Ktenas v Scott (RLD)

Appeal Panel

CITATION:	Ktenas -v- Scott (RLD) [2002] NSWADTAP 15
PARTIES:	APPELLANT George Ktenas T/A Shop-Store 7 & Office 8 RESPONDENT Leslie Gordon Scott
FILE NUMBER:	019047
HEARING DATES:	11/12/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/11/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	12/11/2001
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	George Ktenas -v- Leslie Gordon Scott
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Hole M - Judicial Member; O'Neill A - Member
CATCHWORDS:	adequacy of reasons - costs
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	015058
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	09/14/2001
LEGISLATION CITED:	Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED:	Citadin Pty Ltd (No. 2) -v- Eddie Azzi Australia Pty Ltd & General Pants Co Pty Ltd (RLD) [2001] NSWADTAP 31
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT In person RESPONDENT P Lowe, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. The appellant pay the costs of the appeal.

Delivered ex tempore

1 At the conclusion of the appeal hearing the following short oral reasons were given, dismissing the appeal.

‘HIS HONOUR: We have considered the submissions that you have made in relation to your appeal, Mr Ktenas, and the submissions made by Mr Lowe in reply and our decision is that the appeal is dismissed and I will now go on and give some short reasons and I propose to issue some more detailed reasons in writing later. We are satisfied that the Tribunal, that is Mr Fox, found that as at 14 September you, Mr Ktenas, were again in arrears in relation to payment of your rent and that the lessor, that is, Mr Scott, was entitled to rely on the earlier notice of termination to recover possession of the premises. In that regard I refer you, Mr Ktenas, to the orders that were made on 30 May 2001 which are referred to in the text of the decision with file number 015058 in which you were the applicant.

The order that Mr Fox made on that occasion was that the respondent landlord, that is Mr Scott, was to return possession of the premises to you upon payment of rent in clear funds of $836, including GST, and all further action by Mr Scott was stayed whilst monthly payments of $836 are made on the first day of each and every month. That order was to lapse without further order of this Tribunal if payments were not made on the due date. So the effect of that order was, as we interpret it, was to stay the operation of the notice of termination and the application which Mr Scott made founded on that notice of termination.

Given that, the Tribunal then found that you were again in arrears, that is, you were not up to date in the payment of your rent on 14 September. It concluded that Mr Scott was justified in having the premises returned to him. In our view, this case is a simple case about the non-payment of rent. The reasons that you gave to us today, Mr Ktenas, and no doubt you gave to Mr Fox, for…