Tsaprazis & Ors. v. Goldcrest Properties Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2000] NSWSC 765

Tsaprazis & Ors. v. Goldcrest Properties Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2000] NSWSC 765

Goldcrest acted unreasonably and the plaintiffs would almost certainly have succeeded because Goldcrest's directors formed their clause 8.2 opinion by considering the economics of dealing with the building's problems generally, including design faults and possible future repairs, rather than focusing on whether repair of actual damage within the clause was impracticable or undesirable. Although the matter became moot due to the sale of the property, those circumstances justified ordering Goldcrest to pay the plaintiffs' costs relating to Goldcrest, subject to the limitation on senior counsel's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Proceedings Concerning Termination of a Lease / Proceedings Rendered Moot by Sale of the Property; Costs Determined on Termination
Outcome
Statement of Claim and Cross-claim dismissed; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings insofar as they relate to the first defendant, with limits on senior counsel's costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Where Proceedings Become Moot' 'termination of Tenancy' "landlord's Notice That Repair of Damage Is Impracticable or Undesirable" 'lease Clauses Concerning Repair and Damage']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'landlord and Tenant'] ['costs Where Proceedings Become Moot' 'termination of Tenancy' "landlord's Notice That Repair of Damage Is Impracticable or Undesirable" 'lease Clauses Concerning Repair and Damage']

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

Costs Determination in Proceedings Concerning Termination of a Lease / Proceedings Rendered Moot by Sale of the Property; Costs Determined on Termination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What order for costs should be made where the proceedings were to be terminated because a supervening event rendered them moot.' 'Whether Goldcrest acted unreasonably in giving and maintaining a notice terminating the lease under clause 8.2.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were almost certain to have succeeded at a final hearing.' "Whether clause 8.2 authorised termination where the landlord's opinion was based on the economics of dealing with building problems generally, including design faults, rather than repair of damage."]

Ratio Decidendi

Goldcrest acted unreasonably and the plaintiffs would almost certainly have succeeded because Goldcrest's directors formed their clause 8.2 opinion by considering the economics of dealing with the building's problems generally, including design faults and possible future repairs, rather than focusing on whether repair of actual damage within the clause was impracticable or undesirable. Although the matter became moot due to the sale of the property, those circumstances justified ordering Goldcrest to pay the plaintiffs' costs relating to Goldcrest, subject to the limitation on senior counsel's costs.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim and Cross-claim dismissed; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings insofar as they relate to the first defendant, with limits on senior counsel's costs.

Orders

  • ['I dismiss the Statement of Claim and Cross-claim.' "I order that the first defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings in so far as they relate to the first defendant, but not extending to the costs of senior counsel, except costs of senior counsel of and incidental to the hearing which took place...