Solomon v Dr Singh

Case [2004] NSWADT 264



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 Sood
FILE NUMBER: 035094
HEARING DATES: 25/10/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 10/25/2004
DATE OF DECISION:
11/18/2004
BEFORE: 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 48
REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
S Bell, counsel
RESPONDENT
M Watts, counsel
ORDERS: 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

Details
AGLC
Solomon v Dr Singh [2004] NSWADT 264
Case
[2004] NSWADT 264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Solomon brought an action against Dr Singh, alleging medical negligence. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the standard of care provided by Dr Singh to Solomon and whether this fell below the accepted medical standards, leading to Solomon's alleged injuries. Dr Singh sought to dismiss the case on the grounds that Solomon had not provided sufficient evidence of negligence. The court was required to decide if there was a prima facie case of negligence that should be heard at trial, or if the case was so lacking in merit that it should be dismissed.

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.