Rose Holdings Pty Limited -v- Chusap [2002] NSWADT 153

Rose Holdings Pty Limited -v- Chusap [2002] NSWADT 153

The Lessee did not return the premises in the condition required by the lease because the interior painting was not done in a proper and workmanlike manner and certain electrical and glass repairs were the Lessee's responsibility. The Lessee was liable for allowed repair costs, agreed outgoings, and rent lost for a reasonable make good period ending 9 January 2001, plus interest. Claims for awning painting, some plumbing and tiling work, removal of hooks and similar items, and costs were not allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy Dispute; Claim for Payment of Money / Principal Matter; Decision After Hearing
Outcome
In 025012 the Lessor's claim succeeded in part with interest and no order for costs; in 025023 the Lessee's application was dismissed with no order for costs.
Legal Topics
['make Good Obligations' 'repair and Painting Covenants' 'lost Rent During Refurbishment' 'outgoings' 'costs' 'interest']
['retail Leases' 'leases' 'administrative Law'] ['make Good Obligations' 'repair and Painting Covenants' 'lost Rent During Refurbishment' 'outgoings' 'costs' 'interest']

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

Retail Tenancy Dispute; Claim for Payment of Money / Principal Matter; Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Lessee was liable for refurbishment and repair costs after vacating the premises.' 'Whether the Lessee complied with the lease obligation to paint the interior in a proper and workmanlike manner.' 'Whether the Lessor could recover rent lost during the make good period.' 'Whether costs should be awarded, including under clause 8.05.8 of the lease.' 'Whether interest should be awarded under Section 72A.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Lessee did not return the premises in the condition required by the lease because the interior painting was not done in a proper and workmanlike manner and certain electrical and glass repairs were the Lessee's responsibility. The Lessee was liable for allowed repair costs, agreed outgoings, and rent lost for a reasonable make good period ending 9 January 2001, plus interest. Claims for awning painting, some plumbing and tiling work, removal of hooks and similar items, and costs were not allowed.

Court Disposition

In 025012 the Lessor's claim succeeded in part with interest and no order for costs; in 025023 the Lessee's application was dismissed with no order for costs.

Orders

  • ['025012: Respondent to pay applicant $13,548.72 plus interest $790.66, making a total of $14,339.38. Note that Applicant has appropriated bond of $5,543.50 in part payment, leaving balance payable by Applicant to Respondent of $8,795.88.' '025012: No order for costs.' '025023: Application dismissed.' '025023: No...