Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd v Westacott - [2015] NSWSC 783

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd v Westacott
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 783
Hearing Date(s):	5 June 2015
Date of Orders:	5 June 2015
Decision Date:	18 June 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Wilson J
Decision:	Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed
Catchwords:	APPEAL – appeal from NCAT – statutory construction - 6(1)(b) of the Retail Leases Act 1994 – extrinsic material
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Interpretation Act 1987 Retail Leases Act 1994 Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited:	Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854 Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550 Maunsell v Olins [1975] AC 373 Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd (ACN 145199784) trading as “Red Bottle” v Westacott [2014] NSWCATCD 40 Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd v Westacott [2014] NSWCATAP 106 Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23; (2010) 241 CLR 252 Wilson v Anderson [2002] HCA 29; (2002) 213 CLR 401
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Albert Victor Westacott (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: D Smallbone (Defendant) Solicitors: Mr. J. Conomy, JDK Legal (Plaintiff) RJI Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2014/316028
Publication Restriction:	None

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: On 5 June 2015 I refused leave to the plaintiff in these proceedings to appeal against a decision of the Internal Appeal Panel of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Summons filed by the plaintiff seeking that leave was dismissed, with costs in favour of the defendant.
These are my reasons for making those orders.
The plaintiff in these proceedings, Pyrmont Pty Ltd (“Pyrmont”), seeks leave to appeal against a decision of an Appeal Panel of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) made on 16 December 2014, and cited at Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd v Westacott [2014] NSWCATAP 106. That decision was itself a determination of an appeal against a decision of a single member of the Tribunal, Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd (ACN 145199784) trading as “Red Bottle” v Westacott [2014] NSWCATCD 40. The decision of the Appeal Panel dismissed Pyrmont Point’s appeal against the first decision, made by Senior Member Mullane on 25 March 2014.
By Summons filed in this Court on 12 January 2015 Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the Appeal Panel. The defendant, Mr. Westacott, opposes a grant of leave.
Pursuant to s 83(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and s 75A Supreme Court Act 1970, the Supreme Court has power to hear the plaintiff’s appeal. Section 83(1) provides that an appeal lies by leave on a question of law against any decision made by the Tribunal in internal appeal proceedings.
The application to this Court for leave to appeal centres on the proper construction of s 6(1)(b) of the Retail Leases Act 1994 (“the Act” or “RL Act”), this being a question of law: Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854.

Brief history of the relevant facts

The lease at the centre of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd v Westacott and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 783
Decision Date: 18 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd v Westacott, the dispute arose between a landlord and a tenant in a retail lease. The matter was appealed to the court from the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The landlord, Pyrmont Point Pty Ltd, sought to terminate the lease of the tenant, Westacott, based on alleged breaches. The tenant argued that the interpretation of certain provisions of the Retail Leases Act 1994 was crucial to the outcome of the case.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 6(1)(b) of the Retail Leases Act 1994, which relates to the circumstances in which a landlord may terminate a lease. Specifically, the court had to determine whether extrinsic material could be used to interpret the statutory provision. The tenant argued that extrinsic material should be considered to understand the purpose and context of the Act, while the landlord contended that the plain meaning of the statute should govern.

The court considered the principles of statutory interpretation, emphasising that the primary task is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of Parliament. The court found that extrinsic material could be used if the statutory text was ambiguous or obscure, or if it led to an absurd or unjust result. In this case, the court concluded that the statutory provision was clear and unambiguous, and no reference to extrinsic material was necessary. The court held that the plain meaning of the statute was sufficient to determine whether the landlord had grounds to terminate the lease. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the NCAT was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the NCAT was confirmed. The lease was not terminated, and the tenant remained in occupation. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the clear wording of the statute unless there was ambiguity or an absurdity in the plain meaning.

Orders