Mapen Pty Ltd and Aspen (Septimus Roe) Pty Ltd
[2006] WASAT 204
•28 JULY 2006
MAPEN PTY LTD and ASPEN (SEPTIMUS ROE) PTY LTD [2006] WASAT 204
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 204 | |
| COMMERCIAL TENANCY (RETAIL SHOPS) AGREEMENTS ACT 1985 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CML:737/2004 | 8, 9 AND 10 MAY 2006 SUBSEQUENT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED 23 MAY 2006 | |
| Coram: | MR T CAREY (MEMBER) | 28/07/06 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application successful in part Cross application successful in part | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MAPEN PTY LTD ASPEN (SEPTIMUS ROE) PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Commercial tenancies Covenant of quiet enjoyment Cooking fumes in newsagency Cause of problem Lessor's responsibility generally and obligations in this case Whether covenant breached Commercial tenancies Termination of lease Whether lessee justified in vacating premises Commercial tenancies Damages for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment Measure of damages Lessor's entitlements on termination |
Legislation: | Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985(WA), s 26(1) |
Case References: | Hawkesbury Nominees Pty Ltd v Battik Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 185 Todbern Pty Ltd v Taormina International Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11, 173 (SC NSW) Nil |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : COMMERCIAL TENANCY (RETAIL SHOPS) AGREEMENTS ACT 1985 (WA) CITATION : MAPEN PTY LTD and ASPEN (SEPTIMUS ROE) PTY LTD [2006] WASAT 204 MEMBER : MR T CAREY (MEMBER) HEARD : 8, 9 AND 10 MAY 2006
- SUBSEQUENT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED 23 MAY 2006
- MAPEN PTY LTD
Applicant
ASPEN (SEPTIMUS ROE) PTY LTD
Respondent
- Applicant
AND
MAPEN PTY LTD
Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Commercial tenancies - Covenant of quiet enjoyment - Cooking fumes in newsagency - Cause of problem - Lessor's responsibility generally and obligations in this case - Whether covenant breached
Commercial tenancies - Termination of lease - Whether lessee justified in vacating premises
Commercial tenancies - Damages for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment - Measure of damages - Lessor's entitlements on termination
Legislation:
Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985(WA), s 26(1)
Result:
Application successful in part
Cross application successful in part
Category: B
Representation:
CML 737 of 2004
Counsel:
Applicant : Self-represented
Respondent : Mr SF Chan and Mr D Wee
Solicitors:
Applicant : Self-represented
Respondent : Chan Galic
CC 3222 of 2005
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr SF Chan and Mr D Wee
- Respondent : Self-represented
Solicitors:
Applicant : Chan Galic
Respondent : Self-represented
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Hawkesbury Nominees Pty Ltd v Battik Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 185
Todbern Pty Ltd v Taormina International Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11, 173 (SC NSW)
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 4)
Summary of the Tribunal's decision
1 The lessee of retail premises complained of the existence of cooking odours in its tenancy. Although some steps were taken by the lessor's agents to eradicate the problem, the lessee continued to experience the problem and ultimately vacated the premises. At one point, after the commencement of proceedings in the Commercial Tribunal, the lessor gave undertakings to complete works recommended by the lessor's consultant engineer, but did not comply with these undertakings. A number of reasons was proffered for this.
2 The primary question for the Tribunal was whether the lessor breached its covenant of quiet enjoyment under the lease. The Tribunal found that it did, by failing to do as it had undertaken or pursuing other possible solutions. It went on to find that the lessor's breach amounted to a repudiation of the lease, which justified the lessee vacating the premises. The lessee was entitled to damages limited to its expenses in moving to alternative premises. The lessor was entitled to recover unpaid rent until the vacation date and certain unpaid outgoings and other charges, but not unliquidated damages in consequence of the lessee's abandonment of the premises.
Introduction
3 Since 1993, Mapen Pty Ltd (Mapen) leased retail premises (premises) located on the ground floor of Septimus Roe Square, Adelaide Terrace, Perth (building). Mapen operated a newsagency business from the premises. The lessors were originally Perpetual Trustees WA Limited, then Ricass Holdings (S) Pte Ltd, and, since April 2002, Aspen (Septimus Roe) Pty Ltd (Aspen).
4 In April 2002, Mapen registered its first written complaint regarding the issue at the heart of the matter, the alleged presence of cooking odours in the newsagency, in a letter to the owners' agent, Knight Frank. According to Mapen, this letter, and subsequent complaints to a maintenance contractor and building supervisors, fell on deaf ears. In March 2004, Mapen referred the matter to the Perth City Council, and shortly thereafter an environmental health officer (EHO) for the City inspected the premises. The EHO verified the presence of cooking fumes and concluded the most likely cause was cooking activity in a café, Riccardo's, situated on the ground floor of the building diagonally opposite the newsagency. Steps were taken, with the assistance of
(Page 5)
- Knight Frank on Aspen's behalf, to alleviate the problem so identified. The situation appeared to have improved and the EHO was not recalled to the premises. However, according to Mapen, the problem disappeared for only two or three weeks, and the cooking smells returned and remained until Mapen vacated the premises for alternative premises in late March 2005. Mapen claims that the lessor's failure to eradicate the odour problem amounted to a breach of its right of quiet enjoyment, and seeks an order under s 26(1) of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA) (CTRSA Act) for substantial compensation in respect of the resulting loss of amenity of the premises.
5 Aspen seeks recovery by way of orders under s 26(1) of the CTRSA Act for recovery of rent, both for the period preceding the vacation of the premises by Mapen, and from that time until the expiry of the lease in accordance with a liquidated damages clause in the lease. Further amounts for GST liability, interest and legal costs are claimed.
6 The following issues arise for determination:
1) Whether there existed a problem of cooking odours or fumes in the premises, and if so, its extent.
2) The cause of the problem.
3) Aspen's responsibility for the problem.
4) Did Aspen meet its obligations?
5) How was the lease terminated, and was Mapen entitled to vacate the leased premises when it did?
6) Mapen's entitlement to damages or compensation.
7) Aspen's entitlement to rent, liquidated damages, GST, interest and costs of a default notice.
7 I will deal with each issue in turn.
Did the cooking fumes problem exist, and if so, to what extent?
8 Two directors of Mapen, Vern Middlemass Snr and Vern Middlemass Jnr, gave evidence of the history, nature and extent of the fumes problem. Their evidence was supported by two "lay" witnesses, Angela Miller and Helen Tolson, and the EHO, Mr Ahmed Yassin. I will limit myself to summarising the evidence of Ms Miller, Ms Tolson
(Page 6)
- and Mr Yassin, because it is their corroborative impartial evidence which I have found most persuasive in accepting the applicant's position on this issue.
9 Ms Miller said that she experienced cooking odours in the newsagency on a daily basis when she collected papers for the company for which she worked from early 2002 until late 2004. After a break of perhaps a few weeks, she again noticed the fumes at the end of 2004 until the premises were vacated in March 2005. She said the fumes were most noticeable when one reached the central part of the newsagency, and described them as "like rancid oil" which she would not expect in a café, let alone a newsagency. During the periods mentioned, she could not recall a morning free from the fumes, and on some occasions they would be so strong as to make her feel nauseated.
10 Ms Tolson gave evidence that she visited the newsagency on numerous occasions from about February 2004, at least once a week, and on a number of those occasions she commented on the stale food odours she could smell. Ms Tolson said that the smell was worse towards the back of the shop. She was able to identify two dates (being 5 May 2004 and 17 January 2005) when she made comments about the smell, which she described as "very overpowering". An effect of the odours described by her was that she would not stay in the shop to browse stock but simply pay an account or purchase a lottery ticket and leave as quickly as she could.
11 Mr Yassin was called as a witness by Mapen. Subsequent to his inspection of the premises on 2 April 2004, Mr Yassin had found the presence there of cooking oil odour which constituted a nuisance under a City of Perth health local law. Mr Yassin said that he was able to identify the odours as coming from cooking oils because of his experience in the position of EHO for some 15 years. He explained that a physical inspection was the preferred method of ascertaining whether an odour presents a nuisance. Mr Yassin said that he was in the premises at least six times, and he observed the odour in most but not all of those cases. Mr Yassin commented that the degree of the nuisance associated with the fumes depended upon the time of the day, but at the time he was there "it could be uncomfortable to me".
12 Aspen raised a number of matters which it submitted cast doubt on whether the cooking odour problem existed at all, or suggested that it was not sufficiently serious to justify Mapen's vacation of the premises nor an order for compensation in its favour. These included the relative
(Page 7)
- paucity of evidence produced by Mapen, the existence of contradictory evidence including of an expert appointed by the Tribunal, the failure to adduce medical evidence of the effect of the fumes on the health of Mapen's employees and the lack of complaints during relevant periods. Although each of these matters has been considered, I accept the evidence of Mapen's witnesses, particularly those independent witnesses whose evidence I have summarised above, as convincing and basically consistent. In my view, it establishes that the odours caused a level of discomfort with which the lessee could not reasonably be expected to cope indefinitely. With reference to Ms Miller's comment regarding her expectations about air quality in premises used for different purposes, it is difficult to imagine any business the operation of which would not be compromised by the odours experienced by Mapen. As will appear later in these reasons, Aspen itself, through its agents Knight Frank, appeared to accept that cooking fumes were causing a problem for the lessee. What caused the fumes to migrate to the newsagency will be considered next.
What was the cause of the problem of the cooking odours?
13 The evidence is by no means clear-cut as to the cause of the odour problem. However, there is sufficient evidence to persuade me that the source of the odours which were detected in the newsagency at various times from about 2002, and especially in late 2004 and early 2005, was cooking activity in Riccardo's café. In particular:
(a) Aspen's own consultant engineer's report, prepared by Mr Andrew Doig of ATA Engineering, dated 24 September 2004, which concluded:
"Although it was not possible to physically trace the smoke transfer from the café bainmarie to the newsagency via the ceiling space it considered that this is the most likely reason for odour being detected in the newsagency."
- Mr Doig's reference to "the smoke transfer" was to a smoke test conducted in order to establish the direction of air flow in the ground floor of the building, both beneath and above the ceiling. Despite there being no obvious flow of the smoke from the café to the newsagency via either route, the report accepted the possibility of odours making their way from the café through the ceiling space to the newsagency.
(Page 8)
- (b) Mr Jeff Dusting of Norman Disney & Young, who was engaged by the Tribunal to provide expert evidence in relation to the matter, stated, under "Conclusions" in his report, that:
"The spread of these fumes to the Newsagent via the ceiling space would have been possible during certain weather conditions."
- Mr Dusting, in oral evidence, allowed the possibility that the fact that the front doors in the newsagency were customarily kept open may have resulted in the fumes migrating through those premises and not other tenancies on the ground floor.
(c) The evidence of Mr Yassin attributing cooking oils as the source. According to Mr Yassin, on the occasion of approximately six visits to the newsagency, the odour was noticeable only when cooking was occurring in the café. By a process of deduction, including consideration of factors such as wind direction and consideration of other available sources, Mr Yassin concluded the most likely cause was discharge from exhaust fans in the café.
14 As counsel for Aspen pointed out, there are inconsistencies between the evidence of the experts, and other aspects of the evidence are unexplained (for example, Mapen's claim of a two or three week easing of the problem which followed no more than the smoke test conducted by Mr Doig). However, having accepted the existence of the problem in the first place, the most compelling inference to be drawn from the evidence is, in my opinion, that the source of the odours was fumes from cooking activity in the café, some of which appear to have made their way into the newsagency via the area above the ceiling of the ground floor. I have found other hypotheses, such as the fumes emanating from lunch bars and the like from across Adelaide Terrace, not reasonably open on the evidence.
What was Aspen's responsibility in relation to the fumes problem?
15 Mapen argued its case on the basis that Aspen breached its covenant for quiet enjoyment by failing to take appropriate action to eliminate the odour problem. The covenant for quiet enjoyment operates to secure the tenant not merely in the possession, but in the enjoyment of the subject premises, for all usual purposes. Where the ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the premises is substantially interfered with by the acts
(Page 9)
- or omissions of the landlord, the covenant is broken. Whether or not any interference is substantial is a question of fact: Halsbury's Laws of Australia (current to 1 June 2001), Ch 28.7 at [67].
16 There will be a breach of the covenant where the acts or omissions of the lessor are such as to render the demised premises unfit for the purpose for which the leased premises are intended to be used: Hawkesbury Nominees Pty Ltd v Battik Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 185 at [41].
17 Although a covenant of quiet enjoyment will be implied into any lease in order to give business efficacy to the contract, the covenant was express in this case. The relevant clause of the original lease which continued to operate at material times was in the following terms:
"The lessee duly paying the rentals hereby reserved and performing and observing the covenants conditions and stipulations on the part of the Lessee herein contained or implied shall peaceably and quietly hold and enjoy the leased premises during the term and during any extension or renewal thereof without any interruption by the Lessor or any person rightfully claiming to under or in trust for the Lessor."
18 Even where, as here, the obligation is expressed to be subject to the lessee complying with its covenants under the lease such as the covenant to pay rent, it is well established that the two are independent, and nonpayment of rent does not relieve the lessor from its obligation to give quiet enjoyment: Hawkesbury's case at [50] and the authorities cited in that paragraph.
19 Aspen was, at material times, the owner of the building. The cause of the problem being fumes from cooking activity in another tenancy in the building making their way to Mapen's tenancy, the problem was one clearly within its purview to rectify. In my view, its obligations extended to investigating the cause of the problem and taking reasonable steps to resolve it. Again, as will become apparent, the actions of Aspen through its agent at one time appear to have been predicated upon an acceptance of such a responsibility.
Did Aspen meet its obligations?
20 The best evidence available touching upon possible rectification of the problem is found in the ATA Engineering report. The report observed, with reference to the smoke test that was conducted:
(Page 10)
- "Smoke that was discharged in the ceiling space below the return air dampers on Level 1 was not pulled up into the return air shaft. This indicates that the return air on the ground floor is not operational."
21 Under "Conclusion", the report stated:
"The return air system should be corrected. This will significantly improve the air movement in the ground floor and will reduce the likely hood [sic] of odours being transferred from the Café to the newsagency.
This can be achieved by the following:
• installation of ground floor return air fan in the return air riser in Level 1. This fan will require a housing, variable speed drive, differential pressure control and acoustic treatment. Budget cost $15,000.
• Removal of the existing return air restrictions in the lobby. Budget cost $500.
• Installation of addition return air grilles in the café. Budget cost $500.
• Ensuring the existing kitchen exhaust in the café [is] operational when the cooking surface is being used or the bainmarie is operational. Operational cost by the existing tenant.
Indicative program for the above works:
• Approximate [sic] 5 weeks in total."
22 Mr Dusting, in his report, made reference to the lack of return air in the ground floor. He said:
"It should be noted that fume migration via the ceiling space is only feasible if the return air was not pulling any significant air from the ceiling space as identified in ATA [Engineering]'s report. If return air was operating as originally intended in the building design the fumes would be drawn to the general return air and be spread throughout the entire building.
(Page 11)
- It would appear however that at the beginning of September 2004 the café extract system was upgraded by installing a new fan with vertical discharge at a higher level. While still not fully compliant with present codes (discharge does not extend fully to the top of the building) it is considered that this work has probably solved the spread of cooking odours to any of the ground floor tenancies and that, since this time, there has been no such problem."
23 Mr Dusting accepted, when he gave oral evidence, that the final sentence of the reproduced passage was inaccurate to the extent that it was inconsistent with evidence of the resumption of complaints about fumes, following on from the period of two or three weeks in about September 2004 when the problem dissipated.
24 Although I accept that uncertainties continue to exist regarding the method by which the fumes found their way into the newsagency, and therefore whether any particular suggested solution might be effective, I consider the responses of Aspen's agent to events which occurred in September 2004 to be instructive. Although the relevant correspondence of Knight Frank appears to have arisen out of, and for the purposes of, mediation of Mapen's claim before the registrar of the former Commercial Tribunal, the correspondence was admitted into evidence without objection.
25 There are two important letters, dated 17 September 2004 and 24 September 2004 respectively. In the first letter, reference was made to "initial work" being carried out by ATA Engineering on 18 September 2004, with the expectation that ATA Engineering would provide a written report of findings by 24 September 2004. According to the letter:
"Should the report recommend further works, we will provide at the time of presenting the report, a timeline of when such additional works will be undertaken."
26 The second letter enclosed the ATA Engineering report. The letter contained the following:
"The owner has approved the report and the recommendations made within the document.
(Page 12)
- At this stage, ATA [Engineering] is prepared to undertake the works mentioned in the program on page 2 of the report and beginning the week of Monday 27 September 2004.
We will advise of the works progress as we receive updates."
27 The reference in the second letter to "the works mentioned in the program" is to the four specific recommendations referred to above. It appears that none of the recommendations was put into effect, and certainly not the first that a ground floor return air fan in the return air riser in Level 1 be installed.
28 Mr Stuart Price, Executive Director of Property of Aspen, gave evidence as to action, or lack of action, taken by the lessor. Despite the absence of conditions attaching to the indications of intent given in the two letters, Aspen decided not to incur the additional expenditure which the recommendations entailed based, according to Mr Price, on doubts that they would cure the problem. Reference was made by Mr Price to what he described as a lack of independent evidence as to where the fumes were coming from, and the outcome of the smoke test, which he said did not indicate that the transfer of fumes from the café was the cause. Mr Price also referred to the quite considerable amount of money (which he estimated to be in excess of $20 000) already spent trying to alleviate the problem, and the doubt over whether Mapen was to remain as a tenant in the longer term. In addition, one of Aspen's written submissions asserted that as Aspen did not hear any further comments following the ATA Engineering report, it had assumed that the alleged odours were no longer an issue.
29 In my view, Aspen was obliged, consistent with its covenant of quiet enjoyment, to either carry into effect the recommendations of ATA Engineering in accordance with the undertaking it gave to do so, or to obtain further advice to explore other options. It failed to meet this obligation. The undertaking given in the correspondence to the registrar placed the ball squarely in its court. Although it is true that in a letter dated 12 October 2004, Mapen commented that no cooking fumes had been experienced for some three weeks, I am satisfied on the evidence that the problem returned and was the subject of complaint following that brief period, so that the Aspen was not absolved from the undertaking it gave nor its obligations generally.
(Page 13)
What events constituted termination of the lease? Was Mapen entitled to vacate the premises?
30 Two possible scenarios arise on the facts. The first is that the breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment was a repudiation of the lease which entitled Mapen to terminate the lease, which it did by vacating the premises. Mapen submits that this is the correct analysis. The second possible scenario is that contended for by Aspen that by abandoning the premises, Mapen repudiated the lease which was accepted by the lessor. Consistent with this scenario, on 1 April 2005, Aspen's solicitors wrote to the then solicitors for Mapen to advise that the lease was terminated as at that date.
31 One of Aspen's arguments going to the question of whether Mapen had overstated the extent of the problem, and ultimately the question of whether Mapen was justified in vacating the premises, relied upon a lack of complaint after April 2002 for some two years. Common experience indicates that environmental problems are susceptible to ebbs and flows in terms of their effects over time. The following passage from the judgment of Giles J in Hawkesbury's case (at [75]) is also apposite:
"It is a question of fact and degree whether the lessee's ordinary use of the premises has been substantially interfered with (Southwark London Borough Council v Mills [1999] 3 WLR 939 per Lord Hoffman at 945 E) … That the lessee soldiered on under some difficulties, and took some steps to alleviate the problem, does not require the contrary conclusion."
32 The question of which of the two scenarios referred to above is applicable depends upon whether the breach by the lessor was of such gravity as to amount to a repudiation: Todbern Pty Ltd v Taormina International Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11, 173 (SC NSW) at 11 176. I have concluded that it was. The evidence of employees and customers alike feeling nauseous as a result of the odours is indicative of two things. Firstly, despite the evidence not showing any actual downturn in turnover and profits attributable to the fumes problem, it can readily be inferred that such a downturn was around the corner, possibly giving rise to a duty on the part of the lessee to mitigate its loss: Hawkesbury's case at [42] [49] and [82]. Secondly, the premises were no longer suitable for the purpose of conducting a newsagency business there. The lessor was aware of the problem and had taken some measures to alleviate it, but when those measures were found not to have resolved the problem, it was not prepared to take further steps which had been recommended
(Page 14)
- to it by its consultant for reasons substantially of economics. In those circumstances, the breach amounted to repudiation of the lease which Mapen accepted when it vacated the premises, thereby terminating the lease.
What is Mapen's entitlement to damages, if any?
33 Mapen sought to recover rent paid in respect of periods it alleged that the fumes were present. Those periods were May 2002 to September 2002, October 2002 to September 2004, and January 2004 to March 2005. The refund claimed was approximately $114 000 less an admitted sum of $22 790 for unpaid rent in respect of the period 1 October 2004 to 1 March 2005. In addition, a 70% rent reduction was claimed in respect of the period October 2004 to December 2004 on the basis of Aspen's failure to complete works to which it had agreed (being the subject of ATA Engineering's recommendations). A claim is also made for moving expenses in the nominal sum of $9000.
34 Mapen was not legally represented. In the main, I found the submissions by both Mr Middlemass Snr and Mr Middlemass Jnr of assistance. The submissions they advanced on the issue of compensation for the breach of covenant by Aspen was that no rent should be payable because the strong fumes meant that the premises were not fit and proper for leasing. The relevant authorities establish that where a beach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment is established, the lessee will be entitled to compensation to the extent that it is now worse off than if the contract had been performed. Generally speaking, in a case where the leased premises are abandoned as a result of the breach, this will comprise compensation for the actual loss suffered by the lessee (whether loss of investment or expenditure thrown away) and the diminution in value of the leasehold interest: Hawkesbury's case at [53] and [58] [59]. Although Mapen sought to argue that there was at least a tendency for turnover to be affected, based on the likelihood that customers would not remain for longer than was absolutely necessary, the claim was not put on that basis, and the evidence does not support a finding of any particular level of reduced income attributable to the fumes problem as distinct from some other factor. No claim was made, nor does the evidence support one, of any loss of investment, nor of diminution in value of the leasehold interest. The one claim which fits within any of the accepted categories is for Mapen's moving expenses. As evidence was not led of the precise amount involved, I will reconvene the hearing in order for that evidence to be led, and in the absence of agreement between the parties, the order to be made will reflect such evidence as is accepted.
(Page 15)
What are Aspen's entitlements?
35 In matter CC 3222 of 2005, Aspen claimed recovery of unpaid rent for the period 1 October 2004 to 1 March 2005 of $22 790, unpaid gas and electricity of $1089, legal fees of $180, GST of $2406, interest on outstanding amounts of $2368 to 8 September 2005 and unliquidated damages of $25 730 pursuant to an liquidated damages provision in the lease consequential upon abandonment of the premises by Mapen. Some of these amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar.
36 The liquidated damages claim cannot succeed in light of the finding that Mapen lawfully terminated the lease when it vacated the premises. Each of the other claims is agreed as to amount, save that Mapen disputed the claim for legal fees on the basis that the fees were incurred for the issue of a default notice which sought an amount which was not correct as it was based on incorrect assumptions. In my view, either the assumptions have proved to be correct, or the substantial amount of the claim referred to in the notice was justified, and Aspen is entitled to recover the costs associated with the notice. The amount for interest will be revised to the date on which orders are made.
Conclusions
37 Mapen has established that there was a breach of cl 12.1 of the lease relating to quiet enjoyment, constituted by Aspen's failure to take appropriate steps in relation to the problem of cooking fumes experienced in the premises leased by Mapen.
38 The breach was such as to justify Mapen vacating the leased premises, and the lease was terminated by that event.
39 The damages to which Mapen is entitled by reason of Aspen's breach of covenant are limited to its reasonable costs of removal to alternate premises.
40 Aspen is entitled to recover unpaid amounts in respect of rent, gas and electricity charges, legal fees associated with a notice of default, GST and interest on the unpaid amounts.
Orders
41 Orders will be made after hearing further from the parties.
(Page 16)
I certify that this and the preceding [41] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR T CAREY, MEMBER
0
2
1