RIHSF Pty Ltd v Bhullar Steel Distribution Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 72

RIHSF Pty Ltd v Bhullar Steel Distribution Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 72

The first defendant became a monthly tenant after expiry of the original lease and later entered a new unregistered lease by the Continuation of Lease Agreement, which incorporated the relevant maintenance and make good obligations of the original lease. The first defendant breached those obligations by leaving the premises dirty, damaged and not properly made good, and was liable to the plaintiffs for rent and make good damages to be quantified. The second defendant's guarantee did not extend to the new lease and, alternatively, any material variation without his consent discharged him. The cross-claim failed because the Demag reports satisfied clause 11, the cranes were in good working...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Concerning a Commercial Lease, Guarantee, Rent, Make Good Obligations and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Amended Statement of Claim and Cross Claim
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first defendant on the Amended Statement of Claim; judgment for the plaintiffs/cross-defendants on the Cross-Claim; judgment for the second defendant on the Amended Statement of Claim.
Legal Topics
['commercial Lease Obligations' 'holding Over' 'continuation of Lease Agreement' 'covenant to Repair' 'make Good Obligations' 'rent Arrears' 'guarantor Liability After Expiry or Variation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'causation and Damages' 'expert Evidence']
['property Law' 'leases' 'contract Law' 'guarantees' 'australian Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['commercial Lease Obligations' 'holding Over' 'continuation of Lease Agreement' 'covenant to Repair' 'make Good Obligations' 'rent Arrears' 'guarantor Liability After Expiry or Variation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'causation and Damages' 'expert Evidence']

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

Civil Proceedings Concerning a Commercial Lease, Guarantee, Rent, Make Good Obligations and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Amended Statement of Claim and Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What amount of rent was outstanding under the lease arrangements.' 'What was the status of the tenancy after 30 November 2012, including whether there was a new lease, continuation of the original lease, or tenancy at will.' 'Whether the guarantee given by Ranjit Singh survived expiry of the original lease and applied to the Continuation of Lease Agreement.' 'What maintenance and make good obligations applied to Bhullar Steel Distribution Pty Ltd and whether those obligations were breached.' 'Whether the plaintiffs complied with clause 11 of the lease by commissioning a report on the cranes and ensuring the cranes were in good working order at commencement.' 'Whether the plaintiffs engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct about the cranes being in good working order.' 'Whether the Continuation of Lease Agreement contained additional oral terms concerning crane recertification or a fire exit.' 'Whether the statement that the 10 tonne crane was less than 10 years old was misleading or deceptive and caused loss.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant became a monthly tenant after expiry of the original lease and later entered a new unregistered lease by the Continuation of Lease Agreement, which incorporated the relevant maintenance and make good obligations of the original lease. The first defendant breached those obligations by leaving the premises dirty, damaged and not properly made good, and was liable to the plaintiffs for rent and make good damages to be quantified. The second defendant's guarantee did not extend to the new lease and, alternatively, any material variation without his consent discharged him. The cross-claim failed because the Demag reports satisfied clause 11, the cranes were in good working...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first defendant on the Amended Statement of Claim; judgment for the plaintiffs/cross-defendants on the Cross-Claim; judgment for the second defendant on the Amended Statement of Claim.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first defendant on the Amended Statement of Claim.' 'Judgment for the plaintiffs/cross-defendants on the Cross-Claim. The Cross-Claim is dismissed.' 'Judgment for the second defendant in relation to the Amended Statement of Claim. The Amended Statement of Claim is dismissed...