Gosbell v Linehurst Pty Ltd
[2015] QCAT 472
•23 November 2015
| CITATION: | Gosbell v Linehurst Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 472 |
| PARTIES: | Cathy Louise Gosbell (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Linehurst Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | RSL124-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Retail shop leases matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Howard Member Judge Member McBryde |
| DELIVERED ON: | 23 November 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. IT IS DECLARED that the monthly rental amount payable of $1500 (including GST and outgoings) includes electricity. 2. The applications of Cathy Louise Gosbell for compensation and costs are dismissed. | ||
| CATCHWORDS: | RETAIL SHOP LEASES- variation to rent under lease- dispute about lessee’s liability to pay separately for electricity VARIATION OF REGISTERED LEASE- whether variation enforceable- Land Titles Act 1994 (Qld) Air India v Commonwealth [1977] 1 NSWLR 449 | ||
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Cathy Louise Gosbell is the lessee under a Retail Shop Lease entered into with Linehurt Pty Ltd ACN108901711 as Trustee under Instrument 712838355 (‘Linehurst’). The lease is for the term of three years from 1 August 2013 to 31 July 2016.
After the execution of the lease, the parties agreed to alter the terms of the lease. In essence, they agreed that the lessor would have a (further) rent free period from 1 March 2014 to 30 May 2014; from 1 June 2014 the monthly rental invoice would reduce to $1,500.00 (including GST and outgoings); and there would be no further increase in the monthly rental invoice for the duration of the lease until it ended on 31 July 2016. On this basis, Ms Gosbell agreed not exercise her right to terminate the lease after 12 months as was provided for in the special conditions for the lease.
In late 2014, Ms Gosbell lodged a notice of dispute under the Retail Shop Leases Act 1974 (Qld) (‘RSL Act’). At that stage, she sought a declaration that electricity for her leased premises was an ‘outgoing’, as well as compensation of some $1544.25, legal costs and her filing fees. In March 2015, on the basis of an interim application made by Ms Gosbell, interim orders were made by the Tribunal that pending the determination of the dispute, Linehurst must not take steps to disconnect or have disconnected the electricity in the premises leased by Ms Gosbell. This arose out of a disconnection of the electricity for the period 2 – 4 December 2014. This is relevant to Ms Gosbell’s claim for compensation.
Subsequently, Ms Gosbell has amended the orders she seeks to the following:
1.If Linehurst intend to rely on the existing contract then they have to accept the rent review and agree that under the terms and conditions of the signed lease electricity, water and waste are outgoings and included in my monthly rent. OR
2.If Linehurst wish to retract the rent review, and re-issue a new contract, then I am released from any liability under the existing lease, and I am free of default by Linehurst. I will then have the choice of re-entering into another contract. This forms part of the Act, and complies with section 50A (2) of the Retail Shop Leases Act1994.
3.Compensation is sought from costs associated with this dispute to the value of $5000.00. This includes my application fee to QCAT, Solicitor fees, lost income due to power disconnection to premises, lost wages due to time off work and associated cost to attend mediations and directions hearings. The cost associated with this dispute would not have been necessary if Linehurst were compliant to [sic] the terms and conditions that they set out in the existing lease document. (copy submitted previously).
Linehurst seeks orders as follows:
1.Ms Gosbell continues paying the monthly rental invoice of $1,500.00 (including GST and Outgoings (being general and trade wast)e) [sic] and Electricity will be invoiced separately as per normal and paid accordingly. Also all owing electricity invoices will require payment (Attachments 1-11)
2.In the alternative, reinstate the original lease agreement on the basis that the offer is not legally binding the original lease and obligations are still current. All electricity invoices will be settled accordingly. All back rent owed including the additional three months’ rent free must be paid. Moving forward the monthly rental invoice will reflect the correct figure bounded by the signed lease. (Attachment L)
Terms of the lease
The lease entered into by the parties and executed on about 19 July 2013 contains the following relevant terms:
1. DEFINITIONS
...
Services means any services or systems provided to the Centre, including:
(a)water, power, fuel, oil, garbage compacting and removal, waste disposal, sewerage, telecommunications, communication systems and public address systems, background music, security, air conditioning, ventilation, escalators, fire protections, lift services, washroom and toilet services; and
(b)the wires, pipes, ducting and other means of providing those services or systems to the Centre.
…
4. RENT VARIATION
4.1 Fixed review
If a date or dates are set out in Item18(c), the Rent will vary on each Fixed Review Date to an amount represented by A in the formula:
A = B + (B x C) where:
B is the Rent payable for the year Immediately [sic] preceding the relevant Fixed Review Date; and
C Is the Fixed Rate.
4.2 Effect of variations
A variation under this clause:
(a)takes effect on the relevant Review Date; and
(b)applies until the earlier of the next Review Date and the Terminating Date.
…
5.2 Services
(a)The Lessee must pay for all Services separately connected and supplied to the Premises or connected and supplied to the Centre and separately metered to the Premises, including, but not limited to water, electricity, gas and telephone.
(b)The Lessee must pay for the Cost of the installation of meters to separately service the Premises if:
(i) required by the Lessor (acting reasonably); or
(ii) requested by any relevant Authority.
…
11. SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY
11.1 Supply of Electricity
If the Lessor elects to supply electricity to the Lessee from any bulk supply of electricity purchased by the Lessor for the Centre:
(c)the Lessee must purchase all electricity consumed on the Premises form the Lessor;
(d)the price to be charged for all electricity will be at that rate and on those conditions imposed from time to time by the relevant authority to consumers of the same category of users as the Lessee using the same amount of electricity as the Lessee. The amount of electricity consumed by the Lessee will be determined from readings undertaken by the Lessor or the centre manager of any sub-meter metering the Premises, however the Lessor may, or may authorise another person to, estimate and substitute meter readings in accordance with the Regulations in the event of a meter failure;
(e)the Lessee must not tamper with, or permit tampering with, the meter or associated equipment or bypass, or allow electricity supplied to the Premises to bypass the meter;
(f)the Lessee must co-operate with the Lessor or the Local Network Services Provider, and their agents or representatives and allow them safe, convenient and unhindered access to the Premises for any purpose related to or in connection with the supply and sale of electricity including reading, maintaining or removing the meter, connecting and disconnecting supply, or undertaking maintenance or repair to the electricity distribution system before, during and following termination of the Lease; and
(g)if disconnection occurs following a breach of the Lease by the Lessee, or at the request of the Lessee, the Lessee must pay all costs associated with the disconnection and any subsequent reconnection.
11.2 Payment
(a)The Lessee must pay any account issued by the Lessor for electricity within 14 days of being notified of the amount due.
(b)If the Lessee fails to pay any account when due the Lessor may disconnect the supply of electricity to the premises. Any other right of the Lessor is not affected.
11.3 Liability
(a)The Lessor is not responsible in any way if the supply of electricity fails or is inadequate.
(b)The Lessor is not liable for any loss of profits, loss of opportunity or other indirect or consequential loss whether arising out of or in connection with this clause 11, except where caused by the negligence of the Lessor.
(c)Notwithstanding anything else in this Lease, to the fullest extend permitted by law, the liability of the Lessor for any breach of a condition, warranty or term whether under statute or by implication of law, custom or usage relating to this clause 11 is limited at the Lessor’s sole discretion to any one or more of the following:
(i)in the case of a good:
(A) the replacement of the good, the supply of an equivalent good, or the payment of the associated costs;
(B) the repair of the good, or the payment of the associated costs;
(ii)in the case of a service:
(A) the supplying of the service again; or
(B) the payment of the cost of having the service supplied again.
(d)The Lessee must indemnify the Lessor for any damages or losses incurred by the Lessor or the Local Network Services Provider, due to the Lessee’s negligence or breach of the Lease, including paying to the Lessor other charges (if any) permitted to be imposed by the Regulations due to the Lessee’s breach of the Regulations or the Lease other than by operation of Law.
(e)The Lessee acknowledges that connection, maintenance of connection and reconnection services to the site is the responsibility of the Local Network Service Provider and that delivery and quality of the supply of electricity is beyond the Lessor’s control.
…
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
...
Early Termination
The Lessee shall be entitled to terminate this lease at any time during the first year of the term only, provided 3 months written notice is provided. At the commencement of the second year of the term, this special condition is completely waived and both parties will be bound by this agreement in full.
…
Outgoings
Despite any other provision in this agreement, the Lessee is only liable to pay for the following outgoings;
Water consumption and access
Waste Disposal
Gas (if applicable)
Electricity charges specifically for its tenancy
All of the above mentioned outgoings are calculated on a per tenancy basis, and the Lessee will only be invoiced by the Lessor for chargers [sic] relating to its own tenancy.
There is no definition of ‘outgoings’ contained in the lease.
The only provision about variation of terms of the lease during its currency, are as referred to in clause 4. above. Clause 4.2 contemplates variation of rent in some circumstances during the currency of the lease. It does not provide for the manner in which the variation will be documented.
Clause 22.8 provides for severability of provisions of the lease which are illegal, invalid or unenforceable, but makes no provision for resolution of inconsistency.
Relevant provisions of the RSL Act
The RSL Act defines a lessor’s ‘outgoings’ in s 7. They include the lessor’s reasonable expenses directly attributable to the operation, maintenance and repair of the centre and areas used in association with it. An outgoing may be apportionable or specific: s 7(2). Specific outgoings are those attributable to a lessee because of the lessee’s direct use of the services or facilities which incur the outgoing.[1]
[1]RSL Act, Schedule, definition of ‘specific outgoings’.
Some minimum lease standards are prescribed by the RSL Act.[2] In particular, s 37 sets out requirements when a lessee is to pay a lessor’s outgoings. The lease must specify the outgoings payable by the lessee; how they are to be determined; and how they are to be recovered.[3] Section 37A applies if outgoings include an amount for electricity charges: they may be recovered only in the specified manner.
[2]RSL Act, Part 6.
[3]RSL Act, s 37(2)(a).
The RSL Act also contemplates variations to a lease during its term, for example, by way of rent concession,[4] as occurred here but making no other specific provision about them.
[4]RSL Act, s 24(1)(c)(i).
Provisions in leases that are inconsistent with the RSL Act are void to the extent of the inconsistency.[5]
[5]RSL Act, s 20.
Responsibility for electricity to the leased Premises under the lease
Under the definitions in clause 1.1 and in clause 5.2, electricity separately metred to the leased Premises is a service. Clause 5.2 provides for the lessee to pay for all services including electricity. The definition of services refers to power, rather than electricity, but the terms appear to have been used interchangeably. Clause 11 sets out, in some detail, how supply of electricity by the lessor is managed, if the lessor elects to supply electricity to the lessee.
However, under ‘special conditions’ under the heading of ‘outgoings’, in a provision which is explicitly stated to apply despite any other provision in the lease, the only outgoings payable by the lessee are those listed. These include ‘electricity charges specifically for the tenancy’.
Under the RSL Act, the electricity charges for the leased Premises are a specific outgoing. This is consistent with the manner in which the lease treats electricity charges, although the lease variously refers to the charges as an outgoing in special conditions and as a service in clause 5.2. Nevertheless, the definition of services appears to be no more than a definition of specific outgoings
It is uncontroversial between the parties, that under the lease as signed that Ms Gosbell was required to pay, and did pay, for electricity provided by Linehurst to the leased Premises and separately metred. This is consistent with the Special Conditions, Clause 5.2 and Clause 11.2.
What were the terms of any agreed variation of lease?
After the execution of the lease, the parties exchanged email about the rent and other amounts payable under the lease. On 20 February 2014, Laura Ferraro, Property Manager – Primo Property, agent for Linehurst made a proposal on Linehurst’s behalf (and which Linehurst acknowledges) in the following terms,:
In looking to progress…, we refer back to our proposal made on the 19th February and make the following changes to your benefit:
Rent free from 1st March 2014 -- 30 May 2014
·As of 1st June 2014 your monthly rental invoice will be reduced to $1500 (including GST and Outgoings)
·There will be no further increases ($1500 pm including GST & Outgoings) throughout the duration of your lease ending 31 July 2016
·The discussion in regards to a further 3 months’ [sic] rent free was made on the condition that you wavered [sic] your opt out condition on the lease.
Ms Gosbell agreed to this proposal and confirmed by email that on the basis of these arrangements, she would continue with the lease until 31 July 2016.
Linehurst has provided some copies of tax invoices rendered to Ms Gosbell after the variation. The invoices for rent also detail charges for general waste and trade waste for each month. In essence, after the variation, the invoices show these items, but the total charged is only $1500. Linehurst continued to render invoices to Ms Gosbell for electricity charges for the leased Premises.
Ms Gosbell provides a tax invoice from Linehurst dated 21 November 2013, which sets out charges for costs of general and trade waste for September, October, November and December 2013. It is reasonable to infer, and we do draw the inference, that the rental invoices (which we do not have) up until at least December 2013, did not contain an amount for, or any reference to, trade and general waste charges.
Ms Gosbell says she ‘fell behind’ with electricity payments. Nevertheless, she says she paid the April and May 2014 electricity invoices in August 2014 and then also paid the June and July invoices in early October 2014. She says that at this stage, she realised that under the variation agreed, she was no longer responsible for the electricity charges. She emailed Primo Property explaining that she had incorrectly paid the amounts. She then adjusted rental payments, in effect short-paying them by the amounts paid for electricity charges following the variation. She says that as she did not receive an electricity invoice for some time, she thought the issue was settled.
However, in November 2014, Linehurst emailed Ms Gosbell stating that electricity was not included in the monthly rental invoice. Ms Gosbell refused to pay later accounts rendered to her for electricity. Linehurst then disconnected the electricity on 2 December 2014 until 4 December 2014.
Ms Gosbell submits that as a result of the agreed variation, she no longer has a responsibility to pay for electricity, which is an outgoing. She submits that the amount payable by her of $1500 includes all outgoings, including electricity.
Linehurst says that its offer to vary the rent and other amounts payable extended only the amount charged in the ‘monthly rental invoice’ for rent and (general and trade) waste disposal. They submit that under the proposal Ms Gosbell was obliged to continue to pay for electricity under clauses 5.2 and 11. We do not accept this submission. The monthly rental invoices until at least December 2013 did not contain charges for the waste disposal. Therefore, when negotiations occurred in February 2014, it is reasonable to infer that neither party contemplated that an offer of $1500 per month, including ‘GST and outgoings’, referred only to outgoings for general and trade waste.
In any event, the parties were negotiating a variation to the rent and outgoings payable under the terms of the lease. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer, and we do draw the inference, that negotiations relating to items (that is, in this case, ‘outgoings’) in the lease, were intended to have the meaning given to them in the lease.
Outgoings are specified and limited by the special conditions. They include waste disposal and electricity charges specifically for the tenancy. These are specific outgoings under the RSL Act, irrespective of whether they are also defined as services in the lease document. In any event, the lease document also refers to them as outgoings in the Special Conditions.
Inconsistently with Linehurt’s own submissions, waste disposal is also a service as defined and a specific outgoing, yet Linehurst does not contend that Ms Gosbell is obliged to continue to pay for it following the agreement to vary the lease terms. In saying this, we acknowledge that Linehurst has sought to distinguish its treatment of waste on another basis, but for the reasons discussed above, we do not accept its explanation.
It is perhaps curious that Ms Gosbell continued to pay electricity charges in the months following the variation agreement. However, she says that her knowledge of retail leasing matters is not ‘in the same class’ as Linehurst’s knowledge.[6] It is reasonable to infer from her material that she is not an experienced businessperson. We attribute her apparently inconsistent actions to her lack of experience.
[6]Submission of Ms Gosbell filed 29 September 2015.
The meaning of a contract is a question of fact when it turns on the words of the contractual provisions (as opposed to the legal effect, which is a question of law). In construing a contract, such as a lease and a variation to a lease, the Tribunal must as far as possible give effect to the bargain between the parties. Constructions which lead to consequences that appear to be unreasonable, inconvenient or unjust are generally to be avoided.[7]
[7]Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australian Performing Rights Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99, at 109-110.
Although it is not often the case that a lessor agrees to bear the costs of electricity for leased premises, parties are entitled to reach agreement about these matters. It is not the Tribunal’s role to make the agreement reached more beneficial for a party than what they agreed to. As discussed, the Tribunal must, as far as possible, give effect to the bargain actually reached by the parties.
On a plain reading of the lease, the Special Conditions are intended to override any other provision of the lease. The reasonable inference is that the lease contains standard lease terms, but that the parties negotiated some special terms intended to vary or override the provisions in the standard lease agreement. For this reason, the special condition about outgoings is prefaced by the words, ‘Despite any other provision…’ Accordingly, despite Clauses 5.2 and 11, the Special Condition provides that electricity charges specifically for the premises is an outgoing payable by Ms Gosbell.
Further, on a plain reading of the offer made by Linehurst, we find that it offered to reduce rent to $1500 per month including GST and outgoings. We find that this meant all outgoings under the lease in accordance with the Special Conditions. The Special Conditions in the lease provide that electricity charges for the Premises, like general and trade waste charges, are outgoings, which are as a result of the agreed variations, are included in the $1,500.00 monthly amount. This is the offer which was accepted by Ms Gosbell.
On this basis, we find that under the terms of the variation agreed by the parties, Ms Gosbell is not required to pay for the costs of electricity to the leased Premises.
Is the variation enforceable?
The Tribunal cannot force Linehurst to ‘retract the rent review’ and renegotiate as Ms Gosbell suggests in the orders she seeks. However, the parties could agree to do so. Nor can the Tribunal, as Linehurst requests, make an order to ‘reinstate the original lease agreement’ if the parties have made an enforceable agreement between themselves to vary it. Although, again, the parties could renegotiate if they choose to do so.
That said, the orders sought by the parties raise issues about enforceability of the agreed variation. In this case, the parties have not executed a formal variation of lease document containing the variations agreed and lodged it for registration.[8] At common law, an agreement to vary terms of a lease may be either a collateral personal contract between the parties,[9] or a surrender of the lease and entry into a new lease.[10] Minor variation may not justify a conclusion that the lease has been surrendered.[11] It is a question of fact in each case.
[8]Land Titles Act 1994 (Qld) provides for amendment of leases.
[9]Donellan v Read (1824) 110 ER 330; Friends’ Provident Life Office v British Railways Board [1996] 1 All ER 336.
[10]Baker v Merckel [1960] QB 657; Friends’ Provident Life Office v British Railways Board [1996] 1 All ER 336.
[11]Gollin & Co Ltd v Consolidated Fertiliser Sales [1982] Qd R 435 at 438.
Dispositions and interests in land (including leases) must generally be evidenced in writing by the person, or the person’s agent lawfully authorised in writing, if they are to be enforceable.[12] Where an agreement is required to be in writing, alteration to rent must also be in writing.[13] If the alteration is contained in a separate contract, it must generally be supported by consideration.[14] Where there are sufficient acts of part-performance, enforcement may be permitted by equity.[15] Further, where reliance has been placed on the agreement, an estoppel may operate against the lessor.[16]
[12]Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), ss 11 and 59. Under s 11, an interest in land can also be created by operation of law.
[13]Air India v Commonwealth [1977] 1 NSWLR 449.
[14]Donellan v Read (1824) 110 ER 330.
[15]McMahon v Ambrose [1987] VR 817; Strachan & Co Ltd v Lyall & Sons Pty Ltd [1953] VLR 81.
[16]Waltons Stores Iinterstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387.
Here, Linehurst acknowledges that the offer was made by it through its authorised agent: although we have not been provided with a copy of the written authorisation appointing of the agent, there is no issue raised about the authorisation of the agent. There is writing about the agreed terms of the variation in the form of electronic communication, namely emails exchanged. As emails, they are not signed in the traditional sense by the parties, but are acknowledged by each of the parties, as their agreement. The email exchanges between Linehurst’s agent and Ms Gosbell set out the terms agreed. There is no uncertainty about them. Ms Gosbell gave valuable consideration for the agreement to vary, by forgoing her right under the Special Conditions to terminate the lease during its first year.
Here, we find that the evidence does not support a finding that the lease was surrendered. Clause 4 (like the RSL Act) contemplates variation of rent within the operation of the lease, albeit not in the manner in which the parties agreed to the variation in this instance. Indeed, it is reasonable to infer, given the terms offered by Linehurst, that the proposed variation was intended by it to avoid termination of the lease by Ms Gosbell under the Special Conditions.
We are satisfied that the agreement to vary the terms is a collateral contract between the parties, which is supported by valuable consideration, and that there is sufficient written evidence of the agreement. On this basis, we are satisfied that the variation is enforceable between the parties. If we were wrong about the adequacy of the evidence about the authorisation of the agent or the written documents recording the agreement or any other necessary requirement for enforceability at common law, we would in any event be satisfied that because of Ms Gosbell’s part-performance of the agreement through forgoing her right to terminate under the Special Conditions, that the agreement is enforceable.
Further, and in any event, if we were wrong about that, we would find that an estoppel operates against Linehurst to prevent it from relying upon the strict terms of the lease. This is because Ms Gosbell is materially disadvantaged as a result of reliance on the representations made by Linehurst’s agent about the variation of terms in that she has forgone her right to terminate the lease in accordance with the special conditions during the first year of the lease (if not as sufficient consideration or acts of part-performance for the varied terms), by the subsequent effluxion of time.
Ms Gosbell’s compensation claim
Ms Gosbell does not specify the basis upon which she claims compensation. However, the RSL Act implies terms into every lease providing for compensation to be payable to a lessee if, amongst other circumstances, a lessor causes significant disruption to the lessee’s trading.[17]
[17]RSL Act, s 43(1)(c).
We find that Linehurst’s action in disconnecting the electricity to the leased premises caused disruption to Ms Gosbell’s trading because she was unable to operate the business because of it. However, Ms Gosbell concedes that she was advised by email that the power had been reconnected early on 4 December but she did not read it until late on that day. We do not consider that Linehurst is responsible for disruption on 4 December. Ms Gosbell had a responsibility to take care in relation to her own business affairs. She had been advised it was reconnected. Accordingly, any disruption as a result of Linehurt’s action occurred on 2 and 3 December. As Ms Gosbell was unable to trade at all on these two days, we find that there was significant disruption to her trading for the 2 days.
However, this is a two day period, in the context of a business that Ms Gosbell describes as fledgling in her material, hence her desire to negotiate reduced rent. Further, the quantum of Ms Gosbell’s claim for compensation has varied considerably since the notice of dispute was lodged. It is now some $5000, although this seems to include a component for legal and other costs. The various submissions and statements made by Ms Gosbell each refer to different amounts, but none of them contains any corroborative evidence or material of a financial nature (other than Ms Gosbell’s say so) to justify the claim. Ms Gosbell’s figures, where a basis of the figure claimed is provided, as we understand it from her explanations, are for gross takings for three days in weeks before and after the electricity disconnection occurred. They are therefore not calculations of her alleged actual loss. In a fledgling business, it may be that bookings were not heavy. Appointments cancelled on 2 and 3 December may have been rebooked on other dates. There may have been no actual loss.
The only evidence about loss is contained in Ms Gosbell’s various inconsistent statements about her alleged loss. In the absence of evidence which corroborates any actual financial loss, and which attempts to calculate actual loss suffered by Ms Gosbell, we are not reasonably satisfied on the material provided by Ms Gosbell that she has suffered any compensable loss.
Costs
Ms Gosbell seeks legal (and it seems other) costs.
The QCAT Act contains a strong contra-indication against costs being awarded: s 100.[18] That said, the Tribunal may award costs if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so: s 102.
[18]Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412, at [29].
Ms Gosbell has been partially successful on her claim. She has represented herself throughout the proceedings, although we accept that she has taken legal advice and assistance from time to time. She has prepared her own material. Few appearances in the Tribunal have been required. She has not presented the Tribunal with copies of any accounts for legal costs incurred in conducting the proceedings in the Tribunal. In any event, we note that Ms Gosbell refers in part to costs of taking time off work to attend Tribunal events. There is no basis for awarding costs other than legal costs and disbursements properly incurred in the conduct of proceeding. This does not extend to the costs of her time.
We find that evidence before the Tribunal does not support a finding that the interests of justice require the making of an order for costs in Ms Gosbell’s favour.
Conclusions and orders
In view of our conclusions, we make a declaration that the monthly rental amount payable of $1500 (including GST and outgoings) includes electricity.
We further order that the claims for compensation and costs are dismissed.
0