Interslice Pty Ltd v CCA Investments – Bass Hill Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 481

Interslice Pty Ltd v CCA Investments – Bass Hill Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 481

Interslice breached an essential term of the Equitable Lease by operating the gym without required planning approval after the RSL Club closed, so CCA’s refusal to issue a registrable lease or their conduct was not repudiatory; Interslice’s purported termination was itself a repudiation, but CCA failed to prove any actual loss from early termination and was entitled only to nominal damages; Interslice was entitled to the return of its bond, as there were no arrears and claimed outgoings were not properly chargeable under the lease.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Interslice Pty Ltd; Second Cross Defendant: Danka Bakic; Third Cross Defendant: David Robinson; Defendant/cross Claimant: CCA Investments – Bass Hill Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claim for damages dismissed; declaration for defendant; return of bond to plaintiff; defendant awarded nominal damages of $10.
Legal Topics
Leases and Tenancies, Permitted Use, Development Consent, Repudiation, Damages, Existing Use Rights, Breach and Termination, Remedies
Equity Real Property Leases and Tenancies Permitted Use Development Consent Repudiation Damages Existing Use Rights +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Interslice Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Danka Bakic

Second Cross Defendant

David Robinson

Third Cross Defendant

CCA Investments – Bass Hill Pty Ltd

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Interslice was in breach of cl 10.1(a)(ii) of the Equitable Lease regarding planning approval
  2. 2 Whether CCA repudiated the Equitable Lease by not providing a registrable lease within reasonable time or through other conduct
  3. 3 Whether CCA's conduct amounted to derogation of quiet enjoyment or anticipatory breach

Ratio Decidendi

Interslice breached an essential term of the Equitable Lease by operating the gym without required planning approval after the RSL Club closed, so CCA’s refusal to issue a registrable lease or their conduct was not repudiatory; Interslice’s purported termination was itself a repudiation, but CCA failed to prove any actual loss from early termination and was entitled only to nominal damages; Interslice was entitled to the return of its bond, as there were no arrears and claimed outgoings were not properly chargeable under the lease.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s claim for damages dismissed; declaration for defendant; return of bond to plaintiff; defendant awarded nominal damages of $10.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is entitled to the return of the bond of $30,000.
  • The defendant is entitled to a declaration that the lease was validly terminated by the defendant.