Greenland (Sydney) George Street Development Pty Ltd v Touma

Case

[2016] NSWSC 1358

22 September 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Greenland (Sydney) George Street Development Pty Ltd v Touma [2016] NSWSC 1358 [2016] NSWSC 1358 22 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this case were Greenland (Sydney) George Street Development Pty Ltd and Touma. The dispute was about whether Touma's right to occupy premises in Sydney was lawfully terminated by Greenland. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Touma leased a property from Greenland, but after the lease started, Greenland terminated Touma's right to occupy. Touma applied for relief against forfeiture, arguing that the termination was invalid. Greenland argued that the termination was valid because Touma had failed to make a monthly rental payment.
The court had to decide whether Touma's right to occupy the premises was lawfully terminated by Greenland. The court also had to decide whether Touma's application for relief against forfeiture should be granted, and whether any conditions should be imposed on giving relief against forfeiture.
The court found that Touma's right to occupy the premises was lawfully terminated by Greenland. However, the court also found that Touma's application for relief against forfeiture should be granted, because the termination was not carried out in accordance with the terms of the lease. The court found that the failure to make a monthly rental payment was not a breach of the lease that justified termination. The court found that the termination was unlawful because it was not carried out in accordance with the terms of the lease. The court found that relief against forfeiture should be granted, but that conditions should be imposed on giving relief against forfeiture. The court found that Touma should pay the outstanding rent, and that Touma should be given a reasonable opportunity to catch up on any missed rent payments. The court found that these conditions were necessary to ensure that Touma was not unfairly disadvantaged by the unlawful termination.
The court ordered that Touma's right to occupy the premises should be restored, subject to the conditions that Touma pay the outstanding rent, and that Touma be given a reasonable opportunity to catch up on any missed rent payments.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Property Law

Legal Concepts

  • Landlord and Tenant

  • Termination of Tenancy

  • Relief Against Forfeiture

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0