Papantoniou v Gregory Franks t/as Rainbow Videos

[2009] NSWADT 22

CITATION:	Papantoniou v Gregory Franks t/as Rainbow Videos [2009] NSWADT 22
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Tellis Papantoniou Efthemia Papantoniou John Papantoniou Stella Papantoniou RESPONDENT Gregory Franks t/as Rainbow Videos
FILE NUMBER:	085195
HEARING DATES:	27 November 2008
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	27 November 2008
DATE OF DECISION:	5 February 2009
BEFORE:	Fox R - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Costs
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT R Singh, solicitor RESPONDENT A Maroulis, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. Respondent pay rent arrears of $267.50 within 7 days 2. The Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs of today in the sum of $250.00 within 14 days.

1 The dispute between these parties has a protracted history, the extent of which is more clearly found in matter number 085054, Franks v Papantoniou. Mr Franks sought, as he said to me on many occasions in that matter, a “s16 Lease”. There is no such entity, but he was, as I held in that matter, entitled to have the term of his letting extended from the one year which it purported to be to five years. That result brought s21A into operation and the matter now before me is the recovery of the rent increases authorised by that section.

2 On 13 November 2008 I “crystalised” the issue by (in effect) limiting the matter before me to the rent increases and ordering the landlord to quantify those by 20 November 2008. I then listed the matter for further directions on 27 November 2008.

3 My further notes indicate that the amount in issue would be no more than $700.00 or $800.00. On 21 November 2008 the Applicant filed a letter which indicated that the amount in issue was $267.50.

4 My notes of the hearing on 27 November 2008 do not indicate when the Respondent was told of this amount, and the letter of the Applicant’s solicitor to the Tribunal does not indicate that a copy was sent to the Respondent.

5 The Respondent, for the first time in this matter (and the previous matter), was legally represented, only to concede the very small amount payable.

6 No matter when the amount of the claim was first conceded, and especially in view of the fact that it is all relatively simple arithmetic following the increases in the Consumer Price Index, the Respondent should have resolved the matter prior to the hearing, and should not have put the Applicant (or for that matter himself) to the expense of attending at the hearing.

7 I note that the Applicant’s solicitor indicated at the hearing that his claim for costs was a compromise/reduced amount, resulting from negotiations which had taken place before the hearing. That amount seems to me to be a quite generous concession.

8 The Tribunal Practice Notes in relation to costs as it applied at the time of this hearing indicates that special circumstances may be found in the manner of conducting a hearing, and this is an example of that.

9 The Respondent should not have put the Applicant to the trouble of appearing over a mere matter of $267.50.

10 My order is that the Respondent pay rent arrears of $267.50 within 7 days, the Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs of today in the sum of $250.00 within 14 days.