Mantale Pty Ltd v Kline - [2007] NSWADT 78

CITATION: Mantale Pty Ltd v Kline [2007] NSWADT 78

DIVISION: Retail Leases Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Mantale Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
Denia Kline

FILE NUMBER: 065144

HEARING DATES: 9 March 2007

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 9 March 2007

DATE OF DECISION:
5 April 2007

BEFORE: Rickards K - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Claim for payment of money

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Legal Profession Act 2004
Retail Leases Act 1994

CASES CITED: Botts v Grimme (2001) NSW ADT 14
Long & Anor v Piper (2001) NSW CA 32
Masters v Cameron (1954) HCA 72
Randi Wixs Pty Ltd v Pokana Pty Limited (No 2) (2003) NSW ADT 4)

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
R Dynon, Solicitor
RESPONDENT
In person

ORDERS: 1. The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $22,876.81; 2. Unless either party files written submissions as to costs within twenty one (21) days of the date hereof, there will be no order as to costs.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The Applicant is the owner of retail premises known as Shop 1, 563 Sydney Road, Seaforth. The Respondent was the lessee of those premises pursuant to a lease dated 15 June 2002.

2 The lease was for a term of two years with an option for renewal for a further term of three years commencing from 15 June 2004 and terminating 14 June 2007.

3 The Applicant is seeking payment of rent said to be due under the original lease and the renewed lease as well as a share of outgoings, interest, a share of valuation costs, the agent’s fee paid by the Applicant when the premises were subsequently re-let, and the legal costs of the Applicant following alleged breach by the Respondent. Particulars of these items are fully and clearly set out in the schedules attached to the Application filed, and total the sum of $54,985.85.

4 Having heard evidence given on behalf of each of the parties, having perused the relevant documents and considered submissions, the facts relevant to this matter either as agreed between the parties or as found by me are set out below.

Facts

5 The subject premises were used by the Respondent as a beauty salon as and from the commencement of the original lease on 15 June 2002.

6 The initial rent was $30,766.00 per annum excluding GST, payable by equal consecutive monthly instalments of $2,563.83. The Respondent was also required to pay 20% of increases in outgoings in respect of rates, charges, insurance, land tax and electricity over the course of the lease.

7 Pursuant to the terms of the original lease, the Respondent was required to give not more than six months nor less than three months notice prior to the expiration of the term of the lease if she wished to exercise the option to renew for a further period of three years. In effect, this meant that any exercise of option by the Respondent should normally have been notified to the Applicant before 15 March 2004.

8 Over the course…

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 Mantale Pty Ltd v Kline

Details

AGLC: Mantale Pty Ltd v Kline [2007] NSWADT 78
Case: [2007] NSWADT 78
Decision Date: 5 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mantale Pty Ltd brought a claim against Kline in the Federal Circuit Court, seeking payment of a debt for services rendered. The claim arose from a contract between the parties, whereby Kline engaged Mantale Pty Ltd to carry out various works. Following the completion of the works, Mantale Pty Ltd submitted an invoice for the services provided, which Kline refused to pay. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Kline was liable to pay the amount claimed by Mantale Pty Ltd. The court was required to consider the terms of the contract between the parties and whether there were any breaches that would affect the Respondent's liability to pay.

The court found that the contract was valid and binding, and that the services had been performed as per the agreement. There were no breaches of contract that would absolve the Respondent from paying the amount claimed. The court held that Kline was liable to pay the full amount claimed by Mantale Pty Ltd, being $22,876.81. The court emphasised that the Respondent had not provided any evidence to suggest that the services were not performed to the required standard. The court also noted that the Respondent had not disputed the amount claimed, other than to assert that there were some issues with the quality of the work. However, the court found that these issues did not affect the Respondent's liability to pay for the services provided.

The court ordered that the Respondent pay the full amount claimed by Mantale Pty Ltd, being $22,876.81, within fourteen days of the date of the judgment. The court also noted that unless either party filed written submissions as to costs within twenty-one days of the date of the judgment, there would be no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $22,876.81; 2. Unless either party files written submissions as to costs within twenty one (21) days of the date hereof, there will be no order as to costs.

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.

CITATION:	Mantale Pty Ltd v Kline [2007] NSWADT 78
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Mantale Pty Ltd RESPONDENT Denia Kline
FILE NUMBER:	065144
HEARING DATES:	9 March 2007
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	9 March 2007
DATE OF DECISION:	5 April 2007
BEFORE:	Rickards K - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Claim for payment of money
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Legal Profession Act 2004 Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED:	Botts v Grimme (2001) NSW ADT 14 Long & Anor v Piper (2001) NSW CA 32 Masters v Cameron (1954) HCA 72 Randi Wixs Pty Ltd v Pokana Pty Limited (No 2) (2003) NSW ADT 4)
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT R Dynon, Solicitor RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	1. The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $22,876.81; 2. Unless either party files written submissions as to costs within twenty one (21) days of the date hereof, there will be no order as to costs.