Stefopoulos v Manikas

CITATION:	Stefopoulos v Manikas [2004] NSWADT 57
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Alex Stefopoulos RESPONDENT Dimitri Manikas & Georgina Manikas
FILE NUMBER:	035064
HEARING DATES:	10/03/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	03/10/2004
DATE OF DECISION:	03/19/2004
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Jurisdiction
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Preliminary matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED:	Oxley & Anor v Imperial Charter Pty Ltd (1996) NSW Conv R para 55-783 Prasad & Anor -v- Fairfield City Council [2000] NSWADT 164 R v Young [1999] NSWCCA 166
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT M Spry, barrister RESPONDENT J Pappas, barrister
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 10 March 2004; I determine the objection to jurisdiction to hear the claim again the Respondents, and, in my view, the proceedings ought to be determined.

1 This is an application brought by Mr. Alex Stefopoulos ("the Applicant") in relation to a retail shop lease ("the Lease") for premises located at 15 Monaro Street, Queanbeyan, ("the Premises"). The registered proprietors of the Premises are Mr. Dimitri Manikas and Ms. Georgina Manikas ("the Respondents"). The Premises were used as a takeaway food shop known as Queanbeyan Takeaway.

2 In his application to this Tribunal filed on 20 June 2003, the Applicant sought orders in the following terms:

“1. An order declaring that clauses 6(4), 6(6), 6(9) or the lease otherwise required the lessee to pay monies in respect of the capital costs of the building, the lease is void for being inconsistent with section 23 of the Act;

2. An order declaring that the lessor is and was liable to undertake the works stipulated in Notice Relating to Breaches of the Food Act 1989 and Food Regulations 1997 (Notice Number 2000038) dated 20 June 2000 issued by the Queanbeyan City Council;

3. An order that the lessor pay the lessee reasonable compensation for the lessor's breach of section 34(l)(d) of the Act;

4. An order that the lessor pay to the lessee damages for the lessee's loss of its business.”

3 There is general agreement in regard to the events that lead to this application. It is common ground that the Applicant and the Respondents entered the Lease on 24 November 1998, that the Lease is stated as commencing from 1 September 1998 for a total period of 10 years, including options. The Applicant had occupied the Premises for some 10 years prior to the entry into the Lease. It is also common ground that the Respondents re-entered the premises on 11 September 2000.

4 The hearing in these proceedings commenced on 10 March 2004. At that time, Mr Spry, counsel for the Applicant, quantified the amount sought by the Applicant under proposed orders 3 and 4 at $132,503.

5 Mr Pappas, counsel for the Respondents, raised a question of jurisdiction for preliminary determination. Mr Pappas argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the orders sought are not within the powers conferred by the Retail Leases Act 1994 (“the Act”). He argued that…