PEARCE & ANOR and GERMAIN [2006] WASAT 305
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 305 | |
| COMMERCIAL TENANCY (RETAIL SHOPS) AGREEMENTS ACT 1985 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:3592/2005 | 14 AUGUST 2006 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 31 AUGUST 2006 AND 14 SEPTEMBER 2006 | |
| Coram: | HON R VIOL (SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTY PRESIDENT) | 6/10/06 | |
| 31 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Held that the State Administrative Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture and has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief only as found in State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and enabling Acts. | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MURRAY GRAHAM PEARCE MARGARET EVA PEARCE TERRANCE ANTHONY GERMAIN |
Catchwords: | Landlord and tenant Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreement Act 1985 (WA) Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief and in particular relief against forfeiture |
Legislation: | Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreement Act 1985 (WA), s 16, s 16(1)(b), s 16(2), s 26, s 27(3) Commercial Tribunal Act 1984 (WA) District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 55 Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 7, s 81, s 81(2) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 8, pt 3, s 13, s 13(2), s 14, s 15, s 16, s 16(1), s 26(1)(b), s 44(3), s 44(4), s 90, s 91 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 16.1(d) |
Case References: | Bilek and Vata Investments Pty Ltd [2005] WASAT 39 Bykowski and Tebron Pty Ltd [2005] WASAT 178 Commodore Homes (WA) Pty Ltd v Standley [2001] WADC 89Yeates Daw-Win Pty Ltd v Tagliaterri (1986) ANZ Court v R 875 Global Doctor Ltd v Hodgkinson & Anor [2003] WASC 119 Jam Factory Pty Ltd v Sunny Paradise Pty Ltd [1989] VR 584 Legione v Hately (1982) 152 CLR 406 Mapen Pty Ltd and Aspen (Septimus Roe) Pty Ltd [2005] WASAT 136 Mavromatidis v Dundon (1997) 18 WAR 298 Minister for Lands and Forests v McPherson [1990] 22 NSW LR 687 Stern v McArthur (1987) 165 CLR 489 Taylor Forms (Aust) Pty Ltd v A Calkos Pty Ltd [1999] NSW SC 186 Commercial Developments Pty Ltd v Merchantile Mutual Insurance (Workers Compensation) Ltd (1991) (5WAR 208 at 217, 221) Edgar Enterprises and Minister for Transport [2005] WASAT 260 Minister for Transport and Edgar Enterprises [2006] WASC 27 |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : COMMERCIAL TENANCY (RETAIL SHOPS) AGREEMENTS ACT 1985 (WA) CITATION : PEARCE & ANOR and GERMAIN [2006] WASAT 305 MEMBER : HON R VIOL (SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTY PRESIDENT) HEARD : 14 AUGUST 2006
- WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 31 AUGUST 2006 AND 14 SEPTEMBER 2006
- MARGARET EVA PEARCE
Applicants
AND
TERRANCE ANTHONY GERMAIN
Respondent
- Applicant
AND
MURRAY GRAHAM PEARCE
MARGARET EVA PEARCE
Respondents
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Landlord and tenant - Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreement Act 1985 (WA) - Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to…
Continue reading Pearce & Anor and Germain
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Pearce & Anor and Germain [2006] WASAT 305
- Case
- [2006] WASAT 305
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Pearce & Anor and Germain, the dispute arose between the respondents, who were landlords, and the appellants, who were tenants of commercial retail shops. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The landlords sought to forfeit the lease of the tenants due to alleged breaches of the lease agreement, and the tenants, in turn, contested the landlords' claim and sought relief from the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
The central legal issue before the court was whether the SAT had the jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture and, if so, to what extent. The tenants argued that the SAT had the authority to grant equitable relief, which would include relief against forfeiture. The landlords contended that the SAT's jurisdiction was limited to the relief specified in the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and any enabling Acts.
The court held that the SAT does not possess the jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture. The court reasoned that the Tribunal's powers were strictly defined by statute and did not extend to granting equitable relief in the context of forfeiture. The court found that the SAT's jurisdiction to grant equitable relief was limited to what was expressly provided for in the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and any other relevant enabling Acts. Consequently, the court determined that the SAT could not intervene in matters of forfeiture beyond what was explicitly outlined in the applicable legislation.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the SAT did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture. The court's decision clarified the scope of the SAT's powers and confirmed that any relief sought in relation to forfeiture must comply with the statutory framework. This ruling ensures that the SAT's jurisdiction is exercised within the bounds set by the legislature, preventing any overreach into areas not explicitly authorised by law.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the SAT had the jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture and, if so, to what extent. The tenants argued that the SAT had the authority to grant equitable relief, which would include relief against forfeiture. The landlords contended that the SAT's jurisdiction was limited to the relief specified in the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and any enabling Acts.
The court held that the SAT does not possess the jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture. The court reasoned that the Tribunal's powers were strictly defined by statute and did not extend to granting equitable relief in the context of forfeiture. The court found that the SAT's jurisdiction to grant equitable relief was limited to what was expressly provided for in the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and any other relevant enabling Acts. Consequently, the court determined that the SAT could not intervene in matters of forfeiture beyond what was explicitly outlined in the applicable legislation.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the SAT did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture. The court's decision clarified the scope of the SAT's powers and confirmed that any relief sought in relation to forfeiture must comply with the statutory framework. This ruling ensures that the SAT's jurisdiction is exercised within the bounds set by the legislature, preventing any overreach into areas not explicitly authorised by law.
Orders
Orders of the court
Held that the State Administrative Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant
relief against forfeiture and has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief only
as found in State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and enabling Acts.
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.