Skiwing Pty Ltd v Trust Company of Australia (Trading As Stockland Property Management)

This case concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales by Skiwing Pty Ltd (Skiwing) against decisions of the Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT). The dispute arose from a retail lease agreement between Skiwing and Trust Company of Australia (trading as Stockland Property Management) (Stockland) concerning premises in the Imperial Arcade. Skiwing alleged that Stockland had breached the lease and the *Retail Leases Act 1994* (NSW) by issuing invalid relocation notices, failing to adequately advertise the arcade, and withdrawing support for a balcony development. These actions allegedly caused Skiwing significant loss and disturbance to its trading.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Appeal Panel had erred in law in its determination of Skiwing's claims. Specifically, the Court was required to consider the meaning of a "genuine proposal" under section 34 of the *Retail Leases Act 1994* in the context of relocation notices, the availability of damages for Stockland's non-compliance with the Act, and the interpretation of "improvements" under section 133B(2) of the *Conveyancing Act 1919* (NSW) in relation to the balcony development. The Court also had to determine whether the ADT had jurisdiction to consider a claim under section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth), a matter that had been previously decided by this Court.

The Court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the relevant legislative provisions and the factual matrix. Regarding the relocation notices, the Court found that Stockland's proposals were not genuine under section 34 of the *Retail Leases Act 1994* because they were not sufficiently detailed or certain. The Court also considered the availability of damages for breaches of the Act, applying principles of statutory interpretation. In relation to the balcony claim, the Court interpreted the meaning of "improvements" under the *Conveyancing Act 1919* and assessed whether Stockland's withdrawal of support constituted a breach of an implied obligation. The Court affirmed its previous decision that the ADT lacked jurisdiction to hear the *Trade Practices Act* claim.

The Court ordered that the Appeal Panel's decision be set aside in part. Specifically, Order 1 of the Tribunal was set aside, and Order 2 of the Tribunal was varied to reduce the awarded sum from $53,000 to $50,000. Stockland was ordered to pay half of Skiwing's costs of the appeal.