Utmission Pty Limited v Crossan & Anor [2009] NSWDC 15

Utmission Pty Limited v Crossan & Anor [2009] NSWDC 15

The Defendants were bound by the assigned lease effective from 1 April 2006 and were in breach when the Plaintiff entered and took possession on 23 October 2007. Although the April 2006 rent payment to Midas was treated as payment to the Plaintiff's agent and required an offset, the Plaintiff otherwise proved entitlement to rent, outgoings, expenses and interest, resulting in damages of $42,742.15. The Cross-Claim failed because the claimed business losses belonged to SMP Motor Group Pty Ltd, not to the Defendants personally.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Procedural Posture
District Court Civil Action by Lessor Against Lessees Under Assigned Commercial Lease, With Cross Claim / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the sum of $42,742.15; verdict and judgment for the Cross-Defendant on the Cross-Claim.
Legal Topics
['assignment of Lease' 'rent and Outgoings Arrears' 'forfeiture or Re Entry for Breach of Lease' 'agency for Receipt of Rent' 'estoppel' 'corporate Loss Claimed by Individual Directors' 'cross Claim']
['property Law' 'leases' 'contract Law' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['assignment of Lease' 'rent and Outgoings Arrears' 'forfeiture or Re Entry for Breach of Lease' 'agency for Receipt of Rent' 'estoppel' 'corporate Loss Claimed by Individual Directors' 'cross Claim']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

District Court Civil Action by Lessor Against Lessees Under Assigned Commercial Lease, With Cross Claim / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Were the Defendants liable to the Plaintiff under the assigned lease?' 'Was there a relevant breach of the lease when the Plaintiff entered and took possession of the premises on 23 October 2007?' 'Is the Plaintiff entitled to the amounts claimed in the Amended Statement of Claim, or any part thereof?' 'Are the Defendants entitled to the amounts claimed in their Amended Cross-Claim, or any part thereof?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants were bound by the assigned lease effective from 1 April 2006 and were in breach when the Plaintiff entered and took possession on 23 October 2007. Although the April 2006 rent payment to Midas was treated as payment to the Plaintiff's agent and required an offset, the Plaintiff otherwise proved entitlement to rent, outgoings, expenses and interest, resulting in damages of $42,742.15. The Cross-Claim failed because the claimed business losses belonged to SMP Motor Group Pty Ltd, not to the Defendants personally.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the sum of $42,742.15; verdict and judgment for the Cross-Defendant on the Cross-Claim.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $42,742.15.' 'Verdict and judgment for the Cross-Defendant on the Cross-Claim.' 'The Defendants are to pay the costs of the Plaintiff.' 'The Cross-Claimants are to pay the costs of the Cross-Defendant.' 'The exhibits may be returned.' 'Liberty to apply on 7 days...