent tenancy. The court held that the appellant was liable for its proportional use of electricity. The court found that the appellant was liable for the sum of $2,878.34.
The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The order made on 17 July 2019 was set aside. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent the sum of $2,878.34 within 14 days of the order.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Breach of Contract
-
Limitation Periods
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Kerlin v MLK Marketing; MLK Group v Kerlin t/as Safe Little Bub [2024] QCAT 601
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Premila Pty Ltd v Monaghan
[2021] QCATA 86
Kerlin v MLK Marketing; MLK Group v Kerlin t/as Safe Little Bub
[2024] QCAT 601
Premila Pty Ltd v Monaghan
[2021] QCATA 86
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pickering v McArthur
[2005] QCA 294
Spain v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd
[1923] HCA 21
Yang & Anor v Wellcamp Properties Pty Ltd
[2018] QCATA 161