Tran v Guan

Case [2022] NSWDC 233

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Tran v Guan [2022] NSWDC 233
Hearing dates: 18, 23 March 2021, 11, 12, 13, 14 April; 17 and 18 May 2022
Date of orders: 23 May 2022
Decision date: 23 May 2022
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:

1.   Proceedings in respect of the 10 undisputed items dismissed.

2.   Plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ disbursements in maintaining the defence, such disbursements not to include any time-based costs and not to disturb any existing costs orders.

3.   List the matter for further directions.

Catchwords:

LEASES AND TENANCIES – failure to pay rent – termination – whether goods abandoned or forfeited - fixtures

Legislation Cited:

Conveyancing Act 1919, s 129

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.16

Cases Cited:

BP Refinery (Westernport) (1977) 180 CLR 266

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 377

Collier v Howard (Supreme Court (NSW), McLelland CJ in Eq, 23 April 1996, unrep)

Greek Macedonian Club Limited v Pan Macedonian Greek Brotherhood NSW Limited [2007] NSWSC 92

Palermo Seafoods Pty Ltd v Lunapas Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1323

Pioneer Quarries (Sydney) Pty Ltd Permanent Trustee Co of NSW Ltd (1970) 2 BPR 9562

PL Town Hall Pty Ltd v The Trust Company Ltd [2021] NSWSC 391

Preston v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2011] NSWCA 40

Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 14, (1985) 157 CLR 17

Rava v Logan Wines & Anor [2007] NSWCA 62

Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2002) 193 ALR 399

Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620

Texts Cited:

Adrian J Bradbrook and C E Croft, Commercial Tenancy Law (4th ed, 2018, LexisNexis Butterworths).

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Victor Toan Tran (first plaintiff)
Tamvic Pty Ltd (second plaintiff)
Binghua Guan (first defendant)
Guixing Jian (second defendant)
Walter Yaolong Guan (third defendant)
Perennial Growth Pty Ltd (ACN 166 554 721) (fourth defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G Drew (plaintiffs)

Solicitors:
Meridian Lawyers (plaintiffs)
File Number(s): 2020/00301522
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

  1. Victor Tran conducted a dental practice in Villawood in premises leased from Binghua Guan (Mr Guan Sr) and Guixing Jian. The lease was terminated on 19 August 2020 at 7.25pm when Mr Guan Sr and Mrs Jian, through their son, Mr Walter Guan (Mr Guan), took possession of the property because of repeated failures by Mr Tran to meet his rental obligations.

  2. After prolonged negotiations the following day, late on 20 August 2020 Mr Tran was given a licence to occupy the premises until 1pm on 27 August 2020. Late on 27 August 2020, Mr Guan Sr and Mrs Jian again took possession of the premises. Mr Tran commenced proceedings against Mr Guan Sr, Mrs Jian, Mr Guan and Mr Guan’s company, Perennial Growth Pty Ltd, for return of, and damages for detinue and conversion of, dental equipment and goods remaining on the premises…

Continue reading Tran v Guan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tran v Guan [2022] NSWDC 233
Case
[2022] NSWDC 233
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tran v Guan, the primary issue before the court was whether certain goods were abandoned or forfeited, and if they could be considered fixtures, following the termination of a lease due to the plaintiffs' failure to pay rent. The defendants, who had been leasing a property from the plaintiffs, fell into arrears and ultimately, the plaintiffs terminated the lease. They then sought to recover possession of the property, claiming that the defendants had left behind various goods that they considered either abandoned or forfeited. The defendants, however, argued that some of these goods were fixtures and should remain with the property.

The court was tasked with determining the status of the goods left behind by the defendants after the termination of the lease. Specifically, the court had to decide if the goods were indeed abandoned or forfeited, and if any of them could be considered fixtures. This involved an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the termination of the lease, the intentions of the parties at the time, and the nature of the goods themselves. The court had to assess whether the plaintiffs had unequivocally indicated that they were relinquishing all rights to the goods, or if the defendants' continued occupation of the property could imply a different intention.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the 10 undisputed items were to be dismissed from the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the goods that were not considered fixtures, as the defendants had effectively abandoned or forfeited them. However, the court also determined that certain goods were fixtures and, therefore, remained with the property. The court ordered that the plaintiffs were to bear the defendants' disbursements for maintaining the defence, excluding any time-based costs and without altering any existing costs orders. Finally, the matter was listed for further directions to address the remaining issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Proceedings in respect of the 10 undisputed items dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ disbursements in maintaining the defence, such disbursements not to include any time-based costs and not to disturb any existing costs orders.

3. List the matter for further directions.

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.