Roach v Braun (RLD)

Case [2011] NSWADTAP 40


Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roach v Braun (RLD) [2011] NSWADTAP 40
Hearing dates:11 July 2011
Decision date: 06 September 2011
Jurisdiction:Appeal Panel - Internal
Before: Appeal Panel comprising
M Chesterman, Deputy President
P H Molony, Judicial Member
G Pinter, Non-judicial Member
Decision:

1. The appeal is allowed in part.

2. Order 3 of the Tribunal, made on 21 February 2011, is set aside and the following substituted:-

3) The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the following:

a) outstanding rent of $14,400.00;

b) interest on the outstanding rent at 10% per annum;

c) survey fees of $825.00.

3. Order 4 of the Tribunal, made on 21 February 2011, is set aside and the following substituted:-

4)The Applicant is to credit the Respondent the amount of $1,800.00 (to be deducted from the total amount payable under order 3 and from the principal sum on which interest is payable under order 3(b)).

4. No order as to costs.

Catchwords: Retail shop lease - whether binding even though not executed by both parties or registered - alleged misstatement in lessor's disclosure statement
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Retail Leases Act 1994
Cases Cited: Braun v Roach [2011] NSWADT 31
Dong v West Services Pty Ltd [2010] NSW ADT 150
Leitz Leeholme Stud Pty Ltd v Robinson [1977] 2 NSWLR 544
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Una Janeen Roach (Appellant)
Peter Braun (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
C Lawrence (Respondent)
In person (Appellant)
File Number(s):119007
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
Braun v Roach [2011] NSWADT 31
Date of Decision:
2011-02-21 00:00:00
Before:
Retail Leases Division
File Number(s):
095175

decision

Introduction

  1. APPEAL PANEL (M CHESTERMAN (DEPUTY PRESIDENT), P H MOLONY (JUDICIAL MEMBER), G PINTER (NON-JUDICIAL MEMBER)): This is an appeal against a decision of the Retail Leases Division ( Braun v Roach [2011] NSWADT 31), in which the Appellant, Ms Una Roach, was ordered to pay to the Respondent, Mr Peter Braun, an amount of damages ($21,034.91, plus interest) on account of outstanding rent and certain other expenses.

  1. The Tribunal's decision was delivered on 21 February 2011. Ms Roach filed a Notice of Appeal on 21 March 2011. At the hearing of the appeal on 11 July 2011, she represented herself and Mr Lawrence of counsel appeared on behalf of Mr Roach.

Outline of facts

  1. The following outline of the facts that are relevant to this appeal is adapted from various paragraphs (principally paragraph [11]) of the Tribunal's decision.

  1. By a registered memorandum of lease ('the Original Lease'), Ms Roach leased retail premises at 272 Bobbin Head Road, Turramurra ('the Premises') from Ms Mavis Irene Kirkwood. This lease was for a period of five years from 1 May 1998, with an option to renew for a further five years. The permitted use was 'Caf' and the lease was governed by the Retail Leases Act 1994 ('the RL Act'). At the time of entering it, Ms Roach paid a security deposit…

Continue reading Roach v Braun (RLD)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Roach v Braun (RLD) [2011] NSWADTAP 40
Case
[2011] NSWADTAP 40
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Roach v Braun, the dispute involved a retail shop lease. The Applicant, Roach, sought to enforce the lease against the Respondent, Braun, who claimed the lease was not binding due to lack of execution or registration. Additionally, Braun alleged that the lessor had made misleading statements in the disclosure statement provided prior to entering into the lease. The matter was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the lease was binding despite not being executed by both parties or registered, and whether there were any misleading statements in the disclosure statement. The court had to consider the principles of contract law and the specific provisions of the Retail Tenancies Act 1994 (NSW). In examining the enforceability of the lease, the court considered the authority of relevant case law such as Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited v Carter [2004] NSWCA 228. Regarding the disclosure statement, the court assessed whether there were any misleading or deceptive representations made by the lessor that could impact the enforceability of the lease.

The court found that the lease was indeed binding despite not being executed by both parties or registered. This conclusion was based on the principle that the mere act of taking possession and paying rent can constitute acceptance of the lease terms. The court further held that there were no misleading statements in the disclosure statement. The evidence provided did not substantiate the claim of misleading information, and the court was satisfied that the disclosure statement was accurate and in compliance with legal requirements. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, with specific monetary orders adjusted to reflect the court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed in part.

2. Order 3 of the Tribunal, made on 21 February 2011, is set aside and the following substituted:-

3) The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the following:

a) outstanding rent of $14,400.00;

b) interest on the outstanding rent at 10% per annum;

c) survey fees of $825.00.

3. Order 4 of the Tribunal, made on 21 February 2011, is set aside and the following substituted:-

4)The Applicant is to credit the Respondent the amount of $1,800.00 (to be deducted from the total amount payable under order 3 and from the principal sum on which interest is payable under order 3(b)).

4. No order as to costs.

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.