Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Heriot Pty Ltd v Williams [2024] NSWCATCD 35 Hearing dates: 29 January 2024 Date of orders: 13 March 2024 Decision date: 13 March 2024 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Ulman, Senior Member Decision: (1) Within seven (7) days, the applicant file and serve an affidavit setting out interest calculations on the make good claim, re-leasing claim and unpaid rent claim at the rate prescribed by clause 11.4 of the lease from the commencement of these proceedings to 29 January 2024.
(2) Upon the filing of the affidavit, final orders will be made on the papers as permitted by section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, unless persuaded that there should be oral submissions.
(3) Costs are reserved.
Catchwords: Retail lease – damages claim for lost rent and expenses - no rent payable in the first year of the new lease – whether lessor has mitigated the loss – whether lessor entitled to recover GST – whether lease permits entitlement to interest when no demand made for payment made – costs
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014
Retail Leases Act 1993
Retail Leases Regulation 2022
Cases Cited: Karacominakis v Big Country Developments Pty Ltd & Big Country Developments Pty Ltd v Chadlace Pty Ltd & Ors J W Wall Investment Co Pty Ltd & Ors v Big Country Developments Pty Ltd & Ors Hollingsworth & v Big Country Developments Pty Ltd & Ors [2000] NSWCA 313
Texts Cited: Prof B Edgeworth Butt’s Land Law (7th ed)
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Heriot Pty Ltd – Applicant
Andrew Charles Williams - RespondentRepresentation: Counsel: Mr T Bateman for the Applicant
Solicitors: Baron & Associates
No appearance by the respondent
File Number(s): 2023/00379427 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
-
The applicant is the owner of Shops 5 and 6, 152-156 Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach (shops 5 and 6). It seeks an order pursuant to section 72(1)(a) of the Retail Leases Act, 1994 (Act) that the respondent pay the sum of $627,232.30 said to be owed by the respondent as guarantor of the lease obligations of Bertha Two Pty Ltd (lessee) under a lease of shop 6 (premises).
-
In July 2013, the applicant leased Shops 5 and 6 to the lessee for a term of five years, from where the lessee operated a Hungry Jacks restaurant (2013 lease). The respondent was the guarantor of the lessee’s obligations under the 2013 lease.
-
In addition to the respondent’s guarantee, as security for the lessee’s obligations under the 2013 lease, the applicant held a bank guarantee in the amount of $72,049.99 issued by Suncorp Bank at the request of the lessee (bank guarantee).
-
The applicant and the respondent subsequently entered into a new five year lease of the premises that commenced on 1 July 2018 and was due to end on 30…
Continue reading Heriot Pty Ltd v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Heriot Pty Ltd v Williams [2024] NSWCATCD 35
- Case
- [2024] NSWCATCD 35
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Heriot had taken reasonable steps to mitigate its losses by re-leasing the property, whether Heriot was entitled to recover the GST component of the damages, and if the lease allowed for interest to be claimed on unpaid rent when no demand for payment had been made. Additionally, the court had to consider the costs of the proceedings.
The court found that Heriot had not adequately mitigated its losses as it had failed to actively market the property for re-leasing. Regarding the GST, the court ruled that Heriot was not entitled to recover it as it could not demonstrate that it had passed on the cost to the tenant. The court also determined that the lease did not permit the recovery of interest on unpaid rent when no demand for payment had been made. The court reserved costs pending further submissions on interest calculations.
The court ordered Heriot to file and serve an affidavit detailing interest calculations on specific claims within seven days. Final orders would be made based on these submissions unless the court deemed oral submissions necessary. Costs were reserved pending further submissions.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Within seven (7) days, the applicant file and serve an affidavit setting out interest calculations on the make good claim, re-leasing claim and unpaid rent claim at the rate prescribed by clause 11.4 of the lease from the commencement of these proceedings to 29 January 2024.
(2) Upon the filing of the affidavit, final orders will be made on the papers as permitted by section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, unless persuaded that there should be oral submissions.
(3) Costs are reserved.
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.