Riltang Pty Ltd v L Pty Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 625

Reported Decision:
(2003) NSW ConvR 56-033

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Riltang Pty Limited v L Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 625

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2945/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 23 May 2002; 30 May 2002; 20-21 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 17 July 2002

PARTIES :

Riltang Pty Limited v L Pty Limited

JUDGMENT OF: Davies AJ at 1

COUNSEL : M.J. Heath (Plaintiff)
S. Epstein SC (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Dexter Healey (Plaintiff)
Baron & Associates (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Landlord and Tenant - Notice of renewal of lease - Whether misdescription of premises invalidated the notice - Whether notice absolute and unconditional

CASES CITED: Bava Holdings Pty Ltd v Pando Holdings Pty Ltd (1998) NSW Conv R 55-862
Carter v Hyde (1923) 33 CLR 115
Cavallari v Premier Refrigeration Co Pty Ltd (1925) 85 CLR 20
Della Imports Pty Ltd v Birkenhead Investments Pty Ltd (1987) NSWSC 21 July 1987
Health Minders Pty Ltd v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (unrep) 24 February 1987
Kratzmann (Toowong) Pty Ltd v Marjorie's Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 67 Aust & NZ Conveyancing Reports 803
Quadling v Robinson 137 CLR 192
Setena Pty Ltd v Permanent Trustee Nominees (Canberra) Ltd (1987) NSW Con VR par 55-322
Young v Lamb [2001] NSWCA 225

DECISION: Cross claim dismissed with costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

DAVIES AJ

Wednesday 17 July 2002

2945/2001 RILTANG PTY LIMITED A.C.N. 080 820 546 v L. PTY LIMITED A.C.N. 075 256 398

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Riltang Pty Limited (“Riltang”) is the lessee of premises on the second floor of premises at 34-46 Oxford Street, Darlinghurst, in which Riltang conducts a licensed bar known as the “Q Bar”. A dispute has arisen between Riltang and L Pty Ltd (“L”), the owners of a part of the premises, as to whether Riltang effectively exercised an option available to it to renew its lease for a further seven years.

2 Riltang has not joined in the proceedings Cremorne Arcade Pty Limited (“Cremorne”) and Lampsac Pty Limited (“Lampsac”), the other owners of the premises, as Cremorne and Lampsac are content to accept that Riltang did renew its lease. However, L has joined Cremorne and Lampsac as respondents to a cross claim in which it seeks a declaration that Riltang failed to exercise its option to renew, that on the expiry of the lease Riltang continued in occupation under a monthly tenancy and that the monthly tenancy was validly determined, so far as the portion of premises owned by L is concerned, by a notice to quit dated 22 May 2001.

3 The original lease was between Oscty Pty Limited (“Oscty”) as lessor and Riltang as lessee. It described the demised premises as Level 2, 34-36 Oxford Street and Level 2, 38-46 Oxford Street, Darlinghurst being part of the land in Folio Identifiers 15/6064 and 13897/203. The lease was for a term of seven years commencing 13 October 1993. At some stage during the currency of the lease, the…

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 Riltang Pty Ltd v L Pty Ltd 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: [2002] NSWSC 625
Decision Date: 17 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Riltang Pty Ltd v L Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute centred around the validity of a notice issued by the plaintiff, Riltang Pty Ltd, to the defendant, L Pty Ltd, regarding the renewal of a lease. The plaintiff claimed that the notice was absolute and unconditional, whereas the defendant argued that the notice was invalid due to a misdescription of the premises. The court was required to determine the precise nature of the notice and whether the misdescription invalidated it.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the notice issued by the plaintiff constituted an absolute and unconditional offer to renew the lease and whether the misdescription of the premises rendered the notice invalid. The court needed to examine the terms of the notice and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the intention of the parties and whether the misdescription was material. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the misdescription could be rectified or whether it had fundamentally invalidated the notice.

The court concluded that the notice issued by the plaintiff was indeed absolute and unconditional. It found that the misdescription of the premises did not invalidate the notice as the error was not material and could be rectified. The court emphasised that the intention of the parties was to renew the lease, and the misdescription did not impede this objective. The court also noted that the defendant had not suffered any prejudice due to the misdescription. Therefore, the notice remained valid, and the lease renewal was confirmed.

As a result of the court's findings, the defendant's argument that the notice was invalid due to the misdescription was dismissed. The court upheld the validity of the notice and confirmed the renewal of the lease between the parties. The final orders of the court were that the notice issued by the plaintiff was absolute and unconditional, and the lease was to be renewed on the terms specified in the notice.

Orders