Shams v 357 Thornleigh Place Pty Ltd

In this case, the applicant, Shams, brought proceedings against 357 Thornleigh Place Pty Ltd, the respondent, in relation to a retail lease. The applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in unconscionable conduct and misleading or deceptive conduct under the Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW). The case was heard in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issues that the Tribunal had to decide were whether the respondent had breached section 62B(1) of the Act, which pertains to unconscionable conduct, and whether there was any misleading or deceptive conduct under section 62D. The applicant argued that the respondent, through its conduct, had acted unconscionably and misled or deceived the applicant, resulting in the applicant suffering a detriment. The respondent denied any wrongdoing and argued that it had acted fairly and reasonably towards the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had breached section 62B(1) of the Act. It held that the respondent had engaged in unconscionable conduct by taking advantage of the applicant's vulnerability and by failing to act fairly and reasonably in the circumstances. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under section 62D of the Act. It concluded that the respondent had made misleading or deceptive representations to the applicant, which had caused the applicant to enter into the lease on terms that were not fair and reasonable.

As a result of these findings, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent was to pay the applicant the sum of $21,525 within 7 days of publication of these orders. The Tribunal also granted the applicant a rent rebate of 30% of the base rent from 1 January 2019 until the date of publication of these orders. The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's cross claim and ordered that the respondent was to pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis. The Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make written submissions regarding the costs and for the applicant to reply to those submissions.