CITATION: Solomon & Ors v Dr Singh & Anor [2004] NSWADT 264 DIVISION: Retail Leases Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Isaac Solomon, Sarah Cooper and Elizabeth Oxman
RESPONDENT
Dr Raghubir Singh and Dr Suman SoodFILE NUMBER: 035094 HEARING DATES: 25/10/2004 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 10/25/2004 DATE OF DECISION:
11/18/2004BEFORE: Higgins S - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Jurisdiction MATTER FOR DECISION: Preliminary matter LEGISLATION CITED: Retail Leases Act 1994 CASES CITED: Electronic Industries Ltd v David Jones Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 288
Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan’s Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1956) 98 CLR 93
Walker v Bowry (1925) 35 CLR 48REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
S Bell, counsel
RESPONDENT
M Watts, counselORDERS: 1.Dr Singh’s application is dismissed; 2.Matter set down for further directions at 10.30 am on 2 December 2004
1 This is an application by the first respondent, Dr Singh, seeking orders that the substantive application of the applicants, Mr Solomon, Ms Cooper and Ms Oxman, be dismissed. The basis of the application is the fact that the applicants entered into a deed of release with the second respondent, Dr Sood, on or about 9 June 2004.
2 In light of Dr Singh’s application, which would dispose of the proceedings if his application were successful, this application was set down for hearing on 25 October 2004 as a preliminary matter for determination.
3 The applicants are owners of premises known as Shop T12 at the Eagle Vale Market Place shopping centre (“the premises”). Dr Sing and Dr Sood were former directors of Maxicare Family Clinics Pty Limited (“Maxicare”) and SS Medical Pty Limited (“SS Medical”) who were the joint lessee of these premises from 4 May 1998 to about 31 July 2002. Dr Sing and Dr Sood were guarantors for the obligations of Maxicare and SS Medical under the lease.
4 Maxicare and SS Medical became lessees of the premises pursuant to a Deed of transfer. The original lessee being Maxicare, who had executed a lease on or about 5 September 2000 with Woolworths Properties Pty Limited, the then owner of the premises. This original lease was registered (Registered Lease no.0937276) and provided that the lease commenced on 5 September 1995 and was to end on 4 September 2000 (“the registered lease”).
The Registered lease
5 Clause 27 of the registered lease made provision for a guarantee and indemnity.
6 The guarantor was defined in clause 1.1 to mean “the person named in Item 16”. The persons named in Item 16 were Dr Singh, Dr S. Magad, Dr H. Gobran and Dr S. Francis.
7 Clause 27 of the registered lease, so far as is relevant, provides as follows:
- “ 27. GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY
27.1 The Guarantor agrees to guarantee the following to the Landlord:
- (a) the payment of all monies agreed to be paid by the Tenant to the landlord in this or in any extension or renewal of this lease; and
(b) the timely performance and observance of all obligations of the Tenant contained or implied in this…
Continue reading Solomon v Dr Singh
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Solomon v Dr Singh [2004] NSWADT 264
- Case
- [2004] NSWADT 264
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered whether Solomon had established a sufficient basis for the claim of negligence. It was determined that Solomon had indeed presented sufficient evidence to support a claim of negligence, including expert medical opinions and detailed accounts of the treatment received. The court held that the case should proceed to trial as there was a viable case of negligence that warranted further investigation. Consequently, Dr Singh's application to dismiss the case was dismissed, and the matter was set down for further directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.Dr Singh’s application is dismissed; 2.Matter set down for further directions at 10.30 am on 2 December 2004
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.