Parris v Katsivardas

CITATION:	Parris -v- Katsivardas [2002] NSWADT 150
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT George Parris t/as Tasty Bites RESPONDENT Pavlos Katsivardas t/as Pavlos's Pizzeria
FILE NUMBER:	025052
HEARING DATES:	12/06/02
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	06/12/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	08/23/2002
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Claim for payment of money
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT R Coyle, solicitor RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	Application No. 025052 brought by Mr. George Parris against Mr. Pavlos Katsivardas is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

1 This is an application brought by Mr. George Parris t/as Tasty Bites (“the Applicant”) against Mr. Pavlos Katsivardas trading as Pavlo's Pizzeria (“the Respondent”) in relation to a shop known as 129 Botany Street Randwick (“the Premises”). The registered proprietor of the Premises is Mr James Parris, the father of the Applicant.

2 The application was filed in the Tribunal on 9 May 2002. The Applicant sought orders in the following terms:

“That Mr Katsivardas pay to Mr Parris an amount of $250 lost food stock and $200 lost business in compensation for damaged and perished stock.

That Mr Parris get access to his area in the Premises at 129 Botany Street Randwick to conduct his food preparation at the times which are convenient to him.”

3 The matter was listed for hearing on 12 June 2002 along with a related matter also involving the Respondent. Ms Robyn Coyle appeared on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondent appeared on his own behalf.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION

4 A Lease was entered between the Respondent and Mr James Parris in relation to the Premises. That Lease dated 19 December 2001 (“the Lease”) was stated to commence on 1 January 2002 and terminate on 31 December 2002.

5 It appears that prior to the Lease the Applicant had an informal sublease with Mr James Parris whereby he used part of the Premises for the purposes of food preparation and storage. He is only on the Premises early in the morning, but he stores food an allotted section of the Premises. The Applicant pays rent to Mr James Parris.

6 The Respondent was aware of this arrangement when he entered into the Lease. However, the status of that arrangement is in dispute. The Applicant asserts that the arrangement continues despite the fact that the Lease gives the Respondent the right to the Premises. The Respondent asserts that the arrangement was to continue for the first two months of the Lease period and that thereafter the Applicant was to find new premises. In return, the Respondent was given a rent free period for the first two months of the Lease.

7 The Applicant asserts that at mediation of a dispute between the Respondent and Mr James Parris on 19 April 2002, the Respondent agreed that the arrangement could continue and that no conditions were put on the continuation of the arrangement. In contrast, the Respondent asserts that the…