Hanna v Lombardo - [2012] NSWADT 163

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanna v Lombardo [2012] NSWADT 163
Hearing dates: 14 & 16 December 2011, 14 March 2012
Decision date: 09 August 2012
Jurisdiction: Retail Leases Division
Before: K Rickards, Judicial member
Decision:
1. The Application in proceedings 115093 is dismissed.
2. The termination of the retail lease agreement between the parties on 27 June 2011 by the Respondent/Cross Applicant Domenic Lombardo in respect of premises known as 113 George Street Windsor is declared to be valid.
3. The Applicant/Cross Respondent Paul Hanna is to pay the sum of $18,891 to the Respondent/Cross Applicant Domenic Lombardo.
4. Unless either party files and serves submissions within 14 days as to why a costs order should be made in favour of either party, there will be no order as to costs. If either party files and serves submissions within this period of 14 days, the other party shall file and serve any submissions in reply within a further 14 days of receipt of the initial submissions, and the issue of costs will then be determined upon the basis of the written submissions filed and without any further hearing.

Catchwords: Pre-lease representations; breach of lease; compensation for breach
Legislation Cited: Retail Leases Act 1994
Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997
Trade Practices Act (Cwlth) 1974
Fair Trading Act 1987
Cases Cited: Kollias v Monzo Pty Ltd [2003] NSWADT 275
Samaha & Anor v Corbett Court Pty Ltd Corbett Court Pty Ltd v Samaha & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1441
Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies-Bond & Associates [2007] NSWADTAP 47
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Hanna (Applicant/Cross Respondent)
Domenic Lombardo (Respondent/Cross Applicant)
Representation: Counsel
B Zipser (Respondent/Cross Applicant)
Herbert Weller (Applicant/Cross Respondent)
Pavlis & Co Solicitors (Respondent/Cross Applicant)

File Number(s): 115093, 115101

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

The subject proceedings arise from a retail lease agreement ("the lease") between the lessee Mr Paul Hanna and the lessor Mr Domenic Lombardo relating to shop premises at 113 George Street, Windsor ("the premises"). The term of the lease was for a period of 3 years to commence from 2 August 2010 to 4 July 2013, together with an option to renew for a further period of 3 years.

As a result of being locked out of the premises for alleged non-payment of rent, Mr Hanna filed a Summons in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking restoration of possession of the premises to him, together with a declaration that he was entitled to set off against the rent due for the premises the amounts which he claims to have paid to repair or upgrade the premises or, alternatively, a declaration of estoppel.

The Supreme Court proceedings were subsequently transferred by consent for determination by this Tribunal on 15 July 2011.

In the subsequent Application filed by the lessor Mr Lombardo, he seeks: a declaration that the lease was validly terminated on 27 June 2011; an order that Mr Hanna pay rent arrears which were due and payable as at…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanna v Lombardo and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NSWADT 163
Decision Date: 09 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Hanna v Lombardo was before the court regarding a dispute involving pre-lease representations, a breach of lease, and compensation for the breach. The Applicant/Cross Respondent, Paul Hanna, sought to set aside the termination of a retail lease agreement, while the Respondent/Cross Applicant, Domenic Lombardo, defended the termination and sought compensation for the breach.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Respondent had validly terminated the lease, and if so, whether the Applicant was liable for compensation as a result of the breach. The Applicant argued that there were misrepresentations made by the Respondent prior to the lease agreement that warranted setting aside the termination, while the Respondent contended that the termination was valid and that the Applicant was liable for compensation under the terms of the lease.

The court found that the Respondent had validly terminated the lease agreement and that the Applicant was liable for compensation in the amount of $18,891. The court rejected the Applicant's argument regarding pre-lease representations, finding that there was no evidence to support the claim. The court also found that the Applicant had breached the lease by failing to pay rent and that the Respondent was entitled to compensation for the breach.

The final orders of the court were that the application to set aside the termination of the lease was dismissed, the termination of the lease was declared to be valid, the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent compensation in the amount of $18,891, and there would be no order as to costs unless either party filed and served submissions within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application in proceedings 115093 is dismissed.

2. The termination of the retail lease agreement between the parties on 27 June 2011 by the Respondent/Cross Applicant Domenic Lombardo in respect of premises known as 113 George Street Windsor is declared to be valid.

3. The Applicant/Cross Respondent Paul Hanna is to pay the sum of $18,891 to the Respondent/Cross Applicant Domenic Lombardo.

4. Unless either party files and serves submissions within 14 days as to why a costs order should be made in favour of either party, there will be no order as to costs. If either party files and serves submissions within this period of 14 days, the other party shall file and serve any submissions in reply within a further 14 days of receipt of the initial submissions, and the issue of costs will then be determined upon the basis of the written submissions filed and without any further hearing.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hanna v Lombardo [2012] NSWADT 163
Hearing dates:	14 & 16 December 2011, 14 March 2012
Decision date:	09 August 2012
Jurisdiction:	Retail Leases Division
Before:	K Rickards, Judicial member
Decision:	1. The Application in proceedings 115093 is dismissed. 2. The termination of the retail lease agreement between the parties on 27 June 2011 by the Respondent/Cross Applicant Domenic Lombardo in respect of premises known as 113 George Street Windsor is declared to be valid. 3. The Applicant/Cross Respondent Paul Hanna is to pay the sum of $18,891 to the Respondent/Cross Applicant Domenic Lombardo. 4. Unless either party files and serves submissions within 14 days as to why a costs order should be made in favour of either party, there will be no order as to costs. If either party files and serves submissions within this period of 14 days, the other party shall file and serve any submissions in reply within a further 14 days of receipt of the initial submissions, and the issue of costs will then be determined upon the basis of the written submissions filed and without any further hearing.
Catchwords:	Pre-lease representations; breach of lease; compensation for breach
Legislation Cited:	Retail Leases Act 1994 Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 Trade Practices Act (Cwlth) 1974 Fair Trading Act 1987
Cases Cited:	Kollias v Monzo Pty Ltd [2003] NSWADT 275 Samaha & Anor v Corbett Court Pty Ltd Corbett Court Pty Ltd v Samaha & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1441 Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies-Bond & Associates [2007] NSWADTAP 47
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Paul Hanna (Applicant/Cross Respondent) Domenic Lombardo (Respondent/Cross Applicant)
Representation:	Counsel B Zipser (Respondent/Cross Applicant) Herbert Weller (Applicant/Cross Respondent) Pavlis & Co Solicitors (Respondent/Cross Applicant)
File Number(s):	115093, 115101