Wu v Hawsher

CITATION:	Wu -v- Hawsher & anor [2002] NSWADT 54
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Gui Rong Wu RESPONDENTS Wagih Mohamed Diab Hawsher Hussein Mohamed Diab Hawsher
FILE NUMBER:	015099
HEARING DATES:	29/01/2002
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	02/26/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	04/19/2002
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Claim for declaration of rights, obligations and liabilities under a lease
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED:	Alessa Pty Limited -v- Total & Universal Pty Limited [2001] NSWADT 150 Townsend v SRA [1999] NSWADT 104 Citadin Pty Ltd v Eddie Azzi Australia Pty Ltd & anor (No 2)[2001] NSWADTAP31 Hoblos v Marchese [1999] NSW ADT 127 Fonua v BHP Co. Ltd [1999] NSW ADT 59 Langley v UNSW (1984) EOC 92-018
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENTS J Oakley, barrister
ORDERS:	The application No. 015099 brought by Gui Rong Wu against Wagih Mohamed Diab Hawsher and Hussein Mohamed Diab Hawsher is dismissed.

1 This is an application brought by Gui Rong Wu (“the applicant”) in relation to a shop known as 515 Church Street, North Parramatta, being part of the land contained in folio identifier 1/537629 (“the premises”). The registered proprietors of the premises are Wagih Mohamed Diab Hawsher and Hussein Mohamed Diab Hawsher (“the respondents”).

2 The application was filed in the Tribunal on 12 October 2001. On 14 October 2001 the applicant lodged an application for urgent interim orders in the following terms:

“An interlocutory order that pending the final determination of this application and until further order the respondent be restrained from doing any act or acts the effect of which could or might interfere with the applicant’s right to possession of the premises.”

3 The reason given for the urgent interim order was:

“The landlord has removed lock to premises, purported to terminate lease and threatened to treat applicant as trespasser.”

4 The matter came before Judicial Member Fox for directions on 19 October 2001. At that time the Member issued directions for the filing of documents and the further progress of the matter. A stay of a Notice of Termination issued by the respondents was put in place pending further hearing of the issue on 8 November 2001. On that date the stay was extended until the date of the next Direction Hearing which was set for 6 December 2001. The applicant’s solicitors withdrew from the matter prior to the next Direction Hearing and there was no appearance by the applicant on that date.

5 The matter was relisted for 18 December 2001. On that date the matter was referred to the Registrar of Retail Tenancy Unit for mediation. Further directions were set for 17 January 2002. A new timetable was set and the matter was listed for hearing on 29 January 2002. It appears that the stay which was extended on 8 November 2001 remains in place.

6 Annexed to the original application was an outline of the orders sought by the applicant. That outline provided: