Liangis Investments Pty Limited v Ipex ITG Pty Limited

This was an appeal from a decision of the Magistrates Court exercising jurisdiction pursuant to s 144 of the Leases (Commercial and Retail) Act 2001. The dispute was between the present appellant, Liangis Investments Pty Limited (the landlord) and the present respondent, Ipex Information Technology Group Pty Limited (the tenant). The dispute concerned the adequacy of air-conditioning installed by the landlord in a purpose built extension to leased premises in Fyshwick in the Australian Capital Territory from which the tenant conducted a business supplying and servicing computers. The Court entered judgment for the tenant in the sum of $292,275.00. The appeal questions both the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal, and the ultimate decision by the Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the cross-appeal was also dismissed.The court held that there was proper jurisdiction for the Tenancy Tribunal to hear and determine the dispute. The learned Magistrate was correct in holding that he had jurisdiction to entertain the application. The court further held that there was no error in the Magistrate's interpretation of the lease term requiring the landlord to construct the premises with air-conditioning and electrical systems sufficient to meet the needs of the tenant as identified by Plan C, and as otherwise known to the landlord or to a reasonable person in the position of the landlord. The Magistrate turned to the question of whether the systems as installed were sufficient, and the court held that he made the observation that if the system as installed did not have sufficient capacity to heat and cool the premises the respondent cannot avoid liability by claiming ignorance of matters pertaining to the applicant's use of the premises that were either ascertainable from the plans or from the applicant itself. The court held that there was ample evidence before the Magistrate to conclude, as he did, that the cost as outlined by Mr Nathwani was reasonable. The court further held that the Magistrate was correct in awarding the sum in relation to stamp duty and that the approach taken by the Magistrate in assessing an appropriate sum for the difference in rental rates was entirely proper on the evidence before him.