Citadin Pty Ltd -v- Eddie Azzi Australia Pty Ltd & General Pants Co Pty Ltd (RLD) [2001] NSWADTAP 30

Citadin Pty Ltd -v- Eddie Azzi Australia Pty Ltd & General Pants Co Pty Ltd (RLD) [2001] NSWADTAP 30

The appeal was dismissed because none of Citadin's grounds identified an arguable error of law. The Judicial Member did not misconstrue s 35 or cl 24, but evaluated the facts and circumstances to determine whether the notice was sufficient, whether there was a genuine proposal, and whether the proposed works amounted to substantial renovation. The Appeal Panel also refused to permit a merits reopening where no error of law was identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Retail Leases Division Decision / Determination Whether the Notice of Appeal Raised Any Question of Law and Application for Leave to Extend the Appeal to the Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['demolition Notice Under Retail Shop Leases' 'question of Law on Appeal' 'leave to Appeal on the Merits' 'substantial Renovation or Reconstruction' 'sufficiency of Details in Notice of Demolition']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['demolition Notice Under Retail Shop Leases' 'question of Law on Appeal' 'leave to Appeal on the Merits' 'substantial Renovation or Reconstruction' 'sufficiency of Details in Notice of Demolition']

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

Appeal From a Retail Leases Division Decision / Determination Whether the Notice of Appeal Raised Any Question of Law and Application for Leave to Extend the Appeal to the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notice of appeal identified any question of law under s 113(2) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.' "Whether the Tribunal's conclusions about the sufficiency of the demolition notice and genuine proposal under s 35(1)(a) of the Retail Leases Act 1994 and cl 24 of the leases involved arguable errors of law." "Whether the Tribunal's characterisation of the proposed works as not amounting to substantial renovation or reconstruction involved arguable errors of law." 'Whether leave should be granted to extend the appeal to a review of the merits.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because none of Citadin's grounds identified an arguable error of law. The Judicial Member did not misconstrue s 35 or cl 24, but evaluated the facts and circumstances to determine whether the notice was sufficient, whether there was a genuine proposal, and whether the proposed works amounted to substantial renovation. The Appeal Panel also refused to permit a merits reopening where no error of law was identified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application of the respondents to dismiss the appeal without further submissions is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'Applications by each respondent for costs of the appeal will be the subject of a separate decision.']