Yangdo Pty Ltd v Equiti Group Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yangdo Pty Limited v Equiti Group Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 277
Hearing dates: 30 August 2017, 14 September 2017
Date of orders: 12 October 2017
Decision date: 12 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:

(1) Judgment for the defendant.
(2) The Statement of Claim is dismissed.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed;
(4) Leave is granted to the parties to apply to vary the order referred to in (3) above.
(5) Exhibits to be returned after 28 days.

Catchwords: Leases – whether defendant sub-lessee owed money to plaintiff sub-lessor for unpaid rent/outgoings – whether parties entered into new agreement for lease – applicable Masters v Cameron category – relevance of post-contractual conduct
Legislation Cited: Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622
Blackburn Developments (No 19) Pty Ltd v Downs (1974) 2 VPR 97,089
Brambles v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Commonwealth of Australia v Crothall Hospital Services (Aust) Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 567
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640
Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners (1988) 14 NSWLR 523
Feldman v G&M Australia Ltd [2017] NSWCA 107
Kassabian v Lagonicos [1993] NSW Conveyancing Reports 55-690
Kastro Pty Ltd v ABD Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1291
Landsmiths v Hall [1999] NSWSC 735
Leitz Leeholm Stud Pty Ltd v Robinson [1977] 2 NSWLR 544
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Diab [2015] NSWCA 133
Wayne Edward John Streat v Fantastic Holdings Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1097
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Yangdo Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Equiti Group Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
R Marshall SC and T Fishburn (Plaintiff)
M Ashhurst SC and L D Corbett (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Hicksons (Plaintiff)
Price & Company (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2016/00129773

Judgment

  1. These proceedings relate to the sublease by the defendant as sublessee from the plaintiff as sublessor of premises being part of an office block situated at 56 Station Street, Parramatta in Sydney in the State of New South Wales.

  2. The background to the commercial arrangements between the parties is as follows:

  1. On 4 September 2002, The Uniting Church (NSW) Trust Association as lessor entered into a lease with the plaintiff as lessee for a term of 125 years commencing on 4 September 2002 and terminating on 3 September 2127 of the property in Folio Identifier 100/777917 being the property at 56 Station Street, Parramatta (“the Premises”): see Exhibit A, page 53;

  2. At some stage, The Uniting Church (NSW) Trust Association transferred its interest in the Premises to Yangdo Service Pty Ltd, a related company to the plaintiff: see Exhibit A, page 83;

  3. At all relevant times the plaintiff engaged the services of Steven Krulis Real Estate Consultants (“Steven Krulis”) to manage the plaintiff’s interest in the Premises;

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yangdo Pty Ltd v Equiti Group Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] NSWDC 277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Yangdo Pty Ltd, sought to recover unpaid rent and outgoings from the defendant, Equiti Group Pty Ltd, who was a sub-lessee. The case before the court involved whether the defendant owed money to the plaintiff for unpaid rent and outgoings, as well as whether the parties had entered into a new agreement for lease. The court was required to determine the applicable category under Masters v Cameron and assess the relevance of the parties' post-contractual conduct in this context.

The court found that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff any money for unpaid rent and outgoings. The parties had entered into a new agreement for lease, which meant that the original lease was effectively novated. The court held that the relevant category under Masters v Cameron was one where the parties intended to extinguish the original contract and replace it with a new one. The post-contractual conduct of the parties was consistent with this intention. The court also found that there was no evidence of any agreement between the parties that the defendant would be liable for the unpaid rent and outgoings under the original lease.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's Statement of Claim and ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed. The court granted leave to the parties to apply to vary the order regarding costs. Finally, the court ordered that the exhibits be returned after 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the defendant.

(2) The Statement of Claim is dismissed.

(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed;

(4) Leave is granted to the parties to apply to vary the order referred to in (3) above.

(5) Exhibits to be returned after 28 days.

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.