Contract - construction of terms of contract and its variation to determine amount of rent payable. - Penalties. Held that clauses merely provided for payments of past monies due and thus not a penalty. - Discharge. Did various breaches give a right to terminate? Whether such breaches were waived. - Damages. Whether a claim for damages for loss of bargain in respect of a lease arose. - Landlord and Tenant. Construction of use and occupation covenants. - Termination of Tenancy. Whether there was a surrender of sub-lease and creation of new tenancy as a result of sub-tenant deciding to pay half the holding over rent. - Guarantee and indemnity. Discharge of surety. Failure to include a term required by the principal contract to be included in a guaranteed sub-lease discharged surety. Held that it did. - Indemnities. Whether indemnity responded to situation where the need for indemnity arose from a breach of contract by the person entitled to the benefit of the guarantee. Held that it did not. - Construction of term of operation of guarantee.
PARTIES:
Gumland Property Holding Pty Limited v Duffy Bros Fruit Markets (Campbelltown) Pty Limited and 2 Ors
FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 50066/2005
COUNSEL:
J. West QC and NJ Kidd for plaintiff D. Cassidy QC and R. Keller for 1st defendant G. Turner for 2nd and 3rd defendants
SOLICITORS:
PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal for plaintiff Davis Legal for 1st defendant Curwood & Partners for 2nd and 3rd defendants
- 1 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION COMMERCIAL LIST
Associate Justice Macready
Tuesday 21 February 2006
50066/05 Gumland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Duffy Bros Fruit Market (Campbelltown) Pty Limited, Ferdinando Pisciuneri and Natale Piscuineri
JUDGMENT
1 His Honour: This is a claim by a lessor to recover damages following upon the termination of the first defendant’s lease of shop 10 in the Marketfair Campbelltown Shopping Centre. The second and third defendants are guarantors of the first defendant’s obligations under the lease and certain variations of the lease. The claim is for a sum of $2,013,055.
2 The circumstances have some complexity so it is useful to first set out the basic chronology of the lease history in the matter. At some stage it may be necessary to address the difficulties that the shopping centre suffered which led to the downturn in the lessee’s business and its eventual ceasing to trade from the premises before the expiry of its lease. It will also be necessary to address in more detail the factual circumstances surrounding the payment of rent in connection with the sub-lease.
Chronology
3 The lease in question was dated 30 March 1993 and was made between Transit Management Pty Limited (“Transit”) and the first defendant (“Duffy Bros”) of Shop 10 (now known as shop 9, 9A, 10…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Gumland v Duffy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gumland v Duffy [2006] NSWSC 10
Case
[2006] NSWSC 10
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Gumland v Duffy, the respondent, Gumland, sought relief from the Supreme Court of Victoria against the appellant, Duffy. Gumland was the landlord of a property leased to a sub-tenant, with Duffy acting as the guarantor for the sub-tenant's obligations. Gumland claimed that Duffy was liable for breaches of the lease and other related claims. The case centred on the interpretation of the lease agreement, the applicability of penalties, and the enforceability of guarantees and indemnities.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether certain clauses in the lease constituted penalties, whether breaches of the lease justified termination, and whether Gumland's claims for damages and termination were valid. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was a surrender of the sub-lease and creation of a new tenancy, and whether the failure to include a required term in the sub-lease discharged the guarantor. The court also examined whether the indemnity covered situations arising from breaches by the person entitled to the benefit of the guarantee.
The court found that the clauses in question were not penalties but rather provided for the payment of past due monies. It was determined that the breaches did not justify termination as they were waived by Gumland. The court further held that the failure to include a required term in the sub-lease discharged the surety, Duffy, from his obligations. However, the court ruled that the indemnity did not cover situations arising from breaches by the person entitled to the benefit of the guarantee. The court also concluded that there was no surrender of the sub-lease and no creation of a new tenancy.
The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed Gumland's claims and held that Duffy was not liable for the breaches of the lease or for any damages. The court ordered Gumland to pay Duffy's costs of the appeal.