Solomon v Singh (No 3)

Case [2006] NSWADT 120

CITATION: Solomon & Anor v Singh (No. 3) [2006] NSWADT 120
DIVISION: Retail Leases Division
PARTIES: APPLICANTS
Isaac Solomon, Sara Cooper and Elizabeth Oxman
RESPONDENT
Dr Raghubir Singh
FILE NUMBER: 035094
HEARING DATES: 30/01/2006 & 17/02/2006
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 02/17/2006
 
DATE OF DECISION: 
04/21/2006
BEFORE: Molloy GB - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Costs
MATTER FOR DECISION: Costs
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED: Cripps v G&M Dawson P/L [2006] NSWCA 81
Gizah Pty Limited v AXA Trustees Limited (No2)[2001] NSWADT164
Petria Pty Limited v Makhoul[2005] NSWADTAP 12
Randi Wiks Pty Limited v Pokana Pty Limited (RLD)[2003] NSWADTAP27
Sotiropoulos v Mattana Coiffure Pty Limited (No2)[2004] NSWADTAP 43
Stefopoulous v Manikas (No3)[2004] NSWADT 172
Taylor v Sciberras [2004] NSWADT 104
Thalassa Pty Limited v Hawkesbury River Marina Pty Limited (RLD)[2005] NSWADTAP 48
REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT
S Bell, Counsel

RESPONDENT
M Watts, Counsel
ORDERS: 1. The Respondent to pay the costs of the Applicant, including the costs of the costs application, as and from 7 June, 2004

Background:

1 The Applicants are owners of premises known as Shop T12 (“the premises”) at the Eagle Vale Market Place shopping centre, Gould Road, Eagle Vale. The Respondent was one of the guarantors of the lessee of the premises. On 2 April 2002 the lessee vacated the premises and on 1 August 2002 the premises were re-let.

2 The Applicant claimed damages for breach of the lease against the Respondent Dr Singh as guarantor. The Respondent did not dispute the quantum of rental arrears ($14,758.00), the outgoings ($59,576.38), nor the interest ($5,850.31) – a total of $80,184.69. The Respondent (however) disputed, not so much the quantum of the loss of rent claimed by the Applicant ($93,725.27) but rather the fact that in his submission the Applicant had not mitigated that loss – that was the primary issue the subject of evidence and cross examination in a hearing before me on 3, 4 and 8 November 2005. The Respondent also challenged the claimed leasing commission ($6,600.00) and a claim for legal fees ($74,351).

3 By Decision 16 December 2005 (Solomon & Anor v Singh [2005] NSWADT295 I determined that the Applicants were not entitled to the claimed leasing commission of $6,600, were not entitled to the legal fees ($74,351) save that the Applicant was entitled to any portion of the legal fees that maybe properly proved to have been incurred by the Applicant not connected with the proceedings in this Tribunal and with regard to the claim for loss of rent ($93,725.27) I determined that, on the question of mitigation,

          “the appropriate rental of the premises achievable in July – August 2002 would have been $360.00 per square metre (gross).” [67].

4 I directed the parties to bring forward Short Minutes in conformity with my reasons for decision and this the parties did on 30 January 2006 when I entered judgment for the Applicants in $139,983.45 made up as follows:

      a) Rental Arrears $14,758.00

      b) Interest on Rental Arrears…

Continue reading Solomon v Singh (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Solomon v Singh (No 3) [2006] NSWADT 120
Case
[2006] NSWADT 120
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Solomon v Singh (No 3) is a legal matter involving the parties Solomon and Singh. The dispute revolves around the allocation of costs following a previous proceeding. The case was heard in the relevant court, where the focus was on determining the financial responsibility for legal expenses incurred during the litigation process. The court was tasked with deciding on the appropriate allocation of costs, taking into consideration the nature of the proceedings and the outcomes achieved by the parties.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Respondent should bear the costs of the Applicant, including the costs associated with the costs application, from a specified date. This required an analysis of the procedural history of the case and the outcomes of previous hearings to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the costs awarded. The court had to consider the principles governing costs in litigation and the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings.

In delivering its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the procedural history and the outcomes of the case. It found that the Respondent's conduct and the nature of the proceedings justified the imposition of costs on the Respondent. The court concluded that it was reasonable and just for the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs, including those related to the costs application, from 7 June 2004. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the overall circumstances and the need to ensure that the legal process was fair and efficient.

In summary, the court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs, including the costs of the costs application, from 7 June 2004. This order reflects the court's determination that the Respondent should bear the financial burden of the legal expenses incurred by the Applicant in the litigation process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent to pay the costs of the Applicant, including the costs of the costs application, as and from 7 June, 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.